29.4

esolo · Apr 5, 2007

Is there something here about an exchange..you give me this I'll give you that....or is it merely about something being handed to someone else during a time of crisis?

Trojina · Apr 5, 2007

I think its about getting by, no frills just what ones needs at a particular time. I never saw it as exchange, I always understood what you receive here is given by grace, from the universe - or whatever you believe in. Of course this will often come via another person, but I don't feel exchange is part of it as in 'you will only get a if you give b'.

bradford · Apr 6, 2007

My take as well. More about cutting through needless formalities and protocols
and getting straight to the heart of the matter.

dobro p · Apr 6, 2007

I always took it to mean 'taking on commitment'. That's the risk element that resonates with 29. Like getting married: "Take a risk on the commitment of marriage, and get three squares a day." Yeah, right. Now I do most of the cooking. Commitment. Risk. 29.

bruce_g · Apr 6, 2007

Wilhelm offers an additional thought: "The window is the place through which light enters the room. If in difficult times we want to enlighten someone, we must begin with that which is in itself lucid and proceed quite simply from that point on." I've found this to apply quite well at times.

29 isn't only about danger, it's about teaching and/or learning through what is yet unknown.

bradford · Apr 6, 2007

For me the best clue to the meaning of this line is the adverb yue1 (simply, expediently, expeditiously, quickly) in na yue zi yu, handed or passed expeditiously from or through the window. The next clue is the FanYao 47.4, the poor slob who's all bogged down in his gilded carriage, and had probably better use the whip on himself than on his horses.
Both lines mean taking charge, but 29.4 is actually doing it.

willowfox · Apr 6, 2007

Offering whatever help you can with no strings attached.

dobro p · Apr 6, 2007

willowfox said:
Offering whatever help you can with no strings attached.

Hey, let's debate this, cuz my understanding is that there are very definite strings attached here; in fact it's the central meaning of the line. I don't want just to disagree with you; I want to explore this.

ewald · Apr 6, 2007

I'll offer yet another interpretation of 29.4.

I find the key element of the meaning of this line the distrust (貳 Èr, which is translated differently by other authors, but since distrust/doubt/suspicion fits perfectly with the fear and danger theme of this hexagram, and Èr appears in this meaning in the contemporary Shijing as well...).

In this line there seems to be an exchange, the food is not just a gift. In the examples with background information that I've seen of this line, there also was some kind of an exchange, though not always obvious. I'm still not entirely sure, however I'd say that an exchange is a likely situation where one might be distrustful.

bruce_g · Apr 6, 2007

I don’t get distrust from this line at all, nor do I see an element of commitment, necessarily. I see a simple but essential gift (sometimes a gift of understanding, or letting something inside that I hadn’t considered before), which enables me to go on living and doing. I see it as an act of grace, not of something being earned or owed.

But that doesn’t come from a translation, just personal experience with observing the effect of the line, and the little “ah ha” light bulb that goes on when I receive it.

bradford · Apr 7, 2007

The word he's translating as "distrust" is the one almost
everybody else translates as "two". He says:

A jug of wine and a bowl,
distrustingly using a bucket to bring these in as agreed through the window.
Eventually without fault.

I don't have a clue where that came from

dobro p · Apr 7, 2007

Okay, Ichinqueros - I'll show you mine if you show me yours. Unpack your 29.4's and we'll contrast and compare. Here's mine:

Bottle wine, baskets added
Employing earthenware
Taking in ropes from window
Completion without fault

bradford · Apr 7, 2007

29.4, 6 4th,
Zhi Gua 47: Kun, Exhaustion
(Fan Yao 47.4: grave approach, oppressed in a gilded chariot)

A jug of wine, a basket of rice or two, and utensils of clay
Handed expediently through the window
Ultimately not a mistake

29.4x A jug of wine (and) a basket of rice (or) two:
Firmness (and) flexibility meet here

dobro p · Apr 7, 2007

I like 'utensils' a lot - more elegant and sensible than mine.

I'll mull 'handed expediently'. See, what you call 'expedient' I call 'rope' and it's the rope that gives me the commitment/contract/obligation idea.

esolo · Apr 7, 2007

bradford said:
For me the best clue to the meaning of this line is the adverb yue1 (simply, expediently, expeditiously, quickly) in na yue zi yu, handed or passed expeditiously from or through the window. The next clue is the FanYao 47.4, the poor slob who's all bogged down in his gilded carriage, and had probably better use the whip on himself than on his horses.
Both lines mean taking charge, but 29.4 is actually doing it.

Why is the carriage "gilded"?

bradford · Apr 7, 2007

esolo said:
Why is the carriage "gilded"?

Literally it's a jin or metal carriage, but those were never very practical,
so just like at 04.3 it refers to wealth, the chariot of a person of means.
This makes the state of depression or ingratitude all the more incongruous
or comical, and Hex 47 uses caricature a lot to snap us out of these states.

ewald · Apr 7, 2007

bradford said:
I don't have a clue where that came from

This meaning is not in any of your dictionaries?
Suspect; doubt; distrust is in CCDICT.
Legge translates 貳 as "doubt" in Odes 236 and 300 (which fits imo), so this was a valid meaning at the time the Zhouyi was written.

Why do you have "utensils of clay" for 用缶 here?
缶 means "earthenware pot" or "well-bucket", as in 8.1 and 30.3. As far as I can see, it doesn't just mean "earthenware."
用 is "to use" in the broadest sense, so while not a common use of it, "utensil" would be possible.
So, wouldn't 用缶 be "earthenware pot utensils," and not "clay utensils?"
What would those utensils be?

willowfox · Apr 7, 2007

dobro said:
Hey, let's debate this, cuz my understanding is that there are very definite strings attached here; in fact it's the central meaning of the line. I don't want just to disagree with you; I want to explore this.

The text says that in times of danger everything is simplified to the utmost, so if things are simplified then the business about having strings attached would also be simplified, by being left out. When one offers one help in a time of danger then there are no strings attached to that help.(Unless you demand recompense)
If you see somebody drowning, do you ask for all sorts of favours before you save them?
This line is saying that there is no time for talk, only for action, the river is rising and all will be losted. So where are your strings now?

dobro p · Apr 7, 2007

Which text or translation are you using? There are many.

Which terms in 29.4 have which meanings?

You have to relate your interpretations to particular terms in 29.4. Then I'll know what you're talking about.

willowfox · Apr 7, 2007

dobro said:
Which text or translation are you using? There are many.

Which terms in 29.4 have which meanings?

You have to relate your interpretations to particular terms in 29.4. Then I'll know what you're talking about.

Wilhelm, Balkin and Lynn.

bradford · Apr 7, 2007

ewald said:
This meaning is not in any of your dictionaries?
Suspect; doubt; distrust is in CCDICT. so this was a valid meaning at the time the Zhouyi was written.

Not in any of my twelve, I see duplicitous or dual hearted, but even those are about twoness. Heck, as off the wall as Rutt is, even he agrees with Wang Bi and translates er as two. Wouldn't you think he of all people would seize on a good chance to err?

ewald said:
Why do you have "utensils of clay" for 用缶 here?
?

In English the primary meaning of Yong is Use or Utilize. As a noun it is a thing of utility. Utensil comes from this same root. But I am using the implications of the Harvard Yenching parsing and not the Zhouyi Zhezhong's "er yong fou."

dobro p · Apr 7, 2007

willowfox said:
Wilhelm, Balkin and Lynn.

So which of those three did you refer to when you said the text says that in times of danger everything is simplified to the utmost?

willowfox · Apr 7, 2007

dobro said:
So which of those three did you refer to when you said the text says that in times of danger everything is simplified to the utmost?

Wilhelm.

dobro p · Apr 7, 2007

willowfox said:
Wilhelm.

Ah, okay - Wilhelm. Wilhelm says 'simply handed in through the window', which harmonizes with Bradford's 'handed expediently' than it does with my idea of commitments and obligations. I understand you better now. Thanks.

ewald · Apr 7, 2007

bradford said:
Not in any of my twelve, I see duplicitous or dual hearted, but even those are about twoness. Heck, as off the wall as Rutt is, even he agrees with Wang Bi and translates er as two. Wouldn't you think he of all people would seize on a good chance to err?

Well, as Rutt has it, it must be wrong, don't you think?

Since it fits with what's in the Shijing, I do think it's a correct translation. Doubt and suspicion are ways of thinking twice, so that's where the twoness comes in.

If Èr is not taken as suspicion, this would be a possible translation:

A jug of wine and a bowl,
repeatedly using a bucket,
bringing it in, wrapped, through the window.
Eventually without fault.

That doesn't have the "simply" for 約, that Wilhelm has. It refers to the stuff being turned into a package by putting rope around it. Makes much more sense.
The bucket is used repeatedly for carrying things.
Another way of translating the "bucket" part is:

Double use of a bucket.

The bucket is a thing to carry other things, but must be carried itself. Double use.

bradford said:
In English the primary meaning of Yong is Use or Utilize. As a noun it is a thing of utility. Utensil comes from this same root. But I am using the Zhouyi Zhezhong parsing and not the Harvard Yenching.

I have no problem with the utensil part. My problem is with the pots. 用缶 would be "pot utensil," (which doesn't make sense to me) not "earthenware utensil." if earthenware, it would have been 瓦.

bruce_g · Apr 7, 2007

LiSe renders it:

"A flask of wine, a platter added, using earthenware. Received handed in from the window. At the end no fault."

I'm beginning to wonder if this does entail a certain "sense" of obligation, or ropes, after all. There is no obligation, but maybe you have to deal with that sense, and then there's no fault in accepting the gift.

Earthenware gives me the feeling of a genuine gift.

willowfox · Apr 7, 2007

Someone is in jail, a friend visits, hands the prisoner a jug of wine and a couple of bowls of rice through the prison bars. They are poor, so they only have earthenware plates and the one jug, it is done out of friendship, there is no obligation here, thanks is all that is necessary.

Sparhawk · Apr 7, 2007

ewald said:
I have no problem with the utensil part. My problem is with the pots. ?? would be "pot utensil," (which doesn't make sense to me) not "earthenware utensil." if earthenware, it would have been ?.

Please be patient with me as I'll offer an opinion to people that know oceans more than I do regarding Chinese...

I believe the combination "用具" where 用 is used, means "utensil", as we know it in English. One of them, of course, but the only one where 用 is used to offer said meaning. In and by itself, as Brad mentions, 用is the verb "to use".

Now, for "缶?", I believe is the etymology of the word that means "earthen crock or pot", but the main definition for it, its general meaning, is "pottery".

So, IMO, I would translate the “用缶“ character combination as "using pottery," not as "pot/earthenware utensil".

A totally layman's opinion, mind you...

L

bruce_g · Apr 7, 2007

willowfox said:
Someone is in jail, a friend visits, hands the prisoner a jug of wine and a couple of bowls of rice through the prison bars. They are poor, so they only have earthenware plates and the one jug, it is done out of friendship, there is no obligation here, thanks is all that is necessary.

No, no obligation, but perhaps a sense of obligation at first?

Had to chuckle, thinking of a computer monitor as being a Window.

ewald · Apr 7, 2007

Seems we are mixing up code pages here.

The webpage is ISO-8859-1, and I think I've been posting Chinese in a format more or less compatible with that. Sparhawk seems to have been posting Chinese in UTF-8.

You'll have to switch character encodings to read it all.

29.4

visitor

Supporter

(deceased)

visitor

bruce_g

Guest

(deceased)

Inactive

visitor

visitor

bruce_g

Guest

(deceased)

visitor

(deceased)

visitor

visitor

(deceased)

visitor

Inactive

visitor

Inactive

(deceased)

visitor

Inactive

visitor

visitor

bruce_g

Guest

Inactive

One of those men your mother warned you about...

bruce_g

Guest

visitor