Michael Sternbach

Sounds interesting... I'm all for it! What kind of experiments do you have in mind, though?

The Yijing, in keeping with this original method of consulting it, may indeed be inclined a little more towards the yin side, however, I would not equate the latter with negativity and suffering, but with softness and yielding (i.e., non-resistance) in the Daoist sense of the "water course way".

With all respect, I strongly disagree with this view. The Yijing's answers are far too specific and accurate in order to attribute them to the kind of psychological projection you are referring to. For me, anyways (I can't speak for others, though). Which doesn't require that they would be repeatable in the way of a modern scientific experiment. I believe that the Yijing can indeed answer a question in more than one way, to be sure. However, I stopped "pestering" it with the same question over and over again long ago. I only did that in my very early days of Yijing divination on some occasions, and then I would get reprimanded by receiving hexagram 4 (Youthful Folly) so many times that I soon stopped trying (just like somebody else posting in this thread has observed). I have made quite similar experiences also with other oracles. E.g., when using Tarot for divination and asking essentially the same question again and again, they often start reflecting the querent's state of mind rather than the topic he or she inquires into. However, if the same basic topic is explored with more composure over a period of time and/or across various decks, typically the same cards show up again and again. However, all that being said, I don't deny the inquirer's own mind playing an important role in the divinatory process, even though this goes far beyond what could be explained by your usual "inkblot psychology". At any rate, there isn't just a receiver (projecting meaning into a basically arbitrary message), but also a transmitter involved, sending the former a very specific message. This is not to say that the latter is not part of yourself too - consider how you are sending yourself a message in a dream sometimes, and more generally, when you make yourself aware of something by way of intuition. Thus, intuition indeed comes into play, as well as the phenomenon known today as synchronicity. This is linked to the reality that is - to some extent - described by quantum mechanics and chaos theory, which are already speaking to there being implicit order in what, on the surface, seems arbitrary. However, these are phenomena that we are just beginning to understand. The study of divinatory methods is key, starting with C.G.Jung and his quantum physical colleague Wolfgang Pauli - but by no means limited to the exploration of this topic that they undertook so many years ago.

On the one hand, according to you, the only divinatory meaning the Yijing has is what we read into it. On the other hand, you testify to its 'uncanny relevance' and the aptness of its advice - which IMO suggests that there is objective information being conveyed from somewhere/something other than the reader's (subjective) mind. How would you reconcile those opposing views?

Rereading OldDog's post, I don't think he meant that the Yijing could give replies that are totally off the mark. However, as I experienced myself on some occasions, the answer may address important aspects of the situation at hand quite beyond what has been specifically asked. That's why I like the suggestion above not to ask particular questions in the first place, but rather let the Yijing comment on a given topic as it will.

And you seem to imply that an Yijing reading is something akin to an inkblot test. In my view, the kind of meaning (or information) we are talking about is out there in what Jung called "psychoid space", contained in its archetypes - and conveyed to you by the throwing of the coins (or whatever method you use) which provides you with archetypal patterns. Sometimes the message is easy enough to understand, sometimes it's more concealed - but may get clear in retrospect.

Yeah, there is room for creativity there. You could also push someone into his buddy while you exit stage left. So I would say pushing is not entirely useless as a fighting method, although its applicability is quite limited.

Yeah, I've seen some pretty hilarious "demonstrations" of that kind. Generally true. Unless you push them out of a window or into a vat filled with acid or something... It surely is... Without a doubt.

You may want to start taking martial arts classes for that. (Combat oriented ones, not the kind that is all about meditation and feeling at one with the Universe.)

Thought this might make a nice little contribution to the topic... From Dan G. Reid: The Thread of Dao - Unraveling Early Daoist Oral Traditions (which I just started reading).

I think it will be a different sound for every individual. I suggest you find a quiet place, close your eyes, focus on your third eye and see, umm, hear what you are getting.

If Lao Tzu and Chuang Tzu really didn't care, why did they write those wonderful books? If Marblehead really doesn't care, why does he diligently answer the questions he's asked?

I am not sure, what is the 'general philosophy' of Chuang Tzu? For every piece of sagely wisdom, there is a complementary one viable under certain circumstances.

The highlighted part is just another way of expressing what I said about the soul in my last post. Actually, this whole quote is in accordance with the latter.

Sure, but addressing this question philosophically is crucial if we hope to reach any useful conclusion in this discussion, IMO. I like to think of the soul as our spiritual self, much like we also have a mental self (or mental level of self), as well as an emotional one and a physical one... I learned this concept essentially from Western mystics such as Edward Bach (the famous founder of Bach Flower therapy) and Jane Roberts (the psychic who channelled the entity called Seth). At that time, I was living in Japan and studying Zen too. And when the priest in the Sosenji temple was lecturing about the fundamental emptiness of the self, I was hard-pressed trying to reconcile that teaching with the idea of having, nay, being an individual soul. It was not until later that it occurred to me that my view of the soul had just been too limited. I eventually saw what Seth meant when he insisted that the soul is not a closed system. For it merges with the totality of existence, eventually. Or it has never been apart from this in the first place. What do the Hindus say? Atman is Brahman, Brahman is Atman. So to me, the non-dualistic view is now about affirming and manifesting what is already there on the most fundamental level. Rather than having to build from scratch... However, there are obstacles to perception that, as a rule, must be removed gradually, until, potentially, another breakthrough occurs. And while treading that path, better watch your step. But the two approaches are no longer mutually exclusive, in my book.

Bindi, From my experience, realizations of non-duality (of the kind we are discussing here) are occurring at certain stages of a spiritual way. They have got to do with the acceptance of imperfection. This is just one of many lessons to be learned and re-iterated, although a rather profound one. It may be particularly important when you have been whipping on yourself too much for awhile - for growth requires time and patience to happen in a sound fashion. You can't pull on a plant in order to make it grow faster, you will just end up uprooting it. The best you can do is providing the right conditions for it to thrive - then you must allow it the room that it needs. You mentioned Neidan/Internal Alchemy. Yes, it speaks to the processual nature of spiritual awakening. It is true that non-dualistic approaches sometimes tend to neglect that aspect. But my basic assumption is that the avatars of all times and cultures arrived at essentially the same insights into the metaphysical universe. I therefore like to look at their zones of overlap (hidden as they may sometimes be) more than at their apparent differences. Many of those can be resolved by taking a higher philosophical vantage point, once we move beyond our biasses. Anadi does make some valid points, although I don't agree to everything that is said in the linked article. He emphasizes the role of the individual soul. Alright - but this raises the question: What is the soul? How do we conceptualize it? Now before I share my perspective on this, I would like to hear yours first.

To my knowledge, such techniques are more likely to alter the impact that past events have on the present than to alter those events per se. Which is generally what you want. As the new Karate Kid TV series put it, "commiting suicide is for pussies."

Nice! Just wish I had known about this when I was in LA Chinatown last year. I have never been in a Daoist temple before... Anyway, now it's definitely on the places-to-visit list for my next trip to the area! Hopefully still this year, or next year at the latest.

There are different methods of meditation, to be sure, and some are more active than others. Zazen is far from being the most passive one, for that matter; sitting in the lotus posture a couple of hours with your spine straight and your mind wide awake takes a good deal of stamina and determination (trust me on this). Stopping the mind's activity is not the express goal thereby, even though there may be phases of 'thoughtlessness' spontaneously experienced at the more advanced stages. I was taught to just let them thoughts come and go, much like clouds floating by in an (otherwise) blue sky. The art then is not to cling to any particular thought - because that's when the mind gets stuck and stops. If that happens while you are attempting to paint a circle by brush, it will likely be shown as a slight deviation from the perfect circular shape. And if it happens while you are engaged in lethal combat with four skilled sword-wielding enemies, it will likely be shown in your head being severed from your trunk. Now while the latter would arguably be an effective way to put your mind at rest for good, fortunately that (as we have seen) is not really the aim of Zen or of any art based on it. The aim is the undisturbed and unfettered mind that never stops and is therefore able to smoothely flow from one action to the next in a flash! Your comments towards the end of your post made me think of a friendly debate that I once had with a Zen mate while I was in Japan. He thought that an activity that requires intellectual effort (such as learning information from a book) would be incompatible with a Zen state of mind, whereas I was of the opinion that it is not, if only the mind stays relaxed and in a state of flowing receptivity. Surely, if writing a book can be a Zen type of activity,* reading one can be too?! * See Ray Bradbury: Zen in the Art of Writing - Essays on Creativity.

On a practical note, when you meditate, it's best to simply dwell in the desired state of mind (to the best of your current ability) without worrying about results too much. I always found it peculiar when in the description of a sesshin (retreat) in Philip Kapleau's Three Pillars of Zen, the meditating participators are motivated by the priest in charge along the lines of: "Just twenty minutes left... Try your very best to achieve enlightenment still! But make no mistake, your enlightenment will be nothing like the Buddha's far superior enlightenment!" And so on. - Instead of just sitting there in (external and internal) silence! (As I experienced especially in the Sosenji in Kyoto.) And it is telling that in the same book, Alan Watts (without actually calling his name) is sharply critisised as having "the attitude of a beginner", even though there is plenty of support for his non-doing approach in classical Zen literature. While Watts did not hold back mockery of what he liked to call "the-aching-legs-brand of Buddhism"... But to each their own, I would say.

Thanks. Didn't work that way with my phone, but it did with my Fire kindle - where I wanted to download the book to anyway.

That book looks very interesting. Seems like it's only available as an ebook though, which is currently NOT available.

Majestic 12

Seriously? Alright then... And in accordance with the 3+1 principle, let me add this gem:

Brainiac