May 31 2008

Something about the I Ching

Published by Brian at 9:28 am under philosophy, changes, memoir, essay, the_unknown_future, poetry

Fortune Telling 000

The arrangement and interpretations of the I Ching’s hexagrams can be attributed to the astute analysis of human nature in many contexts by many contributors over many years. It’s much more difficult to account for the uncanny accuracy, reasonableness, and wisdom of the I Ching’s answers to one’s questions. That, at least, has been my experience.

The I Ching is the ancient Chinese book that accreted around a series of 64 hexagrams. A hexagram, in turn, is an arrangement of six lines. Each line is either solid or broken. Here are the first two hexagrams, the Creative and the Receptive:

Hexagram 1, the Creative          Hexagram 2, the Receptive

Hexagrams are formed by chance action (e.g., the rolling of three coins, and taking combinations of heads and tails for either a solid or broken line) from the bottom up. The lines are taken to represent a temporal sequence, the unfolding of change over time.

Lines themselves can change, and a changing line is indicated by chance action, as in the roll of three heads (a changing broken or yin line) or three tails (a changing solid or yang line). In the above example, if one tossed a set of three coins six times—once for each line in the Creative—and each roll came up three tails, each line would change into its opposite. The result would be two hexagrams: hexagram one, the Creative, would change to hexagram two, the Receptive.

The odds against a six-in-a-row coin toss are astronomical. But, then, what are the odds in favor of receiving a response that strikes one as both wise and a propos to the question?

Questions. Where do they come from? You, me, worrying the hems of our lives; John Cage, wondering what it really means to compose; and anybody, really, who engages in the act of breasting change with a story of self in mind. To put the previous question another way, What are the odds of a story emerging from apparently unconnected facts, experiences or observations?

As with most fortune telling systems, the odds favor making sense—if you can accept enigmatic replies as sense. For me, the difference between the I Ching and, say, the tarot (which has much sexier images), is perceptual: the I Ching responds in poetry, the tarot in cliché. One enlightens me, the other makes me vomit. It’s not the tarot’s fault; it’s cultural chance. The Romany, vectors of prognostication by chance action of card dealing, eschewed written language until relatively recent times (and then a palette of languages pattern Romany texts, rather than a national language); the Chinese, just as ancient, famously co-pioneered written language. The Romany poetry of the tarot is, at best, confined to a small group of disrespected people while the written texts of the Chinese have become venerated for their wisdom and verisimilitude.

History 001

The I Ching is one of the oldest continuously read and written about books on the planet. The modern view, based on archeological evidence, is that the book was first compiled around 800 B.C. By then, the use of the hexagrams had gone from attempting to influence the gods to attempting to gain penetrative insight into the courses of events that ebb and flow around us. From a purely mimetic fetish (cracks in oracle bones and shells) embedded in a bio- and political-regional oral tradition, the hexagrams became written and trans-regional nodes of interpretation, based specifically on the Dao or way of virtue (of which more soon).

The Book of Changes, as it’s often called in English, or simply the Changes, caught on in Europe thanks in part to Leibniz, the German mathematician and philosopher. He was intrigued by the arrangement of the 64 hexagrams (which came to his attention through deeply circuitous and context-stripping paths), and recognized that they formed a binary sequence that could be used for computation. Like everything else he wrote, Leibniz’s comments on the hexagrams (he seems not to have been aware of the I Ching, the fortune-telling computer formed by the arrangements of hexagrams he perused) are hard to penetrate, which is likely why Newton beat him to fame for the invention of the calculus.

In the 1960s, when all things Asian found themselves groovy, the I Ching began a new life. New “pop” translations began to be published to compete with the two older, standard translations.

Of the available translations, renderings and versions available now, only a few are notable. James Legge’s mid-nineteenth-century translation is horrible, but it remains in print. It’s choked off and blocked by its overgrowth of Romanticism.

The standard, and still the best, translation in English is the Wilhelm/Baynes version. Richard Wilhelm lived in China for many years (as did his son, Helmut, who was also an I Ching scholar, and a fine one). His translation of the Changes into German was followed by the fine rendering into English by Cary Baynes.

Richard John Lynn’s translation of the second-century Wang Bi’s interpretation of the I Ching is deeply informative, but the poetry of Wilhem/Baynes is completely lacking. In English, the enigmatic potential of poetry is needed, even if the original is prosaic (which, anyway, it isn’t; much of the original Chinese is as opaque as it is in any other language; life, after all, is a mystery). In my reading of Lynn’s translation, Wang Bi’s interpretive contribution was mostly by way of reiteration and mundane paraphrase, as if he were breaking ground for the future of the self-help best seller.

R.L. Wing has produced an I Ching Workbook that I’ve used for a long time. Each page presents an interpretation (based on and inspired by Wing’s reading of Wilhelm/Baynes) of the hexagram faced with a page of line readings with a column of white space for notes. This is useful over the long term, as patterns of change are a fact of individual lives, gathered communities, and nations of many stripes. Knowledge of them, obviously, contributes to knowledge of both self and others.

Fortune Telling 101

I’ve consulted the I Ching on and off for about ten years. It’s a decision-making tool, one that adheres to the way of the Dao, a rigorously moral path the precepts of which are articulated in a sequence of paradoxes in another ancient Chinese book, the Dao de Jing. I dipped into Legge’s atrocious translation of the I Ching as a teenager and, of course, was not impressed.

Decades later, one morning late in 1998, my friend and (former?) lover Susan Birkeland (dead; breast cancer; November, 2006) was consulting her Wing workbook, scribbling notes and angels in her journal while cross-referencing her Wilhem/Baynes, as we sat drinking strong coffee in a Mission District cafe. I’m pretty sure Susie saved my life when she explained what she was doing, and why: “It’s therapy, babe.” I know she introduced me to scripture that has since that day inspired and guided me, even when I put it down for years. (But then, the I Ching always said one of my issues was faith.)

The I Ching is deeply conservative even when it advocates revolution. Ko, Revolution, hexagram 49, is “a last resort” after all other peaceful means of change have been tried. When justice is not served by other means, violence is just. So conservative is the I Ching that I sometimes abhor it: The Marry Maiden (hexagram 54), for instance, suggests that “peaceful means” include selling one’s daughter to avoid war or to otherwise manage relationships. War, after all, is politics by other means, and the political is never least personal.

For me, interpreting the responses to questions the I Ching gives is always an act of creativity. Which is a polite way of saying I’m always in the dark as to what I’m being told.

Except when I’m not. The beauty of poetry is always the burst of illumination; that’s what makes poetry addictive and worth pursuing. I’ve spent a lot of time, in other words, learning to narrate to myself the consequences of bad decisions and tough breaks.

The real question, though, is the question. What does one appropriately, sustainably, profitably ask the I Ching?

History 110

How do we ask the I Ching about the changes we’re going through in order to get the greatest insight into a situation? I have no clear, simple answer to that, but from what I’ve read and experienced, there are a couple rules of thumb to keep in mind and heart.

In my experience, the main thing the I Ching informs me about is myself. This seems to be the consensus in the writings of serious and sincere writers about the I Ching. Any expectation of an externalized and precise delineation of what is to come will be foiled by the Changes’ demand that we examine self through the prism of the many.

I think it was Louis Pasteur who said “chance favors the well-prepared mind.” This little gnomic utterance precisely captures for me the utility of the Book of Changes. It’s not that I need to know that event X will be followed by Y and Z; any pretension to such precision is, in my opinion, charlatanism. Life is far too interdependently complex to predict what is going to happen with any certainty. Rather, the I Ching shows us what might happen, and indicates what we need to do, in terms of spiritual readiness, in order to be best prepared for inevitable change.

As I mentioned, the I Ching adheres to the way of the Dao. (The Dao, or Daoism, refers, depending on who you talk to, either or both an ancient Chinese folk religion or a philosophy that is much more widely embraced in the West than in China.) Simply put, the way of the Dao is the way of virtue.

Win or lose, all life’s changes can be met honorably by following the way of virtue. Indeed, I suspect that the Changes would just as soon have us quit asking questions of the Book and ask them of ourselves. Trying to make a decision about something? Then ask yourself, What is the most just path through this situation? What is the path of innocence (that is, we must ask ourselves about our motivations and agendas)? What is the path of constancy (that is, is there a path available that allows us to remain faithful to family, friends, community and self)? Sincerity, resonance, leadership and generosity are also, in my opinion, paths of virtue. (You’ll find these virtues, using various terminology, in both the Wilhem/Baynes version and the Lynn translation.)

The virtues are simple and, however they are enumerated, every culture has a set (and a set of corresponding vices). Reality, however, is deeply nuanced; the paths of the Dao are like the roots proliferating in a wildly healthy ecosystem: plants and fungi form rhizomes, communities where individuality blends undetectably into multiplicity.

Sometimes a vice is a virtue, and vice versa. Constancy, for instance, is clearly a virtue for a married couple—unless or until the marriage becomes destructive. The I Ching can be very helpful in situations where cultural expectations (e.g., the longevity of monogamous relationships) butt up against individual or community well being (e.g., the need to preserve, to be constant to one’s self in order to continue along the way).

The reason I said Susie Birkeland saved my life was because the year before I’d ended a long (for me) relationship; the same month, my brother died by drowning in the middle of a desert. I was certain that I’d broken up with my one true love, even though the day I was driving away (and even before) I knew that was a crock of romantic bullshit, that I was getting myself free, even if at the time, and for years afterward, I didn’t know what “free” meant. The culturally bound stories we tell ourselves about how we should live, love and die are great, but they need to be grounded in particular contexts; they are not principles. That’s a truth Susie reminded me of as we sat drinking coffee and she working on her readings.

Nevertheless, for many years after the breakup and death I was a rudderless wreck. I invented a thousand stories to explain that brutal love-and-brother-death month in ’97, asked the I Ching a thousand questions, and got pretty much the same answer: time will heal. Remain calm. Hide your light under a bushel. In other words, don’t inflict your pain on others, and when it’s time for your light to shine again, it will, and without effort.

I asked question after question about women I met, either in passing ( the eye-catch on the San Francisco Muni was a favorite source of inquiry, inspired in part by the “Missed Connections” classifieds in the SF Bay Guardian) or in some closer capacity (work, for instance). I thought the love of (another, a different) woman would be a magic bullet. Attraction has that effect on me but, as the third line reading of Inner Truth, hexagram 61, says, “Hi finds a comrade. / Now he beats the drum, now he stops. / Now he sobs, now he sings.” In other words, love for love’s sake makes of us a yo-yo, waxing enthusiasm until we wane into depression. The I Ching is clear: this is neither good nor bad, it is a personal choice.

From 1998 until I quit asking in 2002, the Changes was clear: you’re radioactive, so don’t mess with those girls. Did I listen?

Not really. I rebounded, semi-aware of the harm as I went with the rapids of the flow and regretful in the humiliating awareness of the turbulent wake, bleeding all over friends, family and lovers careened into along the way. And in direct defiance of the I Ching in 2002, I teamed up with a kind, beautiful, smart woman, G. In 2008, I left her, too, preferring to be on my own.

What questions was I asking the I Ching and what led me to such behavior?

Fortune Telling 111

In my attempts to fathom the sometimes nearly intolerable pathos, numinous moments, and sexual ecstasies of my life, I’ve been guided by a few simply shapes; the first is two dimensional, the second is, more appropriately for the I Ching, the omen of time, four dimensional.

The Arc: “What does the future hold for X and me?” I’ve learned that it is safer to start with something very general. The I Ching has severely ridiculed and reprimanded me for asking such questions as “Will X and I become lovers?” (Until recently, I mean.) So cautious have I become, after defying the way for so long, that I first quiz myself: Do I really want the answer? If I can stand to ask the most general of questions, I then sometimes try to drill down in search of more specific advice.

The Arrow (of penetration): “How shall I proceed with X?” I want to know how to act. Should I be bold, follow, lead? (I’m too bold, or brash, or awkwardly gregarious, too often without being direct; the I Ching is always telling me to chill: “hide your light under a bushel,” as Baynes captures it in his lovely and often King Jamesian rendering.)

Those have been my two guiding questions. This pair continues to guide me since I started asking again in late 2007. “X” could be anything; frequently, the name of a woman, but also a collaborative team (I could care less about sports), a situation, a potential job, a geographic move (probably to hook up with a woman or maybe a grad school I can’t afford or couldn’t anyway get a visa to attend).

These are also fairly timid questions, reticent questions, cautious questions. The last thing I’d like my reader to do is assume I presume to give advice. No, I only want to set a comparative context because the I Ching is not, as is often said (and as the article in Wikipedia currently claims) “the universe in miniature.” There’s nothing miniature about the Changes; the readings are as manifold as the thing itself; the interpretive territory of the answer is as large as the imagination of the question. The I Ching solves the mapmaker’s problem with poetry; through compression and interpretive unpacking the map is as expansive and detailed as the landscape thus mapped.

What brought me back to consulting the I Ching was an experiment in using it to write creatively. A la John Cage (an unlistenable hero), I wanted to let the hexagrams guide a narrative. After all, the I Ching perfectly captures the range of human experience, in a way that is at once both gnomic and expansive. The I Ching, I found, finds this an insulting waste of time, and discourages it even while providing exciting twists and turns. I tend to personify anything that moves me, but I find this ancient book a sexy beast.

A monster, if fact. How to reconcile, if we read historically, The Marrying Maiden (hexagram 54) with anything but sexual slavery, princess diplomacy, and otherwise pimping pussy for peace and power? The I Ching always considers the personal to be political, and sexual politics is a powerful undercurrent in the Book. The Marrying Maiden is, traditionally, the image of one who stands beneath and is powerless except for the favor of “the superior man” (a phrase that recurs constantly in Wilhem/Bayhnes) based on, presumably (enigmatically, context-dependently), a certain (sexual) attraction.

The political undercurrent of The Marrying Maiden, though, is defiant, insisting on the right to wait for the right time, and this is probably more in keeping with the Dao than not. Initiation, after all, is not a matter of specific age (first menarche, say) than of a sophisticated psychological assessment of spiritual readiness for transformation. Exceptions must always be made in the face of context. Carpe diem, they said in Latin: be prepared to seize the day.

But let the day come to you, not the other way around. The I Ching is an uncanny crapshoot, and like the Dao De Ching it is enigmatic and paradoxical. The ways of virtue and change are intertwined, that much is clear.

And that’s what the I Ching tells me. There comes a point where an infatuation gives way to constancy; even unrequited: perseverance may be rewarded. Perseverance may also be just plain stupid, at times. We don’t know what the future might bring; all we can do is prepare ourselves for the best we’re capable of being.

After all is said and done, nature bats last and chance favors a well-prepared mind (and body, I’m finally learning).

16 Responses to “Something about the I Ching”

  1. Brianon 01 Jun 2008 at 8:45 am

    Robin, in re parentheticals, you need to read Billy Collins, especially “Picnic. Lightning.” Other than that, I compliment you on your amazing capacity for pedanticism; your ability to assume you know what’s going on with someone you barely know is truly mind boggling. [This refers to a comment deleted at the request of the user.]

  2. Kurt Olsonon 01 Jun 2008 at 8:59 pm

    these comments are almost as interesting as the article, and twice as fun!

  3. […] stumbled over this article by Brian Clark, ‘Something about the I Ching‘. I think it’s unusually good - not just your usual introductory rewritten Wikipedia, […]

  4. Luis Andradeon 03 Jun 2008 at 7:43 am

    Hi Brian. New to your site. I followed a link from Hilary Barrett’s blog.

    Wow, there are a lot of things to comment in your post. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

    How to reconcile, if we read historically, The Marrying Maiden (hexagram 54) with anything but sexual slavery, princess diplomacy, and otherwise pimping pussy for peace and power? The I Ching always considers the personal to be political, and sexual politics is a powerful undercurrent in the Book.

    I’ll take this one to comment here. It should be noted that 54 is one of the most difficult hexagrams to interpret contextually with any given question. Taken by itself and, as you mentioned, within a historical framework, there is a great risk in taking the text out of the cultural context of ancient China (Zhou Dynasty) and, by extension, cast judgment on the practice. It is obvious that a concept such as “pimping pussy” is as Western as beer and dogmatic monotheism (and I cast the East/West dividing line by the meridian running across the current Uzbekistan and Afghanistan), not to mention modern. While the practice of political “kinship making”–no typo there–may sound shocking to our contemporary Western ears and sensibilities, it had a very practical use in the political environment of ancient societies. A practice that, as you know, even without the political weight of yore, still continues to this day in both Western and Eastern royalty and other–pardon the euphemism–”family oriented” enterprises.

    Perhaps, a fairness divide, along some imaginary historical time-line, should be put in place before casting judgment on certain ancient practices. A “we now better now,” even if at times ignored in the present, would be fairer to a people gone for almost 3000 years. I mean, the bias weight of “pimping pussy” (and I sit at the antipodes of anything “prude”) is much more evident, prejudicial and devoid of empathy, than trying to project, for a moment, what it was like to fit in those ancient shoes, and come up the other side with a “heck!, we know better now”…

    I’d love to continue reading your Yijing insights.


  5. Brianon 03 Jun 2008 at 7:23 pm

    Luis, thank you so much for your thoughtful comment. My initial response was, They don’t call prostitution the oldest profession for nothing. Pimping, and the protection racket, are correlatives of prostitution. It’s pretty clear from written sources from all over the world (well, the world that writes, that is) that pimping is as old as Abraham. How old that is, if he even ever was, I don’t think anyone knows, but the fact that the female body is a tool manipulated for power, etc., is not just anciently human, it’s common among many animals. Although I say “pimping pussy” with a note of disgust (OK, more like a power chord), I wasn’t trying to pass judgment so much as chew on the opposite readings of The Marrying Maiden from matriarchal and patriarchal points of view. In the latter, one is a slave to another’s desire, whim or agenda. In the former, the self exerts its prerogative to wait for love. That’s a mighty forceful contradiction; like an engine, it makes my head spin round! I guess I could have been clearer, so thanks for spurring further thinking on the matter. — Brian

  6. Desmondon 04 Jun 2008 at 5:26 am

    Don’t you think however, that the use of the i-ching only causes us to be dependant on it and perhaps less confident with our own independant decisions?

  7. Luis Andradeon 04 Jun 2008 at 7:32 am

    Brian, thanks so much for your reply. A further thought:

    I wasn’t trying to pass judgment so much as chew on the opposite readings of The Marrying Maiden from matriarchal and patriarchal points of view. In the latter, one is a slave to another’s desire, whim or agenda. In the former, the self exerts its prerogative to wait for love. That’s a mighty forceful contradiction; like an engine, it makes my head spin round! I guess I could have been clearer, so thanks for spurring further thinking on the matter. — Brian

    My only qualm with that is that it appears to show a dichotomy (”matriarchal” and “patriarchal”) that doesn’t really exist in the essence of the Yijing. IMO, those are little semantic and philological traps built into the text that can lead to misinterpretations. Most of the time, we derive those meanings based on our cultural background (a mighty risk of that while using and interpreting any Eastern sacred text in the West and vice-versa) No implicit fault there but, collective objectivity doesn’t really exist; it is rather collective “subjectivity” what dominates our opinions–if we allow it… Hence the suggestion of projection and empathy before diving into the interpretation of the oracle. Dipping a finger in the water will save you from a scalding… I believe that one of the basic tenets of the Yijing is that integration, not dichotomy, is the leading force behind “Change,” as it is presented, conceptually, in the Classic.

    I’ll say this with admiration and not an ounce of disrespect, but your mention of “love” and the implicit dichotomy of “matriarchal” vs “patriarchal,” whereby the former is presented as the “kinder” side of the coin, shows your background and involvement in poetry (mind you, I don’t know you at all but basing my opinion on what I’ve read here in your site and posts. I apologize if I’m mistaken.) Historically though, the facts do not fully support a romanticized view of the many Emperors and Dynasties of China. Power, wielded by either a man or a woman, is power imposed on others. Historically, women in positions of power, from Empress down, were anything but “kinder” than their male counterparts… Perhaps, the argument can be made that they were working and manipulating from within a “patriarchal” society but, from my point of view, a woman in such a position of power, and her deeds thereof, is not a masculinized version of herself… (Hillary Clinton and her pantsuits aside, of course. LOL!)



  8. Brianon 04 Jun 2008 at 7:47 am

    Desmond - you ask an important question! I think dependence is something R.L. Wing addresses, at least tacitly, and it’s certainly a question I want to consider.
    Luis - I think you’re correct that integration is the way to read the Changes, and I do grant that the matriarchal/patriarchal dichotomy is simplistic. (And yes I do have a long involvement with poetry!) I don’t think the issue, in any case, is a matter of kindness, but rather of the right to wait until the time is right, rather than having someone make the decision for you. I think that touches on Desmond’s concern, as well.
    I’m humbled and fascinated by the interest my far-from-expert essay, on this tiny blog in a far corner of the ’sphere, has raised. I hope to have a follow-on piece ready in a few days, one that is strongly shaped by the comments here.

  9. Luis Andradeon 04 Jun 2008 at 9:10 am

    Brian - A little visual aid on 54 that can be interpreted in many ways and will most likely bring to light many of our cultural biases. However, this one has direct Chinese roots and hasn’t been spoiled by translation. It is though, an interpretation of a Chinese artist, albeit contemporary. It doesn’t dispel ambiguity but rather feeds it….

    I would like to address Desmond’s comment: IMO, we have the illusion of individuality only because we live within the bubble of an endless internal dialogue with ourselves. We are, however, the acting participants, and occasional victims, of our social environment. You are much more likely to be–scrap that, “you will be”–influenced in your decisions by said environment than by any oracular tool you may use. However, the tool, as used tête–à–tête, will allow you, and grant you the opportunity, to enhance your internal dialogue and thus your “individuality” in decision making. In the end, you will always be responsible for, and held accountable for, your decisions, regardless of what influenced them. If I have the opportunity though, I rather use all the tools available at my disposal to have a fair chance of success. That includes the Yijing and not just my immediate exterior environment.

    Bear also in mind that the Yijing is not a deterministic oracle. It is more of a map; a flowchart: you’ll still have every opportunity to follow any path you want, albeit with a few warning signs in-between.



  10. Karunaon 16 Jun 2008 at 6:46 pm

    Thank you for writing about the I Ching, which I’m always glad to read about , even if I already know the information.
    But dear writer, I’ve been consulting the I Ching for 39 yrs, and RL Wing’s workbook is OK, but nothing great. .

  11. Karunaon 16 Jun 2008 at 7:00 pm

    Now this was interesting, I like that –”sometimes perseverance is just stupid”–LOL.Yes, indeed.

    The hexagram #54, the Marrying Maiden isn’t at all about pimping women –not even slightly.
    It is as you say, a person who is in favor, but not in power.
    She or he appeals to the “ruler” not just sexually, but there are feelings of affection that exist absolutely–but no true marriage contract, as in the 1st wife’s arrangement.
    It makes sense..he or she can’t decide what others should do, can’t even decide much what she/he should do, but can as you say wait, and fit in, knowing his/her place is important, but not outwardly and w/o announcing it.

    Btw, just for thought/information.As a recovering sex and love addict myself, I think the #61 line 3, and the #36 was probably suggesting that you would rise and fall as a woman appealed to you, but it gave her or the relationship your power .
    If she disappeared or slighted you, evne temporaily you’d have very little else tohold you up.
    The ‘hiding your light under a bushel” in #36 makes sense in the way you descirbed it.My thought was that it was telling you that no matter how many women you met, loved or slept with –what you were looking for was’nt really in them.:-)

  12. Brianon 16 Jun 2008 at 7:47 pm

    Hi Karuna,

    Thanks for your comments. Just for the record, I never said Wing’s Workbook was “great,” just that I’d been using it for a long time. As it happens, Wing is excellent: very level headed and embracing of uncertainty, which is find an admirable quality. Also, I think you’re reading the I Ching in a very narrow, traditional way. The Marrying Maiden certainly is about pimping women, and has a twofold interpretation. This is evident in lines 3 and four. But more on that soon in the second part of the essay. –Brian

  13. Karunaon 16 Jun 2008 at 9:02 pm

    Well, I respectively disagree.I’m surpised you think that about what I suiggested I honestly thought the same thing in reverse but hadn’t said so.I It seemed it was you who was reading it in a very narrow and tradtional way!

  14. Karunaon 16 Jun 2008 at 9:13 pm

    Brian, I thought I had nothing else to add–but..I can’t understand even why you think how you do.
    That The Marrying Maiden is most about women or prostitution is a much more narrow or limited/tradtiional view in itself.
    You know yourself the I Ching is abstract, and encompasses many istuations, and life matters in one hexagram alone.
    #54 is’nt even always about women, it’s all metaphor.But I knw you know that!
    I’m not at all saying we ca’nt disagree.But you’re seeing it so off in my opinion that I can’t help mentioning it.
    I’m am not interpretting it and assuming I’m right, either.After yrs of reading, and compaing several interprations, it’s more by expereinceing the actual results that anything so directly as I am..

  15. Brianon 16 Jun 2008 at 9:24 pm

    Hi again, Karuna, Would you be interested in gathering your thoughts about The Marrying Maiden and perhaps other hexagrams for Puck? I’d love to hear what you have to say. You can get my email address as well as learn more about Puck on the About page. –Brian

  16. peter oreoluwa dorcason 17 Jun 2008 at 8:29 am

    Brian thats great work done by u.but dis I ching stuff i av been trying to log in reading since all this while but it has not be through,what happen? especially concerning my login section.all those reply i read was very interesting, myself i like something like that.
    thanks. waiting for your reply

Trackback URI | Comments RSS

Leave a Reply

E-mail It