Four years ago , I posted about my first encounters with shadow hexagrams. And last week I was reminded of them again when a friend asked me to look at his connected-hexagrams-generating script that included Ideal and Shadow, along with many more of the creations from Stephen Karcher’s divination-laboratory.
(The Shadow – quick recap, more in the original post – is the hexagram found by counting back through the Sequence. Hexagram 1′s Shadow is 64, Hexagram 2′s Shadow is 63, and so on all the way in to 32 Shadowing 33.)
I realised to my shame that I’d been neglecting Shadows, even though I’ve found them distinctly helpful. What the Shadow points out is not necessarily apparent from other parts of the reading: it’s exactly the wrong way to think about the issue, an approach that will have you tied in knots, turning in circles and completely unable to engage or progress. I found that, very often, I could identify the Shadow-mindset in myself or whoever I was reading for: it would pinpoint exactly where we were stuck.
Yet… I hadn’t been looking at these, not for the majority of readings.
So I asked Yi, ‘What about Ideals and Shadows?’
The line of thought behind my question: is this something I should get back to? What value does it hold? I’m mostly interested in the Shadow, but I haven’t forgotten that Stephen likes to look at them alongside the Ideal.
Yi answered with Hexagram 40, Release, changing at line 2 to 16, Enthusiasm.
So here is the core of what Yi says about Shadows and Ideals:
And here is something Stephen wrote about them,
…and something I found about them:
It seems to me that the Shadow hexagram plays the role of the foxes. They represent delusion, confusion, fantasy – the negative face of the relating hexagram 16, ungrounded imaginings. Mythological foxes have the habit of disguising themselves to pass as real people and luring people into relationship with them – but none of this is real. Shadow hexagrams have the habit of disguising themselves as just obvious, the natural way to see the thing, so all your energy is soaked up before you even get close to the reality.
Also, looking round the line pathway of 40.2 (39.5, 15.5, 16.2, 40.2), there’s a theme of confinement, the need to breach boundaries before they calcify altogether (16.2), and the way you can find help by going beyond boundaries (15.5) and into hardship (39.5).
It all reminds me of something I was listening to this morning, asserting that the very first step to clearing personal hang-ups and fears is to get into situations where you experience those fears. If you create a life for yourself where you can always avoid them, the opportunity to clear them never arises; you just live inside the boundaries they create.
Well… I see a connection between deliberately entering difficult situations, and 39.5 (would you have met those partners if you’d stayed in the comfort zone?), and the idea of breaching limits, and deliberately using the Shadow hexagram to look at the concepts obstructing you, and taking the foxes.
If you take the foxes, cancel out their powers of deception,*you can gain a golden arrow: shining and imperishable, the means of going directly in free flight to what you need. Stephen K talks about how the Shadow contains potential that can be unlocked if you manage not to think consciously along the lines it lays out, but instead find a new way of seeing in the Ideal hexagram:
‘Release’, hm?
Maybe the golden arrow is in the Ideal, or maybe it’s the emergent potential of the Shadow site when you’re freed from that. In any case, I had this fresh in my mind during last Saturday’s Change Circle call when someone asked if there were other hexagrams of context that might cast light on a Hexagram 2 unchanging. So I suggested its Shadow, 63,* and the reading’s ‘owner’, who as far as I know had never heard of Shadow Hexagrams before, took the foxes and saw the point (or gained the arrow, I suppose…) instantly – I was startled by how immediate it was for her. No explaining, interpreting or associated cleverness required.
We had the idea of using some of these calls to look at people’s readings through the lens of a specific interpretive technique, so we’re both studying and doing something real. Shadow hexagrams, anyone? Straightforward idea, nothing technically elaborate, and a very useful way to get to the heart of a reading.
You may be wondering about the Shadow of hexagram 40. It’s 25, Without Entanglement. Again, this is a lot clearer in the context of the reading, because my initial response to the friend with the connected-hexagram-generator was along the lines of, ‘These are Stephen Karcher’s ideas, not mine at all, so he’s the one you need to ask about how to describe them, not me.’ Hm. Very 25-ish, seeing it as if the main question were, ‘Is this mine, or not?’ – and hence altogether missing the freedom and energy inherent in Hexagram 40, as it asks ‘Could this lead me somewhere worth exploring?’
(With thanks to Dave Dyet for the fox.)

So the shadow hexagram is both the thing, the problem you are grappling with, and the thing not to do, the approach not to take. It can be either or both. Are these especially useful for unchanging hexagram answers or all answers ? I suppose with changing lines the picture is more complex. You might still have 3 as 62's shadow but if the lines move it's not altogether 62 so the shadow aspect is mitigated ? We have a really good thread on 62uc happening right now I wonder if 3 as it's shadow spreads any light.

The thing is this idea of shadow hexagrams invented by Karcher can only be said to hold water when it shows as useful in repeated experimentation using real life studies.

I just tried it on the 62uc thread http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/frie...03-Hexagram-62-Unchanging&p=188086#post188086 I tried to see how the advice of 3 in 62 situations was what not to do. But it didn't seem very convincing. Bruce had scorpion bites and got 62uc...so he was not meant to take the advice of 3 and go looking for information and so on ? But he did ask neighbours, he needed to ask them.

You said when someone realised that 63 was the shadow of 2 it all made sense to her...but how did it make to her ? You didn't exactly say ? It's just the whole idea needs firming up a lot doesn't it ?

Anyway so far I'm stumped on how 3 is the shadow of 62

Also they may not be shadows but reflections...like this said elsewhere

If the shadow hexagrams were drawn in some kind of diagram wouldn't it look like you had thrown a stone in a pond. making a wide circular ripple. The widest ripple would be 1 and 64 and the middle of the ripple, the smallest circle, would be 32 and 33.

Click to expand...

with that image why would 64 be shadow to 1 when it might just as easily be 'widest reflection' to 1.

Stephen explains it better, of course - see the pdf downloadable from here.

And yes, naturally the proof of all such puddings is in the readings. The 2 unchanging was a Change Circle reading, can't talk about it 'out here' - I only mentioned it because I was impressed how naturally it landed with her, whereas your average new interpretive tool takes a lot of getting used to (think line pathways).

So why, sitting on your own with half a dozen scorpion bites, would Hexagram 3 be 'how not to think about this'? What would be a 3-ish approach to a medical crisis anyway? Maybe staying put, exploring possibilities, seeking information from as many different sources as possible, and not committing to any single purpose or course of action, as that would be premature. Lots of Googling, probably, unless of course you were incapacitated by pain at the time... But I would be more confident about this one if I were sure what the original 62 meant, which I'm not.

In the broadest possible terms... 62 and 3 are both small, but 3 is just beginning to establish itself and expand to fill the space. Maybe 3 aims to expand its resources to match its ambitions, while 62 goes the other way, shrinking ambitions to match resources.

Just to complicate things, I just had a 6.4 > 59, with the relating hex as the shadow hexagram. I'm still puzzling over that.

hilary said:

So why, sitting on your own with half a dozen scorpion bites, would Hexagram 3 be 'how not to think about this'? What would be a 3-ish approach to a medical crisis anyway? Maybe staying put, exploring possibilities, seeking information from as many different sources as possible, and not committing to any single purpose or course of action, as that would be premature. Lots of Googling, probably, unless of course you were incapacitated by pain at the time... But I would be more confident about this one if I were sure what the original 62 meant, which I'm not.

In the broadest possible terms... 62 and 3 are both small, but 3 is just beginning to establish itself and expand to fill the space. Maybe 3 aims to expand its resources to match its ambitions, while 62 goes the other way, shrinking ambitions to match resources.

Click to expand...

First, this method is still too new to my thinking to be a staple in my processes, but basically, 3 would have affirmed my inclination NOT to seek out helpers and just ride it out quietly alone. Though to me it still described a difficult beginning well enough to be considered not entirely reliable input. It's still a questionable gray area to me. Yes, I think your last statement is quite fitting also, now that I consider it. The situation was the opposite direction of trying to achieve, acquire or accomplish something. It had more to do with reducing the crisis aspect, such as calming myself and lowering my blood pressure and self inflicted angst over it. In spite of the initial physical symptoms, minimal treatment such as smudging for psychological relief and a couple Benadryl to relieve the physical symptoms both helped me to relax more with it. I suppose they could be considered helpers too, but not of the same kind as calling upon blaring ambulances and a staff of life saving paramedics would have. Driving to the ER was out of the question since I could not feel my hands. In retrospect, I made the right decisions for me. I can't answer what would be best in that situation for someone else.

Stephen explains it better, of course - see the pdf downloadable from here.

Click to expand...

He doesn't. I find his writing very difficult and usually give up after a sentence. He may have the ideas but he needs an interpreter to put it into plain English IMO. But thanks for the link.

And yes, naturally the proof of all such puddings is in the readings. The 2 unchanging was a Change Circle reading, can't talk about it 'out here' - I only mentioned it because I was impressed how naturally it landed with her, whereas your average new interpretive tool takes a lot of getting used to (think line pathways).

Click to expand...

Yes I know you can't talk about it in reference to her reading. I just wondered how 63 would be the shadow to 2 in general.

In the broadest possible terms... 62 and 3 are both small, but 3 is just beginning to establish itself and expand to fill the space. Maybe 3 aims to expand its resources to match its ambitions, while 62 goes the other way, shrinking ambitions to match resources.

Click to expand...

Yes that's plausible, though as Lisa said in the 62 thread one could argue a case for any 2 hexagrams being the shadow etc. I will be trying it out anyway. Thankyou for bringing the idea to us here (in English)

Trojina said:

I just wondered how 63 would be the shadow to 2 in general.

Click to expand...

Hypothetically, 63 marks the closure, while 2 marks the opening.

Possibly yes.

hilary said:

Stephen explains it better, of course - see the pdf downloadable from here.

Click to expand...

Trojina said:

He doesn't.

Click to expand...

Agreed, although in fairness Hilary is a better explainer of things than 99.9% of humans. Hilary, please clone yourself and write all the words on earth, please? (Not being at all sycophantic, though. Not one bit .)

I did read Karcher's essay, and found it interesting and informative, but not fleshed out as much as we need (which stands to reason since it was an introductory article). The example reading was an excellent question, and a lovely, educational reading, but maybe just not the best one with which to introduce this concept? Just my opinion, but this is a rather "airy" concept, which might be easier to grasp with examples that are more concrete.

I am dubious about sequence-related things, as Trojina said. Those who have said that the hexagrams could be put into any order (with the 1-2 and 63-64 sort of exceptions) and people could come up with sequence-y sentences to link them together - pretty much agree with that.

But it would be dandy if it was somehow proven "correct" and useful. (I get that it may not be possible to "prove" it.) The sequence has endured for a long time; often that says something? And any help we can get for interpretation would be a good thing. The other huge problem, of course, is that trying to integrate all these sorts of "context" hexagrams into readings is more than I can handle. Don't know if that would improve with practice.

andrea said:

Just to complicate things, I just had a 6.4 > 59, with the relating hex as the shadow hexagram. I'm still puzzling over that.

Click to expand...

Eek! Wonder if it means that the shadow is even more emphasized in your situation? Like, not only is 59 the shadow, it's the shadow AND how you're relating to the matter?

Oh, I have one more extreme than that: 11.3.4 to 54. Shadow is not only relating hexagram but also the nuclear. Goodness knows what I'm supposed to make of that.

63 vs 2:
'...Beginnings, good fortune.
Endings, chaos.'
vs
'...
At first: confusion. Later: gains a master.'

So 63 says, 'OK, I know what I'm doing here, I've already committed to doing it - the key is to keep going.' And 2 says 'I have no idea where I'm going but I'll start moving and hope for a guide.' If you started 2 with the idea you had already chosen your direction, you'd miss out on a lot.

Sycophancy is always welcome. You can never too much of that.