Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Jade handles seem fitting for ceremonial use, as something perfect or even sacred, but it seems a poor choice of material for utilitarian uses. Why would a heavy bronze cauldron be lifted and dragged around by handles of pure jade?
The ding was a sacred object of spiritual communion and comparable to the Christian Holy Chalice.
The issue of practicality is important to me because I once asked a question about buying a certain computer and got 50.6. Now I see it could mean that it is very perfected but perhaps not the best choice for practical applications.
Oh that's interesting. I like when Yi helps me shop, if I can figure it out. Maybe since a computer is nothing but an everyday object (at least to most people), the reading meant that it was fancier or more expensive ("precious") than what you need?
(If /when Hilary and other affected people approve my proposed thread for Exploring Divination, would you be willing to repeat your comment there?)
Lisa, I never can play a song the same twice, but I think you've summarized my comments nicely.
I'll add, it's not a written in stone view of this line for me, but it is something worth considering. I mean, I have nothing against jade or very sharp knives other than their weakness for heavier utility.
Regarding perfection and/or sacredness of something, it's not for no reason that Navajo sand-paintings always omit a detail. Perfection is considered disrespectful to the gods.
I think, as usual, so much depends upon context. I like Ginnie's example, since computers are often loaded with so much superfluous software and features. I'd go so far as to say that Windows 8 could be an example of jade handles, while many of us prefer the more utilitarian Win7 OS. But perhaps I'm missing the point of line 6 entirely.
Thank you, Sooo. I'll keep your part as it is, then .
"Perfection is considered disrespectful to the gods." I can see that - only a god is capable of perfection. Claims by mankind would be hubristic.
Re: Ginnie's example - she said "perhaps not the best choice for practical applications" - so yes, maybe as you and she said (if I'm understanding correctly), Yi meant the computer she asked about wouldn't be durable (32 as the relating hexagram). Fanciness vs. durability. Sometimes those things are opposed; probably not always.
Or, another meaning of 32, which I believe Hilary emphasizes in her 50.6 commentary:
The vessel with the jade handle "is greatly honoured for its capacity to be moved - from place to place, and down through the ages." [...] "What you have here is immensely precious, not necessarily because of present circumstances, but because of the lasting value you can carry forward."
I wonder if Yi could have meant that the computer would be fine right then, but wouldn't be able to handle upgrades Ginnie would have to make, or something like that? And so in that case it might have been advice to Ginnie to find a computer that was more jade-like so that it would last longer? A different sense of durability than "it's going to break on you."
Several versions of Ginnie's reading later...what was that you said what about context, Sooo?
The line itself certainly doesn't seem to say anything negative:
"The vessel has a jade handle
Great good fortune,
Nothing that does not bear fruit." (Hilary's translation)
Tongue in cheek...maybe it's saying if you can afford to possess and keep such a precious, impractical object, you've already had your good fortune, and therefore you may as well go right ahead and get all the fancy things you want? I don't know.
Lisa, thing is, these austere qualities, if applied symbolically toward the kinds of physical objects we've been talking about, jade could represent any substance that endures through time. So jade could in reality be stainless steel or a diamond tipped drill bit, or a carbon steel knife with just right angle edge. Perfection can be relative to function. That's what I mean by context.
I don't think a Ding was intended for every day cookware.
I can imagine a similarity between 20.5/20.6 and 50.5/50.6, in terms of what is precious to man (ones self) and to the gods/goddesses. The gods don't transform nor refine themselves but do the transforming and refining, whereas gold is what man transforms or refines within him/herself. 20.6 is objective while 20.5 is subjective.
I don't understand metal being the handles and gold being the rings when the rings are the handles. I suspect there's one thing being called by two names, as it's typically translated.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).