Ling Ch'i Ching: A Classic Chinese Oracle

Enjoyed this book much!

This is the Spirit Token Oracle. As such, it's somewhat different from the I Ching and the "judgments" have a different flavor. To use it you're going to need 16 tokens for the Chinese Chess pieces used to consult the oracle. To construct a single judgment, all 16 tokens are shaken and then tossed onto a surface. Four of the tokens are marked TOP, four marked MIDDLE and four marked BOTTOM. The Constructed firgure depends on how many of each type of marker fall upright. The author does a wonderful job of including several standard Chinese experts for each judgment as well as his own translation of the meaning at the end. For those who depend on the moving lines of the I Ching, the Ling Ch'i Ching does not include moving lines. Nevertheless, the Ling Ch'i Ching is an accurate oracle.

If you draw upon ancient Chinese wisdom via the I Ching, don't hesitate to add this rich oracle to your collection.

This doesn't purport to be a version of the I Ching, which it predates. It is an oracle, without the Confucian flavor of the I Ching, which is founded on more philosophical underpinings. You either believe there is synchronicity in our world, or you don't. If you do, this is a lovely addition to the more common oracles: I Ching, runes, tarot. I call it the "cat oracle," because early on in my use of it, I asked about one of my cats, which was missing. Among the information given was "the traveller is trapped and can't get out." I had the inspiration to go looking in cupboards and closets, and found my cat in a drawer (alive!) that she had crawled into and had been shut. It's moored more to energies than mores and religio-philosophical insights. The author translates the text well and gives various interpretations that have been provided by great scholars through the ages, along with his own. I find it useful and interesting. It's amazing to me that over many years, I have gotten certain oracles many times, and once in a while will get one I have never, ever had before. I use four dimes, four pennies, and four nickels. If you have old ones, that is fun. Another non-typical oracle that I enjoy is The Kwan Yin Oracle, by Stephen Karcher.

I had been using the presentation of the book as the "Spirit Tokens of the Ling Qi Jing" by "Ivan Kashiwa" for many years.I was aware of good and bad points of Ivan Kashiwa's work. I had learnt to trust the Oracle lines but not the Commentators nor some of Kashiwa's comments.Yes the Ling Qi Jing comes from the Taoist Sphere of Influence, and there is some Taoist comment and influence, most of the time. However it has to be said that an "Authentic Taoiost" would simply not have written an Oracle - end of!Kashiwa's comments are frequently in the "Tao-ising" mould. A good Oracle has to be balanced up by minimising it and a bad Oracle softened by reminders not to worry (it will all come round...) Perhaps epitomised by Kashiwa's insertion into Yan's comment to Oracle 113 "Why are you asking this?". Like some other things, not to be found in the original commentary! Kashiwa's "Tao-ising" is not new. The more ancient commentators started the trend!Ultimately this has to be seen as Kashiwa's secret agenda for the whole "Ling Qi Jing" - "Why are you asking this?", don't bother using the Ling Qi Jing, go and do something more useful/virtuous instead! I'm sure that Kashiwa (whoever the anonymous author really is) isn't saying this at a conscious level, but it IS the logical end point of his comments, seen together.My love for the "Spirit Tokens of the Ling Qi Jing" has only come by learning to ignore such commentary. Giving primacy to the original Ling Qi Jing - the Oracle verse itself!However I recently noticed the "Translation" by Ralph Sawyer, presented as the "Ling Ch'i Ching". Reviews said that this was a better translation. Knowing the faults of Kashiwa's presentation it was definitely worth trying...But the truth is "Swings and Roundabouts"!!!Obstacles in Sawyer.1 - In a note to the reader Sawyer expresses his intent. People "Should not consult the Ling Ch'i Ching as a divination book but instead simply read it as an historic artefact."2 - (More) Deliberate Obfuscation. Despite stating very clearly that the original Oracle was written as a "More accessible Oracle than the Arcane I Ching." (pg 1) and was deliberately composed of images from the lives of ordinary people (pgs 10-11). Sawyer "translates" retaining "the original word order" and "has tried to preserve some of the archaic aura experienced by Chinese readers." (pg xii) Despite a background in military works, where one would expect logical thinking, Sawyer seems not to see the disparity here. He nowhere acknowledges that the extremely late manuscript he is "translating" is an already severely corrupted one. To "Archaize" the Translation is to add insult to injury!3 - Following his very late manuscript he has presented the Oracle verses in that late Confucian re-organized order (almost total disorder!!!). Having come from the logical transparency of the Ivan Kashiwa presentation, this came as a very rude shock!Despite VERY CLEAR and indisputable internal evidence that this was never the original order - Ch'en's comment to trigraph 444 on pg 187, that this is still, in his 14th Century, the last of the (numbered) trigraphs.Sawyer's comment that this was a more "archaic" order (pg 187) is clearly trying very hard to avoid the truth that it was the "Original Order"! Equally his comment that trigraph 000 was "clearly appended as an afterthought" is a comment which shows no respect for the original author. His lack of respect may well have been appropriate for his esteemed Confucians who later re-ordered the work to suit their confucian (and very patriarchal) culture. Their later (and not necessarily superior) mathematical system had no zero, so they placed it "appended as an afterthought".Once you abandon the unproved "linearity of historical progress", there is no logic to assume that Confucians were superior to what went before, nor logic to assume that what they didn't know/acknowledge (Zero) had not existed previously in Chinese Culture... It may have come under another name... It may have been known only by a Priestly Cast... Who certainly were not Confucian!!!4 - Because of the horrific disorder into which the late confucians put the text, Sawyer has given a "Consultation Chart" to find your Trigraph among that dissorder. It is frankly the worst conceived and designed such "Consulation Chart" I have ever seen. Yes it works - but it's horribly BAD! It can only have come from a mind totally lacking in imagination. To see other ways of doing it - well that was something "Kashiwa" has and Sawyer doesn't!5 - Seeing the way the text has very clearly suffered radical changes to arrive to us, in those late manuscripts, we should be suspecting other changes also. During periods of China's history when succeeding royal houses destroyed and pillaged not only the spoils but also the books and learning, even the scholars of the previous regimes. It is not surprising that texts were hidden, in the manner of the Mawangdui manuscript of the I Ching. Or that as composed of discrete staves of Bamboo, sewn together, that they were put into hiding picked-apart, since in that state it was less obviously a "Book". So too scholars put such texts "in store" in memory. Something which we don't even dream of today!When re-constructed by much later Confucians it is no surprise that they have "Archaised" the text. In part deliberate? Certainly in part just "Remembering it Wrong"! (Sorry - remembering it in their own culturally appropriate way...)For a Confucian "Culturally Appropriate" is very far from the intent of the original Author! Instead of Clarity read Scholarly Obfuscation. Instead of writen for the Common People, read written for Scholars!I just do not see the "Archaic Aura" as being necessarily original. Certainly (as shown earlier) the intent of the original author (whoever he was) was not to write in "Archaisms".6 - Sawyer spends nearly four pages presenting the "traditional" authorship of the Oracle as being by "Tung-fang Shuo", despite the fact that the various stories about him and his authorship, logically lead to the conclusion that he CANNOT have been the author! Tung-fang Shuo was very, very, very good with the I Ching - therefore he wrote the Ling Ch'i Ching????While Sawyer does express appropriate scholarly doubt, spending so much time on such utter nonsense leads one to think... While Scholarly doubt has been expressed, the effort spent on this as the only theory expounded leads one to the thought that perhaps...Personally I would have welcomed some discussion that perhaps Yen Yu-ming, the earliest of the Commentators might have been the author?? It would certainly seem to merit more attention than the "traditional fairy story version".7 - Lastly, a personal gripe, but an important one. I feel that translation work should be done by those with the necessary skills. To translate from Chinese to English, the translator must clearly be skilled in Chinese, but they MUST also have good command of the best English. This Sawyer does not have!Some of the "language" that Sawyer has "Translated" into is deliberately Archaic, but quite a lot just does not exist. Much is ugly and even offensive."Scholars" frequently translate into a language that I reverently call "Pillock" not "English". Sawyer has his own personal and Americanised version of "Pillock". Other scholars of course are well used to "Universal-Pillock" and even like it... Hence the positive reviews of Sawyer's work.Yes I've had to read a lot of books in "Pillock". You get kind of used to it, I suppose? But for a book, such as the Ling Ch'i Ching (Ling Qi Jing) it is most definitely NOT conducive to Spiritual use of the work!!!For that we must turn to the "Spirit Tokens of the Ling Qi Jing" (with known issues - yes) but at least it's intended to be used as a Spiritual Work!- - - - -My love for the "Ling Qi Jing" remains. No doubt I will learn about the history of the changes to, and abuse of, the Ling Qi Jing by comparing that with Sawyers translation of such a very late confucian manuscript. In order to do that one has to cope with Sawyer's horrible "Consultation Chart"... Dread Horrors of Living Confucianism...It is useful that the names of the two "Translations" are different, because they are actually two very different works.Ivan Kashiwa's Presentation of some of the text as a Spiritual Work called the "Spirit Tokens of ther Ling Qi Jing"Ralph Sawyer's "Translation" of a late Confucian "Classic" Manuscript called the "Ling Ch'i Ching".Sawyer's work has it's uses, but I could never say "I like it"!Kashiwa's has known faults, but as the one to USE, it's still the only choice!

A nice alternative to the I Ching.

A nice alternative to the I Ching.