Comments on: Hexagram 20, Seeing Life

By: Gene

Gene — Sat, 12 Jul 2008 02:25:16 +0000

When we are observing ourselves from outside ourselves we are practicing becoming one with all. We take on the perspective of the universe and become one with it. This is, as said above, an act of compassion, both on ourselves and on all things.

Gene

By: Hilary

Hilary — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 17:17:24 +0000

Yes. I wonder why it takes a noble one to get lines 5 and 6 right, and I imagine that has a lot to do with it.

I love the way Yi can give us half a dozen words and we respond with all this.

By: bert dalmolen

bert dalmolen — Tue, 08 Jul 2008 07:24:21 +0000

I have an addition to make about “the observer observed”. Who’s the observer?
At the moment you start to observe yourself and start to realize that everything is a projection, you can ask who is making that observation, who is realizing that everything is projection. It is not ego, but some other force that is looking at all the hopes and fears. That can only done with compassion, without that force observations byond ego are pointless.

By: Gene

Gene — Fri, 04 Jul 2008 18:30:15 +0000

Yes, yes, and yes, as all perspectives have equal value. The I Ching is indeed multidimensional and applies on all levels.

On another level…

The fifth line is us in our addressing ourselves as unique individuals. The sixth line is us as seeing ourselves from the perspective of the universal whole. Do the two images equal each other? Or do we see ourselves in a different way. Line five has an undefined quality of showing us the need to see ourself clearly and accurately, but only the highest line has the highest view.

Gene

By: bert dalmolen

bert dalmolen — Thu, 03 Jul 2008 12:33:32 +0000

Dear Hillary.

I think hex 20 is about seeing and be seen and the art of observation.
The observer observed. In line 3 a choice is met: looking from the inside out or also taking an outside perspective, do you dare to leave the ingroup en take the outgroup perspective and go beyond gossip?
Our behaviour -and speech is verbal behaviour- is a process of constant tuning, in body language, in tone, in words. It’s good to see us as a buch of primates in front of your mental eye, then you see us. But the tuning is also part in the wider ecological perspective.
Line six should be a correlate with line 3, representing the outside persective, but also realizing that everything is a process, in flux.
It is a bit as in quantumtheory: at the moment you realize an observation, you also realize that the observation came into being because you oberved, so what you observer is a mirror of yourself, you are part of the process. Then the next step is moral: when your surrounding behaves “in tune”, “healing”, your obsevation is without mistake. When things start to riot when you’re around, your surrounding appears to tune to you in the wrong way. Then you have work to do.
The question should always be, like from the zen master to his pupil who was desparately trying to analyze his visions, “but who’s the observer?”
It is not a question of with or without ego, but how you are influenced by your surroundings and how you influence your surrounding. The talk about ego is very distracting: ego should be bad, egoless is good. The question should be :what is your point of reference, how do you want to be influenced, how do you want to influence (no this is not about 31, it is about observing 31). Well, take 10 deep breaths, ask what you think is important, then see if it tunes well or gives dissonants.

By: Hilary

Hilary — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 11:38:27 +0000

Yes - though I don’t think of line 5 as ’selfish’, more as ’self-full’, if you see what I mean. It takes a lot of capacity to have both views.

By: kim

kim — Wed, 02 Jul 2008 04:57:25 +0000

We have to have both views - of ourselves as self-ish individuals and as also as ego-less transpersonal beings who form part of the totality. They balance each other. Sometimes we operate more from one side, sometimes more from the other.