31.3 - Attraction is good, actually!

[ewald]

I thought it more polite not to post this in the Shared Readings area (where Forgiving someone 31.3>45 (http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=4771) prompted me to write this).

I think most'll agree that 31.3 is about attraction, possibly of a sexual nature. The influence is in the thighs, loins, groin, hips, or whatever.
I'm not too happy with Wilhelm and other translators attributing humiliation to it.

This is the Chinese text:
咸 其 股 ，
執 其 隨 ，
往 吝 。
The humiliation thing is coming from the last line. The thing that is humiliating, shameful, or inadequate, is what's indicated by the character 往. Wilhelm translates 往 with weitermachen (German original) / continue (Baynes translation). However, that's not really what 往 means.

The meaning of this character is by and large the same as the English to go, and can also mean to leave (just as to go can mean that). To go does not mean to continue, as to go is about starting to move. The same goes for 往.

In case of attraction, it can sometimes be a good idea to leave, but generally this is not so. On the contrary! It would be a bad idea! Why would you want to miss out on that!? And that's what this third sentence of 31.3 is saying: "Leaving is inadequate."

It is in fact understandable that Wilhelm translated this line so negatively. After all, as a Catholic missionary in the 1930's, he was probably taking sexuality to be morally bad. He translated this line according to his convictions.

This is how I translate 31.3:
Affecting the groin.
Holding on to what is followed.
Leaving is inadequate.

[hilary]

I've got a sense of two meanings for 'go' in the Yijing. One is to leave, as in leaving home, going away. The other is to 'go on in the same way'. Hexagram 39's many contrasts of 'going' and 'coming' seem to me to be contrasts between 'carry on going out, away from your home' and 'turn round and come back'. A parallel idea to northeast/ southwest.

Very glad you started this thread!

[ewald]

Hi Hilary,
In 39, I have "going through" for 往, and "arriving at" for 來. You "go through" something (some kind of trouble), in order to "arrive at" a certain outcome (or sometimes lack of outcome). Like you go to the dentist, in order to arrive at the situation where you can continue to use your teeth (39.4). So for me, that's still starting a certain movement, not continuing one.

I have some difficulty grasping your different take on these lines. Could you post some examples?

[hilary]

I picked up these ideas from the Shijing, where there are many conscripted soldiers and suitors who 'go' and 'come' - and pretty much without exception, they're going away from home and coming back home. (Or, in the case of the soldiers, wishing they could.)

How about 39.4?
'Going difficulties, coming connection.'
Keep on struggling uphill, and it'll stay difficult. Come back home, where there are people you can connect with.

Just a possibility, not The Interpretation, of course.

Have you read LiSe's work on wang and lai? It's good, nourishing stuff.

[ewald]

But isn't it so that soldiers and suitors who "go" and "come" are "leaving" and "arriving?" Similar as in 31.4 - 48.0 - 51.5, this is not continuation, but initiation.
I did a brief check for all instances of 往 in the Shijing, and didn't see any where Legge translates it with something like continuation. The "going" in the Shijing is not the same concept as the one you are using, which is continuation.

LiSe's "proceeding" is a nice find, in that it's a continuation that at the same time is an initiation. When proceeding, you start to continue.

Do I see it correctly, that according to your interpretation, with 39.1 - 39.3 - 39.4 - 39.6, the situation is always one of trouble/difficulty? One is always in trouble, but there is another option?
I think that each line in the Yi describes the intent of a single, unique situation. I can't quite see how in 4 lines there can always be a situation of trouble, in fact 4 times the same thing, with the same intent. The other situation that is possible, is still another situation that's drawn into the equasion, one that requires insight to be seen as an option. It's not really part of the same, single situation.

With my interpretation of these lines, there is 4 times trouble, but the intent differs, making it different situations. Also, these are single situations, with one intent.

[auriel]

"In 39, I have "going through" for 往, and "arriving at" for 來. You "go through" something (some kind of trouble), in order to "arrive at" a certain outcome - "

This is excellent, &revelatory. The text becomes cohesive if taken in the context of "contemplation-processing of obstacles" (and makes the sequence 38-40 cogent as well). A process must be undertaken for the obstructions to its completion to be rightly understood; then the solution may be fairly "arrived at". That solutions are generally compromises in the book's philosophical framework supports as well Hilary's reading of 39.4 here.

39.1 as the will to overcome
39.2 as engaging the task
39.3 as the (temporary) retreat upon recognition of the true extent, etc.

The Wilhelm, et al versions convey only the sense of "coming" as a friendly or open minded approach- fairly so perhaps, but obfuscatorially(sic)

In such contexts 31.4 could be read as pertaining to the always imminent passing of the attractive stage of a social, sexual, or commercial engagement- the obstacles to a truer deeper union then come to the fore.

[ewald]

Auriel - Had to reread that a couple of times in order to grasp what you wrote, but yes, interesting. (I wonder what my talk about "intent of situations" means to others..)

[sparhawk]

Just to add a little something about 往:

As a verb it means:
to go toward; to depart
but also means: formerly; past; bygone; gone; passed; frequently

As an adverb, it is used to indicate time or direction, as in 往前看 (to look forward)

[heylise]

Ewald: LiSe's "proceeding" is a nice find, in that it's a continuation that at the same time is an initiation. When proceeding, you start to continue.
No, I had nothing in mind like "starting to continue", that means you stopped and now you go on. To me proceeding means to proceed. Of course there can be a situation that you stopped and now you pick up the thread again where you left. But most of the time it is simply - well - proceeding. Going on in the same way that you were going.

Wang: go toward, in the direction of, toward; past, previous.
So it has to do with going towards a goal. Or going on from something and by doing that making it previous. A road which is quite defined in your mind. From here to there. Leaving from here and going to there.

That does not at all make wooing or sex interesting. Even when you have no moral troubles with it it is very good advice not to ‘proceed’ that way.

LiSe

[sparhawk]

This is how I translate 31.3:
Affecting the groin.
Holding on to what is followed.
Leaving is inadequate.BTW, I believe the above translation is very dangerous as it turns upside down the contextual meaning given by more than two thousand years of scholarly commentary. One thing is to play with characters and words and try to do literal translations and another is to discard what has been accumulated over centuries.


Before replying, please read Post 13 (http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showpost.php?p=59642&postcount=13) where I have further thoughts on this...

[heylise]

Mm, I guess previous is rather the 'something' itself which proceeded, so it left 'now' and became 'previous'.

LiSe

[sparhawk]

Mm, I guess previous is rather the 'something' itself which proceeded, so it left 'now' and became 'previous'.

LiSe

:confused::confused::confused:
:rofl:

[sparhawk]

BTW, I believe the above translation is very dangerous as it turns upside down the contextual meaning given by more than two thousand years of scholarly commentary. One thing is to play with characters and words and try to do literal translations and another is to discard what has been accumulated over centuries.

Quoting myself, I've been thinking further Ewald's translation and perhaps I can see a little clearly what he means. On the one hand, the consensus sits along the lines of 往吝 meaning something like "going forward will cause regret" (as in keeping the current path or train-of-thought). On the other hand, Ewald sees it as "leaving" what is regretful or inadequate and I understand it based on a possible meaning of 往, which is perhaps fine but I stick to what I say above about it departing from consensus. What I'm thinking is that, if we put both translations together, side by side, and if we sort of average it, what we obtain is something akin to "action is inadequate and/or regretful," whereby action is the operating word here.

Does it make sense?

[ewald]

Luis, I think consensus is highly biased.
Confucianism, the source of the lion's share of the historical scholarly commentary, has its own agenda. I think that that agenda does not fit with the one of the writers of the original Zhouyi. Then, there is the post-Legge and post-Wilhelm consensus, which is all highly influenced by, you guessed it, Legge and Wilhelm.

Please allow me to look afresh at the material.

[sparhawk]

Avoiding Confucian thought to get closer to the original Zhouyi doesn't mean to automatically take a diametrical interpretation and/or translation of the text. Not saying this is your posture but we, all of us, must mind all perspectives. We are, after all, creatures of our environment and said environment encompasses also what we learn along the way.

In any case, taking Jou, Tsung Hwa's translation, which is considered to be from a Daoist interpretation, 31.3 reads:

The influence shows itself in the thighs. It holds on to what responds to it. To continue with this brings an upset.

Browsing through my books, I found a nice interpretation of this line by Franklin Hum Yun: (http://www.amazon.com/Centered-Life-Introduction-Universal-Principles/dp/1571972692/ref=sr_1_31/104-1966114-1723907?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192136701&sr=8-31)

Refrain from plunging into an action impetuously. Set your goal high and proceed with a well-thought-out plan and implement it one step at a time. You are blessed with many human resources to carry out your plans.

Line 3-9: This yang line is at e top of the lower trigram Mountain (halt), contiguous to 2-6 and correlating with 6-6. The yang line indicates an urge to move aggressively. The influence has reached its third level, the thigh. The thighs move along with the calves and the toes, but it is strongly influenced by 4-9.
The images signify that the influence is felt in the thighs. The metaphor means that this man has too strong an urge to influence others with every desire of his heart, which will lead him to humiliation. He must be able to hold back his desires so tat he can appropriately differentiate as to whom to influence (1-6, 2-6, and 6-6) or by whom to be infuenced by (4-9). Any capricious move to act at this time is inauspicious and will cause him regret.

[hilary]

I'm pretty sure that the going/coming lines of 39 are making a contrast, and talking about changing direction. I think the primary meaning is going out, away from the home vv coming back home, and a secondary meaning that follows from that would be going on along the same path versus turning round and coming back. Whichever - the change of direction is important. The Image authors seemed to think so, and they had their wits about them.

[charly]

...I think most'll agree that 31.3 is about attraction, possibly of a sexual nature...
...In case of attraction, it can sometimes be a good idea to leave, but generally this is not so. On the contrary! It would be a bad idea!...
...Wilhelm ... was probably taking sexuality to be morally bad...
This is how I translate 31.3:
Affecting the groin.
Holding on to what is followed.
Leaving is inadequate.

Hi, Ewald:

I believe you'r right! I think that H.31 is, among many other things, about the «feast of catching women» (1), not exactly marriage.

I think that the most accurate translation of 咸 is «SHOCK» and for 感 is «EMOTION» (instead of mouvement). I believe that both are not equivalent, the 1sth. more action oriented, the 2nd. more subjective. I temporary prefer «TO SHAKE». (2)

Maybe 31.3 like a «light, camera, action! CLACK!» is encouraging somebody for sexual action, but not going too fast, not forgetting the follower.

Thus I could translate 33.3 as:
咸其股 Shake that thigh, (3)
執其隨 Grasp that follower,
往吝 [but] to go [is] stingy.

A good advice for both girls and boys: don't hurry him, don't forget her, compatible with old chinese «sex-lore».

Don't you agree?

Yours,

Charly



_________________________
(1) Some stuff I had posted about : http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showpost.php?p=57558&postcount=27

(2) Another post:
http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showpost.php?p=57608&postcount=34

(3) In spanish «to move the bottom» exhorts to action.

[ewald]

Luis - I've found Cleary's Taoist and Buddhist I Chings both quite reminiscent of Wilhelm's interpretation. I don't know Jou, Tsung Hwa's translation, but someone in the 20th century translating the I Ching was probably influenced by Wilhelm's work.

My first version was, like so many other translations, close to Wilhelm's, despite me avoiding referring to his work (I did refer to other translations). But upon continued studying, so much didn't seem to quite make sense. When inner consistency isn't there, or things don't fit with psychological or spiritual knowledge, while an alternative translation does, I prefer to go with consistency.

[ewald]

As for translating 往吝 with "continuing is inadequate" (or shameful, humiliating, whatever), I think there would have been 貞吝 if that meaning was intended (as in 11.6 - 32.3 - 35.6 - 40.3 ).

往 and 貞 are both used a lot in the Yi, and have clearly distinct meanings. The former to go, the latter to persist, continue. I think it's highly unlikely that these would be mixed up, using 往 for to continue.

Muller (http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-dealt.pl?5f.xml+id%28%27c5f80%27%29) has this for 往:
To go (to some place), to advance, go towards, to depart, to set out. Opposite of [返 (http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-dealt.pl?8f.xml+id%28%27c8fd4%27%29)] and [來 (http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-dealt.pl?4f.xml+id%28%27c4f86%27%29)].
To arrive; to reach to. [至 (http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-dealt.pl?81.xml+id%28%27c81f3%27%29)]
To face (toward). [向 (http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-dealt.pl?54.xml+id%28%27c5411%27%29)]
To leave, to pass; to pass away. To go in the sense of not ever coming back. [去 (http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-dealt.pl?53.xml+id%28%27c53bb%27%29)]
A person who leaves, goes, or passes away. A departed one.
The past; anciently, formerly, gone. [昔 (http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-dealt.pl?66.xml+id%28%27c6614%27%29)]
Before, prior, already. [前 (http://www.buddhism-dict.net/cgi-bin/xpr-dealt.pl?52.xml+id%28%27c524d%27%29)]

I see nothing about continuing there, same in other dictionaries I consult.

[ewald]

Quoting myself, I've been thinking further Ewald's translation and perhaps I can see a little clearly what he means. On the one hand, the consensus sits along the lines of 往吝 meaning something like "going forward will cause regret" (as in keeping the current path or train-of-thought). On the other hand, Ewald sees it as "leaving" what is regretful or inadequate and I understand it based on a possible meaning of 往, which is perhaps fine but I stick to what I say above about it departing from consensus. What I'm thinking is that, if we put both translations together, side by side, and if we sort of average it, what we obtain is something akin to "action is inadequate and/or regretful," whereby action is the operating word here.

Does it make sense?
I think there's a clear distinction between "keeping the current path" (continuing) and "going forward" (initiating something).
If "action" would be the operating word, 行 would have been used.

[ewald]

Charly - :rofl:

I think it's about attraction, though, not necessarily sexually.

[jesed]

Hi Ewald

After all, as a Catholic missionary in the 1930's,
To say that Wilhelm was a catholic is like say Lao Tze was confucionist; or Kung Tze was a budhist.

he was probably taking sexuality to be morally bad.
If you read Wilhelm works like the Secret of the Golden Flower, you could guess this may be more your own assumptions than reality.

Even some catholic missionaries in the 1930's (and even in the Middle Age) believed sex is morally good.

He translated this line according to his convictions.

This could give the impression that this interpretation of humiliation in continuing the impulse wasn't present in the studies of the Yijing until this "catholic" came to write about it. Could it be that Wilhelm translated this line, not according with his convictions but according with the mayor chinese exegesis at his time (as Wilhelm itself said he made his translation)?

Best

[ewald]

If you read Wilhelm works like the Secret of the Golden Flower, you could guess this may be more your own assumptions than reality.

Could you back that up with a quote, please?


This could give the impression that this interpretation of humiliation in continuing the impulse wasn't present in the studies of the Yijing until this "catholic" came to write about it. Could it be that Wilhelm translated this line, not according with his convictions but according with the mayor chinese exegesis at his time (as Wilhelm itself said he made his translation)?
Sure, that's possible. But his talking about God in a couple of places shows that his own convictions definitely got into the mix.

[charly]

Avoiding Confucian thought to get closer to the original Zhouyi doesn't mean to automatically take a diametrical interpretation and/or translation of the text...
"...influence is felt in the thighs... this man has too strong an urge... which will lead him to humiliation... capricious move to act at this time is inauspicious and will cause him regret."

Luis:

Maybe there are another reasons for avoiding confucianism, one of which is to get closer to the received text of the ZhouYi, without the chorus of commentaries, without addings nor substitutions. I wonder why some people speaks of humiliation, regrets or inauspiciousness where the text puts (stingy, parsimonious, ...)

Do I continue thinking in spanish? (1)

«To go» and «to arrive» have perhaps in english the same sexual meaning that have the spanish equivalent words?

Maybe 31.3 is an advice («carpe diem») for proceeding to action and for not yet ending it. Do you find some sense in the whole hexagram context? I do.

Also it advices to put hands on work «grasp that follower» or «grasp what it follows». One who is proceeding to action puts his hands on something, or he takes something with his hands,thus «grasp it», «catch it»(2).

Action must not end (for now). If you go, you are stingy.

31.3 only says that, it don't speak about planifying.

Am I wrong?

Un abrazo,

Charly
___________________
(1) Shake that thigh: Do you associate it, like I do, with «move your bottom» [«mover el culo»], to act?

(2) Action starts: «catch yourself Cathy that we shall go to gallop!» [«agarrate Catalina, que vamos a galopar»] , do you know what means to gallop among classic greeks? If not you can imagine it.

[charly]

Charly - :rofl: I think it's about attraction, though, not necessarily sexually.
Thanks, Ewald:

Of course, not necessarily. Much meanings in the same text. :bows:

But I suspect W/B, both have in mind the same fixed idea. If we highlight the W/B text here and there we can get a small handbook of sexual advice. Whilhelm used to atenuate his light, to pass there with low profile, but he knows. I'm sure Baynes too.

What do you think about the «Shock» and «Shake» options instead of attraction, movements, cutting off, etc.?

Another thing: you had to read Wu Jing-Nuan, you can get it with e-mule, neither excessive modern nor excessive traditional, with handwritten chinese characters and accupuncture background.

Yours,

Charly

[ewald]

What do you think about the «Shock» and «Shake» options instead of attraction, movements, cutting off, etc.?
I haven't been able to find this meaning in any of the dictionaries I use. I compiled together, all, completely / unite, join / feel, be sensitive to, respond to, influence for 咸.

[sparhawk]

I think there's a clear distinction between "keeping the current path" (continuing) and "going forward" (initiating something).
If "action" would be the operating word, 行 would have been used.

No, I wasn't translating when I said that; I was intrepreting the possible meaning of the characters based on the context of the overall text of the line... Any number of characters could have been used to convey a similar meaning; it is the brain that connects the dots and finds meaning and associations. Mind you, I'm not saying my interpretation is correct but that it is a possible interpretation.

[sparhawk]

Luis - I've found Cleary's Taoist and Buddhist I Chings both quite reminiscent of Wilhelm's interpretation. I don't know Jou, Tsung Hwa's translation, but someone in the 20th century translating the I Ching was probably influenced by Wilhelm's work.

That's a big assumption... On the other hand, influence works both ways, as your own translations may start showing: one is to follow the flow/trend of the supposed influence and the other is to go the other way completely using said influence as a reference point.

My first version was, like so many other translations, close to Wilhelm's, despite me avoiding referring to his work (I did refer to other translations). But upon continued studying, so much didn't seem to quite make sense. When inner consistency isn't there, or things don't fit with psychological or spiritual knowledge, while an alternative translation does, I prefer to go with consistency.

There you have it. Your first translation, despite avoiding Wilhelm's work, came close to his. However, rather than taking it as unbiased, when finding similarities with his work, you took it as being "influenced" by it. Could it be possible that you first hunch was the correct one?

Now, perhaps you are also assuming there is an "inner consistency" in the text of the Yi, as in a linear textual narrative. This is a typical Western line of thought: to seek such consistencies. Eastern thought works on another level and is associative rather than linear. IMO, I don't believe there is a purposeful narrative in the Yi but a compilation of significant historical divinations; a collage of sorts, of much older texts, around a common theme at the hexagram level. That's why, in the West, we must "interpret" the original text together with literal translations and thus derive meaning.

[sparhawk]

I'm glad Jesed pointed out some or the inconsistencies written about Wilhelm. He was an ordained Protestant Minister and actually died in the year 1930. Another thing I'd like to point out to is that, by the time of the Sung, most Chinese scholars weren't able to read the original written characters of the Zhou era. For this I mean, if around that time, in their own land and culture, scholars were having problems interpreting ancient Zhou texts, we have no real hope, here in the West, of ever being 100% correct in the interpretation of what we are reading and translating. We can only hope for the best, while referring back to as much material as possible to find contextual meanings to support what we interpret.

[ewald]

There you have it. Your first translation, despite avoiding Wilhelm's work, came close to his. However, rather than taking it as unbiased, when finding similarities with his work, you took it as being "influenced" by it. Could it be possible that you first hunch was the correct one?
Why do you assume that my first version was unbiased? Like I said, I referred to other translations. I didn't assume that I was able to create a good translation from the start just by myself, so I looked a lot at the example of various other translations. Just like every other translator, I assume. I assumed at first that those texts would be different in lots of respects, given the ambiguity of the material, and I also assumed that they wouldn't be that much influenced by the two big examples. But nevertheless, my initial text, that was much influenced by other examples, but not much by Wilhelm, ended up being a lot like Wilhelm.

I didn't notice that at first, of course. I just noticed that my greater familiarity with the material, my compiling my own dictionary, my developing an advanced reference system in webpages, and other developments, made me spot more and more inconsistencies. Over time, I noticed that my developing scrutiny and creativity with this material, caused my text to drift further and further from Wilhelm's example.

And I realized that nowadays there is no such thing as a translation of the Zhouyi that is not influenced by Wilhelm. I think it's safe to say that every translator has experience with Wilhelm's text. Many, if not all translators who translate to create a divinitory text, initially rely on other examples to come to grasps with this. And every such translation initially is more like Wilhelm than it is after the translator has worked a while on it. I dare to say that it simply depends on the amount of work a translator spends after his or her initial verion how different the work will be from Wilhelm's. But every translation (and I repeat, every translation for divinitory purposes, not the work of Ruth, Kunst and the like) contains elements imitated from Wilhelm's.

And this is in fact a major reason for similarities between translations. Similarities are there because everyone is in one way or another influenced by Wilhelm. So similarities between translations can NOT be taken as an indication of correctness of a particular interpretation.


Now, perhaps you are also assuming there is an "inner consistency" in the text of the Yi, as in a linear textual narrative. This is a typical Western line of thought: to seek such consistencies. Eastern thought works on another level and is associative rather than linear. IMO, I don't believe there is a purposeful narrative in the Yi but a compilation of significant historical divinations; a collage of sorts, of much older texts, around a common theme at the hexagram level. That's why, in the West, we must "interpret" the original text together with literal translations and thus derive meaning.
Well, I leave it to you to assume there is no inner consistency. I think it's not farfetched to reckon with inner consistencies, like
hexagram title matches the hexagram theme
narratives in a particular line are logical
a particular line contains one theme, one situation, one intent
lines are part of the hexagram theme
lines contain unique situations and intent
....

[sparhawk]

Maybe there are another reasons for avoiding confucianism, one of which is to get closer to the received text of the ZhouYi, without the chorus of commentaries, without addings nor substitutions. I wonder why some people speaks of humiliation, regrets or inauspiciousness where the text puts (stingy, parsimonious, ...)

Hola Charly,

I find quite funny this eagerness of chucking to the trash-bin 2500 years of commentary based on possible Confucian taint. Since when has Confucianism become something utterly undesirable? Mind you, my own behavior is most un-Confucian, but it doesn't mean that I sneeze at it or discard it as undesirable. Now, another misconception is to think of the ZhouYi as a book we can hold in one hand, and the Yijing in the other. Let me remind all that, while we know there was such a book at some point in history, it doesn't exist anymore, untouched. We can speculate that by throwing away the Ten Wings we could obtain something close to the original ZhouYi but we would be wrong in assuming such a thing. It would be assuming too much.

This is the reason I find unreasonable to assume the Ten Wings tainted the ZhouYi as we don't know, for certain, what the original text of the ZhouYi was. Unfortunately, we are, all of us, translating the Yijing, not the ZhouYi.


Do I continue thinking in spanish? (1)

I don't believe the text is written imperatively, as in giving an order "to move/shake the thighs" but passively, as in describing the fact.

Un abrazo,

[sparhawk]

And this is in fact a major reason for similarities between translations. Similarities are there because everyone is in one way or another influenced by Wilhelm. So similarities between translations can NOT be taken as an indication of correctness of a particular interpretation.

So, you were horrified by the initial similarities and decided it must be wrong and that the right translation must, by default, be different?

Well, I leave it to you to assume there is no inner consistency. I think it's not farfetched to reckon with inner consistencies, like
hexagram title matches the hexagram theme
narratives in a particular line are logical
a particular line contains one theme, one situation, one intent
lines are part of the hexagram theme
lines contain unique situations and intent
....

Let me repeat what I said and you will see that it doesn't contradict what you are saying:
"IMO, I don't believe there is a purposeful narrative in the Yi but a compilation of significant historical divinations; a collage of sorts, of much older texts, around a common theme at the hexagram level."

[ewald]

That's in fact an interesting question, "Since when has Confucianism become something utterly undesirable?" Not the "when" actually, but the "why."

I see Confucianism as having a strong emphasis on morality, and living according to rules in order to be good. It is an intentionally strengthening of the superego.

The problem is that this strengthening of the superego goes at the expense of true nature. It serves to block spontaneous movement of the self. Divining the Yi for me personally is for getting more in touch with my true nature. It helps me get around emotions, defenses and the superego. I want to get rid of the superego, to be more in touch with myself, while Confucianism wants to strengthen it!

It isn't hard to see that for that I need to get rid of Confucian influences in the interpretation of the Zhouyi text. The Zhouyi doesn't have this (historically understandable) emphasis on strengthening the superego, on the contrary, it intends to defuse it, with these numerous instances of "without fault" (or "no blame" or whatever).

[For further reading on the superego, in this respect, I recommend Byron Brown's "Soul Without Shame" and Almaas's "Work on the Superego."]

[ewald]

So, you were horrified by the initial similarities and decided it must be wrong and that the right translation must, by default, be different?

No.
Of course not, I'm interested in creating a reliable translation, not just something that is different.

This is worth repeating:

Similarities between Yijing translations are there because every translator is in one way or another influenced by Wilhelm. So similarities can NOT be taken as an indication of correctness of a particular interpretation.

It goes without saying that similarities can in fact be there because translators all translated accurately, but it is in no way a guarantee.

[sparhawk]

That's in fact an interesting question, "Since when has Confucianism become something utterly undesirable?" Not the "when" actually, but the "why."

I see Confucianism as having a strong emphasis on morality, and living according to rules in order to be good. It is an intentionally strengthening of the superego.



I have to actually "work" for a while... :D I'll be back later to reply to this because it deserves a thoughtful answer.

[sparhawk]

It goes without saying that similarities can in fact be there because translators all translated accurately, but it is in no way a guarantee.


Ah, this makes much more sense to me...

[jesed]

The problem is that this strengthening of the superego goes at the expense of true nature.

If you read Confucius UNBIASED (can you do that?), you can see he said that ritual form (social conventions or morality) only has value when it is sincere (self true nature).

"Ritual" without "sincerity" is absolute worthless, in Confucius.

You have great assumptions and bias against Confucius and Wilhelm (and some times even seems you put them in the same bag).. but you also has some lack of knlowledge about them.

[sparhawk]

I did say "thoughtful," didn't I? Well, I don't know about that but I'll do my best to make sense... :D

That's in fact an interesting question, "Since when has Confucianism become something utterly undesirable?" Not the "when" actually, but the "why."

I see Confucianism as having a strong emphasis on morality, and living according to rules in order to be good. It is an intentionally strengthening of the superego.


What you say makes me wonder why you bothered translating the text at all... Seems to me that you are trying to disassociate the Yijing from its contextual Chinese culture. The moment you start pondering any ancient text, from any region, you must consider the culture that produced it and see it under that light to make any sense of it.

As I said above, we are translating the Yijing, not the ZhouYI. Thinking otherwise is, well, a bit delusional. Yes, it is assumed that the text of the Yi, sans the Ten Wings, is what we know of as the ZhouYi, but it is a big assumption. As far as I know, there are no extant copies of the original ZhouYi and the only thing that comes close, in antiquity are the Mawangdui scripts. So, we have to deal with the Yijing, knowing that it comes from the ZhouYi. However, we don't know, with much certainty, how truthful to the original ZhouYi is even the oldest found copy of the Yijing. What I'm getting at is that, no matter how hard we try, we cannot extricate a pure ZhouYi out of the received Yijing.

Living with the received Yijing is accepting many things, among them is that it was filtered, perhaps much more than we would like to acknowledge, by the Confucian school. After all, It was that school, and their contemporary imperial governments that agreed with its philosophical posture, that made the classic a "Jing."

Now, the ZhouYi, and other Chinese divination manuals of that time, were, more than anything, government tools. They were not for the public but used to make and support government policy. When Confucius reportedly started studying the Yi was out of admiration for the historical accuracy of its use and the records of the decisions that were based on its readings by historical characters. What I'm trying to say is that, as far as I can discern, there was no consideration for the "self" in the usage of the ZhouYi at the time of its inception; it was a tool used for the greater good of extended groups of people (i.e. nations) Thinking otherwise is to ignore the essential cultural nature of the ancient Chinese. What Confucius and his school did was to recognize the accuracy of said records, seeing how right decisions were made from readings, and devised commentaries whereby those messages could be used on a day-to-day basis. It was perhaps the Confucian School, more than any other, the one that brought the ZhouYi down to street level and provided for the "self" to use it.

Trying to "cleanse" Confucian thought out of the Yijing is not only throwing out the window a huge chunk of contextual cultural background, built over millennia of commentaries, but impossible to achieve with any accuracy. If you can't accept that fact, you may as well append a whole new text to the hexagrams.

To end these thoughts, you said:
"The problem is that this strengthening of the superego goes at the expense of true nature. It serves to block spontaneous movement of the self. Divining the Yi for me personally is for getting more in touch with my true nature. It helps me get around emotions, defenses and the superego. I want to get rid of the superego, to be more in touch with myself, while Confucianism wants to strengthen it!"

In my personal experience, I've never had any problems with the "spontaneous movement of my self" while using a work that may be tainted by Confucian thought. Nor, as far as I know, who knows how many thousands or millions of people using it on a daily basis. Actually, it is the spontaneous movement of their selves that makes them pick up the book and ask a question.

[hilary]

I'm pretty much always behind anyone saying, 'We can't know for sure' about the original Zhouyi. Which doesn't mean it isn't useful to go looking for it, just that it'd be dumb to claim to have found it for sure. (Speaking of useful: Ewald's translation is.)

What I'm trying to say is that, as far as I can discern, there was no consideration for the "self" in the usage of the ZhouYi at the time of its inception; it was a tool used for the greater good of extended groups of people (i.e. nations) Thinking otherwise is to ignore the essential cultural nature of the ancient Chinese.
And the key phrase here is 'as far as I can discern' ;) . Especially since you just said that we can't have direct contact with the nature of the Zhouyi at the time of its inception...

Regarding the 'essential cultural nature of the ancient Chinese' - which ancient Chinese, and how ancient? The Shang? The assorted myths, folk wisdom and un-reconstructable spiritual traditions that went into the text? Or the Han? Different animals.

Sometimes it is possible to see re-interpretation and re-translation at work, and a simplifying, character-by-character approach helps to create stronger, clearer readings. For an obvious example, see Wilhelm's version of 37.2, where a great deal is added, like 'she' and 'whims'. (I'm not saying he invented the additions!) Or 15.5, where 'boasting' is added and changes things utterly.

In 37.2, at least, it seems clear why the additions were needed. 15.5 is an extraordinary one, though. 'Rich in your neighbour,' the exact same phrase as in 9.5, is transformed into 'boasting of wealth before one's neighbour.' I would guess that's because the idea that you should invade and conquer to get what you need is morally unacceptable, therefore not something that a jing could say.

This seems a fairly clear case of interpretation, and hence translation, changing - but no-one's rewriten the Chinese text; the simple version is still there, available to be translated afresh.

[sparhawk]

I'm pretty much always behind anyone saying, 'We can't know for sure' about the original Zhouyi. Which doesn't mean it isn't useful to go looking for it, just that it'd be dumb to claim to have found it for sure. (Speaking of useful: Ewald's translation is.)

Well, I'm the first one in line to go looking for a glimpse of the original Zhouyi, so, no qualms there. Also, I'm not disqualifying Ewald's translation at all. It is his, done with a lot thought and effort, and for that, kudos to him and he should be proud of it. What I'm saying is that, with the received material, we cannot honestly believe we can separate all the Confucian chaff from the grain of the Zhouyi. Thus, the attitude of starting a translation, with opposing Confucian thought in mind, doesn't make much sense. For me, that's an unrealistic and incorrect premise. See, right there there is a stronger bias, in the opposite direction, than any so called Confucian thought he would find in the text. A more honest and realistic premise is to say "here we have some ancient Chinese text and I want to translate it into English." He did so, in a first instance, and found his translation similar to others and he appears to feel that that was the result of being "influenced" by other translators. I'm not in his mind but I don't think he was.

And the key phrase here is 'as far as I can discern' ;) . Especially since you just said that we can't have direct contact with the nature of the Zhouyi at the time of its inception...


My "discernment" is based on historical records, Hilary. I haven't found many of those with accounts of "should I take the job at X?," "Why doesn't M loves me?." or "where are my keys?"... I found many with accounts of harvest, battles and conquests and other matters of state. It doesn't mean that somebody in power, with access to diviners, wouldn't ask such questions. It means that there isn't much of a record of it, hence my empirical "discernment"...

Regarding the 'essential cultural nature of the ancient Chinese' - which ancient Chinese, and how ancient? The Shang? The assorted myths, folk wisdom and un-reconstructable spiritual traditions that went into the text? Or the Han? Different animals.


You are mentioning dynasties, in linear time, with their particular historical nuances, and I'm thinking of a very real archetypical undercurrent of Chinese culture that encompasses all of them, to this day. Those different dynasties and historical periods are very different animals in the same sense that a chiguagua is different from a great dane: both are still dogs...

Sometimes it is possible to see re-interpretation and re-translation at work, and a simplifying, character-by-character approach helps to create stronger, clearer readings.

Yes, Ritsema and Karcher and then Ritsema and Sabbadini did that. Great reference book, not much help in the way of readings... As you may have noticed, I love to play with my own Chinese translations, so no need to preach to the choir. Translating, per se, in any complicated or simplified way, is not the issue. The issue is seeing bias left and right and then do an about face in the other direction.

This seems a fairly clear case of interpretation, and hence translation, changing - but no-one's rewriten the Chinese text; the simple version is still there, available to be translated afresh.

No arguments there. You appear to think that I'm defending Wilhelm's translation. Well, I'm not. It is one of many translations, albeit a groundbreaking one. I'm all for fresh translations, although their appearance is becoming the rule, rather that the exception. I have a bookcase full of over 100 Western translations and interpretations of the Yi. Actually, more to the point, I'm all for reading and using the Yi in the original Chinese.

[ewald]

... he said that ritual form (social conventions or morality) only has value when it is sincere (self true nature).
Ritual form, by definition, is not spontaneous - true nature is utterly spontaneous.

Sincerity is by no means equal to being one's true nature. Sincerely wanting to be unspontaneous has nothing to do with being one's true nature; it has to do with distrusting true nature.

[ewald]

In my translation, I'm in fact not opposing Confucianism. I do that elsewhere, like on this forum. In my translation, I'm ignoring Confucian influence.

As an example, I'm aware that interpreting 孚 as "sincerity" results from Confucian influence, and I ignore that. I examine the Zhouyi text, and find that translating it as trust or confidence makes much more sense. Using "sincerity" isn't quite logical, when you look at the contexts, and where 孚 is in the text, there usually is an issue with confidence or trust. But if I had found that "sincerity" fits just fine, of course, I had used that. (The Zhouyi btw has a different character for sincerity in 63.5: 實.)

It is pretty hard to write any translation, and doing that unbiased. With an ambiguous text like the Zhouyi, it's simply impossible. Anyone translating it is going to be influenced by other translations and by having or lacking related knowledge.

The text is hard to translate, so when things are unclear, there's always the solution at hand of looking up what other translators did. When there's no alternative, any translator will copy, perhaps with different words, what some other translator did, or what is remembered from some other translation.

Having psychological and spiritual knowledge, you will translate lots of lines according to what you know. You may see that blaming the bad guy for one's own frustration, as many translators have the Yi do in 12.1, is just a defense (in psychological terms), and as such unworthy of the Yi, and you'll examine possible alternatives more thoroughly. Knowing that being goal oriented is an attribute of the ego, and not of the true self, interpreting the last sentence of 25.0 is simple.

As the Zhouyi contains so many psychological and spiritual elements, there is not so much need to refer to historical interpretations of the text, if you have enough of such knowledge from other sources.

[ewald]

I see the Zhouyi as a tool to get around the obfuscating influences of emotions, psychological defenses (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_mechanism) and the superego, to see the reality of situations. If one could be one's true self, one would see it all without the need for an oracle to clarify things. So a spiritual development for accessing the true self has distinctly something in common with an oracle such as the Yi.

This makes it quite likely that the people who created the Zhouyi were in fact spiritual people, in the sense that they were interested in the true self and enlightenment, and truth. The Zhouyi thus reflects their knowledge.

This explains why having psychological and spiritual knowledge is in fact a very great help in translating the Zhouyi.

[hilary]

My "discernment" is based on historical records, Hilary.
Fair point. The sensible conclusion from oracle bones is that divination was about royal decision-making for the good of the country, no more, no less. However... well, we don't have records of the first uses of the Zhouyi (there's a substantial gap before the Zuozhuan), and it's uncanny how much can be learned about the self from using the book... In other words, I think this is another area where the jury's permanently out.

Constant undercurrent in Chinese culture? mm. Of course I don't know this, but I do get the feeling that the priorities and desires of those who made tiger changes were different from those who formalised the rituals or categorised the world by element.

By the way, I have a slightly odd perspective on all this translation stuff, since I first started doing readings that I could relate to with the Ritsema/Karcher version. I didn't get a copy of W/B for some time (a year, maybe?), and I've never used it as a main source for divination. The first book I open is still R&K (or R&S now, as R&K disintegrated).

The odd thing was that as I started trying to piece together interpretations and express them in real English, I would occasionally find that what I'd triumphantly arrived at after hours of thought was sitting there waiting for me in the pages of W/B.

Ewald, when you talk about translating in a certain way because of what you know to be true, it seems to me you're doing exactly what Wilhelm did, only with a different set of knowledge. Which, come to think of it, is completely reasonable, and could be the only way to translate anything.

[ewald]

Ewald, when you talk about translating in a certain way because of what you know to be true, it seems to me you're doing exactly what Wilhelm did, only with a different set of knowledge. Which, come to think of it, is completely reasonable, and could be the only way to translate anything.
Indeed.

[sparhawk]

Fair point. The sensible conclusion from oracle bones is that divination was about royal decision-making for the good of the country, no more, no less. However... well, we don't have records of the first uses of the Zhouyi (there's a substantial gap before the Zuozhuan), and it's uncanny how much can be learned about the self from using the book... In other words, I think this is another area where the jury's permanently out.

In all fairness, it isn't farfetched to think, or even conclude, that the divination tradition that eventually gave us the Zhouyi and the Yijing, started in shamanic traditions at the commoners level and was later on appropriated by the elite for their own purposes. So, I'm not disagreeing with you.

Constant undercurrent in Chinese culture? mm. Of course I don't know this, but I do get the feeling that the priorities and desires of those who made tiger changes were different from those who formalised the rituals or categorised the world by element.


Exactly! Tiger changes, and those behind it, are circumstantial and run on a faster track. Ancient spiritual traditions and their development run slower and come to define homogeneity in a given culture.

By the way, I have a slightly odd perspective on all this translation stuff, since I first started doing readings that I could relate to with the Ritsema/Karcher version. I didn't get a copy of W/B for some time (a year, maybe?), and I've never used it as a main source for divination. The first book I open is still R&K (or R&S now, as R&K disintegrated).

Brave and persevering woman!! LOL R&K/R&S is quite an unforgiving first approach to the Yi... :D

Ewald, when you talk about translating in a certain way because of what you know to be true, it seems to me you're doing exactly what Wilhelm did, only with a different set of knowledge. Which, come to think of it, is completely reasonable, and could be the only way to translate anything.

Well, I agree with Hilary on this. Ewald, after reading your last two posts, I've come to understand your point of view regarding your translation of the Yi. Thanks for clarifying that for me.

[heylise]

Hilary: By the way, I have a slightly odd perspective on all this translation stuff, since I first started doing readings that I could relate to with the Ritsema/Karcher version. I didn't get a copy of W/B for some time (a year, maybe?), and I've never used it as a main source for divination. The first book I open is still R&K (or R&S now, as R&K disintegrated).
The odd thing was that as I started trying to piece together interpretations and express them in real English, I would occasionally find that what I'd triumphantly arrived at after hours of thought was sitting there waiting for me in the pages of W/B.

I started in exactly the same way. I did have Wilhelm, but could never make any sense of it. So I made my own Yi, word after word, with R&K and dictionaries and no other translation at all. On purpose, I did not want to be influenced. Only when I had finished I got others. And Wilhem is every time again the best one. I had exactly the same experience: what I found with so much effort very often was there in W/B. Of course he has things I don’t agree with, but not that many. It is easy to see where he speaks the language of his time, and I don’t mind. I simply transpose it into this time, which is just as limited as his time, just a bit differently.

I like Confucius a lot. Back then it was common practice to chop up people or even entire families, and kings were really awful. He did a lot to change that, teaching people that others had feelings and rights, for most a very new thought then. There is still a lot to do for him, even now in our ‘enlightened’ time. Certainly nothing about super-egos, quite the contrary.

Ewald: Ritual form, by definition, is not spontaneous - true nature is utterly spontaneous.
Sincerity is by no means equal to being one's true nature. Sincerely wanting to be unspontaneous has nothing to do with being one's true nature; it has to do with distrusting true nature.

I cannot agree with this at all, both. Real ritual is closely connected to true nature, it is like the bones which hold a body upright. Of course, ‘rules and forms’ are not spontaneous, and many rituals have degraded to just that. But the origin of ritual is deeply embedded in our psyche. Occasionally it can even be a truer expression of our true self than anything we can think of in a conscious way. It expresses images deeper than our thinking.

Sincerity comes from being/doing sincerely what one holds for valuable. What you call ‘sincerely wanting’ is something totally different, it has nothing to do with sincerity, only with wishes and aims and such. It is imperative or compelling rather than sincere.

I admire anyone who has the guts to find his own entrance to the Yi by tackling the Chinese. So even though I don’t agree with some things you say, or maybe just the way you say them, I still admire your Big Work. It is like the work of alchemists, they turned to an obscure chemistry the way we turn to this ancient obscure chinese. If it was clear and defined, it would not have this transforming power.

LiSe

[hilary]

I'm absolutely no kind of expert, but isn't 'Chopping people up is wrong' the kind of useful thing a super-ego might say?

[jesed]

Ritual form, by definition, is not spontaneous - true nature is utterly spontaneous.

Sincerity is by no means equal to being one's true nature. Sincerely wanting to be unspontaneous has nothing to do with being one's true nature; it has to do with distrusting true nature.

This is your point of view. I don't argue agaisnt it. But it is not Confucius point of view.

Who is now proyecting his own convictions?

Best

[jesed]

Indeed.
let me see..
you did what Wilhelm did..

You discard and blame Wilhelm for doing it, and therefore...

:confused:

Best

[dobro]

And Wilhem is every time again the best one.

WB is the best one if you're looking for a public Yi. But for me, my own version is best. Isn't that true for you too?

[dobro]

The text is hard to translate, so when things are unclear, there's always the solution at hand of looking up what other translators did. When there's no alternative, any translator will copy, perhaps with different words, what some other translator did, or what is remembered from some other translation.

Or you can consult the Yi on any question of translation you're struggling with. I've been doing it for years. The results are no more definitive or final than they are when you try a left brain approach, but the rendition changes over time with repeated consultations in a way which is organic and true to you.

[ewald]

I had exactly the same experience: what I found with so much effort very often was there in W/B. Of course he has things I don’t agree with, but not that many.
I have only had a look at the R/K in a bookshop, but I noticed some limitations that it has. There's the interpunction, and there's the dictionary it contains.

The original Zhouyi text does not have interpunction. Wilhelm and R/K both use an interpunction that was established somewhere in history (I don't know by who, perhaps someone can fill that in?). When you assume that this interpunction is correct, you are limited in what everything means. I stopped assuming that, and found that by changing interpunction, I could translate many lines with much more inner consistency. Allowing myself the freedom to play with interpunction is one of the reasons my translation ended up quite differently from Wilhelm's.

Now R/K does not allow for changing the interpunction: it is printed in the book. This limitation makes it more likely that you'll end up with renderings similar to Wilhelm's.

The dictionaries you have access to, and how you trust them for being applicable, is a big factor in translating the Zhouyi. When using just the R/K, you are quite limited in that: there's what R/K found applicable. This is another reason that using R/K for translating will get you to end up with a translation close to Wilhelm's: the dictionaries in R/K and what Wilhelm used probably have quite some similarity.

As an example, let's take a look at 悔. (It is there in 1.6 - 13.6 - 16.3 - 18.3 - 24.1 - 24.5 - 31.4 - 31.5 - 32.2 - 34.4 - 34.5 - 35.3 - 35.5 - 37.1 - 37.3 - 38.1 - 38.5 - 43.4 - 45.5 - 47.6 - 49.0 - 49.4 - 50.3 - 52.5 - 57.4 - 57.5 - 58.2 - 59.2 - 59.3 - 60.6 - 64.4 - 64.5.)
Let me guess: R/K has just some variations on regret (as this is what most dictionaries have). This will lead to sentences like "Regret goes away," or "Remorse disappears" as Wilhelm has, for 悔亡.
Now does that make sense? The Zhouyi describes situations that are there at a particular moment in time, while regret refers to something in the past. That's a breach of internal consistency.
I had "regret" for a long time in my translation, when I finally realized that when I read that, I wasn't actually taking it to mean "regret," but some meaning related to that, taken in the present time. I checked the dictionaries again, and all had "regret" and such - except for the ShuoWen, which has 恨 as a synonym, which means resent, hate, regret. Then I changed it to "aversion" everywhere, which fits perfectly.

If I'm correct, you'd never had gotten to that meaning by just using R/K. You'd always end up with something like what Wilhelm has.

[ewald]

I'm absolutely no kind of expert, but isn't 'Chopping people up is wrong' the kind of useful thing a super-ego might say?
Absolutely.
In ego development, the development of the superego is indeed very useful.
Historically, development of a superego is unavoidable and necessary.

But when, as an adult, you do want to be your true nature, get enlightened, it's something very limiting that is very much in the way. It causes lots to go into the unconscious, and that's contrary to true nature.

In the cause of spiritual development, kindness and compassion (42.5) need to develop for even to be able to access your true nature. And these take care of being "good" much better than the superego ever can.

[hilary]

Or you can consult the Yi on any question of translation you're struggling with. I've been doing it for years.
Me, too! Not as the only method, only after much scouring of options and searching of Shijing, but it does help. Or sometimes it simply mirrors back, with perfect clarity, the meaning I'm considering - 'What about reading it as meaning x?' 'That would mean x.' 'Thanks...'

Punctuation - good point, as it were ;) But it's by no means always the same in R&K as it is in Wilhelm. But a bigger reason on why you won't get anything very similar to Wilhelm: their practice of one word per character, and of course no commentary.

As for translation of individual words - where's Harmen when we need him? 'Regret' and 'regrets vanish' make perfect sense to me. Either is very much something that happens in the present moment.

[ewald]

'Regret' and 'regrets vanish' make perfect sense to me. Either is very much something that happens in the present moment.
But that presupposes having done something, oneself, that got one into an unpleasant situation. Though it's certainly possible, I don't see that in many lines.

There's not necessarily a choice to be subject to "bitter limitations" in 60.6, that the situation dissolves in 59.2, to be subject to a "change in command" in 49.4. In 43.4, one may have regrets to have gotten into the fight that one lost, but surrendering ("leading a sheep") won't make those regrets go away, on the contrary; one may however overcome one's aversion to surrendering. Similarly in 38.5, what gets away is aversion to bridging the differences, not regret to having gotten into that situation. In 38.1, it is not oneself who is to blame for losing the horse, it is that other person.

In 16.3, how can one regret delay? That's there at present, and not necessarily caused by oneself. No, there is aversion, dislike, to the delay.

[sparhawk]

Now does that make sense? The Zhouyi describes situations that are there at a particular moment in time, while regret refers to something in the past. That's a breach of internal consistency.

Before I wrap my mind in and around another lengthy series of messages, can you elaborate on that? Not sure what you are saying there...


I had "regret" for a long time in my translation, when I finally realized that when I read that, I wasn't actually taking it to mean "regret," but some meaning related to that, taken in the present time. I checked the dictionaries again, and all had "regret" and such - except for the ShuoWen, which has ? as a synonym, which means resent, hate, regret. Then I changed it to "aversion" everywhere, which fits perfectly.


The text of the Yi has a very specific character as meaning "regret." Why would you want to substitute it with synonyms to fit your vision of the text? I seriously doubt that, whoever compiled the Zhouyi/Yijing, had a Chinese thesaurus sitting next to his ink stone...

[sparhawk]

But that presupposes having done something, oneself, that got one into an unpleasant situation. Though it's certainly possible, I don't see that in many lines.

Of course it is possible! I'm starting to think that you are seeing the text much more as a subjective translator than as a somebody that uses the Yi to do any kind of readings... There can be any number of situations where "regret vanishes," or where will experience "regret." Not sure where you get the idea that the Yi shows only present situations...

In 16.3, how can one regret delay? That's there at present, and not necessarily caused by oneself. No, there is aversion, dislike, to the delay.

For me the text is translated as "delaying (or procrastinating) causes 'regret'," not as "regretting delay" (遲有悔) Very subtle but meaningful difference.

[sparhawk]

BTW, since we've mentioned R&S/R&K, they translate 悔 as "repent" and then they write: "Hui: regret, dissatisfaction with our past conduct inducing a change of heart; proceeds from abashment."

[cesca]

Real ritual is closely connected to true nature, it is like the bones which hold a body upright. Of course, ‘rules and forms’ are not spontaneous, and many rituals have degraded to just that. But the origin of ritual is deeply embedded in our psyche. Occasionally it can even be a truer expression of our true self than anything we can think of in a conscious way. It expresses images deeper than our thinking.
LiSe

I know the discussion has moved on, but I want to say that I agree wholeheartedly with LiSe.

I’m someone who usually kicks against rules and favours the spontaneous. But I do have an appreciation for the power of ritual to support ‘true nature’.

I’ve just now come back from a six-hour ritual with fourteen other women, to celebrate the passage of a dear friend into mid-life. (In the past year, her youngest child finished school and left home; her ex-husband remarried; and she had a hysterectomy). We performed ritual; it was ritual that we designed ourselves, but it was ritual nonetheless. And it made a container in which our friend could undergo an initiation into the next phase of her life, leaving behind a lot of old grudges and attitudes that no longer served her, and embracing a life more faithful to her ‘true nature’.

My own consistent experience is that ritual supports true nature.
Cesca

[hilary]

Yes, procrastination definitely brings about regret in 16.3 - and if you look across to the fan yao, you see how that might happen.

[heylise]

I use R&K (R&S) for its word by word rendition, not for its translation. I used to look a lot in the list of words, as a help for finding them in dictionaries, but when I got Wenlin, I did not need that anymore. R&S is not very good as dictionary. Lots of meanings are missing, and here and there subjective ones have been put into it which didn’t come from a dictionary but from a personal idea about it.

To me R&S’ 16.3 looks like this: Skeptical provide-for repent procrastinate possess repent. I can arrange the characters entirely the way I see as right. Repent procrastination, or procrastinating brings regret, or even repent procrastinate possess. Many possibilities. I used it a lot in divination because it was the easiest one for ‘thinking away’ everything which was not relevant, like comma’s, all those colons, or connecting words put in between the characters for turning it into a logical sentence.

The same character is always represented by the same word. I got to know them simply by meeting them over and over again, so I knew the meanings I had found for them in dictionaries, without having to choose one which made sense in a particular sentence. They kept their general meaning. R&S' translation was only the tag which reminded me of that general meaning.

When I really started to use R&S for readings, the Yi started to speak to me. There were no defined sentences anymore, there was a freely flowing general meaning. I think very much like the Chinese itself has wide meanings. You feel it instead of understanding it rationally.

Ewald: "The Zhouyi describes situations that are there at a particular moment in time"
I think most of the lines in the Yi are not at all in a particular time. They are advice. Of course it can happen that a question asks for an answer which talks about a particular time, but in my experience that happens not very often. “Procrastinating brings regret” – when? First of all you’d have to procrastinate. If you follow the advice, and don’t procrastinate, then there will be no regret. But if you did/do, then there was – or is – or will be regret.

I think what I have problems with, is your certainty of what lines mean. Of course in a certain situation, it can mean exactly that. But what about the zillion other situations it applies to? I take just one of your examples: “In 38.1, it is not oneself who is to blame for losing the horse, it is that other person.” How do you know? Another time it is you who made it get lost, still another time a passing train scared it, or whatever else might have happened.

It is a danger of translating Chinese, in my eyes the largest one, that it narrows the meanings down too much. It is almost impossible not to let that happen.

LiSe

[jesed]

I checked the dictionaries again, and all had "regret" and such - except for the ShuoWen, which has 恨 as a synonym, which means resent, hate, regret.

So, your synonym also means regret; isn't?

Again, this is not about Zhouyi (btw you hasn't answer Luis' comment about how you can say how Zhouyi looked anyway) but your own personal views.

You don't like "regret" (that word should mean something negative to you, maybe linked with moral/religion), so you need not to use it.

Wasn't this the reason you use to discard Wilhelm in the first post of this thread?
After all, as a Catholic missionary in the 1930's, he was probably taking sexuality to be morally bad. He translated this line according to his convictions.

[hmesker]

As for translation of individual words - where's Harmen when we need him?

I'm here, I'm here!

I checked the dictionaries again, and all had "regret" and such - except for the ShuoWen, which has 恨 as a synonym, which means resent, hate, regret.

That's not what the Shuo Wen says. The Shuo Wen says "悔，悔恨也" - see here (http://www.gg-art.com/imgbook/ViewImg.php?bookdetailid=6899), here (http://chinese.dsturgeon.net/text.pl?node=26160&if=gb&search=%BB%DA), here (http://shuowen.chinese99.com/index.php?action=displaychar&num=6851), here (http://www.internationalscientific.org/CharacterASP/CharacterEtymology.aspx?characterInput=%E6%82%94&submitButton1=Etymology) or 漢語大字典-4.2305.13. 悔 means 悔恨, and 悔恨 is a fixed expression, meaning 'regret deeply'. There is no 'resent', 'hate' or 'aversion' in 悔. A quick summary from the 漢語大詞典 for the meanings of 悔:

1.悔恨；後悔。 Regret deeply; regret
2.悔過；改過。 Repent; correct one's mistakes
3.謂翻悔，悔賴。 Back out; be repentant
4.過失；災禍。 Fault, error; disaster, calamity
5.指歸罪，追究。 Put the blame on; punish
6.《易》卦的外卦，即上三爻。 A hexagram's outer gua, the upper three lines
7.通“ 晦 ”。盡。 Same as "晦". Use up, exhaust
8.通“ 晦 ”。倒霉。 Same as "晦". Be out of luck

As you see, there is no 'resent' etc. in it. Most translation use 'regret' or 'repent'; not because they follow Wilhelm, but because they give a proper translation of hui which fits the usage of this character throughout Chinese history.

Harmen.

[hilary]

I'm here, I'm here!
I was hoping you might be :)
How's the Dagboek?

[hmesker]

How's the Dagboek?

Waiting patiently for me to write in it. It's a matter of time. Which, I am told, doesn't exist. They are right; at the moment it does not exist in my universe.

Harmen.

[jesed]

悔 means 悔恨, and 悔恨 is a fixed expression, meaning 'regret deeply'.

The trouble here is Ewald didn't take 悔恨 as a fixed expression. he just taked 恨 isolated. If you take 恨 alone, the results are those Ewald said:
http://www.internationalscientific.org/CharacterASP/CharacterEtymology.aspx?characterInput=%E6%81%A8&submitButton1=Etymology

Now, there is no reason to take 恨 isolated, and if you have 悔恨, you have "regret-regret": what Harmen said "deeply regret" because double-meaning = intensty of the meaning

But even if you don't take 恨 as regret but hate, you would have something like "hatred regret" and that also convey the meaning of deeply regret.

Of course, the trouble is not in the dictionaries, but in how we use them.

[auriel]

I deeply regret that I hesitated in my youth to study Chinese, lazily thinking I could trust the experts; for now I am forced to sit on the sidelines of these learned discussions, although I know I have much to contribute

just so should 16.3 be interpreted (in this context)

[ewald]

My own consistent experience is that ritual supports true nature.
Cesca
I think your experience in actuality is that you can get some limited sort of access to aspects of true nature using ritual. This is not dissimilar to using the Yijing to access true nature.

It is however not true nature itself, just like the act of consulting the Yijing is not true nature. It's a crutch.

[ewald]

Yes, procrastination definitely brings about regret in 16.3 - and if you look across to the fan yao, you see how that might happen.
I don't think enthusiasm brings about procrastination. On the contrary, it brings about impatience to get to the object of your enthusiasm. The latter is what I see this line being about in example readings I collected from this forum:
- Seeker at http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=1851&page=2
Where am I now with Thomas? 16.3.4 to 15 [...]
So this is some giant test of my patience and endurance. - Bruce at http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=2319&page=2
A little funky side note: This afternoon I'm going in to record a solo I recorded previously from home. [....] and this morning 16.3-62. (I said it was important to me! lol) http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?t=1823
There is now a full-time opening and I am very interested. In fact, it would be my dream job. However, my boss [.....]
Then I asked about the best way for me to approach my boss about the position, and my answer was 16 with lines 3 and 4 changing into 15.It is clear (especially in the first two examples) that delays are resented here, because these people are very enthusiastic about something that they can't access yet. They can only "stare" at the object of their enthusiasm.

[ewald]

Originally Posted by ewald http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/showthread.php?p=59741#post59741)
Now does that make sense? The Zhouyi describes situations that are there at a particular moment in time, while regret refers to something in the past. That's a breach of internal consistency.
Before I wrap my mind in and around another lengthy series of messages, can you elaborate on that? Not sure what you are saying there...
Let's say that a divination describes what's happening at 2:00. If at that time regret is going away, that regret is about something that happened before 2:00, let's say at 1:50. At 1:50 however, there's another situation than at 2:00.
Now there are two situations drawn into one line, the situation at 2:00 and the one at 1:50. However the Yi describes a single situation in each line, so this cannot be the case. As such, it's a breach of internal consistency.
(Note: don't take the exact times too literary. Situations take more time than a second.)

Taking 悔 to mean aversion, dislike, resent, doesn't have that problem. You simply dislike a situation. The dislike going away means you get used to a situation. Regret is a special case of disliking a situation, one where it was your choice and responsibility to do (or do not do) something that evolved into a situation you don't like. As I showed, that isn't always applicable.

[jesed]

Taking 悔 to mean aversion, dislike, resent, .... As I showed, that isn't always applicable.

What you doesn't show is the reason to exclude regret even from the dictionary you quoted.

Funny that you avoid to reply to Harmen and me about that.

Let's say I pick 10 dictionaries (I don't know exactly how many you picked) to understand one word ("X").
10 of 10 dictionaries say "X" means "Y"
1 of those 10 dictionaries, beside "Y" also (not instead) provide "Z" as meaning.

How should I understand "X"? What is more reasonable? "Y" or "Z"?

best

[hmesker]

I know that a major criterion for Ewald is that his translation must fit the theme of the hexagram or line, which is partly dictated by past experiences of users (Ewald, please correct me if I'm wrong). If his initial translation does not fit this general experience then he considers his translation wrong. In my view he isn't very concerned with a correct translation, what is more important to him is an interpretation that fits his idea's. This can be seen in this thread: because he is not satisfied with meaning Y, he chooses the one dictionary which he thinks gives as meaning Z, which fits his ideas. Unfortunately he misreads that dictionary, and Z isn't a meaning of X after all. But Z fits his view of the text, so I think he will be inclined to maintain that meaning, even when it is not a correct translation.

It's the intention that creates the translation. Every Yijing user should be aware of that.

Harmen.

[ewald]

Funny that you avoid to reply to Harmen and me about that.
I don't have all the time in the world, unfortunately. I don't have all day to respond to any disagreement with my position anyone posts.

The reason I haven't selected any of your posts to respond to yet, Jesed, is that you merely seemed annoyed, and was wondering about things that would have been clear if you had merely taken the trouble to read, and not just scan, what was already there.

I haven't had time to get into Harmen's post. And to respond to it, I first have to make clear my position that "regret" doesn't fit in the context in all instances. Meaning is first of all established in context, so whatever a dictionary says, if context doesn't allow for a particular meaning, it's no option.


If you'll all excuse me, I may not be back for the end of next week.
Actually, it'll probably be even after that.

[jesed]

For the next week ;)

The reason I haven't selected any of your posts to respond to yet, Jesed, is that you merely seemed annoyed,


a) You did respond to some of my post. You started not to respond to me when i pointed you was doing the same you critize on Wilhelm.
b) Merely seemed annoyed? it's your personal point of view, again proyecting your own convictions. For the record, I'm not "annoyed"; I do like (and have benefit) when you provide lingustical reasons for your personal rendering. But I also question you when your reason is pretty much like "to differ from Wilhelm" even against linguistical (or historical) reasons; like in this case of regret.

and was wondering about things that would have been clear if you had merely taken the trouble to read.
Here you are so close to lightofreason. Great argument :)

Best

[ewald]

Here you are so close to lightofreason. Great argument :)

Yeah, and that's such a great argument of you.
You learn to be polite, if you want me to respond to you any further.

[jesed]

You learn to be polite

sorry, but you already tough me that "strengthening of the superego goes at the expense of true nature" and that's why we should discard confucionist comments and interpretations, isn't? ;)

best

[sparhawk]

I know that a major criterion for Ewald is that his translation must fit the theme of the hexagram or line, which is partly dictated by past experiences of users (Ewald, please correct me if I'm wrong). If his initial translation does not fit this general experience then he considers his translation wrong. In my view he isn't very concerned with a correct translation, what is more important to him is an interpretation that fits his idea's. This can be seen in this thread: because he is not satisfied with meaning Y, he chooses the one dictionary which he thinks gives as meaning Z, which fits his ideas. Unfortunately he misreads that dictionary, and Z isn't a meaning of X after all. But Z fits his view of the text, so I think he will be inclined to maintain that meaning, even when it is not a correct translation.

Yes, that's the same impression I get about it. Mind you, nothing wrong with it as long as it fits HIS personal vision of the Yi and he is happy with it. Most of us do the same. Another thing is hoping for anything close to universal acceptance by those that have the patience and willingness to go through the same process. As to the sometimes hopelessness of literary translations, to bring me down to reality, I sometimes like to read some of Neruda or Lorca's poetry, in English... :D

[sparhawk]

Let's say that a divination describes what's happening at 2:00. If at that time regret is going away, that regret is about something that happened before 2:00, let's say at 1:50. At 1:50 however, there's another situation than at 2:00.
Now there are two situations drawn into one line, the situation at 2:00 and the one at 1:50. However the Yi describes a single situation in each line, so this cannot be the case. As such, it's a breach of internal consistency.
(Note: don't take the exact times too literary. Situations take more time than a second.)

Thanks for clarifying. I cannot agree with it. For me it is an extremely minimalist vision of the meaning of the lines. For me, it is the proverbial "missing the forest for the trees."

Now that you've mentioned "timing," there is a whole tradition of using time with Yi answers that is little known in English but that Jesed has demonstrated quite a few times in some of his interpretations and that, in many cases, are very close to the mark. By pointing this close example (there are others), I'm trying to say that, there already are timing tools that can be used in answers other than a minimalist usage of line text. Doing so, for me, would be like painting myself into a corner.

I stress the me in this because I cannot hope to change what I've come to realize is a very personal vision of the Yi and textual interpretation. As personal as my own. It is good, though, to debate these little nuances in perspective.

[ewald]

[I did find a little time to respond to another post.]

I know that a major criterion for Ewald is that his translation must fit the theme of the hexagram or line, which is partly dictated by past experiences of users (Ewald, please correct me if I'm wrong). If his initial translation does not fit this general experience then he considers his translation wrong. In my view he isn't very concerned with a correct translation, what is more important to him is an interpretation that fits his idea's. This can be seen in this thread: because he is not satisfied with meaning Y, he chooses the one dictionary which he thinks gives as meaning Z, which fits his ideas. Unfortunately he misreads that dictionary, and Z isn't a meaning of X after all. But Z fits his view of the text, so I think he will be inclined to maintain that meaning, even when it is not a correct translation.
I get the distinct impression that by "correct" you mean correct according to your ideas. It is you, Harmen, who does not approve of my supposed dismissing your interpretation of a particular dictionary entry. It is not by some absolute truth.

Of course I am in fact concerned with creating a correct translation. Indeed, I am the one to decide what is correct. Of course, the criteria are always those of my mind. And the same goes for you, Harmen, as this goes for every translator.

That's correct, past experiences of users are a factor in my deciding on the meanings of lines, and meanings must fit the hexagram themes. I have lots of other criteria as well.

I am concerned with having a Zhouyi text that is to be used for divination. Also, I assume that the Zhouyi text is intended for use in divination, and is optimized for that. Harmen, as far as I know, you have very different views, you don't want to assume these things, which means we'll always disagree on what a correct translation is.

This assumption that the Zhouyi is a divinatory text however does work very well, in my experience, and that of many others. Because it does, I have no reason to doubt its validity. It means I can in fact make use of the past experiences of users to improve on the correctness of my translation. Also, it means I can apply lots of other criteria as well, and do various checks on internal consistency.

[sparhawk]

Going on a completely different tangent here--nothing to do with Ewald's translations--I've been re-reading an old book by RGH Siu, The Portable Dragon: The Western Man's Guide to the I Ching, (http://www.amazon.com/Portable-Dragon-Western-Guide-Ching/dp/0262690306) that I think is a very good effort in matching world literary quotes with the lines of the Yi and hexagram's statements. For 31.3 he interprets it as the following (first his interpretation of the line and then a literary quote):---------------------
A person should refrain from running after those he would like to influence, yielding to the whims of his master, and acquiescing to the moods of his own heart. Personal inhibition should constitute the basis for the enjoyment of granted freedom.
---------------------At last, we are no longer friends.

You walk easily, lightly,
In the labyrinth of complications.
What subtlety! What dancing grace!...
It is true that there always remains
Some dust from your wings
On the branches, on the thorns,
Even I also notices several times
That your wings are ragged at the edges...
But the essential thing, the important thing,
Is that despite the raggedness you can still fly.

I am not like that.
I am heavy, I am rather clumsy,
I have no wings and not much breeding.
I need a broad and straight road.
If I lack space, I brak everything,
I get hurt, I get tired...I finally fall.
In the middle of the wood I stop, unable to go on.
I cannot stand it any longer.

You...you may still call me a friend....
Although you lose a bit of your wing,
You sit on my thorn bush and can still fly.
Yet I, I suffer it is true,
Buat I am no longer your friend.
You are friend of the sea, you are friend of the river....
Mario de Andrade, Brazilian (1893-1945)

[hmesker]

I get the distinct impression that by "correct" you mean correct according to your ideas. It is you, Harmen, who does not approve of my supposed dismissing your interpretation of a particular dictionary entry.

I don't think I'm interpreting the Shuo Wen (nor do I see you dismissing it, you haven't really addressed what I said in my message), I'm simply stating that the Shuo Wen says that 悔 means 悔恨. You, on the other hand, say that "the ShuoWen (...) has 恨 as a synonym (for 悔)". I don't agree with that, in fact, I think it is dead wrong; it is a misreading of the Shuo Wen. I also showed that the 漢語大詞典 dictionary does not give meanings for 悔 that are even close to 'aversion' etc. Dictionaries never contain all the answers, nevertheless if your only source for saying that 悔 means 'aversion' is a misreaded Shuo Wen, then I personally believe that your 'translation' has a very weak basis. That's all I'm saying.

Harmen.

[charly]

... I also showed that the 漢語大詞典 dictionary does not give meanings for 悔 that are even close to 'aversion' etc....

Harmen:

Given that dictionaries were mainly accomplished by men, how could a character having heart + covered exuberant woman mean something close to aversion? Only for misoginistic minds!

Perhaps 悔 could be seen as woman-minded? As women mind is changeable («la donna é mobile») it could mean «regret» as far as «not regret at all». Each one could choose.

I'm only a newcomer to chinese characters but I believe that some joke is necessary to assimilate it.

For my own purpose I have temprary translated 咸 as «SHOCK» or as a verb «TO SHAKE» Thus I could translate 33.3 as: 咸其股 Shake that thigh. I have read other translations that give «to cut» or «to cut of» but I don't like it.

Do you find some sense? I'm totally wrong?

Thanks in advance,

Charly:bows:

[charly]

I haven't been able to find this meaning in any of the dictionaries I use. I compiled together, all, completely / unite, join / feel, be sensitive to, respond to, influence for 咸.
Ewald:

I apologize for delaying, I was out for 10 days.

I get the idea from three sources:

1) Thinking about the spanish equivalent for to shake, specially in my country slang.
2) Reading the page of Lawrence J. Howell and Hikaru Morimoto KANJI NETWORKS.
3) From Sears' CHINESEETYMOLOGY, where he tells something like that 咸 is to lose your head, the most important, all what you have → ALL

See yourself a quote from the 2nd.(bold is mine):

感　... 咸 (phon) (shut) + 心 heart /emotions → be shocked to the point one cannot utter intelligible words ... → (intense) emotion /feeling.

咸...口 mouth + 戈 spear/halberd → absorb a spear thrust, causing the mouth to shut tight in shock → all (together) (← close ranks ← shut tight).

from: http://www.kanjinetworks.com/knetwork/KAM.html


And, of course, Waley, Kerson Huang, etc.

Yours,

Charly

[charly]

I deeply regret that I hesitated in my youth to study Chinese, lazily thinking I could trust the experts; for now I am forced to sit on the sidelines of these learned discussions, although I know I have much to contribute...
Auriel:

No regrets please! It is of greater importance that you contribute from your own inner language. Also could be the time for taking a bit of chinese, it's cool and there are many sources in the web. Another advice, don't trust all the things experts say, nobody's perfect.

Do you know what «regret vanishes» means? For me it means:

«f o r g e t - t h e - p a s t ,
a l l - w h a t - y o u - h a v e - i s - t h e - f u c k i n g - p r e s e n t»


What does it mean for you?

Yours,

Charly

[charly]

...

Luis:

My english is not so good, I'm still trying to understand you, meanwhile...

You say:
...another misconception is to think of the ZhouYi as a book we can hold in one hand, and the Yijing in the other...

I speak of the ZhouYi as the King Wen text and the Duke of Zhou lines, as we received it as part of the classic book, I'm not speaking of an supossedly original but unknown text as reconstruccionist do. This Zhouyi is clearly earlier than the wings.

I believe that a translation must be loyal to the text, for me are bad policies both :
1) to put in the ZhouYi words or meanings that are not in the Zhouyi itself but in the wings (or another books) and...
2) to put in the ZhouYi words or meanings of your own source with the healthy intention of to clarify it.

This is why I prefer word by word translation, not seeking for what the text wants to say but for what the text says. No matter the lack of clarity. But often the clarity arouse by itself.

...I don't believe the text is written imperatively, as in giving an order "to move/shake the thighs" but passively, as in describing the fact...

I believe that the ZhouYi (not speaking of the wings) is neither narrative nor descriptive although it can content many concrete images, it's an oracle, it's not telling you a story, it's speaking to you, advicing, suggesting, warning, promising.

For verbs I prefer infinitive or imperative, you don't need to provide a subject, you don't need to provide a genre. Imperative is not always an order, «shake that bottom» can be a friendly advice.

About Confucius I have nothing against himself but I don't like some things that some confucians like, but the most important, we are both from the same side from the point of view of the passion for the text.

Un abrazo,

Charly

[sparhawk]

Hola Charly,

Luis: I speak of the ZhouYi as the King Wen text and the Duke of Zhou lines, as we received it as part of the classic book, I'm not speaking of an supossedly original but unknown text as reconstruccionist do. This Zhouyi is clearly earlier than the wings.

Yes, the Zhouyi is earlier than the Yijing and the Ten Wings. The problem is, we don't know what the Zhouyi looked like. We've received the Yijing, not the Zhouyi. We only have historical records of the existence of the Zhouyi but not the actual Zhouyi. We know of Its existence as being something that was "written" (another leap of faith) by KIng Wen and the Duke of Zhou, and that is much after the fact. It is convenient to think of the Zhouyi as a "Yijing-sans-the-Ten-Wings" but it is also misguided. We can assume the text of the Zhouyi looked like this but sometimes assumptions have a bad factual record... Assertions like "the Zhouyi was this or that" should never be worded. A door should always be left open for new information to add to what we know of it.

I believe that a translation must be loyal to the text, for me are bad policies both :
1) to put in the ZhouYi words or meanings that are not in the Zhouyi itself but in the wings (or another books) and...
2) to put in the ZhouYi words or meanings of your own source with the healthy intention of to clarify it.I can't argue with that approach, however, no such thing as a pure Zhouyi exists today.

This is why I prefer word by word translation, not seeking for what the text wants to say but for what the text says. No matter the lack of clarity. But often the clarity arouse by itself.Well, yes. Like I mentioned a few pages back, Ritsema/Karcher-Ritsema-Sabbadini, did pretty much that, in a very concise and synthetic way, albeit resulting in a huge book in the process.

I believe that the ZhouYi (not speaking of the wings) is neither narrative nor descriptive although it can content many concrete images, it's an oracle, it's not telling you a story, it's speaking to you, advicing, suggesting, warning, promising.
I don't completely agree with this. In my humble opinion, and those of some scholars, and putting emotions and romantic notions aside, as well as some mystical hopes, the text of the Yijing (and/or the original Zhouyi) is most likely a compilation of oracular accounts, selected on the basis of their post fact historical accuracy, from much older texts. Small but significant portions of more extensive and older textual accounts. So, the text is both, given oracular advise and narrative. Specific advise, given thousands of years ago, and narrated in the received text. Of course, the terse text received with the Yijing is, in my opinion, purposely devoid of contextual meaning beyond the scope of a given hexagram and it is up to the reader/diviner to make the necessary contextual and situational connections beyond that. All very wise and cunning by those that put the original texts together, indeed.


For verbs I prefer infinitive or imperative, you don't need to provide a subject, you don't need to provide a genre. Imperative is not always an order, «shake that bottom» can be a friendly advice.Suggesting an action and reporting a fact are two, very different, things. "Shake that bottom" and "shook that bottom" ("sacudí el culo" y "sacudió el culo" :D) is a very good comparison to make my point. Taking Chinese characters, out of context, and assigning them arbitrary tenses is never advisable and can make all the difference in the world at the time of interpreting a reading. Alas, it is one very important and common pitfall of translating Chinese text on a character by character basis.

Another thing to take into account when translating the Chinese text of the Yijing, as Bradford Hatcher and Harmen Mesker, to name two close friends of this forum, have pointed out, is to try to discern what the characters meant, within the cultural context of the time, some three thousand years ago. Languages, spoken and written, specially those that come down to us through millennia of continuous development, are not static. Meanings and the way things are written, change naturally over time. To give you a close example, even though we can read it, an original Cervante's Don Quijote looks different, in the way it was written, from one that you can buy today at the bookstore, and even with those, the modisms used in the text sound odd to us. All this for something that was written, in an alphabetical language, in the 16th century. What can we expect of a non-alphabetical and much older language like the Chinese? My point is that, even though it is possible to do so to some good extent, translating the text of the Yijing using only contemporary dictionaries is very prone to errors.

Un abrazo,

[auriel]

Languages, spoken and written, specially those that come down to us through millennia of continuous development, are not static. Meanings and the way things are written, change naturally over time.

I have found that modern sanskrit dictionaries give give precedent to meanings appended to yogic words by commentators in a certain "orthodox" period, when yoga was moving into the cultural mainstream. Tracing out a word's actual roots and examining actual context- which means assuming that yogic texts refer to real processes, clarifies matters greatly.
I think a parallel process serves translation of the Yijing. The text of this book has itself been a continual influence on language surely. It refers to real immutable human conditions. Its meanings have been used for socio-political positioning. The accepted meanings of its vocabulary have reflected cultural change.

[sparhawk]

I think a parallel process serves translation of the Yijing. The text of this book has itself been a continual influence on language surely. It refers to real immutable human conditions. Its meanings have been used for socio-political positioning. The accepted meanings of its vocabulary have reflected cultural change.


Indeed, that's a great observation, Auriel! Yes, it works both ways; a two way road.

[charly]

... the Zhouyi is earlier than the Yijing and the Ten Wings. The problem is, we don't know what the Zhouyi looked like. We've received the Yijing, not the Zhouyi. We only have historical records of the existence of the Zhouyi but not the actual Zhouyi. We know of Its existence as being something that was "written" (another leap of faith) by KIng Wen and the Duke of Zhou, and that is much after the fact. It is convenient to think of the Zhouyi as a "Yijing-sans-the-Ten-Wings" but it is also misguided. We can assume the text of the Zhouyi looked like this but sometimes assumptions have a bad factual record... Assertions like "the Zhouyi was this or that" should never be worded. A door should always be left open for new information to add to what we know of it....

Ay!, Luis:

I'm very bussy at work for giving you an extended answer, I go to proceed by parts:

First of all, if I want to speak (although misguised) of the part of the «received» YiJing presumed from King Wen and Duke of Zhou, as it was edited in the imperial edition and later reproduced by the Harvard Yenching Institute, suplied by J.Biroco as ZhouYi, what the title must I use? "Yijing-sans-the-Ten-Wings"?

I don't want to speak about reconstructions of the original text. Maybe the text had multiple sources, included oral tradition and evolved through the time. I only want to speak about the received text, for now.

I only want to speak about it and be understood, if right or wrong is my risk. May I use ZhouYi for this part of the received YiJing?

Un abrazo,

Charly

[sparhawk]

First of all, if I want to speak (although misguised) of the part of the «received» YiJing presumed from King Wen and Duke of Zhou, as it was edited in the imperial edition and later reproduced by the Harvard Yenching Institute, suplied by J.Biroco as ZhouYi, what the title must I use? "Yijing-sans-the-Ten-Wings"?

I don't want to speak about reconstructions of the original text. Maybe the text had multiple sources, included oral tradition and evolved through the time. I only want to speak about the received text, for now.

I only want to speak about it and be understood, if right or wrong is my risk. May I use ZhouYi for this part of the received YiJing?



Ah, ahora te entiendo! :D

In that case I believe you are right and I understand what your are saying. Although, I must say that, in my very humble and personal opinion, even the Chinese that produced and compiled the Imperial Version misnamed the book. It is more out of respect to its origins to call it the Zhouyi than actual rigorous textual fact. The names Zhouyi and Yijing has been interchangeable for a long time but, if we think about it, they are different things.

Un abrazo,

[charly]

Ah, ahora te entiendo! :D
In that case I believe you are right and I understand what your are saying. Although, I must say that, in my very humble and personal opinion... It is more out of respect to its origins to call it the Zhouyi than actual rigorous textual fact. ... Zhouyi and Yijing ... are different things.

Thanks, Luis:

I used ZouYI for the part an YiJing for the whole. I have more things for you. One is about Cervantes an Confucius. Meanwhile I write, I post a quote from Don Quixote and some interesting links:

... one of the many precepts my master Don Quixote gave me ... was this, that when there was any doubt about the justice of a case I should lean to mercy...

from: http://aaswebsv.aas.duke.edu/cibertextos/EDICIONES-BILINGUES/INGLES/DQ-2-51.HTM

http://www.sirbacon.org/graphics/donQ.gif

from: http://www.sirbacon.org/links/carrlegalquixote.html
The Writer's Finger Prints: Francis Carr explores the legal link between Quixote and Shakespeare !!!

Speaking about Sancho, how will you translate «es al ñudo que lo fajen al que nace barrigón» ?


Un abrazo,

Charly

[sparhawk]

Speaking about Sancho, how will you translate «es al ñudo que lo fajen al que nace barrigón» ?


Geeze, even for English majors with great fluency in Spanish it is difficult to translate the Quixote! I'll try to make some sense... :D

"es al ñudo que lo fajen al que nace barrigón" = "it is useless to girdle the one born paunchy" (?? :eek:)

OMG, in English sounds ugly as hell. In Spanish is a funny and no-nonsense moral. :D

Abrazo,

[dobro]

don't waste your time trying to slim jim the fat boy

Luis, I also think the name of the oracle should be the Zhouyi. In English, I'd like to call it the Zhou Oracle. The I Ching's rather different, I think - it's got all those extra bits. Some of them are beautiful and useful, some are silly, but all of them are extra, in my view. A sloppy parallel might be the Mahabharata. I much prefer spending my time with the Bhagavad Gita.

[trojan]

"es al ñudo que lo fajen al que nace barrigón" = "it is useless to girdle the one born paunchy" (?? :eek:)

OMG, in English sounds ugly as hell. In Spanish is a funny and no-nonsense moral. :D

Abrazo,

:rofl: I find it quite funny in English too

[hilary]

The Zhou oracle... well, I once read for someone whose family name was Zhou. Yes, as in the dynasty, and yes, this was her first experience with Yi. I don't know how common the name is, but even if it's like the Changes of Smith, it was still a startling experience.
'Well, when your great-great-great... grandfather was preparing to overthrow the Shang...'

[charly]

... Ritsema/Karcher-Ritsema-Sabbadini, did pretty much that, in a very concise and synthetic way, albeit resulting in a huge book in the process.

... putting emotions and romantic notions aside, as well as some mystical hopes, the text of the Yijing (and/or the original Zhouyi) is most likely a compilation of oracular accounts, selected on the basis of their post fact historical accuracy, from much older texts...

Luis:

With «translation word by word» I'm not speaking of Ritsema (it's too much for me) but of Chong Lu-Sheng, Wu Jing-Nuan or Greg Richter, although the last seems not to be an YiJing user. They put for each chinese character one english word (not all the dictionary), the one that fits best for them.

They also provide a brief literary translation for each line. Chong uses to translate some chinese characters with diferent english words, one for the ZhouYi (or core text) and another for the wings, the last closer to the confucian meaning .

Maybe you don't agree with some part of their translations, you always can search in the dictionaries you trust and make enmendations also you can make your own translation.

You'r speaking of the YiJing, but the wings are not «compilations of oracular accounts», maybe the ZhouYi(core text) could have oracular records among many other sources, but wings use to ecchoe it, to admire it, to comment it, to interpret it. (1)

The I Ching most Wilhelm/Baynes readers know is a version of the ZhouYi + DaXiang
(Great Image) without the wings and with commentaries from Wilhelm maybe inspired by Lao NaiXuan. The same that you can find in the web.

I think that a good insight of Wilhelm in this hexagram was to translate the title not as a mouvement that you suffer (an emotion or an involuntary movement taken as an omen), but a movement you do searching some effect on another, an emotion that you provoque, thus attracting, wooing. If xian character has an alberd and a head, the one whot puts the alberd is you and the one who puts the head too.

Don't you think that, as Ewald says, «attraction is good» indeed?

Un abrazo,

Charly
__________________
(1) Maybe «Shake the bones» is more for our business. It means: to dance, Death's dance, to shake the dices previously to throw it, to make sound (music) by percusion, a ritual blended with action, destiny and acceptance. Plus all the meanings «bones» have!

[sparhawk]

You'r speaking of the YiJing, but the wings are not «compilations of oracular accounts», maybe the ZhouYi(core text) could have oracular records among many other sources, but wings use to ecchoe it, to admire it, to comment it, to interpret it. (1)

__________________
(1) Maybe «Shake the bones» is more for our business. It means: to dance, Death's dance, to shake the dices previously to throw it, to make sound (music) by percusion, a ritual blended with action, destiny and acceptance. Plus all the meanings «bones» have!


Alas, you are correct. I was referring to the "core text," yes, which I think is the best way to name/describe it. Glad you came up with it. Sometimes, obvious things are the hardest to see and name... :D

Un abrazo,

[sparhawk]

If xian character has an alberd and a head, the one whot puts the alberd is you and the one who puts the head too.


Dicho sea de paso, I like this a lot... :bows:

[charly]

Dicho sea de paso, I like this a lot... :bows:
Luis:

« I suspected it from the begining.»
(Maxwell Smart)

Abrazo,

Charly

[gene]

The general idea being conveyed in the Wilhelm Baynes version is not so much that sex is bad, as it is that an attempt to engage before proper stimulation has been