Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
A) Read the judgement of both Hex's
B) Read the unchanging line of the primary Hex
C) Read the unchanging line in the relating Hex
I'd like to note here that I didn't make it up myself about concentrating on the unchanging line.Never do B or C.
(you didn't recieve those lines, no reason to read them. Might as well read an encyclopedia.)
I'd like to note here that I didn't make it up myself about concentrating on the unchanging line.
If Wilhelm, Blofeld, Ritsema & Karcher, Chu Hsi, Henry Wei said that the 2nd hex is the future, well, all I can say is that any person is capable of error.
I'm sorry if this has been asked dozens of times before; but what is the "correct" (for want of a better word) way to read a Hexagram with 5 changing lines?
For example: I received 40.1.2.3.4.5 > 63 recently, so do you:
A) Read the judgement of both Hex's
B) Read the unchanging line of the primary Hex
C) Read the unchanging line in the relating Hex
This has always confused me.
Say using this example (40>63) using either B or C would give opposite advice as 40.6 speaks of action but 63.6 speaks of non action
Any thoughts?
For example: I received 40.1.2.3.4.5 > 63 recently, so do you:
A) Read the judgement of both Hex's
B) Read the unchanging line of the primary Hex
C) Read the unchanging line in the relating Hex
This has always confused me.
Say using this example (40>63) using either B or C would give opposite advice as 40.6 speaks of action but 63.6 speaks of non action
why would you read the unchanging line in the relating hexagram, (there are no change lines in relating hexagrams) I guess you mean look at the unchanging line in the primary and read it's equivalent in the relating hexagram. To me this is a very strange thing to do.
Greatly phrased maui.As for relating / context / future Hexagram, I think the second Hex can be all of them, and there is to me no need to limit yourself to one way of reading it. It would, to me, depend on the question, and my own situation while casting the reading.
The way I see it, the reason to focus on various peripheral elements (sometimes) is because the relationship between the lines, the trigrams, the hexagrams, the line positions etc, is so organic and intricate, that it's not possible to get a straighforward clear-cut answer via a clear-cut A>B>C method. Of course in some cases the answer is clear as day, and quite A>B>C, but as we all know this is very often not the case.That is what you received, so is there any reason to disregard this and focus on something else (unchanging line, unchanging line in relating hex etc...)
So my question to those who espouse using all changing lines received is, let's say you get 50 changing to 10. In the Nanjing method you would read the judgment of 50. Using all the lines you would read that judgment, plus lines 1, 3 and 5. So if you are asking about going ahead with a project the answer will be:
Good fortune/go for it.
Clean things out (i.e. clearing out the cauldron benefits).
The contents of the cauldron can't be eaten (because there is no access to them, i.e. a secondary process failure).
The omen is good, (there is access, secondary process success).
So which is it? Is this a good or a bad omen? Should you proceed or not?
In the end, the most important thing to me is that the reading SPEAKS to me
Perhaps like any other meaningful conversation it is a nuanced answer rather than just 'good' and 'bad'.
.To clarify, I'm not saying my method is the only right one, just that it is the one that, as far as we can determined, was used in early China
Perhaps like any other meaningful conversation it is a nuanced answer rather than just 'good' and 'bad'.
That is meaningful for me. Others might not care about that. Naturally everyone uses the method they find most fitting and I wouldn't think of saying my method is better. It's just ancient, perhaps about 700 years 'younger' than the Zhouyi itself, and it works well for me. I used multi-line interpretation for several decades, but was never fully satisfied with it. Once I discovered the method that Kongzi would probably have used to 'eliminate doubts' (the purpose of the Yi, after all), that was good for me.
I am amply familiar with the series of lines as a story approach, I just don't like it. Never did.
.Once I discovered the method that Kongzi would probably have used to 'eliminate doubts' (the purpose of the Yi, after all), that was good for me
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).