Primary and relating hexagrams

[ann]

Could I just check something please? When I get a reading with changing lines, creating a second hexagram, I'd kind of assumed that the first one is leading to the second. However, today I asked what I could expect in a particular situation and I got 35 - 5 => 12.

35 is 'Progress' and 12 is 'Standstill'.

For this particular situation, it strikes me that the status quo is standstill and it would be very nice to think that there would be some positive progress in the near future! So this interpretation is back to front from how I normally read things.

Could anyone clarify this for me please - ie how to interpret the 'order' of the two hexagrams?

Thank you very much

Ann

[dobro]

Thinking of the primary and relating hexagrams as sequential steps in time is only one way of looking at it ('first comes the situation imaged by the primary hex, and then afterward comes the situation imaged by the relating hex').

Here are some other ways of viewing the two hexagrams:

* The primary images the inner, deep structure of a situation out of which the outer, more ordinary-world situation (relating hex) emerges. In your particular consultation, this would read something like: "The standstill you are experiencing is arising and emerging out of an inner condition of progress. Accept it."

* The primary is the background to the situation (that out of which the present situation is arising) and the relating is the focus of the answer. In your case, this would read something like: "This condition of standstill arises out of a general background of progress. Looks like a swing of the pendulum is at work."

* Both primary and relating image one thing, modifying each other. "You are progressing through standstill. No change for the time being, but you're working your way through it."

And which one is right for you? Mmmm...you decide. :D Really. Everybody on this board has different ways of interpreting the relationship between the two, and people like Hilary, who are really deft with the Yi, like to consider all possibilities as a way of inviting real insight to arise.

[willowfox]

I asked what I could expect in a particular situation and I got 35 - 5 => 12.

You can expect things to go well, there maybe a few hiccups but just continue on your course. Now Hex 12 suggests that at a later date, after everything has been successfully done, things will deteriorate concerning this situation and it is advising you to do nothing and just bide your time until the problems go away or are sorted out. Life is about circles and this is what your answer is about, first the good luck, then the bad and eventually back to the good again, just one big wheel that keeps on turning.

[trojan]

.

35 is 'Progress' and 12 is 'Standstill'.

For this particular situation, it strikes me that the status quo is standstill and it would be very nice to think that there would be some positive progress in the near future! So this interpretation is back to front from how I normally read things.

Could anyone clarify this for me please - ie how to interpret the 'order' of the two hexagrams?

Thank you very much

Ann

Like Dobro said people (often) see the relating hexagram quite flexibly according to how it strikes them at the time and here I think i would go with your interpretation. The fan yao(the same line in the relating hex ie 12.5) of 35.5 is 12.5 which talks about still having causes for concern but getting out of stagnation with a bit of energy and 35.5 seems to encourage forging ahead without too much worry over loss or gain. If you read 12.5 you may find that has a bearing on things too.

[hmesker]

Please bear in mind that according to some experts the second hexagram originally wasn't used; see Nielsen, A Companion to Yi Jing Numerology and Cosmology, p. 20-22. In old texts the second hexagram was only mentioned to mark certain lines in the first hexagram (the lines we nowadays call 'moving'), it was not used in the interpretation of the answer and it did not have any symbolic/metaphorical meaning.

In other words, you do not really have to do anything with the second hexagram. When I tell this to my students who already have some experience in using the Yi in the traditional way they often sigh with relief - it makes working with the Yi so much easier and more comprehensible. Often the 2nd hexagram contradicts the first one and you are left in doubt what to do. But the first hexagram is the answer you get, that's the one you should focus on.

If you want to work with the 2nd hexagram as well, you could see both hexagrams as two sides of a coin - they can work at the same time, and the moving lines make it spin. Which side will end up? You decide.

Harmen.

[ann]

Thank you all for your replies, which I very much appreciate. They all make perfect sense and I will continue to ponder that particular reading in the light of what you have all said. Actually, what was more important to me was sorting out the relationship of hexagrams, and you've all been so helpful.

Thank you again
:bows:
Ann

[lienshan]

Hi Ann

A have a little "funny" illustration of what Harmen tells: a 60x80 acryl painting:

http://www2.mandala.dk/photos/66/2866-Approved-album-6

Two months ago a woman asked me, if a man she had met was "serious"? I asked the Yi
and got 28.5 => 32 ... but expressed my reading for the first time as a painting instead
of using words ... the problem is how to show the changing line and I used the old Shang
number 5 (looks like a butterfly) and number 6 (looks like a reversed V)

lienshan :D

[dobro]

Please bear in mind that according to some experts the second hexagram originally wasn't used

Well, that puts me on the spot. On the one hand, I"m a big fan of stripping the oracle down to the essentials and freeing it of all the stuff that's been added over the years - that's why despite all the interesting stuff in the I Ching, I use only the Chou oracle. (I even ignore the Da Xiang, because although the images in it are based on the oracle's trigrams, I think they have essentially very, very little to do with the meaning of the hexagram - they're a useful portrait of an evolving/evolved human being, but shed little light on the hexagrams they're attached to.) But on the other hand, I've found the relating hexagram as an extremely useful device for dealing with multiple changing lines. I mean, how DO you deal with multiple changing lines in a useful way? So, when there are a lot of changing lines, I just ignore them and focus on the primary and relating hexagram, as an aid to simpler interpretation.

But you know, I think there's truth in the thing you describe. It makes sense to me that it's only the primary hexagram that images the situation being inquired about, and despite its convenience for me, it makes sense to me that the whole concept of the relating hexagram as being part of the message is a later addition, one of the later additions that takes away from the utility of the original. Hmm... I mean, think about it. If you draw Hex 1 with changing lines 2 and 5, the relating hex is 30, which means that each and every time you draw 1.2.5, the relating hex is 30, that 30-ness is built into 1.2.5, and nothing else is built into it. But you know, I can see a lot of 55 built into 1.2.5 and I can also see a lot of 34 built into 1.2.5 and I can also see a lot of 61 built into 1.2.5, and I can see... just about any other aspect of the oracle in any other aspect of the oracle.

I think you've changed the way I do things.

[willowfox]

Please bear in mind that according to some experts the second hexagram originally wasn't used;



But there are still a lot of experts who do use the 2nd Hex.

I see it as part and parcel of one's answer, so it needs to be taken into account or at least thought about.

[hmesker]

So, when there are a lot of changing lines, I just ignore them and focus on the primary and relating hexagram, as an aid to simpler interpretation.

That's a good way to use both hexagrams, I think. After all, it is not what you use but how you use it.

I think you've changed the way I do things.That was not my intention, I just wanted to show that working with the second hexagram is an option, not a must. Everyone can choose his own path in this, as Willowfox shows:

I see it as part and parcel of one's answer, so it needs to be taken into account or at least thought about.

If your happy with that choice then stick to it. But it's only a choice, and you have the choice to choose otherwise. Working with the second hexagram is a technique which you can apply or not. It is not a necessity.

Harmen.

[hilary]

That's quite a thought. (And I can see how it could come as a relief, just as 'the second hexagram doesn't have to mean the future' can come as a relief.)

Question: what does count as a necessity for you? What are the bare bones of a reading without which you wouldn't feel as if you'd read the answer at all?

(Things I couldn't do without, assuming there are lines changing: two hexagrams, all the changing lines. Things that fill in the framework but aren't really 'bone' in the same way: trigrams/ Image, Sequence, Pairs, zhi gua for each line, nuclear hexagrams, line pathways...)

[sparhawk]

Let's see what Bent Nielsen has in his "A Companion to Yi Jing Numerology and Cosmology" and then let's draw some sort of informed consensus: Bian Zhan (變占) Alternation divination; also known as "line alternation divination"
(爻變占). The term bian zhan refers to the divinations based on changing and unchanging lines recorded in the Zuo Commentary and Discourses of the States. These divinations are generally introduced with the formula "meeting Hexagram1 之 Hexagram2". Traditionally, zhi 之 has been interpreted as a verb meaning "to go to", so the formula has been understood as "Hexagram1 going to (i.e. changing into) Hexagram2." Consequently, Hexagram1 was called 'the original hexagram' and Hexagram2 became known as the derivative hexagram. Following this interpretation, Zhu Xi attempted to reconstruct how the result of a divination was arrived at in the Zuo Commentary and Discourses of the States. According to Zhu Xi, if no lines were changing, The Deciding Remarks (Tuan Ci) of the original hexagram should be consulted; in the absence of two hexagrams, the lower trigram was to be considered the original hexagram (which Zhu referred to as "the oracular trigram", Zhen Gua) and the upper trigram "the derivative hexagram" ('the remorseful trigram', Hui Gua). If one or two lines were changing, The Line Remarks (Yao Ci) of the original hexagram should be consulted; in the case of two lines the uppermost line was the more important. If three lines were changing, The Deciding Remarks of both the original hexagram and the derivative hexagram should be consulted. If four or five lines were changing, The Line Remarks of the lines that do not change should be consulted; in the case of two lines not changing the lowermost line was the most important. Finally, if all six lines were changing, The Deciding Remarks of the derivative hexagram should be consulted, and, in the cases of Qian and Kun, The Line Remarks to the '7th line' should be consulted. There is no textual evidence in The Zuo Commentary and Discourses of the States for divinations where two, four or all six lines are changing.

-----
here goes a section where an alternative milfoil method, by Gao Heng (1900-1986) is discussed and don't think is too relevant to this topic.
-----

Independently, Shaugnessy [1983] and K. Smith [1989] have convincingly demonstrated that the traditional interpretation of the formula "meeting Hexagram1 之 Hexagram2", treating zhi 之 as a verb meaning 'to go to', is grammatically unsound. Zhi 之 is rather to be understood as a particle indicating possession: "Meeting Hexagram1's Hexagram2." It seems that prior to the custom of referring to the individual lines of the hexagrams as '9 in the 2nd [line]' or '6 in the 3rd [line]', a specific line in a hexagram, e.g. the first (bottom) line, could be indicated by juxtaposing two hexagrams that are identical except for the first line. For example, the Zuo Commentary, 5th Year of Duke Zhao: "Meeting Ming Yi's [36] Qian [15]" indicates the first line of the Ming Yi hexagram, The Line Remarks of which is quoted subsequently. That this is the correct interpretation of zhi之 becomes obvious when the formula is slightly changed as in the 29th Year of Duke Zhao where 'Hexagram1 之' is replaced by the third person possessive pronoun qi 其 'its'.

Thus the formula "meeting Hexagram1 之 Hexagram2" is the way an individual line in Hexagram1 is referred to in the Zuo Commentary and Discourses of the States.

Bent Nielsen's "A Companion to Yi Jing Numerology and Cosmology"
Copyright 2003

[dobro]

You know, just as there often isn't just one meaning for a term in the Yi, there also isn't just one way to interpret. But common knowledge assumes that there IS one correct way of interpreting - I mean, check out the Shared Reading forum any day and you can find somebody who's a) having relationship problems and b) claims to need help interpreting what the Yi gave them and c) expects the relating hexagram holds a ton of meaning in the reading.

Instead of ignoring the issue or pretending that one way is better than the other, I Ching books ought to map out the major interpretation strategies in the 'How To' section of the book. If I put something like that in a Yi that I was having published, I'd also add the instruction: "Pick one of these strategies and then stick to it. That way YOU know how to interpret and the Yi knows how you're going to interpret."

[hmesker]

Instead of ignoring the issue or pretending that one way is better than the other, I Ching books ought to map out the major interpretation strategies in the 'How To' section of the book. If I put something like that in a Yi that I was having published, I'd also add the instruction: "Pick one of these strategies and then stick to it. That way YOU know how to interpret and the Yi knows how you're going to interpret."

http://www.getsmile.com/emoticons/funny-smileys-68129/clap.gif

HM

[hmesker]

Question: what does count as a necessity for you? What are the bare bones of a reading without which you wouldn't feel as if you'd read the answer at all?

Personally all my personal readings are based on the trigrams and lines relationships and hardly anything else. Without that I would have nothing to work with. The text has a less important part, but I expect that will change in the future when I have gained better insight in the structure and language of it.

http://www.getsmile.com/emoticons/energizer-smileys-51935/idea.gif

Harmen.

[meng]

I don't know what I do. That is, there is no system. I'm looking for an answer. A lot of times it's very obvious, even right in front of my nose. So there's no need then to go rummaging around in attics and basements for that answer. But if I don't get it, then I'll dig around some more: hmm, the relating gua, this line, that line, the relationships of components, the fan yao... the reading I got about this last time. Under the bed isn't the first place I'd look for lost keys, but I'd look there eventually.

[trojan]

The relating hexagram is a result of changing lines right - so whats the point of changing lines if they don't change into anything. What you'd have is a dead end hexagram, the lines looked like they were changing but had nowhere to go,lol

Its beyond me why anyone would feel relief at not using the relating hexagram - if its that much of a burden why consult at all ? Of course anyones free to drop anything at all in their divination, lines, text, but I'm puzzled why some think its such a fab idea. Take it to its furthest point and one could just not consult, lol or just toss coins for yes/no answers-

Personally I mostly need my secondary hex so I'm keeping it. :D

What puzzles me when people say they don't use text is i wonder how they formulate the meanings to themselves ? We think largely in words don't we ? To what extent I don't know but somewhere along the line we will be internally telling ourselves what our answers mean. For that we have to use words - which will be our inner 'text' - so how can one really undertsand an answer without words ? Even if you look at trigrams, 'mountain', 'fire' you still label that with words in your head....

[dobro]

I don't know what I do. That is, there is no system. I'm looking for an answer. A lot of times it's very obvious, even right in front of my nose. So there's no need then to go rummaging around in attics and basements for that answer. But if I don't get it, then I'll dig around some more: hmm, the relating gua, this line, that line, the relationships of components, the fan yao... the reading I got about this last time. Under the bed isn't the first place I'd look for lost keys, but I'd look there eventually.

Your approach is the real thing, and if you check out my post to Hilary that I'm going to do next, you can find out why I think so. I see a parallel between the way you interpret and the way a buddy of mine approaches the mixing of raw tracks in his recorded music projects - he doesn't have a system (I know this, cuz I've asked him) - his approach is to 'keep turning knobs and making adjustments until it sounds right'. Okay, that sounds pretty haphazard, but he's got a ton of experience and his mixes wind up sounding VERY good, so his approach not only works, but it's g-o-o-d. But he has no system. System-free. He just keeps looking for the answer. Applause.

[sparhawk]

The relating hexagram is a result of changing lines right - so whats the point of changing lines if they don't change into anything. What you'd have is a dead end hexagram, the lines looked like they were changing but had nowhere to go,lol


Well, there is no blame in the observation and we are all in good company if we go along with many of the things Zhu Xi thought of. The argument is based on how to read what the ancient records have for even more ancient recorded readings and is something even native Chinese speakers have a problem with. I am pretty sure that Zhu Xi sourced his conclusions on the same texts that both Shaugnessy and K.Smith have and perhaps even more documents we don't know about. So, the discussion is semantic in nature as far as I'm concerned. In the end, I don't think there is a wrong way to interpret an answer, using any available methods, if it makes sense to the reader.

In any case, just to clarify the observations mentioned by Harmen and that I quoted, the formula "Meeting Hexagram1 之 Hexagram2" appears to have been a way to put emphasis on particular lines, the same way we today use "64.1," for example. What Harmen mentions about the non use for the 'derivative hexagram' (please correct me if I'm wrong) is based in that in those same records there is no specific discussion of them as part of the prognostications. Regardless of that fact, IMHO, the absence of "a specific discussion" doesn't deny the possibility that the overall prognostication was perhaps the product of a more holistic approach rather than based on what is specifically recorded. Furthermore, I'm inclined to believe that perhaps this is the argument that crossed Zhu Xi's mind when he proposed his methodology.

[dobro]

Question: what does count as a necessity for you? What are the bare bones of a reading without which you wouldn't feel as if you'd read the answer at all?

(Things I couldn't do without, assuming there are lines changing: two hexagrams, all the changing lines. Things that fill in the framework but aren't really 'bone' in the same way: trigrams/ Image, Sequence, Pairs, zhi gua for each line, nuclear hexagrams, line pathways...)

This thread has had a huge effect on the way I deal with the Yi. Reading your question, the thing that struck me was in connection with the interpretive techniques you listed - that's quite a list, isn't it? And the thing that struck me was this: interpreting is a difficult thing, it's the opposite of clear and straightforward, you're always reaching for or casting about for or straining to hear the meaning in what can be rather obscure imagery. Interpreting is very intuitive work, right? Alright, so what happens if intuition doesn't come up with an answer? What happens if the imagery yields no clear interpretation? Well, in a situation like that, humans look for help, they reach for a tool to help them get what they want. "Give me a clue." And that list you created is a list of interpretive tools which can generate clues and hints that just might spark something like intuitive insight. Or... (are you sitting down?) it just might make interpretation a really mechanical exercise that uses little or no intuition at all, a really mechanical application of concepts that you know already and which does no work of 'reaching upstairs', a really mechanical approach that actually doesn't invite the wisdom of the soul or higher mind but shuts it out.

Okay, I understand that people are different and therefore they'll have different approaches and no one approach is right. And I understand that this oracle business is fun, and it's important not to impinge on somebody's good time. But even if I honor people's fun and freedom to choose their own approach, I think it's still a valid point that all those 'tools' you described can in some cases be nothing more than mechanical props and aids to a lazy approach to interpreting, cuz real interpreting is actually often hard work.

[dobro]

The relating hexagram is a result of changing lines right - so whats the point of changing lines if they don't change into anything.

They don't NEED to change into anything. It can all be an image of the present moment, which of course contains the past that it arose out of and a tendency toward something in the future. But the hexagram and lines you draw can be nothing more than a snapshot of the situation you're enquiring about. "Well, it looks like this..."

What you'd have is a dead end hexagram, the lines looked like they were changing but had nowhere to go,lol

They would be changing, but you wouldn't know exactly where they're going. I don't know how well you know my use of the Yi, but I've been going on for a long time here, again and again, about how using the Yi as a crystal ball to predict the future is a second-rate use of the oracle. A lot of people disagree with me, and that's okay, but if you take that idea at face value, you'll understand why I think it isn't important for a hexagram to be going anywhere. Right here and now in the present moment, that's where you and I are. It's enough.

Its beyond me why anyone would feel relief at not using the relating hexagram - if its that much of a burden why consult at all ?

The relief for me is in seeing an approach that simplifies interpretation and makes it more genuine. And why consult at all? Well, for the reason we all consult - to get more information about a situation than is apparent to the senses. I still get important information about the non-evident contours of a situation by concentrating entirely on the primary hexagram - it tells me all sorts of things that I'm not seeing all on my onesie.

Personally I mostly need my secondary hex so I'm keeping it.

You do that. It's working for you. It's the structure that you've set up in your interpretive approach and both you and the Yi know what that structure is and so interpretation takes place using it. Sweet.

And I'll tell you something else too. I can't stop noticing the relating hexagram when I consult - too many years of conditioning for that. But I'm now going to stop assuming it's really part of the picture. I'm going to challenge it. For instance, this morning I drew 44.1.2, and up until now I'd assume that 13 was also part of the picture. Well, maybe I don't need to consider 13 at all! Maybe I only have to consider resisting temptation by putting the brakes on and avoiding the temptation to go get the answer out there somewhere. See what I mean? I'm not saying 'Don't you agree?' I'm saying 'Do you understand what I'm talking about now?'

[dobro]

Apologies to Ann for hijacking her thread. It's like the whole community's dropped by her place to have an animated discussion of Yi technique lol. "Is there any more of that coffee, Ann? It's great!" Sorry.

[sparhawk]

Okay, I understand that people are different and therefore they'll have different approaches and no one approach is right. And I understand that this oracle business is fun, and it's important not to impinge on somebody's good time. But even if I honor people's fun and freedom to choose their own approach, I think it's still a valid point that all those 'tools' you described can in some cases be nothing more than mechanical props and aids to a lazy approach to interpreting, cuz real interpreting is actually often hard work.


I certainly agree with the "hard work" part and, by extension, I don't think there is anything lazy about sitting down (or walking around for days with a hexagram in your head that sticks and repeats like a bad commercial jingle...) using all the tools available to interpret an answer. It may appear to be so, but there is nothing mechanistic about interpreting a Yi answer, no matter how mechanical some of the interpretive tools are. In the end, it is your own mind that draws an interpretation. If anything, the availability of all those tools, add to the workload rather than subtract from it. That is anything but laziness...

[dobro]

Yes Luis, but I can sort of disprove what you're saying as being true all the time by referring to my own interpreting which I do on this site: I often take about one minute to read a question in this forum and then about one minute to apply my knowledge of the Yi to an interpretation. There's very little work involved, and it's always 'easy'. Sometimes it's inspired, but sometimes I think it's just a mechanical application of my knowledge of the Yi's symbols to the situation being enquired about. Maybe sometimes those snapshot interpretations of mine are accurate, or maybe sometimes they're just mechanical and lazy. See what I mean?

[sparhawk]

Yes Luis, but I can sort of disprove what you're saying as being true all the time by referring to my own interpreting which I do on this site: I often take about one minute to read a question in this forum and then about one minute to apply my knowledge of the Yi to an interpretation. There's very little work involved, and it's always 'easy'. Sometimes it's inspired, but sometimes I think it's just a mechanical application of my knowledge of the Yi's symbols to the situation being enquired about. Maybe sometimes those snapshot interpretations of mine are accurate, or maybe sometimes they're just mechanical and lazy. See what I mean?

Ha!! Now you see why I usually stay away from the Shared Readings section of the forum... :rofl: This is a cool discussion though... :D

I came to that same conclusion quite a few years ago as I think it is a disservice to the querents, and even disrespectful, to shot-from-the-hip with statements like "the Yi is telling you this or that" and openning the field for others to provide their own grains of salt to the soup, just because of that: using mechanical, first-thought-in-my-mind, kind of answers. In the end, the result is a very salty soup and thus inedible... :D

[dobro]

Yeah, I've tried prefacing what I say when I interpret here with 'the Yi seems to be saying'. I think I need a more honest preface. Maybe 'applied to your situation and question, the symbols in this line seem to mean something like this...'

[martin]

Or... (are you sitting down?) it just might make interpretation a really mechanical exercise that uses little or no intuition at all, a really mechanical application of concepts that you know already and which does no work of 'reaching upstairs', a really mechanical approach that actually doesn't invite the wisdom of the soul or higher mind but shuts it out.


Yes, I think if the answer is not immediately clear and you try to milk the cow with all those tools you are on thin ice. I rarely do that. No milk in the first seconds, then OK, no milk, forget it!
But that's maybe partly because I'm not a serious user of the Yi. Blush. :)

[sparhawk]

Yes, I think if the answer is not immediately clear and you try to milk the cow with all those tools you are on thin ice. I rarely do that. No milk in the first seconds, then OK, no milk, forget it!
But that's maybe partly because I'm not a serious user of the Yi. Blush. :)

Nope, it means you cow is useless!! Have a BBQ with it and invite friends. I'll bring the wine... :rofl:

[martin]

Nope, it means you cow is useless!! Have a BBQ with it and invite friends. I'll bring the wine... :rofl:

Oh, no, milk or not, I still value the cow! I love her! :hug: Apart from that, I don't eat meat. Is a soya meat BBQ okay for you? :D

[dobro]

Well okay, while we're chowing down on Martin's cow, I'd like to take advantage of this tasty moment to offer this morsel: I'm not saying that fast interpretations are flawed. A doctor with years of experience can diagnose some cases instantly, and that diagnosis is accurate and trustworthy.

Nope, what I'm saying is this: all these interpretive tools make it easy for interpretation to be mechanical and lazy, rather than inspired and/or the moment of realization that comes of genuine, sincere struggle with a question you really want some light on.

BTW, the idea to make lunch out of Martin's cow was rather inspired, I thought.

[sparhawk]

Oh, no, milk or not, I still value the cow! I love her! :hug: Apart from that, I don't eat meat. Is a soya meat BBQ okay for you? :D

Oh my... Now you know why I'm not a good Premmie... :D

[martin]

Yeah, I've tried prefacing what I say when I interpret here with 'the Yi seems to be saying'. I think I need a more honest preface. Maybe 'applied to your situation and question, the symbols in this line seem to mean something like this...'

"I guess that perhaps I have just a hunch and I might very well be wrong, I probably am, and I don't know if this is of any use to you, it probably isn't, but perhaps the answer you received may mean at least sometimes something like ... "

[dobro]

dobro to Martin's cow: Would you like to come to lunch with me? I'd like you to meet my friend Luis.

[dobro]

"I guess that perhaps I have just a hunch and I might very well be wrong, I probably am, and I don't know if this is of any use to you, it probably isn't, but perhaps the answer you received may mean at least sometimes something like ... "

:rofl:

Maybe we could have that piece of text on every page in the forum so that if you just click on it, it appears as an introduction to every interpretation.

[sparhawk]

Luis, stoking the fire, said to the cow: Welcome! Any friend of my friends is my friend too. Come, please sit by the fire... :D

[dobro]

Martin's cow to dobro: Lunch? Really? How kind of you to ask! Yes, that would be lovely! What's for lunch, by the way?

dobro to Martin's cow: Oh, there's no need to go into details at this point. Oh look! Here comes Luis! Hm...and by the look of that axe he's carrying, I'd say Uncle Luis has been cutting wood again.

dobro to Luis: I've got the barbeque sauce and the matches. Did you bring forks?

[dobro]

I came to that same conclusion quite a few years ago as I think it is a disservice to the querents, and even disrespectful, to shot-from-the-hip with statements like "the Yi is telling you this or that" and openning the field for others to provide their own grains of salt to the soup

Also, I can see what you're saying here and I agree that it can be dodgy. But you know, I consult the Yi daily, and I need to be able to come up with snapshot interpretation if it's going to be useful to me. Then I need to be able to remember it. And apply it.

No problem. :rofl:

[martin]

Luis, stoking the fire, said to the cow: Welcome! Any friend of my friends is my friend too. Come, please sit by the fire... :D

How nice of you! I will bring my best friend then, he loves humans! :)

http://www.animalplanetasia.com/up_close_and_dangerous/photographers/asset/cca31f6f88b665cf12e82c6bfecc5ebf82bc2511.jpg

[dobro]

This bears my love for you. :flirt:

[sparhawk]

Also, I can see what you're saying here and I agree that it can be dodgy. But you know, I consult the Yi daily, and I need to be able to come up with snapshot interpretation if it's going to be useful to me. Then I need to be able to remember it. And apply it.

No problem. :rofl:

What you do inside your head, granting that stays there, does not harm to others... :D

In my case, that also applies to sexual fantasies... :rofl:

[sparhawk]

How nice of you! I will bring my best friend then, he loves humans! :)

http://www.animalplanetasia.com/up_close_and_dangerous/photographers/asset/cca31f6f88b665cf12e82c6bfecc5ebf82bc2511.jpg

Hmmm, bear meat... Please do, the more the merrier... :rofl:

[sparhawk]

I'm hungry now and can't think straight. Can somebody remind me what the thread was about? :D

[martin]

It's about the relating hexagram and if it indicates a future meal or not.
And of course about how to use the Yi to answer the only question that really matters: "What shall we eat today?"

[hilary]

Right. Thanks, Martin.

Playing catch-up desperately here - and with a reading to do in 20 minutes, better not get too engrossed...

Can the application of a long list of interpretive tools be a form of laziness?
Um, don't think so. You try walking round 4 line pathways for 4 changing lines, and then looking at the change patterns... it's quite the workout.

Could it be a kind of spiritual laziness - "I'd rather do something mechanical/intellectual than really engage with this"? In theory, yes... but it doesn't seem to work like that, as a rule.

Can it be mechanical? Yes, sometimes. Is it actually any use? Yes, sometimes. (Often, even.) Sometimes/ often, diving into umpteen times more images in search of umpteen times more connections brings up more resonant messages. People connect with them more clearly, remember them more vividly, and find them easier to carry with them and use.

Come to think of it, that's the best argument I know of for holding onto relating hexagrams. They seem to be the part of the reading where people can most often recognise themselves - and you need that sense you're being spoken to, for any of the reading to be any use at all.

Enjoy the barbecue.

[meng]

Hmm, I think you may be correct about laziness, Hilary. We can also call it efficiency. If the human mind needs to find patterns of order in chaos, even if it must invent them, how much easier might we operate by finding patterns within an established system?

I can see a legitimate case made for using and not using relating/transitional hexagrams, or for using or eliminating change lines when there's more than two, etc, or any other system you choose. For me, both of those methods throw away some of the stew, and so I'll go on using all lines and the relating Gua. But hold the fan yao and nuclear, please; I'd rather add them to taste.

[hilary]

That's what I was getting at in my original question - not 'what's the system you follow?' as for some reason I didn't expect you to have one, but what makes the stew, and what's seasoning?

[martin]

Can the application of a long list of interpretive tools be a form of laziness?
Um, don't think so. You try walking round 4 line pathways for 4 changing lines, and then looking at the change patterns... it's quite the workout.


It's a lot of intellectual 'work' perhaps but it could still be 'lazy' in the spiritual sense because one refuses to engage ones intuition or higher mind. That is what Dobro means, if I understand him correctly.

[martin]

But I think that consulting an oracle is in some cases already a form of 'spiritual laziness'. I mean, sometimes (often?) we know the answer, or we could know it, if we only listened to subtle cues and signals. But throwing coins is easier ...

[dobro]

If the human mind needs to find patterns of order in chaos, even if it must invent them


Yeah, I think people believe in invented stuff for lack of the real thing, too. But I also believe that the real thing is there to be found if you have the will and do the work and tune your heart right. Don't you?

[lienshan]

I don't think that a relating hexagram is original when I study this pre-Yi pottery picture:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/attachment.php?attachmentid=402&d=1184505468

Four numbers were used:

X ... odd number 5
/\ ... even number 6
-- ... odd number 7 (a line without the little vertical stroke)
)( ... even number 8

The distribution of numbers indicates that 6 and 7 were like steady lines while 5 and 8
were changing lines. The notification was later on changed to the today known whole
and broken lines. 7 and 8 were made steady lines while 6 and 9 instead of 5 were made
changing lines. This change of notification to only whole and broken lines in the Yi
divining manual caused the use of a relating hexagram to show changing lines in the
way described by Bent Nielsen.

[dobro]

But I think that consulting an oracle is in some cases already a form of 'spiritual laziness'. I mean, sometimes (often?) we know the answer, or we could know it, if we only listened to subtle cues and signals. But throwing coins is easier ...


For me, it's acted as a ritual that puts me in intentional touch with my higher mind. In the beginning, it felt very daring. Now I have a sense of a reliable higher mind that is constantly present for me to access whenever I choose, and this sense is based on years of uncannily accurate and useful consultations. For really big questions, it would be easy for me now to abandon the oracle and simply address my question to higher mind and work out the answer over time. But I use the oracle daily now, in the same way most people check a weather report - it's a quick way to find out what's going on.

[martin]

For me, it's acted as a ritual that puts me in intentional touch with my higher mind. In the beginning, it felt very daring. Now I have a sense of a reliable higher mind that is constantly present for me to access whenever I choose, and this sense is based on years of uncannily accurate and useful consultations.

Yes, I think that is where oracles can help. They can show us the way to our higher - or subtler - knowing. Show us 'where' that knowing is.

[ann]

My goodness, I was only away for 24 hours and look what I started :mischief:

I'd always assumed that if you get a hexagram with changing lines then it must be changing TO something in the same way that Yin changes to Yang or Winter to Spring or whatever. And the text books I have all seem to say that. But then I noticed that sometimes the reading I got in response to my question didn't seem to work out like that at all. And the reading that I got which started this thread seemed positively and absolutely back to front. Hence my question.

And now I see that there's a lot of debate, so maybe I should ask the Yi about the correct way to interpret readings? (Can feel a hex 4 coming along for the answer)

Thank you all for your replies

[martin]

The first thing I always check is if the relating hexagram reflects the question. Or the state of mind or situation of the questioner. Often it does.
So for instance, if the relating hex is 34, the question might very well be about using force, or the person who asks might be in a state of mind in which he or she is inclined to use force. Or in a situation that seems to ask for it.

[hilary]

It's a lot of intellectual 'work' perhaps but it could still be 'lazy' in the spiritual sense because one refuses to engage ones intuition or higher mind. That is what Dobro means, if I understand him correctly.
Hence the next paragraph I wrote, addressing exactly that. ;)

[martin]

Ah, I see. You were talking about just plain old fashioned laziness in the part I quoted, not about the spiritual variety. :)

Question: If you read for yourself instead of for others, does it make a difference? Do you use less tools?
I ask this because what you wrote in one of the next paragraphs ('diving into umpteen times ..') seems to be mainly about how to explain things to others.

[meng]

Question: If you read for yourself instead of for others, does it make a difference? Do you use less tools?


Good question. I don't use less or more tools when interpreting for someone else, and that's precisely why I no longer offer readings in exchange for mana: Paying customers typically want in depth explanations of how I arrive at my interpretations, and either I don't exactly know or I'm too lazy to explain it. For free, they can take it or leave it. :bows:

Interesting to consider your earlier point of whether using an oracle is a lazy way. I can see that it might be, if not for the additional thought process required to sort out the answers. Also, if answers were not available, I might become too lazy to even ask the questions.

[trojan]

The relief for me is in seeing an approach that simplifies interpretation and makes it more genuine.

And I'll tell you something else too. I can't stop noticing the relating hexagram when I consult - too many years of conditioning for that. But I'm now going to stop assuming it's really part of the picture. I'm going to challenge it. For instance, this morning I drew 44.1.2, and up until now I'd assume that 13 was also part of the picture. Well, maybe I don't need to consider 13 at all! Maybe I only have to consider resisting temptation by putting the brakes on and avoiding the temptation to go get the answer out there somewhere. See what I mean? I'm not saying 'Don't you agree?' I'm saying 'Do you understand what I'm talking about now?'

Well not really in answer to your last question (a long time ago now :D ) I think 13 is part of the picture and it does not make things simpler not to take it in to account. See less does not always mean 'more simple'. Think about self assembly furniture - now the authors of the instructions really do think less is more so they give these uselessly brief instructions which don't help and you're still trying to assemble the shelves or whatever 4 hours later. To me not taking into account the relating hexagram is like sawing your answer in half and only looking at one side of it - and then saying its simpler. Its not simpler you just think you have less to think about but it never was more to think about just an integral part of your answer.


Of course do what suits you best at this time - I won't arrest you :eek: but no I don't really see your point cos it makes no sense to me in that i don't see how dropping relating hex makes things any easier, or more 'genuine', although personally I don't much regard it if i have only one line changing in which case that one line to me is paramount. Sometimes i don't take much notice of the relating hex if theres 2 lines changing but theres no rule as to why i don't, just a feeling about where the answer lies for me I guess.

Anyhow yes i realise your're not asking me to agree just saying that you like this new fangled (or old fangled) way of interpreting :mischief:

[trojan]

I'm hungry now and can't think straight. Can somebody remind me what the thread was about? :D

Well it serves you right. You used some very long and difficult sentences in an earlier post and strained your brain. Its not good for you Luis !

[trojan]

In any case, just to clarify the observations mentioned by Harmen and that I quoted, the formula "Meeting Hexagram1 之 Hexagram2" appears to have been a way to put emphasis on particular lines, the same way we today use "64.1," for example. What Harmen mentions about the non use for the 'derivative hexagram' (please correct me if I'm wrong) is based in that in those same records there is no specific discussion of them as part of the prognostications. Regardless of that fact, IMHO, the absence of "a specific discussion" doesn't deny the possibility that the overall prognostication was perhaps the product of a more holistic approach rather than based on what is specifically recorded. Furthermore, I'm inclined to believe that perhaps this is the argument that crossed Zhu Xi's mind when he proposed his methodology.

The underlined sentence is where I believe your brain over worked Luis. I'm not clever enough to understand it yet anyway - well i get the gist ..I think

[hilary]

Question: If you read for yourself instead of for others, does it make a difference? Do you use less tools?

Yes. Partly it's just that - for instance - I know that 28's at the core of 56, have a feel for this, and don't need to explain it to myself. Partly because I can much more quickly recognise what's relevant, hear what's being said, and know what I'm going to do about it. Partly because when I read for myself it's often about something straightforward, but people tend to reserve paid readings for moments that really need the in-depth work. And partly because of laziness, of whatever variety, no doubt supplemented with a touch of vanity &/or guilt about doing my best.

I thought Luis' double negative was truly elegant, by the way. ;)

[sparhawk]

Regardless of that fact, IMHO, the absence of "a specific discussion" doesn't deny the possibility that the overall prognostication was perhaps the product of a more holistic approach rather than based on what is specifically recorded. Furthermore, I'm inclined to believe that perhaps this is the argument that crossed Zhu Xi's mind when he proposed his methodology.

The underlined sentence is where I believe your brain over worked Luis. I'm not clever enough to understand it yet anyway - well i get the gist ..I think

Uh? Sorry... Sometimes I write like a philosopher--sans the credentials... For the real ones--those with PhD after their names--is something commendable and expected; for the rest of mortals, it only shows a confusing and confused mind (even though they may sound identical...) :D

I was referring to what I quoted above from Nielsen's book, and the divination records in the Zuo Zhuan (http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/athornto/zuozhuan.htm) in particular, where the derived/second hexagrams don't seem to be specifically discussed. My idea is that, perhaps, the recorded prognostications in the Zuo Zhuan, the actual advise and conclusions, are based on a wider net of meaning (i.e. perhaps contemplating the second hexagram) even though the recording mentions only the primary hexagram. Does that makes sense?

[meng]

I don't see no double negative.

[sparhawk]

Since I'm doubly negated (triply, even), sometimes it shows... :D

Does anyone knows how to form a double negative in Chinese? :eek: (http://www.chinese-forums.com/showthread.php?t=22499)

[dobro]

Does anyone knows how to form a double negative in Chinese? :eek: [/URL]

Wu wu.

[trojan]

:D yes Luis it makes more sense now. I could make sense of it before but had to contort my face and twist my eyebrows really hard to grasp it. :ouch:

[meng]

had to contort my face and twist my eyebrows really hard to grasp it.

You'd make a good fisherperson.

[sparhawk]

to contort my face and twist my eyebrows really hard to grasp it. :ouch:

You mean like:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/c/c1/250px-Jolene_Blalock.jpg

Wow! :D

[lienshan]

I was referring to what I quoted above from Nielsen's book, and the divination records in the Zuo Zhuan (http://www.anselm.edu/homepage/athornto/zuozhuan.htm) in particular, where the derived/second hexagrams don't seem to be specifically discussed.

Zuo Zhuan: Xi 15 - 644 164/11; 167 - The Zhou Yi (Yi Jing, I Ching) is consulted:

"And Gui Mei’s becoming Kui is the same as our getting no help [from the union]."
plus
"In Gui Mei’s becoming Kui we have a solitary, and an enemy against whom the bow is bent."

To me these lines in link Xi 15 look like a specifically discussed second hexagram ...

[dobro]

:D yes Luis it makes more sense now. I could make sense of it before but had to contort my face and twist my eyebrows really hard to grasp it. :ouch:You mean like:

http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/thumb/c/c1/250px-Jolene_Blalock.jpg

Wow! :D


Oh, man...a straight line aching to be cashed in on.

She can contort her face and twist her eyebrows to grasp it any time she likes.

[sparhawk]

:rofl:

[trojan]

:rofl:

[hmesker]

To me these lines in link Xi 15 look like a specifically discussed second hexagram ...

Let's quote Richard Rutt, who dives a little deeper into the subject (p. 154-155):

Changeable lines
There is nothing either explicit or implicit in Zhouyi to suggest that 'changeable lines' were known in Western Zhou. They are not mentioned in the Ten Wings, nor by the Han writer Wang Bi and his follower Han Kangbo (died c385) in their commentaries on Yijing. Kong Yingda, writing during the Tang, does not mention them, but they appear in the writings of Ouyang Xiu in the eleventh century AD. The concept is congenial to the philosophy of change as it developed in the Song period, and may have been influenced by the fact that bian 'change' had come to mean 'interim result in mathematics'. In Chinese a 'changeable line' is denoted by the word zhi, a sign of the genitive or possessive, linking the names of two hexagrams. Zhi also has an alternative meaning, 'to go, to move to'. In the Zuo Commentary, written about the fourth century BC, Hexagram 14 Line 5, for example, is called Dayou zhi Qian, meaning either 'Hexagram 14's Hexagram 1' or 'Hexagram 14 moving to Hexagram 1'. Since Song times at least, zhi has been taken to mean 'moving to' (because changing a line turns one hexagram into another), but some modern scholars believe it originally functioned simply as a genitive particle. The reasons for this opinion can be explained by posing a question: how did early diviners identify or cite a particular line statement? In English we now use numbers, writing 14:5 to mean 'Line Statement 5 of Hexagram 14'; but this method would have been inconceivable in the Spring and Autumn Period or earlier. The Chinese had to find a method involving no numbers. This was not hard, because changing one line of any hexagram created another hexagram. Hence any line could be cited as 'The line of Hexagram A that when changed produces Hexagram B', concisely expressed in Chinese as A zhi B, 'A's B'. For example, Line 5 of Hexagram 14 would be called 'Dayou zhi Qian 'Hexagram 14's Hexagram 1'. Similarly, (...) Dayou zhi Kui 'Hexagram 14's Hexagram 38' means Hexagram 14 Line 3. In some Zuo Commentary stories, line statements are identified in this way without explicit mention of divination, and this looks like confirmation of the genitive function of zhi. Shi zhi Lin, 'Hexagram 7's Hexagram 19' for instance, looks like a simple citation of Hexagram 7 Line 1, with no reference to counting yarrow wands or to a second hexagram. Yet there is some doubt. The Zuo style is famously concise, and in some places where mention of the counting is not made, there is a strong presumption that yarrow wands were in fact counted. Zuo Commentary anecdotes also occasionally tell of diviners giving an interpretation that refers to a second hexagram, without mentioning wand-counting. In these cases, however, the meaning of a single changeable line is not mentioned: the soothsayer makes his prognosis on the basis of the constituent trigrams. Another story certainly contains divination, and there can be no question in it about generating a second hexagram. Two savants discuss the care and nurture of dragons, using Zhouyi as an authoritative text. They refer to:
Qian zhi Gou 'Hexagram I's Hexagram 44' (Hexagram 1 Line 1)
qi Tongren 'its Hexagram 13' (Hexagram 1 Line 5)
qi Dayou 'its Hexagram 14' (Hexagram 1 Line 4)
qi Guai 'its Hexagram 43' (Hexagram 1 Top Line)
qi Kun 'its Hexagram 2' (Hexagram 1 Line 7)
Kun zhi Bo 'Hexagram 2's Hexagram 23' (Hexagram 2 Top Line)
The use of qi 'its' instead of zhi in four of these instances reinforces the argument that zhi was simply a genitive particle. A further argument in favour of zhi being the genitive particle is that in the Zuo Commentary 'changeable' lines are never changed. In every story where a single line statement is taken as the oracle, a changeable line in the base hexagram, rather than a changed line in the second hexagram, is used for this purpose. This happens in 12 of the 16 divinations described. (In the other four the oracles are found in hexagram statements.) On the other hand, the interpretation of the omen sometimes refers to the constituent trigrams of the second hexagram, showing interest in the changing of the whole hexagram rather than of one line.
Completely convincing conclusions cannot be reached. This was frankly acknowledged by Edward Shaughnessy, who fïrmly believed that zhi was a genitive particle.

There is something I don't understand. Rutt says here

Another story certainly contains divination, and there can be no question in it about generating a second hexagram. Two savants discuss the care and nurture of dragons, using Zhouyi as an authoritative text.

He says 1. the story he refers to contains divination, and 2. there can be no question in it about generating a second hexagram. But on the page of the story (p. 196) he says 'This passage says nothing about divination', and the story does not say anything significant about second hexagrams. On the contrary, this passage seems to confirm that 之/其 is used in the possessive sense:

周易有之，在乾之姤曰，潛龍勿用，其同人曰，見龍在田，其大有曰，飛龍在天，其夬曰，亢龍有悔，其坤曰，見 群龍無首，吉，坤之剝曰，龍戰于野，若不朝夕見，誰能物之.

Am I missing something here?

Harmen.

[dobro]

Let's quote Richard Rutt, who dives a little deeper into the subject:

Am I missing something here?

Harmen.


Only that I love it when you talk dirty, Harmen.

[hmesker]

http://www.getsmile.com/emoticons/funny-smileys-68129/speak%20no%20evil.gif

http://www.getsmile.com/emoticons/funny-smileys-68129/praying.gif

HM

[lienshan]

Changeable lines
There is nothing either explicit or implicit in Zhouyi to suggest that 'changeable lines' were known in Western Zhou. They are not mentioned in the Ten Wings, nor by the Han writer Wang Bi and his follower Han Kangbo (died c385) in their commentaries on Yijing. Kong Yingda, writing during the Tang, does not mention them, but they appear in the writings of Ouyang Xiu in the eleventh century AD.

Another quotation from xi 15 of Zuo Zhuan:

Han Jian was by his side and said, "The tortoise shell gives its figures, and the milfoil its numbers.
When things are produced, they have their figures; their figures go on to multiply; that multiplication
goes on to numbers.

I think that this confirms the thoughts of Rutt. Changing lines as we know them today are not original
... the milfoil divination notification was originally made by numbers!

My guess is, that the change of notification was made about 750 BC, because Shaunessey tells, that the Zhouyi texts are written at that time? And the reason why was, that the Zhouyi was written as a popular handy divination manual, easy to read and to handcopy. The pre-Yi six-number-symbols made of 4 numbers written as a book would have contained 4096 six-number-symbols each with texts ...

This too might explain, why nobody can't figure out the king Wen order of the hexagrams, because
it has nothing to do with lines but numbers!!! A strong indication is a 3000 year old pottery pat with
the king Wen hexagram sequence 7 - 8 - 9 - 10 written by numbers:

http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/friends/attachment.php?attachmentid=399&d=1184489318

[sparhawk]

Completely convincing conclusions cannot be reached. This was frankly acknowledged by Edward Shaughnessy, who fïrmly believed that zhi was a genitive particle.

I don't think you are missing anything. Rutt and/or his editor seem to have missed the apparent contradiction. On the other hand, I'm glad that he acknowledges that convincing conclusions cannot be ascertained. I follow that thought about this issue and steer away from asserting one way or the other. I do like, however, to leave the door open to the possibility that Zhu Xi and Ouyang Xiu had access to texts that have since disappeared, specially after reading Nielsen's book that mentions so many lost works in the brief biographies of so many ancient sages.

[lienshan]

A quotation from Min 1 of Zuo Zhuan:

At an earlier period, Bi Wan had divined by the milfoil about his becoming an officer of Jin and obtained the diagram Zhun [hex3], and afterwards, by the manipulation, Bi [hex8]. Xin Liau interpreted it to be lucky. "Zhun," he said, "indicates firmness, and Bi indicates entering. What could be more fortunate? He must become numerous and prosperous. Moreover, the symbol Zhen [lower trigram of Zhun] becomes that for the earth [the lower trigram of Bi]. Carriages and horses follow one another; he has feet to stand on; an elder brother’s lot; the protection of a mother, and is the attraction of the multitudes. These six indications [arising from the change of the lowest line in the diagram Zhun] will not change. United, they indicate his firmness; in their repose, they indicate his majesty.

To me the above 660 BC reading looks like a 3.1 to 8 reading in todays Shared Readings Forum ...