...life can be translucent

Menu

Blog post: Layer cake imagery (and Hexagram 53)

hilary

Administrator
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
19,149
Reaction score
3,418
layercake-150x150.jpg
The Yijing’s full of imagery. Even though the first impression when you open it is one of wall-to-wall text, it’s also a picture book.
In last month’s ‘Connecting with Imagery’ workshop I put a reading on the screen and asked people to mark all the images they could see. They saw quite a few…
image-finding-1024x640.png

There’s the imagery of the text – and that often comes in layers, with different pictures in the Oracle text and the moving lines – and the imagery concealed within the text, at the roots of the ancient Chinese characters. And then there’s the imagery of the trigrams, and maybe the hexagram itself is a picture, too. Layer upon layer, all part of the whole.
So Hexagram 3, for instance, lets you imagine your situation in terms of a king setting up feudal lords, and a sprouting seed, and torrential rain in a thunderstorm.
And Hexagram 53, Gradual Progress, gives you pictures of a river, and the soaking and penetrating action of water, and a woman marrying, and geese flying home, and a tree growing on a mountain.
During the workshop, someone asked me the very good question,
‘How do you know which image to concentrate on?’
I still can’t think of a very good answer, and I think that’s because all the layers work together. You can dive into any one of them, whichever fascinates or perplexes you most, and hear/see something the reading has to tell you – but I like to do my best to absorb all the imagery Yi offers.
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. Or looking more closely, you can see how delicately they interact and map onto one another, outlining a shared pattern and ‘quality of the time’.
In Hexagram 53, for instance…
 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Hilary
Have you considered that the "imagery" that is represented by broken and unbroken lines may be nothing more than an arbtrary way of representing the 2 fundamentals. There are of course ways to argue that a broken line is more Yang than an unbroken one and from that we could flip all the images around and get a completely different view. or we could use a totally different method completely. How about using a series of little blocks instead of a broken line and using a wavy line instead of a broken one. That gives completely different "images" for the Hexagrams.
I would suggest that it is not the images that are important but the "realtionships" of each line to all of the others that is important and it doesnt matter then what image that we use to represent a particular line. In fact using bizarre representations of the lines can actually be very good in revealing the relationships in a Hexagram.

I see a major problem that develps as one gets to know the Yi better and better. One knows what to expect. I was aware many years ago that science reveals how much influence we can exert on our environment and whatever methid that we use to cast a reading is prone to that internal influence, and of course the more we know the layout of the Hexagrams the more we will know what the possibilities are when we cast the final lines , and given that it is clear that many consider some Hexagreams to be better than others, ther is a clear and obvious influnece at work, even if it is unconscious, when we cast a reading using traditional means. 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. Much better than the traditional methods and I felt much more approriate. Interstingly I did observe, that I was getting far more readings, that I might have considered to be less than benign, when I moved across to a simple drawing of unknown cards. Also interesting was that others who used the Yi ddnt want to use my card method and wanted to retain the traditional methods, which perhaps gave them an opportunity to influence the reading.
The reason that I am saying this is that only if you were to have those that had no "knowledge" of the Yi could any imagry be considered to be relevant. If one knows that a Hexagram means a particular thing, if one knows what Trigram represent, one is going to find it very difficult indeed to see beyond the "imagery" that has already been created by that pre existing "knowledge".

As you know I am not a fan of the Trigram analysis of a Hexagram. I think it is a factor, but no more of a factor than the Bigrams of the Hexagram, no more of a factor than the other Trigrams within the Hexagram and certainly less relevant than the individual lines and the realtionships of one to the other. Actually I dont even consider that the "interpretations" laid down thousands of years ago of what the Trigrams represent are particulary accurate or useful. For example how Dui ever became to be representing a lake has always puzzled me, in fact most of the "interpretations" of what the Trigrams represent make little sense and as to the "order in which they are arranged that is even more disjointed. Opposites are not opposite at all, ther is no coherent movement from one Trigram to the next, and yet we seem inclined to trust and believe these interpretations just because someone had an opinion tousands of years ago and by some lucky chance that particular record survived. There might have been those, with far more knowledge and understanding that completely contradicted what has survived except that their knowledge was lost in the ravages of time. I have no idea waht you take is on this butone thing that I do find rather bizarre is those that arrange the Trigrams where Li and Kan are opposite, which makes sense as the lines have all changed, but then dont place the other Trigrams by the same criteria and so dont place Kun and Qian opposite one another. 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.
 

hilary

Administrator
Joined
Apr 8, 1970
Messages
19,149
Reaction score
3,418
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.
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.

When considering whole hexagrams as images, it sometimes helps to be aware of how the lines were originally written as numbers. The solid line was the number 1, and looked much the same as it does now. But the broken line was written, in the Zhouyi tradition, as the number 8, which is much nearer to two vertical lines. At this point you can start to see how the trigram li gets its associations with hollow things, for instance. (I can't claim to be able to understand most hexagrams as pictures, though.)

The idea that the two kinds of line are 'yang' and 'yin' and the whole theory of these as fundamental principles is much younger. I think it's helpful in readings if you hold the idea lightly and keep it simple - free from metaphysical systems, in other words.

As for why dui is a lake... first you need the simple concept of the lines as what's moving (solid) or what's moved (broken). Then think of coming to the shore of a lake and looking down into it. You see the surface of the water, moved by the wind; beyond that, you see layers of reflected clouds (or stars) - you're looking into the depths of the sky.
 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Hilary
Are you then saying that the concept of the Trigrams and how they are placed is something that we have a lot more to learn about.
If the Trigrams are so fundamental, so as to ascribe concepts such as what defines the interpretations of the Hexagrams themselves, surely we should be knowing what the Trigrams are supposed to represent and how and where they should be places on relationship to each other.
What then about the assignation of the Trigrams to directions and how one follows on from one to the other. Obviously if we have inconsistency, in the way that various "authorities" ascribe the Trigrams to the directions and how they relate one to the other, then how can we be confident as to what the criteria is that has been used to determine how the Trigrams are laid out.
This is a really important point. So much emphasis is placed on the interpretation of the Trigrams, that if we do not have coherence and consitency and have no idea of how and why the Trigrams were assigned certain "qualities" and "positions" then how can we have any confidence that we are correct in any of our interpretations of the Hexagrams themselves or how the Hexagrams relate one to the other, how for example, they are paired or opposite.

Are you sure that the solid line was originally written as a 1. Somewhere in my memory I have a recollection to a reference that stated that it was originally written as a 7. That the numbers of the lines were 7 and 8 and the moving lines 6 and 9. Sorry I cant recall where I remember that from. What reference makes you think it was a 1 and how then would that relate to the how the Yi was used.
But it doesnt matter how it is represented. The point I was making that one could assign any symbol to represent a solid and any other symbol to represent a broken line. As any symbol can be assigned the question then is how can the "image", represented by the lines, mean anything relevant at all, when a differnt symbol would create a completely different image even though the actual Hexagram had not changed at all.

By that criteria how then does the "image" of Dui relate to a lake. If the original imagry was not solid and unbroken lines but a numerical designation whether that was a 1 or a 7, then the image created by a set of lines cannot be connected with the concept of a lake and there must have been some other determination beyond an image that led to the designation of lakes and thunder, wind, mountain, fire and water. The designation of Heaven and Earth is a completly different thing that seems to have no place or coherence with the other disgnations.
Even if one was to take the interpretations that have been historically handed down as made from the imagery of the symbolic use of solid and boken lines it still makes no sense to ascribe Dui to that of a lake. A lake is predominantly water and so the dominant lines would have to be unboken and not just the top line if the Trigram. I would suggest that a lake, if it what as described by solid and broken lines, would have a solid line on the bottom and two broken lines on the top to signify a large body of water.
This of course though brings us back to the gnarly question of how one assigns what is most pertinent in a any designation, whther that is a Bigram, a Trigram or a Hexagram. Is it the number of lines, the position at the top or the bottom, the question of what determines the pertinent and dominant factors in a Trigram is what determines the qualities and positions of the Trigrams.
The designation of Little, Great, Bright and Pure, Yin and Yang, makes far more sense than any assignation of mountains and lakes, although the question of whether a Trigram should be assigned as Yin or Yang because of the nature of the top or bottom line or because of the the ratio of solid to broken lines remains unanswered. And until we know the answer to that question we can make no claims to understand what the Trigrams represent and of course if we cannot be confident on out claims as to what the Trigrams represent and mean then we can have little confidence in our understanding or our interpretations of what the Hexagrams really mean.

Your suggestions of what Dui means contain nothing that would differentiate a lake from any other body water and a puddle would give the same qualities that you describe, but clearly a puddle would be noting similar to a lake. I would be quite happy and find the action of jumping in a puddle most enjoyable but doubt that I would get the same satisfaction of I tried skipping on a lake; one could easil drown in a lake but twould be unlikely to do so in a smaller body of water. I would say that it is the sheer volume of water that is essential to understanding the meaning of the Trigram. If a lake is even a good assignation of the Trigram Dui. Considering that Dui contains two solid lines and there is a solid line at the bottom it would make more sense to assign Dui to something that had no correlation with water.

On the point the lack of consitency in the assignation of qualities of the Trigrams, that obviously needs to be investigated properly if we are to have a proper understanding of what the Trigrams are actually representing. 6 are assigned physical attributes, water, fire, wind, lake, mountain and thunder and yet the other two are assigned the most fundamental of attributes, the duality that is Heaven and Earth. As Heaven and Earth are obviously given to be the two most basic attributes how then do they suddenly become part of an 8 and yet still retain their fundamental quality. That would seem to be a fundamental contradiction and a clear case of lack of cohesion and rationality.

The idea that the two kinds of line are 'yang' and 'yin' and the whole theory of these as fundamental principles is much younger.
Are you suggesting that Yin and Yang are younger than the Yi. Even if there had been nothing recorded there should be no doubt that Yin and Yang precede the Yi. They were always in existence, even if they had no names. The Tao does make it clear that 1 gives rise to the 2, 2 to the 3 and 3 to the rest. 2 is about a fundamental as it gets and being "fundamental" there are no theories involved or attached to fundamentals, they simply are and we just have to know them.

As "Metaphysics" is the investigation of the real nature of things beyond the realms of the physical senses, and as there would be no Yi if we confined ourselves to the limits of the physical senses, as we would be unable to "connect" with anything beyond ourselves through any sort of divination tools, then I have to question your suggestion that one can consult the Yi and be free of metaphysics rather odd.
How else are we to even begin to understand the real meaning of any of the Yi, of the lines, of the Trigrams of the Hexagrams, if we make no attempt to understand the real nature of things beyond our physical senses. I think that the opposite applies and the only way thyat we can keep it simple is by understanding the basics, by attending to the inherent metaphysical nature of the Yi.
 
F

Freedda

Guest
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.
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?).

This reminded me ... earlier this year, when I was still going to and coming home from work in the dark, I drove my car down to the park and ride, and then started to walk down to the ferry (do you call your commuter parking lots 'park and rides' too?).

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​

And she repeated this for most of my walk down to the dock, with the who-who / whooo / whooo-ing growing fainter.

And I thought, this is what Lake sounds like. And it made me very happy.

********************************

As to the layer cake imagery: recently, I've been translating an ancient Chinese text about the history and origins of the Yijing. In it I read that at about the same time the diviners and shamans were gathering to author the Yi, the people of ancient China were also discovering desserts - in particular layered sweet rice cakes with sweetened red bean and black bean fillings. (These are the 'ancestors' of treats we are still enjoying today!)

Of course, writing a book on divination is hard work, and my text says that each afternoon the diviners took a break to snack on sweets and lattes (tea was not to become popular until a few centuries later, at about the time the Ten Wings were written).

It was during one of these breaks when someone brought up the topic of trigrams and hexagrams: which had come first? which were more important? ... which would serve as the basis for the Oracle's meaning, and so forth.

And it was during this discussion that one of the shamans looked down at her six-layer rice cake (the ancient diviners were notorious chow-hounds, at least according to my translation) and said, 'well, I'm observing that six layers of sweet gooey goodness are 'naturally' better than three, so ...

And thus was born the notion that the hexagrams came before the trigrams, and that they are more central to the Yi's meaning.

... and while I am making gradual progress getting through this text, perhaps my translation skills need some honing?


Best, D
 
Last edited:

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
HI Freeda
I am rather bewildered as to why you would consider that "better" has any correlation with being more "central". Having a comfy padded seat in a car is definitely better than having an unpadded one but the seat is in no way central to the car, it just makes it more useable. Hexagrams, if only because there are 8 times as many are far more useable, and therefore considered to be better, than a mere 8 Trigrams.

Of course, if you are right, and "better" does mean more central that means that the Yi was not based on Trigrams at all and Trigrams are a later addition and interpretation, and then the question of if the interpretations are accurate, or indeed of any relevance, becomes extremely relevant and highly important.

Of course "imagery" is important, it is known that it is a large part of how our brains "naturally" function, although most of the imagery the brain uses is subconscious to us because we have lost the "language" of chidren that understand what "imagery" is.
But in terms of the Yi, given that it is possible to subsitute the image of solid and broken lines with any other sort of "image", and the value and meaning of the Trigram or Hexagram reamins, using the image of solid and boken lines reveals nothing at all.
Whatever imagery we use has to be accurate and relevant and so first one has to know if and what imagery we should be focusing on.

I am pleased that you found the experience of hearing the owl whoot left you so happy. But as I have pointed out to Hilary the "image" of the broken and solid lines is only one way to view a Trigram and there has to be a serious question as to how and why Dui ever came to be associated with a lake. In terms of what Trigram the owl was representing wouldnt it be more appropriate to associate the owls sounds with Xun. If the Trigrams function as they do then surely they would go from bottom to top and not from top to bottom. it would be rather contradictory and have no coherence or rationality at all if we read Hexagrams from the bottom to the top but read Trigrams the other way around.
But that of course is one of the fundamental questions as to how and why the Trigrams function, what qualities should they be ascribed, what position and direction should they be assigned and what relationship do they have one to the other, how they flow from one to the other. If we are not sure whether the Trigrams read from top to bottom or they read from bottom to top I think we are in a right pickle as we can have zero confidence in what anyone has said previously and our "translations" of historical texts would be meaningless, unless we were able to deduce whether the person that wrote the text actually knew what they were talking about. We cannot assume, simply because a text is old, that it has any value whatsoever, in fact history tels us that in most cases that those "ideas" from long ago are often incorrect. We surely have to know for ourselves the fundamentals in order to have any sort of measure or framework from which to evaluate if something has any value or not or if they were the ravings of an idiot.

My personal view is that as Chinese is a graphical, image based language and english is not, then "translation" is actually not possible in any accurate sense. My background has been focused on Chinese Medicine and I gave up trying to "translate" the Zang Fu into English, it simply isnt possible, there are no words that can convey the dynamic functioning of even one of the Zang Fu, let alone the relationships between them all. The Yi is no different in that sense, no one Hexagram stands alone, it is how it is connected to the whole that gives it its meaning.
I realised that while it is of course possible to translate the day to day physical things that both languages can see, hear, touch and manipulate in some way that it is not possible to accurately and meaningfully translate such terms that have no already existing correlation in a Western language. Whether that is Yin and Yang, Dui or Xun, or any other term that is not already described by an english word, there being no corresponding word we are only putting up sign posts as to the general direction that the original Chines word means. That does not mean that we are incapable of knowing and understand what those Chinese words mean, and in that sense the use of "imagery" is a powerful tool that might enable that insight to begin, but we are never going to be able to successfully and accurately translate the essence of such things as the Yi or Chinese Medicine.
But we dont have to. All we need to do is to have a workable translation that provides the basic direction and relationships of one part to another. The proper understanding of the realtionships, whether that is Hexagrams or Trigrams is crucial and if we do not have that understanding then what can we claim to actually know, other than we are capable of repeating what someone else has said, which would be of no value of we had no idea if it was accurate or of any value. When we understand and know the "realtionships", when we know the fundamentals and principles, then we have the very same building blocks that were available to those that discovered the Yi and Chinese Medicine and then of course we not only have no "need" for any translations but will have all the tools with which to measure and evaluate what any original texts may be trying to say and we will know, because we understand ourselves the fundamental principles, if any text, ancient or modern, has any value or not.
That is an imprtant point, we are so reliant on working backwards, mainly because that is how our non image based adult brains work, that we become reliant on the works of others to guide us, without of course knowing if they are writing anything of any value or even if some parts are which parts are and which parts arent. While others works is of course an important starting point in the learning process it is not a means to real knowledge and understanding. But when we learn and really understand the building blocks, and as the Tai says, know the whole world without leaving ones room, then we can really know what value the writings of others really have. Those that discovered the Yi and Chinese Medicine of course had no one to guide them at all, they had no option but to know the building blocks, that gave them the direction and information they needed. The more we "rely" on the works of others the less we will rely on ourselves and the more those building blocks will remain a mystery. There really should be a melding of the two, there will usually be subconscious pearls in any ones works, we just need to know how to recognise them, which we can only do once we have knowledge and understanding of the fundamentals, of the principles, of the building blocks. Given that it is not possible to put such dynamic and inter related and interconnected fundaments as are present in the Yi and Chinese Medicine it becomes clear that it really doesnt matter if it is in Chinese or not as one simply canno translate such dynamics into words at all, even into Chinese words. But of course we need some sort of symbol in orderto be able to communicate and convey the directions and approximate how one relates to the other, we use words, squares, circles and other imagery, and all have the potential to help and guide us, but we have to recognise that all of those methods have their limits and non can actually communicate the direct experience of that fundamental principle. I found that out for myself when, after reading about the actions of various Acupuncture points, I palpated those points for myself and "felt" the actions of the points directly, I read about the actions of the Zang Fu but only when I "felt" the dynamics of the Xang Fu directly for myself did it begin to make sense. Perhaps I was fortunate, and being rather Dyslexic, that the words didnt wuite make sense and I had to know for myself, but whatever it was that was a powerful lesson and when I discovered that it is not only impossible to translate certain terms from Chinese into English and also realised that the Chinese terms for those fundamental dynaics are themselves a "translation", even if they are more insightful than the English words might be, that can bnever actually describe what those dynamics really are.

That is not to say that we shouldnt try to translate the original Chines, how else would we recognise the pearls that might exist amongst the ramblings of someone otherwise deluded, or know if and how they might be accurate or confused, but we should bear in mind the limitations of any translation. I think that awareness would guide us well in our endeavours.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,921
Reaction score
4,426
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

I had been a bit puzzled because of the order you've written it which would be for dui

whooooo
whooooo
who who

That is in the order you heard it since in the order you gave it would be xun. Or perhaps you heard it in in the order I have given but wrote it that way here so we could see the trigram ?

I'm naturally hearing it in the order of bottom of trigram to top of trigram not top to bottom as jukkodave noted

If the Trigrams function as they do then surely they would go from bottom to top and not from top to bottom.


No big deal, just curious as to what made you put the whooos in that order. Little did the venerable owl know her call would be discussed in a Yi forum. Of course if we can't settle this you'll have to go back and ask her. I'm curious if you were hearing the trigram dui from top to bottom or whether you just wrote it that way to present dui to us visually ? I'm presuming the latter but aren't sure.

My question is amusing me :rofl:
 
F

Freedda

Guest
... just curious as to what made you put the whooos in that order.
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!)

Best, D.
 

Olga Super Star

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Nov 6, 2010
Messages
3,649
Reaction score
596
This is too much for me to read on such a hot day. But the imagery thing made me decide to go out and buy a cake, my last cake before starting a diet.
Oh yes.
I will buy a similar one to this one, with chocolate and the layers.

We don't get so many layers here, but chocolate we do.

(hungry jolly emoticon)

:flirt:
 
F

Freedda

Guest
And a few more quotes from my translation efforts, from some of the authors of the Zhouyi:

'Naturally, (we) must be familiar with the so-called 'methods.' But (we) must guard against falling into any specific, routine approach. In general, one must guard against theoretical assumptions .... In my analyses they play no part. I am unsystematic very much by intention. We need a different language for every [reading / person / situation].'

'We would be better advised to abandon exact science, put away ... scholar's gown, bid farewell to study, and wander with human heart through the world .... '

And a few thousand years later Carl Jung said pretty much the same thing!
 
F

Freedda

Guest
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.
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.

I find the trigrams plenty 'usable', but I don't really worry if either the trigrams or the hexagrams are better or worse, or are more or less usable. By that yardstick, yin and yang and the One (Tao), would be barely usable at all, and maybe that's why the Yi's authors didn't consider them important - and barely worth mentioning. And this has been corroborated by Mr. Peabody and his WABAC machine (think 'TARDIS' - Dr. Who's time machine - for all of you on the other side of the pond).

But besides all that, I'm wondering, is it possible that my wit and my sarcastic 'interpretation of an ancient text' are not something that you can relate to? No judgement, it just seems that way.

D.
 
Last edited:

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
1,049
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.

Ok.
You've made a vague reference to telekinesis,
implied that it may effect all of us in generating our readings,
and claimed you've made a method that keeps telekinesis from effecting your readings.....

How exactly does your method bypass the asserted telekinesis?
Do tell?
:rolleyes:
 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Moss Elk
My "method" is really rather simple. As I said rather than watch the Hexagram unfold as one casts each line, I have each Hexagram on a card, so 64 identical cards in appearance. I then have another set of cards that allows for every possible combination of moving lines, from no moving lines at all to every line moving, and every possible combination in between, So basically two packs of cards, one to determine the forst Hexagram, the second to determine which lines are moving lines and so then one knows what the second Hexagram is.
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.
One could of course use the instantaneousness of a computer but my experience is that the online versions are not always as accurate, perhaps there is to much "noise", still reasonalbe readings but not quite as pin point as when one consults without any other distractions. So I prefer my drawing of the cards , it is still very much hands on and I think that contact is important, but I do miss the clink of my very old and very large coins, never coud get on with any other methods.
 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Freedda
Forgive me if I have misunderstood your post but you did say:

I'm observing that six layers of sweet gooey goodness are 'naturally' better than three, so ...
And thus was born the notion that the hexagrams came before the trigrams, and that they are more central to the Yi's meaning.


there was no suggestion in your post that this was actually a misconstrued interpretation of the Yi, there would be no point in quoting it unless you really were confident in it. But who then misconstrued it, was it the authors or was it a translator. If it was misconstrued by the authors this presents those that rely on translations with a major problem, if the authors of the Zhouyi were capable of making mistakes and misconstruing anything then our confidence in what they say would be gone, how would we ever know which statement was a misconstrued error or not. If it was misconstrued in the translation that also presents a major problem, as most would be unable to read the original Chines text and so would be completely reliant on the "translation" and if that was not accurate then there would be little point in reading the translation.

Which brings me neatly back to the point that only when we have an understanding of the building blocks can we have the measure and framework with which to evaluate if any part of a translation is accurate or not. But then if we have the building blocks the original texts would be intersting, as they might shed the odd pearl of wisdom, but otherwise there would be little point in reading what one already knows and understands from ones own inner experience. How can we ever "know" if something is correct or not unless we have some measure. Science attempts to do that in areas that it has understanding of, in the world of the Yi what measure is there but our own understanding. The original "authors" of the Yi must have their own understanding so it is therefore within the realm of human beings to know that understanding for ourselves, so why would we be more reliant on the words of others rather than on our own direct experience and understanding. Without that direct knowledge and understanding we simply have no measure or framework to judge or evaluate what anyone else might have said. Assuming of course that we can even "translate" the terms of Chinese that have no direct correlation on English already. Is the dependance on the words of others not just a way of saying that we dont really know for ourselves.

I am sorry that I didnt see any wit or sarcasm in your earlier post, as there was nothing I could surmise in the post to suggest it was intending to be witty or sarcastic, I took it as it was written. So there never was any question of relating or not. But I would say that "relating" is divergent from any pursuit of truth, it really would not bother me one way or the other if anyone posted something that I might relate to or not, if it was accurate and substantiated with coherence reasoned argument and fact I would welcome such a post, if it was merley an opinion, or a repitition of someones else opinion and was unsubstantiated or coherently and rationaly argue then I would challenge such a post.

I have no idea why you would consider that Yin and Yang are "barely usable", what are broken and solid lines but representations of Yin and Yang, that essence, that fundamental. It should be no surprise that any commentators on the Yi mention them, it is simply to obvious, but I think the particular names of Yin and Yang came later so they would be using different terms. The Yi is riddled with basic dualistic dichotomies, which are Yin and Yang by any other name.

There is an inherent problem with getting to caught up in linguistics if it means that we are inclined to miss the bigger picture.

The lack of specific discussion on specific words does not detract from something that is so fundamental and really does not mean that Yin and Yang are not fundamental to the Yi, both in its construction and its understanding. The question would then have to be, what is the Yi based on. If it based on nothing at all but is an arbitrary construction, then it has far less value than can ever be ascribed to it. Remember that it is entirely possible to construct a very good method of divination from just a few simple contrived rules. Unless there is something "fundamental" in the Yi then it has little more value than any other method of tapping into the universe, and there would be little more to recommend it than any other type of divination. Only something that was based on fundamentals would enable us to know and learn more about the universe and ourselves. What is more fundamental than "Yin" and "Yang". Of course if you wish to place your trust in those that wrote thousands of years ago, and which, without knowedge of the basic fundamentals, we have no way of knowing if anything they have said is correct or not, then you are obviously entitled to do that. But I have observed the passage of history and I know that in every field imaginable, so there is no reason the consider that the Yi would be any different, that old understanding gets supplanted by better understanding and knowledge. The only reason that the "authors" of the Yi could be considered of value is if they knew for themselves how and what the Yi was buit on, but then why should we not do the same ourselves and know how, why and what for ourselves.

It comes down to the simple discrimination of whether the Yi was discovered or it was constructed. If it was constructed then my interest would end immediately as there would be nothing of any more value than any other type of divination, only if it was discovered would it have any value. Of course if it was discovered then those that discovered it must have known what underlies the Yi, in other words what are the Yi's fundamentals, as you could not be discovering something that did not already exist as a fundamental of nature. Even if all the commentatiors on the Yi failed to mention it specificallywhat else is there but Yin and Yang, they would just have to be using different terms. The whole priciple of the Yi, that of change is nothing other than a description of the interplay between and the manifestation of Yin and Yang.

But we should not get to caught up in the names, firm and yielding, or any of the other dualistic dichotomies present in the Yi, are the same thing, it is just that, possibly because of the influence of a whole school devoted to that dualism, which became called Yin and Yang, that we use those specific names. This is of course one of the problems with any translation and any interpretations that are made without knowledge of the fundametals and building blocks. The fact that we pair Hexagrams, the fact that the Trigrams are laid out as they are, the fact that we have two fundamental lines, are all describing the same thing, it really doesnt matter if you want to call them Yin and Yang or call them something else, or even be vague and call them nothing at all, they are the same essence as that which we use the words Yin and Yang for nowadays.

I am puzzled as to how you can find the Trigrams usable when there is no coherent understanding even of how they should be laid out, which direction they should be ascribed to, what quality they should be ascribed or even if they should be read from top to bottom or from bottom to top and without knowing all of those one can make no claims to know how one relates to another and "changes" from one to the other, and if one cannot know that for the Trigrams then we have to acknowledge that we Know very little about a Hexagram which is supposedly "constructed" of two Trigrams.
 

iams girl

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
733
It sounds like you are seeking something like "purer divinity." "Purer" instead of "pure" because, as you must be aware, card shuffling will have its inherent problems with a statistical array as well. That said, if you felt you were unable to get an accurate reading because you were "creating" it yourself and this is a way to avoid that, then that sounds good for you and good information for others who might feel the same.

It does make me wonder, however, about how you find mentally "creating" hexagrams to be inaccurate. If a first line cast was Yin, knowing there are any number of ways hexagram can be formed, what causes one to choose 57, line 3 in the end for an example? And, why is that invalid? Just because it's been found that we can influence things on a molecular level doesn't mean we know how it works or that the degree of accuracy is anything profound. To me, it ultimately posits that Yi is too small or incapable to work around our mental capacity to meet us individually at our level with what is beneficial for us to hear. I'd have to disagree there.
 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi iams girl
Isnt the seeking of truth and purity the real purpose if the Yi. Even though it can obviously be used for triviality if one wishes, the possibility contained therein to open the human can and illuminate the inner world remains the prime importance of the Yi. So I make no apologies for bringing the discussion back to that of investigations of truth peace, purity, understanding, knowledge, the fundamentals and such thingss.

Not quite sure how you would consider that there would be any sort of statistical problems. One simply has two pack of cards, obviously face down, shuffled so that one has no memory of where any particular cards might be, one then focuses on one question, draws a single card from the pack that has the 64 Hexagrams in, leaves the card face down so that one cannot "influence" in any way at all, and draws a card from the second pack that contains all the possible moving line combinations. One then turns over the cards and calculates the second Hexagram.
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.

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. There is a thread on "good and bad Hexagrams", most of us prefer to have validation of our thoughts and action and so would rather have a "nice" Hexagram that supports us, rather than have reading that inform us we are behaving like idiots, though of course there will always be those that will prefer to be rebuked by the Yi. The important thing is that, as one becomes more knowledgable of the Yi that one knows what possibilities remain. Before we cast we have 64 possibilities, after the frst line just 32, after the second 16, the third just 8, the 4th only 4 and on the 5th only 2 possibilties. As one becomes even more knowledgable one will even know what the possibilities given by the moving lines will result in. The brain is an amazing calculator and whether we are consciously aware of it or not is more than capable of working out the possible permutations. Science knows very well how any sort of "knowing" can influence the outcome and had to develop double blind trial methodolgy for exactly the reason that we can activelly influence the outcome if we have any knowledge.
The traditional methodology allows for that influence to be exerted, the method of drawing from cards eliminates that potential subconscous influence.

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. What we do know is that influence can be exerted when we have knowledge of the method, and I think that I will stick with the fact that we can influence our environment, as there is no clear evidence that the inanimate Yi has any capacity or consciousness in its own right, 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". So I think that perhaps i wiil just stick with considering that the Yi is a fantastic inanimate tool, with no inherent capacity in its own right and that as a human beings we have the potential to influence our surroundings and building a Hexagram by traditional means permits the possibility of such influence being exerted and I have witnessed that tendency to influence, or at least try to influence the outcome of a reading when using traditional methods, so I will remain confident that my methid of drawing cards is inherently less prone to inaccuracies.

That is not to say that traditional methods do not work, but my own experience is that it takes a great degree of self honesty not to want to influence the reading at all, to the point that if one could be that self honest one would likely not need to consult the Yi at all, that I have found that my readings are clearer, more on point, when I use the card or similar method and it is that comparison from one to the other that I think is the biggest validation. It makes sense scientifically and it makes sense pratically. Given that the history suggests that use of traditional methods was a tool that was confined to "experts" so someone would go to a Yi practitioner for a reading, the possibility of needing to be able toinfluence the reading becomes more likely. 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.
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.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,921
Reaction score
4,426
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.


I think everyone has gotten to line 4 or 5 sometimes and hoped it was or wasn't going to lead to answer they didn't want but actually in reality there is no need to worry at all, that is just misplaced anxiety, you will draw the answer you need. So you have taken this anxiety and misperception to such an extreme you've thought it necessary to develop a means of bypassing any kind of contact, almost akin to a germaphobe.

To take this route you must have particular beliefs about how answers come. 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. That would be like imagining before praying one must quash all hopes and fears or the prayer 'won't work', God/the universe won't hear it if you are in it polluting it so special measures must be taken to sanitize and bleach out your humanity. That idea is of course absurd, understandable but absurd.

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.

There is no need for special measures. Casting with coins or beads or yarrow stalks is fine.
 
F

Freedda

Guest
... 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.
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.

I would guess that JukkoDave's method of casting will work as well as any other. But they all involve human interaction/intervention. In his case, someone has to shuffle the cards, so, bam! you've influenced the cast - or so the theory goes.

But as you've said, our own state of mind is inextricably tied to the reading; after all, it is our reading, right?

Best, d.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,850
Reaction score
2,388
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.

(Quoting for emphasis.)
 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
"someone has to shuffle the cards, so, bam! you've influenced the cast"

Of course one "influences" the cast, whether it is yarrow stalks, coins or cards, there is going to have to be "influence", or there would be no interaction and only a random reading which would have no connection with the person at all.
The clear advantage of cards over any method the develops line by line is that there is no opportunity to subconsciously adversly influence as you go along. Surely we would want our readings to be as relevant and accurate as possible.

Harmen Mesker's YouTube video "how not to consult the Yi"

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. I never read any "instruction about the things he has opinions about, but had considered most of his points as a natural need of wanting to know how to get the most relevant readings possible. I, and many others found that a quiet place, a properly focussed question and the like gave a more accurate reading than casting a reading with lots of distractions and barely knowing what question was being askedThere was one persona tht I knew at the time that would do a reading, be completely puzzled by his reading and when asked what he had asked had no idea at all and as soon ashe focuused his question he got readings that made sense to him and he could understand. It was a standing koke amongst the many that I knew that consulted the Yi back them that if you didnt understand your " answer" it was probably because your question was rubbish.


 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
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.
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,921
Reaction score
4,426
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.

They aren't actually 'his notions' many many people have said the same things here over the years in posts without reference to his video. I don't need to watch his videos to find the points of view he has because those points of view do come from experience, my experience and many many very experienced Yi users have over the years have come to those conclusions themselves. So his video was a summary it was not an invention. A useful summary I guess for those who had not discovered these things for themselves already.

There's been so many threads on these aspects over the years and so many experienced people saying the same kinds of things. So to call them 'notions' does seem to show a lack of experience on your own part.

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.

Me too and my own experience would more or less tally with his 'notions' although they aren't his as in purely his own ideas, he didn't suddenly come up with them out of the blue. I do find it quite irksome that if something is on youtube it is somehow meant to carry more weight I agree with you on that. However I think it was probably linked to because it's a fairly succinct summary of what you don't need to do to consult.

People make videos to summarise and make things simple for people I guess. I mean it is what they are offering as teachers if they have classified themselves as teachers/been asked to teach.
 
Last edited:

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,921
Reaction score
4,426
There's a quote button you can use, the little speech bubble middle row of icons above reply post. You were replying to me so what I said should have been put in quote marks

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.

So I said that and you said in reply



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.

Perhaps you need to get more experience in using the Oracle and communing with it. Why would you be so fearful of contaminating the oracle, there is no need at all. We do not alter readings and those of us with long time experience can tell you that from our own experience.
 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
I mean, really? What I gave you was an ‘interpretation’ in which I said the Yi’s authors were latte-sipping chowhounds, who made decisions about the importance of the hexagrams and trigrams based on the fact that they liked their treats with more layers of ‘sweet gooey goodness’.

Actually the way you presented there way no way I would have not known it was supposed to be anything other than realistic. Perhaps a bit more clarity in the Clarity forum would save possible confusions.

my understanding includes is looking at the trigrams, and it doesn’t usually include looking at yin/yang. It’s not wrong (as you seem to be implying), it is simply how I understand, look at, and make use of the Yi.

I think that you must have a completely different understanding of what I mean by understanding. I mean knowing for oneself, having the direct experience, having a coherent and rational evaluation of the evidence, so that it makes sense and fits and resonates with itself and with anything else that it might be held up to as a comparison. I dont mean anything that might be considered to be a belief or something that we do because someone else has said it or does it.

By the criteria of rational coherence, resonating and holding it up in comaprison to another modality, the consideration of what we now call Yin and Yang, which is of course a formal school of describing the basic duality that we siee in existence everywhere and which the Yi references all of the time and we acknowledge by "pairing" Hexagrams in some way or another and in how we lay out the Trigrams and assign, or try to, at least. opposite qualities.

Having criticised me for making the "assumption" that you were being serious about the cake chow hounds, please dont assume that I am implying anything "wrong". If that is how you want to do it then that is fine and if and how it works for you will be your consideration. We know that the Yi works, even if one is slapdash about it, but it obviously has the potential for so much more and my questions are about what the foundations are, what are the rational and coherent explanations that something is valid and had a use. I havent stated that Trigrams are of no use, in fact I have suggeted that there are more Trigrams that we might consider, but I have questioned that the assignations we allocate to them that seem to have no logical or any other foundation rather than what someone said thousands of years ago, which unless we have an understanding and knowledge of the foundations and the building blocks of how and why the Yi came into existence we have no way of knowing if anything that anyone said or wrote those thousands of years ago has any validity at all.

I previously responded to what you said ; have no idea why you would consider that Yin and Yang are "barely usable", what are broken and solid lines but representations of Yin and Yang, that essence, that fundamental .... The Yi is riddled with basic dualistic dichotomies, which are Yin and Yang by any other name.

I don’t think they were developed into a coherent Yin/Yang belief system until after the Yi was written.
That is my belief


I dont think you can be actually reading what I have written. I said that although the Yin/Yang school came later that the essence of what is nowadays described as Yin and Yang, though the actual names really dont matter as is it that fundamental dualistic dynamic dichotomy that is present wherever we care to look around us, in us and in the Yi.
If you are concerned though about the "timing " of the lables, let us dispense with the Yi as there was most likely something that preceded it. If I recall , it may have been Wihelm, who considered that the Yi evolved from the use of single lines to answer simple yes and no questions, then to Bigrams, into Trigrams and then to enable the possibility of more complexity into Hexagrams. If that is the case then as the Yi came after the use of single lines then, we should be discarding the Yi.


isn't the whole point of what I have been saying that a belief may be completely satifactory for an individual but if one is concerned with anything of the fundametals, of the building blocks, of whther the Yi was created or discovered, then a position of belief is never going to provide a resonant, coherent, rational or logical examination of those fundamental issues. You may wish to believe in the Trigrams, that is of course your choice, but how about actually trying to provide an explanation of why and how they might work. Difficult I think as the evidence seems to point to the fact that there is no rationality or coherence in the Trigrams and no one can even agree on how they should be laid out, what directions they should correspond to, what qualities they have or even how they came to be assigned such attributes as Water, Fire, Mountain, Heaven..We cant even it seems agree on if we should be "reading" a Trigram from the top to the bottom or from the bottom to the top, which is kind of important if one want ot know how they relate andflow one into the other.
That addresses Response 1. Response 2, I have to think then that your "understanding" of what Yin and Yang are is rather different from what Yin and Yang actually are. A line is boken or solid, Yin or Yang, the Trigrams and the Hexagrams come in pairs, Yin and Yang, everything in the Yi describes Yinand Yang so I can only assume that you have adifferent notion of what Yin and Yang are or you would see the that dualistic dichotomy everywhere you looked.
Response 3. Howon earth did you read into "useable" as realting to "quality". It is obviously better if you can have a moe accurate and menigful response from 64 Hexagrams that you would ever be able to have from a mere 8 Trigrams. But I never suggested that there was any inference that the quality of a Hexagram was better than that of a Trigram.


"The Yi is riddled with basic dualistic dichotomies, which are Yin and Yang by any other name"
I don’t have a recollection of seeing these, so it would be useful for me if you would share with us a half dozen or so of these basic dichotomies that you have found.

How about not rying to lure me into exactitudes of particular texts when I have made it clear that unless there is some way to validate the accuracy and relevence of a particualr translation, even to the extent that there are terms that have no correspondence in English at all so are never going to be translatable in an accurate waythat I dont consider the translation as particularly useful. The fact that we have so many differing "translations" kind of makes it clear that a translation is not an exact science and is open to interpretation.
Buthow about , broken and solid lines, moving lines, Hexagram 1 and Hexagram 2, and all the other pairs and opposites, the terms and directions assigned to the Trigrams, action and no action, furthering and retreat, the examples I have already given in earlier posts, male and female, hidden and revealed, it really is a long list regardless of which translation you care to use. And how about the commentaries which you obviously consider to be valid as you value some or other interpretation of how and wht the Trigrams represent.

On that point am I not doing as the commentaries say, "when the sages made the Yi it was with the disign that its figures should be in conformity with the principles "underlying" the natures of men and things and the ordinances appointed for them under Heaven". (Legge)
If we cant even agree on how the Trigrams should be laid out, if we dont know if we read from top to bootom or from bottom to top, if we have no idea what the underlying nature, principles and ordinances are, then how can we claim to be doing anything other than repeating what other, possibly confused persons, may be saying. If the sages knew then only by becoming sages ourselves can we know what we are talking about. Perhaps the first step is the willingness to discard the baggage that makes no rational or coherent sense.

I am puzzled as to how you can find the Trigrams usable when there is no coherent understanding even of how they should be laid out, which direction they should be ascribed to, what quality they should be ascribed or even if they should be read from top to bottom or from bottom to top ....

I really don’t know how to answer that. I find the trigrams useful
You havent clarified which version of the Trigrams you are using or why you have chosen one particular interpretation over any of the other possibilities.
I think that the fact that you dont know how to answer that provides the answer itself.

What "imagery" would you be using then, is it that of solid and broken lines, which are only useful symbols and dont mean anything inthemselves and can be substituted by any number of possible symbols which would give totally different "image".
You may not need a meal to be full, but the questions I am asking are not about what one as an individual needs to satify themselves but what is required in order to have the understanding of a "sage", isnt the Yi pointing us always in that direction by reminding us of what the superior man, the sage would do. Is the Yi not saying become the sage so you know what the Yi means, so you know and understand the underlying nature, principles and ordinances.

Sorry of I have been a bit snippy but lets be honest the deviation from the questions about fundamentals, building blocks, underlying principles, ordinances and the real nature of things, with personal beliefs and no attempt whatsoever to actually address any of the points that I am making in any sort of specific, ssems a bit like an attempt to just criticise me. I am sorry if I have perhaps hit a nerve or two but unless there is an actual constructive response I dont see the point in trying to take umbrage in what I am saying. How about actuall respondig the the points that I am making. How about adding some clarity, some rationality, some coherence, to the topic.

 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,850
Reaction score
2,388
Dave, please try to learn how to quote people's posts properly? Your posts are confusing and harder to follow if you don't. We've all figured out how to do it, and so can you! :pompom:

Instead of typing out instructions, I just remembered I made some truly-terrible-awful videos about it a few years ago, which seem to have vanished from the thread I put them in (there are still some instructions there, though), so here are links:

Simple quoting using the quote button: https://vimeo.com/187532142

Reply with quote: https://vimeo.com/187534041

Multiquote: https://vimeo.com/187586139


A possible stumbling block I can think of is that sometimes a forum bug (soon to be vanquished when Hilary migrates to the new forum software) will put the quote tags in the upper left corner of the edit box, rather than where they belong. Workarounds in the meantime:

One - manually highlight the tags, then copy and paste them from the wrong place to the right place in the edit box. If you're on Windows, copying is ctrl-c and pasting is ctrl-v.

Two - manually type in the tags around the text you're quoting, like this -

[quote=Mary'sMother]Mary had a little lamb[/quote]

- which comes out looking like this:

Mary'sMother said:
Mary had a little lamb
 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Freedda, Why would you think that just be not agreeing that this is "trashing". I have posited views, based upon, my own experience, my own understanding, I have been trying to get the the heart of the Yi, its underlying principles but it seems that no one wants to or knows how to respond to my questions or points.
If someone wants to respond and provide coherence and rationality then please do so.
If I am wrong it should be easy for anyone to demonstrate that with simple logical, rational and coherent argument.
It really doesnt matter if anyone agrees with me or not about how we cast a reading. I have nothing to defend. We now have the scientific knowledge of how individuals can exert influence over the results of experiments, both consciously and otherwise. Why would we wish to retain methods that we know are suseptible to undue influence. Surely one of the advantages that history telss us is that we need to let go of that in the past which is superceded by new understaing and knowledge. I certainly have no inclination to take something that someone said thousands of tears ago as ahving any value unless it fits in with what I know now and can actually be shown to have a solid foundation and be in accord with the principles, ordinances and real nature of things. One could cite many examples of those that have believed in someone elses view point, which they obviously never questioned at the time, and which is shown to be factually incorrect.

I think that perhaps I understand where you are coming from and where you and I differ. You have "studied" with Harmen. I have to ask, from my perspective, why, was there something that made you think that he had the insight of a sage, that he had the direct experience so that he could evaluate, based upon the truth that he knew within, the underlying nature, principles and the ordinances of heaven, or did you study with him because he had learnt lots of texts and had lots of "information" to share and knew more than perhaps you did. It is an important distinction. It may be appropriate to "study " with someone about a subject that is very definite and even to study a subject that has no clearly define parameters in the first instance, but if the subject is that of something like the Yi then I would not be likely to see any benefit in that, with even the possibility that unless the person was clear on the fundamentals and the buiding blocks of the underlying principles etc that there would be a very great risk of being led away from clarity and into confusion. If I ever found such a sage I would be the first to want to be able to study with them but having no wish to fill my head with lots of information, that there seems to be no way of actually validating, I would find little need to study with anyone just because they had read more than me. I have already been through that with Chinese Medicine. I learnt a lot of "stuff" most of which I discovered seems to have no validity whatsover and certainly not only didnt it add anything to any treatments but actually detracted from them. I have been discussing the contradictions in the ancient medical texts for as long as I care to remember and not a single person has been able to resolve the contradictions in those medical texts, one of which is the 5 Elements and as that is pertinent to the Trigrams I was hopeful that someone in the Yi world would perhaps have an insight so as to address what no one in the Chinese Medicine world seems able to do.
If no one is able to actually provide, or even offer the possibility, of a rational and coherent argument, or is even willing to discuss the reasons as to why and how 5 fits onto 8 or how and why the Trigrams are arranged in any particular order with particular attributes or any of the other contradictions that I am pointing out then perhaps there is no answer, perhaps they dontfit and all we have is a human inclinationto believe what one is told, that by the way would fit into research in Psychology. I was hopeful that those involved in the Yi would be looking for some sort of "truth" in theri lives and would welcome the observations that thise and that dont fit or make any sense, taht would welcome the question of how much faith we should place in something that someone said thousands of years ago. Perhaps the Yi is a mere contrivance that was created for some purpose or another and is not an insight into the true natire of things at alll. Perhaps it should be kept as a tool for asking questions, that we already really know the answer to, and that is the limit of what we can do with it. If there really was any underlying principles, of there was real nature to things, if there was ordinance from heaven, if there were any findamental bulding blocks, any rationality or coherence in the Yi then I would have expected someone to have been able to respond and point out that I am mistaken and provide some rational and coherent reasons.
But not a songle person has done that. And while no one is able to demonstrate that I am not right then that would strongly suggest that perhaps I am unfortunately right. Actually I know that while I am right in some things I am not right in suggsting tha the Yi is little more than a divination parlour game. I know that it has illumination on the fundamental principles, though it does semm mist unlikely that they lie within the realms of 5 Element theiry or Trigram theory or someone would have been able to respond in detail to resove the presented contradictions.

So I am sorry if you consider that I am trashing any one when all I am doing is asking questions, pointing out some contradictions, and trying to keep that on point and not get distracted by various diversions.

Perhaps the topic is to big and broad foe everyone. perhaps I should have confined my observations of the contradiction to specific things. But everything is connected so it would be rather difficult not to include something of relevance and to not respond to someones post that highlighted another contradiction or to a post that made little logical, rational or coherent sense. Along the way I may have misunderstood certain things, I never did get your jole and even though you have explained that it was a jole I still struggle to see that you were not serious in the suggestions in it. But that is by the by and I reference it simply to point out that in any discussion ther may be misunderstandings, they may be debate, it may even be heated, but Ihope that we are all here for the same reason to know the truth, to know more than we did before we participated. If we use the guide that we are all on the pathe to truth then we shouldnt go far wrong.
 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Thanks Liselle, I will look at how to format my posts more clearly over the weekend. Even the workarounds will be useful. I have to admit that understanding new technology and such things formatting is not my strong point. Sorry, I shall attempt to do better.
 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
Hi Trojina
Thanks for the formatting advice.
I really have no "fear" at all of contaminating the Yi. But I don know what science telss us about a persons ability to influence outcomes. There would be no need for expensive double blind studies if it ahd not been discovered just how much knowing anything about the process could affect the result.
I appreciate that you might think that you do not alter the readings but the research would suggest otherwise and the simple fact that so many consider various Hexagrams and readings to be "positive" or "negative" and the fact that I have observed this in myself and in others would suggest that the inclination to influence, insome way or another, to be an inherent trait in every human being. I did point out that it was likely, given that those that trained in the use of Yarrow sticks might well be advising those that had the power to kill them if they were given an unfavourable reading, would welcome the opportunity to influence a reading. They would be dong it consciously but we might be dong the same subconsciously, and being sub conscious how would we ever know. We would be inclined to think that we had not altered readings as we wouldnt want to think that we were controlled by our subconscious. But news alert to anyone that didnt realise it, despite what we think we are actually controlled by what happens in our subconscious far more than our conscious selves. Isnt that the point of the Yi to get us in touch with the subconscious we have lost touch with, the subcoinscious that is not limited to the physical constraints and "knows" far more than the conscous part of us can ever comprehend.

The simple scientifically proven fact is that we do have the ability to influence consciously and subconsciously and as it could be subconscious how would we ever know if we had influenced or not. That is not to say that the readings would be without value, they obviously are and the fact that a reading is a cast in to the subconscious, mens that the influences of the subconscious will be incorporated, but my own experience and obseravtions are that readings are far more precise and there is less vagueness and ambiguity when one casts a reading wothout using methids that build the Hexagram line by line and which those who know the Yi would be well aware of the possible outcomes as we proceed.

As to your suggstion that I need more experience of using and communing with the Yi. I really have no idea why you would think that I have little experience. I think more than 40 years of extensive use and observations and the fact that my readings have become clearer than they ever were when I first consulted the Yi demonstrates that my experience and communing is going along the right lines. There is always more to learn of course, but as the years roll by I find that I am more drawn to the "inner" and fundamental aspects of the Yi. The Yi reminds us again and again of how the sages, how the superior men, conduct themselves, and it makes more sense to me to focus on trying to learn what it is to be a "sage" that to learn more about the part of of the Yi which, without the measure and the framework of the inner knowledge of the sage can never be evaluated for accuracy or not.
 

jukkodave

Inactive
Joined
Apr 30, 2019
Messages
249
Reaction score
2
There's been so many threads on these aspects over the years and so many experienced people saying the same kinds of things. So to call them 'notions' does seem to show a lack of experience on your own part.

The reasons that I referred to them as notions is that, despite your assertions that many experienced people are saying the same things, my experience and those that i know that have used the Yi for many years would not agree with him.
A quiet place, a calm mind, succinct focus on one's question, which as we are language driven beasts is often best acheived by carefully phrasing the question, which does not limit it and which I pointed out when it happens there seems to be less chance of ambiguity and lack of understanding of the resultant reading. On this point Harmon does refere to the fact that there is nothing in the ancient texts, but we come back to the reliance on thousands of years old works which we have no idea even if the persons that wrote then had any standing or respect in the Yi community, if they are correct or accurate or even if they were the only viewpoints on the Yi at that time. They may have been considered completely whacky and missing the point and just because some works survived doesnothing to validate them. Only when we know for ourselves and we have the inner understanding and experience and we have the "measures" with which to evaluate what hose ancient texts say can we begin to have any confidence in them. And just because they dont mention something does not mean that it is not relevant, It may have possibly been so obvious that no one thought to mention it, or perhaps the surviving texts were not intended as a manual for beginners.
If one wishes to limit and constrain what the Yi is able to teach us then by all means ask yes or no questions.
As to "important" questions, that realy is a notion and he really is missing the point of the Yi. Of course one can ask the Yi whatever one wishes, it is abook of "divination " after all. But it is also a tool of knowledge and understanding, a means to know and understand oursleves and if we are going to place more importance in what clothes to wear rather than considering if that is becuase we are worried about how other might see us, because we need to maintain an artificial iamge of ourselves or for any other reason, the fomr my perspective we are denigrating the beauty of the Yi and turining it into little more than a parlour game. How about being confident in oneself so that we will radiate whatever we may wear.
As regards Harmons views on Yarrow stalks, he does say that use whatever method is used make sure it is no capable of being influenced by your will. Although he seems to not know this we know that the coin as stalk methods can be influenced by tour will so if we are to take notice of Harmon that is goodbye to coins and stalks.
Why woudnt you want to stay focussed, you are asking a questionabout yourself after all and if you want to know that you are incapable of staying focussed then that is what you are going to get. The Yi is not a conscious thing, it is an inamimate object that through its construction has the "potential" to allow us to see ourselves, nothing else, if it was any onther way Yi users would all be winning lotteries. I once knew someone that tried to predict the outcome of horse races and lost and lost and lost, though their readings were accurate about themselves, so no lack of "skill".
We must not forget the Yi is an inanimate, it has no will or consciousness and is only a mirror. How we choose to use it is entirely down to us, we can use it for the most trivial use imaginable or we can use it for the illuminations of the subconscious self. If wwe only want the more trivial then Harmons notions are perfectly reasonable, but if you wish to polish the mirror of the self that takes more than a little effort and focus and his notions miss the point entirely.
So yes if you just wish to "consult" the Yi then he is of course right, but if you wish to consult yourself then he is most definitely not right. He should have clarified and discriminated on that point at the very beginning of the video.
But then I dont see a lot of discrimination in that sense in mist of the Forum, perhaps that is why so many "agree" with him and have similar experiences. It seems that the Yi is used for all sorts of purposes that have little to do with the actions of the sages.
As regards Haromons views in general, he does make rather alot of assumptions. Not least that just because there is lots of menotionof the Trigrams that they are "important" in some way. He seems to have missed the rather obvious point that most people in China at that time had no access to written words, things were passed down by word of mouth. Just try momorizing 64 texts and the moving lines, when the alternative was to remember 8 Trigrams, a few "facts" about them and how to connect them in some way to seasonal or certain events.
Remebering that rulership was an absolute, no Ruler would want to pass the power of real divination to the masses so this would seem rather a clever way to keep them appeased, to let them think they had something of value but which actually revealed very little of the underlying principles and the ordinances of heaven. No Emporer would want the masses to know that the ordinances or the natural principles of Heaven were not the same as the wishes of the Emporer or Ruler himself. We do seem inclined in our "translations" of thousands of years ago in China to forget the absolute heirarchy that existed at that time and the power that those in authority exerted. It wasnt like the masses had free access to anything other than what was permitted by those that ruled them. Confining the masses to just the Trigrams would be a very good way of control and withholding of the real power that proper divination brings. The of course one has to remember that the beliefs of that time cented very much around spirits and ghost, demons and forces, again no Emporer or ruler would wish to be usurped by a "power" beyond themsleves and what better way to dminish the beliefs in the spirits and forces than by incorprating then into a system that places the Emporer at the very centre of everything. And so we have the Yellow Emporer at the centre of the 4 forces of nature and so at the centre of all spirits and demons and thereby reinforcing the Rulers position as the source of all that happens. How and why that then became converted onto the 5 Element system of phases seems to be connected with yet more control so that medicine and the nations very health became the domain of the Emporer. But ther ewas a major problem with having something at the centre, it didnt fit into the known medical framework of 12 channels and Zang Fu and so it had to be "tweaked" to fit.
And so we end up with a confused mess, taht has no coherence whatsoever, there is no resonance, rationality, or even any common sense in the Element theory or the Trigrams. And all we have is the reference to documents dating from thousands of years ago, which we have no idea if they are relevant or accurate and which we for some mysterious reason, when all of history tells us that they are likely to be wrong in some findamental ways, become the source of our "understanding" and "knowledge" rather than us learning the very same skills and the understanding and knowledge that the "sages" that discovered and wrote the Yi orignally must have had and which must exist inside all of us or we would not even be able to consult the Yi or make any sense of it at all.
It seems completely illogical to be trusting in the expertise of those from thousands of years ago, who we cannot questionand who we have no idea if they even knew what they wer talking about and we do so without any apparent consideration of the "political" position of those times and the likelyhood that the sirviving texts would have likley been the domain of those that had the power and so we dont even know if they were written by or for an Emporer just to appease him. In short we have no way whatsoever of evaluating any of the ancient texts. It is simpler in Medicine, if it works better than without it hasa value, if it detracts from the treatment then it doesnt. but there is no similar correlation with the Yi what measure do we have to know if the Yi is really working or not. In Medicine one can plave needles in various postions and get results but the use of the best chosen points yields even better results. The best chosen points is determined by our real understanding and knowledge of Medicine. We can always get results with the Yi btu just like in Medicine the best results are acheived when one has real understanding and knowledge. How can 5 Elements and Trigrams be real understanding and knowledge when they are full of contradictions and there is no coherence, resonance, rationality and even a quick examination reveals that it makes no sense at all if one applies just a modicum of common sense. I have invited responses so that someone might provide some clarity, some coherence, some clarity in such a way that 5 Elements and Trigrams can be shown to be part of the same underlying principles, and are connected in a rational, coherent manner and in doing so be able to also show how how "principles" of 5 Elements and Trigrams are "coherently" connected to Chinese Medicine.

It is very strange that no one seems able to take up that challenge. Given that no one in the Medical community has been able to show a coherent connection between 5 Elements and the 12 Zang Fu and Channels I am beginning to wonder if there actually isnt one at all, and that 5 Elements and Trigrams are nothing more than a contrivance to satisfy whatever political or other reasons might have existed at that time they were seemingly invented. I would have expected that someone would have taken up the challenge and been able to demonstrate that my suspicions are wrong and there is a perfetly good reason why we have 5 Elements and why there are various interpretations of how the Trigrams work and what they really mean. Especially if the Trigrams are being taken as so importatnt I would have expected someone to be able to demonstrate in detail why they are.
Believe me I have over the last few weeks looked and looked and although I find lots of people quoting the various Trigram possibilities I have not found a single person that even attempts to say why, or how and why they are connected to one another or to anything else. Everyone one seems content to repeat the same old information without ever attempting to say wy it is that way or provide any evidence or rationality as to how and why it works that way. In any other field the lack of evidence would condemn the theory to the bin. It is only because the Yi works on so many levels that it seems we perpetuate what appears to be little more than an unproven myth. One test is to remove the theory in question from the mothods and see what happens. In Chinese Medicine it not only does not detract from the treatments but improves then significantly. Rather more difficult to do with the Yi as one can hardly pretend to forget what one knows but it would be interesting to try. Though as someone that has never use the Trigrams or the 5 Elements in consulting the Yi I can attest that not only does the Yi work very well without out it but the readings I get are rarely anything but clear as clear can be. No need for any Trigrams or 5 Elements confusing the picture, the Yi is quite capable without them.
My enduring puzzle is that the Yi is an insight into life, Chinese Medicine is an insght into life itself. If both are illuminations on life then they must be connected in some obvious fundamental way. So if anyone has any ides or "notions" as to how 12 might fit into 64 I would be delighted to hear them.
 

iams girl

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Jul 26, 2011
Messages
2,496
Reaction score
733
I have limited time, so without being able to read all others’ responses, am responding directly to your reply and apologize if redundant.

Isnt the seeking of truth and purity the real purpose if the Yi.
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.

Not quite sure how you would consider that there would be any sort of statistical problems. One simply has two pack of cards…
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.

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.
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…

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.
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.

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.
Yes, “maybe” is a good summary.

there is no clear evidence that the inanimate Yi has any capacity or consciousness in its own right
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.

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".
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.)
That said, arguing for Yi being inanimate, well, any good computer program can be programmed to guide someone in a positive direction, so why not Yi. Arguing for Yi being animate, who is to say the organic chemistry of the universe isn’t designed with an equilibrium function that influences the workings of all things in a good way, just as our body recalibrates us back to health after a mental or physical injury.

I will remain confident that my methid of drawing cards is inherently less prone to inaccuracies.
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.

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.
And you seriously think a diviner who valued his life wouldn’t find a way to manipulate the cards to stay alive?!

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.
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.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top