The Original I Ching Oracle is Ritsema’s revised version of the Eranos Yijing, first published in 1994 with Stephen Karcher, as ‘I Ching, the Classic Chinese Oracle of Change, the First Complete Translation with Concordance.’ I owe a huge amount to that book: it first gave me license to absorb the words, internalise a reading, without being told what it meant or what to do. Without that initial freedom, I doubt I would ever have been drawn to the Yi at all. So I really have Ritsema and Karcher to thank for this website and my work.
I’ve been comparing Ritsema/Sabbadini side-by-side with the original ‘R&K’. The introduction says that it contains ‘a number of significant improvements,’ ‘incorporating all the insights developed in a decade of research’, but from my reading so far it doesn’t seem all that different. The presentation is better, the Tuanzhuan has been demoted to a position after the line texts, the section on constituent trigrams has been lengthened. And yes, some words do have new translations.
There are a few significant changes to hexagram names: Hexagram 1 is Energy now, Hexagram 2 is Space; 57 is Root (I like it); 11 is Compenetration (I had to look that up). Some core words have gained ‘variants’: the most noticeable of these is that zhi is now translated as ‘to [x] belongs’ in places, which makes some parts read better. Sometimes the choice of core word is different. I’ve only found one place so far where the meaning of the translation is significantly changed, though there must (surely) be others.
The introduction, though, is all new, and it’s good reading. The most interesting, challenging part is the single sample reading (I wish there were more of these). But it’s also good on the nature of yi, on the edge between chaos and order, and synchronicity.
Ritsema depicts ancient Chinese as an ‘imaginal language’ with ‘minimal grammar’ – though from what I’ve learned from other sources, I believe it does have a little more syntax than he lets on. ‘The imaginal fields of single ideograms stand next to each other as islands in an archipelago or as figures in a dream.’ And this feeds into the book’s core idea of what the oracle is and how it works:
‘…like dream images, the images of the Yi Jing do not have a unique a priori interpretation. Depending on the context, they can be read in many different ways. And the context is given by the consultant’s situation and question.’
And more radical assertions later:
‘There are no rules for interpreting these texts. They do not have an intrinsic meaning, independent from you and from your question.’
and
‘Remember that the answer does not reside in the words, but arises in the process those words trigger in you.’
It’s a very unusual approach, and goes a long way to explaining what’s unique about this book: there is no commentary whatsoever from the authors. A brief sentence outlines the subject matter of each hexagram, always beginning ‘The situation described by this hexagram is characterized by…’ – ‘a central idea or long term goal, around which a wealth of experiences accumulate [sic]’ for 26, for instance. And that is all the explanation you’ll get. If there is ‘no intrinsic meaning’, then there’s nothing to write commentaries about.
Continuing with the introduction – it offers good advice on what the oracle does and doesn’t do: it mirrors the present, but
‘we do not assume that the Yi Jing can foretell the future, because we do not assume that the future is univocally determined. A latent tendency in the present situation may actually develop into an actual consequence: but that is in no way a necessary conclusion…’
(I couldn’t agree more, though I wouldn’t have put it quite like that…) And the oracle doesn’t tell you what to do – much as we might wish it would – any more than dream images tell you what to do. This is all very clear, powerfully stated, and a fine antidote to the insidious ‘slot machine for answers’ mentality of divination.
(Which makes it unfortunate, and odd, that when the querent in the sample reading asks simply ‘What about taking this job?’, the moving line is interpreted as telling her what she ‘should’ do – in fact as being a series of imperatives, rather than a description.)
There is much good advice on how to go about a reading – think first, ask specific questions about emotionally significant things, don’t ask yes/no or either/or questions, and so on. And a description of yin and yang, of lines, trigrams, and the three coin and yarrow methods to generate a primary and ‘potential’ (no longer ‘related’) hexagram. There’s also an account of the Yi’s historical development that doesn’t stop at the Zhou conquest, and makes interesting reading.
Utterly bizarrely, the introduction maintains that the original Zhouyi text is the first two Wings. (It isn’t.) And it says the Earlier Heaven trigram arrangement is older than the Later Heaven one – which is a bit more understandable, but (by all accounts) not true.
The text of the oracle itself is almost identical to the 1994 version – which, in turn, is very like Karcher’s re-edition of it. The basic difference is that Karcher’s comes with slightly more fluent English, and with his introduction to each hexagram and advice for each line.
Both work on the same basic translating principles of the original Eranos edition. Each Chinese character is represented throughout by the same English word, which is listed in the concordance. Ritsema/Sabbadini call these ‘core words’, and they’re printed in bold red type. A few conjunctions and prepositions have been added, in lightface, to make the text read a little more smoothly. Each passage from the Chinese is then followed by its ‘fields of meaning’: a thesaurus-style listing of possibly meanings simultaneously present in the word. For example, the field of meaning for ‘losing’ is
‘be deprived of, forget; destruction, ruin, death; corpse; lament, mourn, funeral. Ideogram: weep and the dead.’
(Not all the accounts of ideograms will be accurate, as Ritsema has chosen to stick to traditional etymologies instead of more recent discoveries. These may well ‘describe the “aura” surrounding these terms in Chinese literature and poetry’ post-121AD, but that won’t necessarily be the same as their ‘aura’ in the time of the Zhouyi.)
The use of the ‘core words’ makes for an English version that is only half-way to a translation, but provides ways to get to know the oracle that are just not accessible through other books. Simply being able to recognise whenever the same Chinese word occurs – within a reading, or between readings – is hugely valuable. Working from a good, traditional translation – such as Wilhelm’s – you would never know that the top line of Hexagram 42, Increase, speaks of a lack of heng – which is the name of its opposite hexagram, 32, Persevering. The translation ‘he does not keep his heart constantly steady’ offers you no way to tell that this has any connection with a hexagram called ‘Duration’. But in the Eranos book you have
‘Abstaining from augmenting it.
Maybe smiting it.
Establishing the heart, no persevering.
Pitfall.’
The original version, and Karcher’s re-edition, tell you that ‘persevering’ is the name of hexagram 32. Ritsema and Sabbadini have for some reason removed this fact from the ‘fields of meaning’ attached to the line, but the use of the same word is still apparent for any reader to identify.
The subtitle for this edition is ‘the pure and complete texts with concordance’. And it is ‘pure’ in the lack of commentary, the absence of interpretive tradition. But I wonder whether they haven’t over-purified somewhat – no longer identifying hexagram names when they occur in other hexagrams being just one example. Yi is a multi-layered, multi-coloured text, and I’m not sure that systematically bleaching it of myth and legend does it any favours.
The Han trigram associations are left in – emphasised, in fact, with a section in the introduction on the Universal Compass, and a long passage on the outer and inner trigrams following directly after the tuan (Judgement) text for each hexagram. But the life and thought of ancient China isn’t there: the ‘decade of research’ obviously hasn’t been in that direction. Not only is there no new information compared with the 1994 edition – no Prince Kang in Hexagram 35, still, let alone King Wu or the Dipper constellation in 55 – but some of the minimal historical information that was in the first edition has inexplicably been ‘purified’ out. Line 11,5 is about Diyi, penultimate ruler of the Shang – but readers of the new Eranos edition will have to make what they can of ‘Supreme Burgeoning converting maidenhood’. The only exception to this seems to be hexagram 36, which has a nice passage on the end about the imprisonment of Wen and Jizi.
I’m very glad to have a copy of this book, not least because my copy of R&K is falling out of its binding. And I would still recommend it as the best way to leap into Yi at the deep end, without any commentary-lifebelts to get between you and the experience of divination. I don’t know of any other English version that will leave you so completely on your own – which offers a unique way to develop a personal relationship with the oracle. Not for everyone, of course, and not the whole picture, but a great gift to Yi-ist(e)s all the same.
Available from Amazon.com, Amazon.co.uk and Amazon.ca.
Thank you very much, Hilary, for writing this splendid review. I’ve looked over the Ritsema/Sabbadini book myself, and think your comments are both fair-minded and insightful.
It is a remarkable characteristic of both Eranos authors (Ritsema and Karcher) that they continue to publish essentially the same material over and over with different titles and unkept promises of substantial revision. Karcher himself has published some of the same books two or three times without noticeable revision under different titles and ISBNs. My advice is caveat emptor. Before investing in new titles by either Ritsema or Karcher, it might be wise to examine your prospective purchase first to see if there is anything new worth buying.
Having said that, I agree it is worth owning at least one version of the big Eranos book by Ritsema and/or Karcher. We will probably never understand the dynamics of that unfortunate collaboration, but it hardly matters since each man claims credit for the same text, and each markets pretty much the same product. Hilary struggles to identify unique features of the new Ritsema version, but in fact one must look very closely to notice them.
The lack of commentary and chinoiserie is, I suppose, part of the original plan for the Eranos project to produce an I Ching modeled on Jungian principles. No one should suppose this book was ever intended as a serious work of scholarship. The bibliographies in all versions are laughably inadequate, and the linguistic approach to the text at least 50 years out of date. No, we are not talking about learning here, but ideology. The I Ching has long been a core document to the Jungian school, stamped with the endorsement and imprimatur of the Master himself. The Eranos I Ching was supposed to represent what Jung and his followers thought the Yi should be, not what it was in ancient times or is today to its devotees. Let’s just say one should regard the Eranos I Ching in much the same light as one would consider a Marxist version of the Yi. A version of the ancient text, to be sure, but one with a rather blatant subtext.
Hilary, of course, finds the Eranos book congenial, but as she has said herself many times, she was born as a diviner (like Athena) full-formed from Karcher’s brow. No doubt there are worse ways of coming into the world.
My own feeling is that the Eranos I Ching has probably defeated more people than it has helped. It is terribly confusing and incoherent. The whole idea that ancient Chinese is so dreamy and amorphous that written texts are like linguistic slot machines – pull the handle and each time a different set of meanings spins into alignment – this is an idea that surely cannot be correct. Isn’t the purpose of language communication? How can you communicate anything without relatively fixed sets of meaning? After all, ancient Chinese was not invented solely for expressing ambiguous oracles. There are quite a few surviving documents and texts in ancient Chinese intended to communicate sharp and definite meanings.
Even if ancient Chinese was intended to stimulate epic feats of interpretation among its few readers, English is not. English is a rather specific system for conveying precise packets of meaning. And it is in the realm of English that the Eranos fails most abjectly. By trying to convey all meanings, it conveys no meaning. In the end, translation must be an exercise in choice. The translator must commit to the best meaning in English, and put the rest in the footnotes. The Eranos does not offer us a translation; it hands us a thesaurus. Translate the text yourself, it says – but on what basis? Are we supposed to be Chinese scholars to use this book? If we were in fact so learned about the language and culture of ancient China, why would we need the Eranos at all?
Of course, the Jungians deny the ultimate importance of cultural influences. Instead, they posit archetypal ideas everywhere and at all times the same. Human universals. So the context of the Yi is irrelevant to their interests, what matters are the Platonic universals expressed in and through the text. Never mind that the existence of such universals cannot be shown to exist in fact – or at least modern anthropology has not been able to find them – it is enough that they exist in the imagination.
So in the end, what we have in Eranos is an exercise in literary imagination. We are in the world of literary theory and criticism as it was practiced years ago in the modernist school. The other day I looked at a current introductory textbook in Psychology used at a major American university. Jung was mentioned in exactly one sentence in 500 densely-packed pages, as an early contributor to personality typology. I then looked at the course offerings in the English department, and found dozens of references to Jung. Jung is no longer a serious scientific figure; instead, he is a teller of tales. And that is exactly what the Eranos I Ching amounts to, an endless storybook meant to reflect our lives.
Bob
Thanks for the meta-review. Just a couple of things. First, I don’t think I ever suggested I came into being as a diviner by parthenogenesis from Stephen. We have very different styles – I admire his, but couldn’t imitate it.
Some of Stephen’s books have been sold by one publisher to another and re-issued – he doesn’t have a fat lot of control over that. ‘How to Use the I Ching’ and ‘I Ching Plain and Simple’ are one and the same, for instance. But have you looked at Total I Ching at all? It’s a radically different thing from the Eranos edition.
(I wonder, actually, whether in calling his new version ‘pure’ Ritsema was differentiating it from Karcher’s approach. One thing I’ve had to learn is that the ‘pure text’ of the Yi is an imaginary animal – much as I’d like to own one.)
For an ‘endless storybook’ you need TIC rather than Eranos, which is almost completely narrative-free, with that one exception of Jizi. I find this odd – I thought Jungians took an interest in myth.
I think Allan Lian’s latest post is intended as comment on this book.
57 is Root. That’s absolutely brilliant!
I think inquiring of the oracle is a way of
seeing a bit of the ultimate reality lying
just outside of our world.
It has so many answers that are cogent
and applicable that I know that there is
something greater than you or me.
This has made a huge change in
my thinking.
Nelson
Yes, Nelson – me too.
‘Root’ is even better than I’d thought if you read it as a verb. ‘Rooting’ – what trees do, or what truffle hunters do? Both are good.
To Hilary and the I Ching Community,
The biggest mistake I ever made with the I Ching was to buy another translation to the first one I had. Initially, I had the Richard Wilhelm translation and despite the part where he translates the Tao as God and has everything in the masculine form, despite the Confucian rhetoric, I still found it great for getting to the nitty gritty of what I was asking about.
Then I had another translation and and another and a whole bookshelf of them later, so if I consult the I Ching these days, I almost feel like asking it, which translation am I going to get the answer from?
Had I have known the situation I would have been in now, then, I would have stuck loyally to that first copy and never ever baught another one.
Nandalal
Adelaide / Australia
I have been using the I-Ching – The Classic Chinese Oracle of Change – The First Complete Translation with Concordance by Rudolph Ritsema and Stephen Karcher, since I was in High School…oddly enough I got it from a book club of the month and it has served me extraordinarily well over the last 15 years. Not only has it served me well, but to my friends/family who come back to me, time after time, telling me how much insight the Oracle Readings I do have revealed in their lives…
I think it is most important to understand that the Oracle is Perfect, we, are not, and regardless of how many times you translate it, “meaning”, or significance in use of language will be lost. I have come to understand in my own spiritual practices that language is defunct, most times in expressing our experiences…this is why it is so important to not get caught up in the language.
For this reason, it’s probably why I have stayed true to my use of Ritsema/Karchers book, because maybe it does serve as a “thesaurus” of sorts, providing different and varied word choices, to be ultimately decided upon the querent… I actually read directly from the book and allow the querent to join in the process, through conversation/communication, in coming to an understanding of how all of this information coming in, is useful, makes sense, is applicable, etc, to the individual querent…
With all that said, my only concern/issue with their book is the lack of information regarding Transforming Lines, and naively, I have told myself, and my friends/family that, simply, the Universe is not allowing that information to come through the reading, at that particular time. Maybe it’s naive, but maybe it’s not, I never profess to have the answers, nor do I “read” peoples “future”…that’s just silly, but it’s serves the greater purpose, I would rather not lead myself, nor the querent, to believing something I am not sure or certain of… If anyone could direct me to a website, or an individual that would be of assistance in Transforming Lines, that would be greatly appreciated…
Lastly, keep doing the beautiful work you are doing, let the bickering and knit-picking to the politicians about mundane boring stuff, and keep communicating/sharing your amazing Spiritual experiences…this is most important in Spirituality and Divination…let’s focus on the assets, not our deficits in our spiritual practices…
Eric ZONK Kephart
(267) 987-8121 (cell – if you seriously have information that would help me in my I-Ching/Spiritual Practices, than by all means, feel free to call me…)
Philadelphia, PA
Does anyone know where to obtain a hardback copy of Karcher’s Total I Ching? I was originally published in the UK in hardback but all I can find is the paperback. Thanks for the review; it effectively saved me money, since I already own the original Ritsema/Karcher version and Karcher’s update.
I have purchase you book on I-Ching.
Where can I read the electronic copy of it, as it is too heavy to carry around especially I travel alot?
Please advise!!!!!!!!!
Thanks.
Hi Elaine,
I don’t personally have an I Ching book in print (yet). Did you mean you bought the Ritsema/Sabbadini book? I completely agree that one is not exactly portable. As far as I know, there isn’t an electronic edition.
Or did you mean Karcher’s Total I Ching?
You can get Stephen Karcher’s latest translation – which has its roots in his work with Ritsema, though it’s come a very long way since then – as part of the Total Yijing software program, available from http://www.GreatVessel.com .