Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Yet, nowadays, Hatcher and Vilá, which are much newer translations, put it the other way around:
(But) According to the logic Surnevs describes, namely:
the first system should be correct.
ifis old yang or moving yang, is it meant to be the same as?
If so, what happens when it's in hexagrams? In other words, should we think of hexagram 1 as three old yang lines on top of each other?
I ... figure hexagrams and Si Xiang are completely separate concepts, not to be conflated, except Nielsen's table seems to say otherwise by callinga moving yang line. He uses the same terminology.
But of course. I never meant to say anything differently (though I did not emphasize them in my summary). And these larger cycles and deeper meanings are discussed here quite a bit, more so than I think they were in the 'original post'.
2) My interest is primarily with using the Yi for readings, castings, interpretations - and I am less interested in the 'big picture' or the hidden meanings of symbols, etc. The information I've provided here is practical and useful. (Or ... I am interested in these big, deep meanings and cycles, I'm just finding this in other places and in other ways)
I am not looking at the larger, big-picture 'cycles', though - as noted - these are certainly ways of depicting the four kinds of lines or the four images.
... and some here are trying to use these four 2-line figures as a way of finding deeper, greater, hidden, or underlying meanings / cycles .... and in doing so, some people have generated a great many graphics and circles, and also additional trigrams, hexagrams ....
It is of course fine that people do this! It's just that it's not my cup of tea (so I can't really explain most of what they are doing), and I find much of it speculative and based on peoples' ideas about the dao, or yin/yang, or the nature of the universe, or the underlying patterns of the Yi .... Again there's nothing wrong here, only I find much of it confusing.
I have no idea what your point is???? I'm not requiring anything of anyone.But is this thread required to be your cup of tea though especially given it's not your thread?
Really? I think I have written very clearly indeed so it would be pretty hard to misunderstand what I have said.I have no idea what your point is????
But to me what the thread is about is entirely down to the person who started the thread? How can it be otherwise? It feels like the thread was about a certain perspective or angle of interest involving patterns and cycles, using graphics, exploring ideas, none of which interested you so you decided what it was about instead.If you look at my Post 15, you'll see a good summary of what this thread is about.
What is adding to the 'confusion' (at least for me), is that some people here can't seem to agree on what the four 2-line figures represent and/or stand for .... (thought both Hatcher and Nielsen seem very clear on this point!)" Others, but never Dfreed !!!
Another: Dfreed said: " ... and some here are trying to use these four 2-line figures as a way of finding deeper, greater, hidden, or underlying meanings / cycles .... and in doing so, some people have generated a great many graphics and circles, and also additional trigrams, hexagrams ...." and some here, but never Dfreed !!
What has confused me are dfreed's novel-sized replies where an intelligent gentleman like he is, could easily have expressed himself much more concise.
It's your words I quoted.
oh i know. it just seemed to me that a more simple kickstarter (a simple question) was better than a whole bunch of images to get things going. I know you didnt mean me to erase my images dont worry!Good point, but it's not just the images, he says he replaced his entire post with one sentence. I have no idea why.
Plutonian, that was not even slightly what I ever intended, and I hope you know that.
That was the first post of the thread, the entire foundation for it, and it's a loss to the thread that you deleted it. You have a right to, that's why there's an editing period, but still.
If you'd like to reconsider, we moderators can restore it.
(I don't understand what all of you are talking about here, I have a lot of reading to do, but it seems interesting.)
But to me what the thread is about is entirely down to the person who started the thread? How can it be otherwise?
You may however be slightly confused about who's thread it is and their intentions and interests when beginning a thread? I stand to be corrected on that point not knowing others views only going by my own perceptions.You are exactly right! I am not confused by what each of the 'si xiang' symbols mean.
Of course but the person who began the thread is still the one who knows what the original idea for the thread was because the thread was his or her idea. You have repeatedly said that the graphics, ideas about yin/yang/flow and so on are of 'no interest' to you. However they are of interest to Plutonian, breakmov and others.I always assumed that what a thread is about is entirely up to the people participating in the thread
You may however be slightly confused about who's thread it is
Of course but the person who began the thread is still the one who knows what the original idea for the thread was
Could anyone share some good sources about the nature of the Four Images or Si Xiang?
You know very well that wasn't his original first post.You seem to be quite confused here, so let me clarify:
Yes, I do know who started this thread. And yes, of course Plutonian knows what his original idea is. And to help make it clear to you, me, and everyone, he started this thread by asking:
Could anyone share some good sources about the nature of the Four Images or Si Xiang?
this brief interlude of discussion about the thread itself.
Yes, and I also hope the post posted today that was deleted might be reposted.Plutonian, I still wish you would help us re-create your first one (would have to think about how to do that as your editing window has expired), and that you would un-delete others.
You know very well that wasn't his original first post.
He's right! If he'd have read more carefully through my response instead of just dismissing it he would have seen i was agreeing with him. But well, no le pidas peras al olmo.In terms of using the Yi, in any given reading, we only have 'moving/ changing' lines 'moving to' or 'changing to' stable, unmoving lines. Therefore, any given reading is not a continuous cycle, loop or process that goes on and on .... Instead, unmoving lines - Shao Yin and Shao Yang - remain unmoving (regardless of what they started out as).
Therefore, any graphic depicting the 'four lines' as a repetitive 'loop' does not represent 'change' as it's described in an individual casting or reading
The focal point switches from WHAT we discuss to HOW we discuss it when several participants start feeling annoyed with the attitude of a single individual.Some of us never stopped discussing the 'si xiang' - or at least we didn't intend to, until the 'brief interlude' came along.
BUT! And here is where my dearest most beloved friend Dfreed comes in ....
dfreed said:
In terms of using the Yi, in any given reading, we only have 'moving/ changing' lines 'moving to' or 'changing to' stable, unmoving lines. Therefore, any given reading is not a continuous cycle, loop or process that goes on and on .... Instead, unmoving lines - Shao Yin and Shao Yang - remain unmoving (regardless of what they started out as).
He's right!
The focal point switches from WHAT we discuss to HOW we discuss it when several participants start feeling annoyed with the attitude of a single individual.
But recet discoveries show that the Hou Tian comes before in time,(The symbols of) heaven and earth received their determinate positions; (those for) mountains and [lake] interchanged their influences; (those for) thunder and wind excited each other the more; and (those for) water and fire did each other no harm. (Then) among these eight symbols there was a mutual communication. (LEGGE)
I think both can be considered valid in either position, but I mainly agree with Hatchers pov since it makes more sense to me when understanding a hexagrams working. Yet, i think the confusion comes from the fact that XX century authors based themselves on the Xian Tian as the most ancient of dispositions, which depicts a bottom-up growth of both yin and yang.If you answered this already, I mistakenly missed it. But in either case, I'd appreciate knowing what you think: Do you agree with Hatcher? Disagree? Or are you still pondering this?
Who might these someone be
Do you agree with Hatcher's understanding of the Si Xiang? That the Shao Yin and Shao Yang are unmoving lines, and represent stability, and are represented by the numbers 8 and 7, etc. ?
- Name / trigram / direction / season / (no.) change state / 2-line symbol
- Shao Yang / thunder / east / spring (7) stable : yang line above yin
- Tai Yang / fire / south / summer (9) moving : yang line above yang
- Shao Yin / lake / west / autumn. (8) stable : yin above yang
- Tai Yin / water / north / winter (6) moving : yin above yin
Hatcher tells us (and shows us):
Yet, i think the confusion comes from the fact that XX century authors based themselves on the Xian Tian as the most ancient of dispositions,
Well until recently, XianTian was believed to be the oldest one, thats a fact isn't it?Who are these XX century authors of whom you speak? Wilhelm is the only one who comes to mind, since my copies of Rutt, Nielsen, Hatcher, Field are all published in the XXI century?
And from what I've read, I don't see that anyone based their understanding of the correct symbols for the two-line Si Xiang on any of the trigram circles? Can you share where you read that?
D.
Well until recently, XianTian was believed to be the oldest one, thats a fact isn't it?
... it might be good to think outside of the book from time to time. speculation, suppositions, beliefs, theories grown out of ones own reflection can also be valid, even if there is no historical fact to prove it, UNLESS, of course, we are speculating on a specifically historical matter, in which case history is the main authority. But in the field of metaphysics I don't think historical facts works as validating proof.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).