Line 6: high point or endgame?

dobro p · Oct 31, 2007

my_key said:
Line 5 is the end game. You have learnt how to sieze the moment and adapt your behaviour in all circumstances to what is right. So you have reached some sort of Sage status. People respect and follow the example you set and advice given.

ps - Am I on the Christmas Tee-shirt List?

Sorry - you get socks.

Just a note: I used 'high point' and 'endgame' as ways of describing a polarity that I see commonly in line 6's. Some line 6's seem to embody the highest example of the main idea of the hexagram, and those are the ones I call 'high point' line 6's. So, if you see line 5 as the epitome of following, then line 5 would be a high point, not endgame. And I can't think of any examples right now of line 5 being endgame. And endgame line 6 is one where the main idea or influence of the hexagram is fading or past; that's not what you're describing in your idea of line 5.

charly · Oct 31, 2007

heylise said:
Could it be that 17.6 has to do with catching things? ... "Embrace (cherish) it and relate with it. (Only) then follow and catch it. The king offers a sacrifice at the Western Mountain."
... it will apply to more than catching dinner, there are lots of things which have to be caught because they will not fall in your lap by themselves... Interesting is that one of the meanings of wei2 'catch' is netting.
I hope I am not disturbing anything...

LiSe:

You never disturb. Your version fits the best: «to give first for reciving later», clear parallelism with King's sacrifice, where he gives first to his ancestors seeking for to obtain another gift in turn.

At the begining, be gentle, at the end catch your prize.

The chinese text for 17.6:

拘 | ju1 | adhere / capture / restrain /
係 | xi4 | relation / to tie /
之 | zhi1 | him / her / it / 's /
乃 | nai3 | thus / so / therefore / then / only /
從 | cong2 | to follow / lax / unhurried /
維 | wei2 | to hold / to catch / netting / pattern / rule
之 | zhi1 | him / her / it / 's /
王 | wang2 | king
用 | yong4 | to use /
亨 | heng1 | sacrifice
于 | yu2 | at / to
西 | xi1 | west
山 | shan1 | mountain

Some curiosities:

拘: to capture, to catch, a hand and a little dog, take the dog?
係: to tie, a standing man and a thread, human relations, human bonds, to engage, tie the man?
維: to catch, to hold, little bird and thread (twisted string), catch the little bird?
用: to use, to apply, a quiver for arrows? a hand moved tool for piercing or for making fire?

Maybe «to take the dog», «to tie the man», «to trap the bird» are three variants for calling the same applied art of holding arrows, of piercing things, of making fire?

What did the King use to do at the West Mountain? It is the Holy Zhou Mountain or something earlier?

Line 6 is about going to guard yourself?

Yours,:bows:

Charly

my_key · Oct 31, 2007

dobro said:
Sorry - you get socks.

martin · Nov 1, 2007

I'm just dropping into this thread. I haven't read most of it so, like LiSe, I also hope I don't disturb anything (what's the matter with us Dutch nowadays, how come we are so polite all of a sudden? We conquered half the world once, destroyed the Spanish armada, bombed the hell out of the British, and so on and so on. How polite is that? What has happened to us?

).

Line 6, the line of the 'sage' - I was wondering, according to the Sufi's (and perhaps others) there are 3 kinds of sages: the masters, the saints and the prophets.
The master masters life on earth and attains a degree of perfection in this. That fits more or less with Dobro's 'highpoint'. The perfect realisation of an idea.
The saint, on the other hand, has a different attitude to life on earth. He is involved in it because of his love but he doesn't seek to master or control it. His attitude is one of transcendence, letting go, renunciation. That fits with Dobro's 'endgame', I think.
Then we have the prophet who balances these two attitudes, that of the master and the saint. He lives very much in the world but is at the same time not of it.

Hazrat Inayat Khan expresses all this much better than I can do. This was written around 1920: http://wahiduddin.net/mv2/IX/IX_13.htm

Socks are okay.

Sparhawk · Nov 1, 2007

martin said:
I'm just dropping into this thread. I haven't read most of it so, like LiSe, I also hope I don't disturb anything (what's the matter with us Dutch nowadays, how come we are so polite all of a sudden? We conquered half the world once, destroyed the Spanish armada, bombed the hell out of the British, and so on and so on. How polite is that? What has happened to us? ).

Extreme birth control and too much access to legal pot??

martin · Nov 1, 2007

dobro p · Nov 6, 2007

A follow-up note on 17.6 and 17 in general. "Discipline means 'to follow'," writes Warren Kenton. I never thought of 17 as any kind of discipline before, but more as emulation. But following as 'discipline' works. That would make it, not so much something that touches your heart and makes you want to follow it, but something that you're actually dedicated to and working on. If that's the case, then 17.6 would come across as the epitome of following, as unshakable dedication and discipline, to the point where the leading light of the whole process sacrifices on the Western Mountain. Epitome.

my_key · Nov 6, 2007

Hi Dobro
Discipl(ine) and Discipl(e) - Good connection. Never thought of it this way before either.
Guess I'm just not reading the right books. :brickwall:

Mike

martin · Nov 6, 2007

dobro said:
A follow-up note on 17.6 and 17 in general. "Discipline means 'to follow'," writes Warren Kenton. I never thought of 17 as any kind of discipline before, but more as emulation. But following as 'discipline' works. That would make it, not so much something that touches your heart and makes you want to follow it, but something that you're actually dedicated to and working on. If that's the case, then 17.6 would come across as the epitome of following, as unshakable dedication and discipline, to the point where the leading light of the whole process sacrifices on the Western Mountain. Epitome.

So, if you followed what I wrote earlier (either as a matter of discipline or because it touched your heart

) 17.6 would be a 'master' line?

dobro p · Nov 6, 2007

martin said:
So, if you followed what I wrote earlier (either as a matter of discipline or because it touched your heart ) 17.6 would be a 'master' line?

I'm not sure. I'm not expressing doubt about what you say, I just don't know. You're ascribing roles to the sixth line, and although I suppose you can do that, I'm not sure that the sixth line is always about a role. See, my view of the Yi is that it has the flexibility to apply to just about anybody who takes it seriously, no matter where on the evolutionary or spiritual scale they are. So, for somebody who's living a pretty mundane life and asking pretty mundane questions of the Yi, I don't think that line 6 really has much of a 'spiritual master' sort of meaning. In a case like that, I think you simply adapt the imagery of the line to the situation at hand AT THE LEVEL OF THE PERSON WHO'S ASKING THE QUESTION. You know, over in the other forum, there's that thread started by the woman who was asking about the possibility of a sexual relationship with her friend, and she drew Hex 50. I understand you when you keep trying to nudge the interpretation toward a more spiritual quadrant, but it's quite possible in my mind that the spiritual might have nothing to do with the situation that person is in. I have no idea what sort of person she is, but it's quite possible that she's neither ready for or interested in spiritual development. It's quite possible that in her case Hex 50 is a symbol for a purely physical meaning. Maybe along the lines of: "She's the Ting; he's the contents; he's transformed." The reason I'm going on about this is cuz I really do think the Yi adapts itself to the level of the person inquiring, and so no particular line can have the same meaning for every person who draws it. Right up until now, I've been telling people what I think their lines mean when they ask about it, but I'm starting to realize how second-hand my interpretations are when I really have no idea about the person asking the question. When I get it right, it probably just means that I'm interpreting for somebody who's more or less on the same wavelength, more of less the same sort of person in terms of understanding, as I am.

martin · Nov 7, 2007

Yes, levels, good point. But maybe it's not so difficult to translate 'master' and 'saint' to more mundane levels?

When I try to think more in general of a 'master type' I imagine energy going downward, towards the earth. And outward.
The emphasis is on realising something out there. And striving for a certain degree of control and perfection in this. Perfection in tennis, carpentry, whatever. Breathing out.
The energy of the 'saint type' (perhaps 'saint' is a somewhat confusing word here), on the other hand, goes upward and inward. The emphasis is on inner realisation, self controle, and so on. Breathing in.

Makes sense?

dobro p · Nov 7, 2007

Yes, I think so. If we take the time to explain what we're talking about, sometimes actual communication occurs. What a concept.

my_key · Nov 7, 2007

martin said:
Yes, levels, good point. But maybe it's not so difficult to translate 'master' and 'saint' to more mundane levels?

When I try to think more in general of a 'master type' I imagine energy going downward, towards the earth. And outward.
The emphasis is on realising something out there. And striving for a certain degree of controle and perfection in this. Perfection in tennis, carpentry, whatever. Breathing out.
The energy of the 'saint type' (perhaps 'saint' is a somewhat confusing word here), on the other hand, goes upward and inward. The emphasis is on inner realisation, self controle, and so on. Breathing in.

Makes sense?

Hi Martin
Some interesting thoughts on energy flow here for " masters" and "saints".
In your original post you also mentioned prophets along with masters and saints.
How do you see the energy flow for a prophet?

Mike

dobro p · Nov 8, 2007

my_key said:
Hi Martin
Some interesting thoughts on energy flow here for " masters" and "saints".
In your original post you also mentioned prophets along with masters and saints.
How do you see the energy flow for a prophet?

Mike

Hi Mike

Maybe I can answer for Martin to a certain extent. He's drawing on the teachings of Hazrat Inayat Khan, one of the Eastern sages who arrived and taught in the West in the previous century.

The master is a doer, a man of will, who rules and governs both the outer world and his/her inner self. But everything he/she does is done for the sake of spiritual advancement.

The saint is a person of heart, who operates through acceptance and generosity, love and beauty. "The happiness a saintly soul finds, through all the continual sacrifices that he makes as he goes through life, is in his will gradually becoming harmonized to the Will of God, so that God's Will and his will in time become one."

The prophet is a balance of the two which includes the bearing of a message for humanity. I'll quote Murshid at length, cuz it's instructive: "The way of the Prophet is a more balanced way, for in the life of the Prophet there is a balance of these two attributes - the power of attainment and the patience to resign to the Will of God... The work of the Prophet is not only his own spiritual attainment, but he has some certain service of great importance to perform... Therefore such service keeps the Prophet away from what his soul always craves for, and that is the solitude of the wilderness. He longs for one place, and he is put in another place. The soul who yearns constantly to fly away from the crowd is put, owing to his mission, in the very midst of the crowd... He must live in the world and not be of the world. However, it is the prophetic soul whose life's mission very often is to serve humanity in the time of its need, and it is the fulfillment of this service which makes him 'Rasul', the Messenger."

So if I understand the being of the Prophet correctly, it includes the high-level spiritual evolution that both the master and saint achieve, but there's also a message for mankind involved - so the scope is greater, and of more obvious importance to more people. I think of Ramana Maharshi as a saint, according to this classification. I think of Jesus as a Prophet. I'm not sure about an example of a master. Shiva, perhaps.

dobro p · Nov 8, 2007

martin said:
Yes, levels, good point. But maybe it's not so difficult to translate 'master' and 'saint' to more mundane levels?

When I try to think more in general of a 'master type' I imagine energy going downward, towards the earth. And outward.
The emphasis is on realising something out there. And striving for a certain degree of controle and perfection in this. Perfection in tennis, carpentry, whatever. Breathing out.
The energy of the 'saint type' (perhaps 'saint' is a somewhat confusing word here), on the other hand, goes upward and inward. The emphasis is on inner realisation, self controle, and so on. Breathing in.

Makes sense?

Rather than energy going in and up, or out and down, I see the energy of the saint and master as being different styles for the sake of personal evolution. My view of the saint and the master is that energy goes both in and up, down and out, in the lives of each, but it manifests in a different way. Pretty much in the same way that a man of action and a woman of finely tuned emotion will deal with life's opportunities and challenges in different ways and using a different skill set, but achieve something worthwhile nevertheless.

However, I see neither saint, master nor prophet in 17.6 necessarily. I see the king sacrificing for some sort of benefit, and whether that benefit is his own or the whole group's, I don't know. And whether the king in 17.6 represents the spiritual beings that HIK was talking about, or whether the king represents the ordinary ego of the average person, I don't know. 17.6 could be about mastery, surrender, or delivery of a message to the whole group. Or it could be about something as mundane as how to deal with the people who work for you in your office. I see the Yi as being flexibly able to reflect any of these scenarios in this line. Or something else, cuz I'm still not really sure what 17.6 means.

martin · Nov 8, 2007

dobro said:
Rather than energy going in and up, or out and down, I see the energy of the saint and master as being different styles for the sake of personal evolution. My view of the saint and the master is that energy goes both in and up, down and out, in the lives of each, but it manifests in a different way. Pretty much in the same way that a man of action and a woman of finely tuned emotion will deal with life's opportunities and challenges in different ways and using a different skill set, but achieve something worthwhile nevertheless.

I see. Of course, in the breathing analogy, it is a matter of emphasis. We all breath in AND out, but the master type (at least that's my idea, not sure if Hazrat would agree) focuses more on - or is more aware of - breathing out, the saint type on breathing in.

The prophet type, in this analogy, would be more aware of the cycle as a whole. Compared to the other types a 'prophet' is less onesided, has a wider awareness, and this could give him or her possibilities that the others don't have.
Again, not sure if Hazrat would agree.

dobro p · Nov 9, 2007

I think you're right about the downward direction of energy in the master insofar as control always seems to be 'upper controls lower' as far as I can see. (Although if I understand things right, the lower does have a slight influence over the upper, in the same way that the moon does exert a gravitational pull on the earth even though the earth's effect on the moon is greater).

And the saint's strong suit seems to be a receptivity, so that would be oriented upward to a higher level - a higher level from which higher energy flows, a higher level to which the saint aspires to attain in terms of being.

No? Yes?

martin · Nov 10, 2007

Yes, I think so. Master types prefer to be on top of things, in a position of command. Saint types, on the other hand, are - as Hazrat puts it - 'ready to give in and to yield'.
The master 'comes from high', so to speak. The saint stays 'low'.

However, now that I think more about it I realize that my breathing analogy might be confusing. Because if you want to 'come from high' you first have to breath IN. And I think you can see in daily life that the 'dominant' types tend to emphasize inhaling. They try to make themselves 'big'. Sometimes to such an extent that their chest is permanently overexpanded. As if they don't dare to exhale because they are afraid that that would make them small and vulnerable.
The 'yielding' types tend to do the opposite.

So maybe forget that analogy. Hazrat also doesn't mention it, as far as I know. The idea of different energy directions in master and saint types seems to be okay though. Well, I hope so.

dobro p · Nov 10, 2007

martin said:
And I think you can see in daily life that the 'dominant' types tend to emphasize inhaling. They try to make themselves 'big'. Sometimes to such an extent that their chest is permanently overexpanded. As if they don't dare to exhale because they are afraid that that would make them small and vulnerable.
The 'yielding' types tend to do the opposite.

Yeah, and remember though that the 'master' types you're describing here are not masters at all - they're operating from the level of ego. I wouldn't even call them 'master types' because they are so lacking in real will. The real master (and the real saint) has already put the ego in its place, serving the higher self. The real master is one level above ego, and working on getting to the next level up from master.

Perhaps the levels can be described this way: ego level, real self level, higher self level. I see the master and the saint as having stabilized their being above that of the ego, at the level of the real self. And their aim is to go beyond even the real self to attain the higher self. Which is, if I understand it rightly from down here in my ego, a very 'selfless' self indeed lol.

martin · Nov 11, 2007

Are we still talking about line 6?
I would associate the real (authentic) self more with line 5. And also with line 2. The authenticity in line 2 is more instinctive, less conscious (of self), less self-reflective. Like the authenticity of a child.

In line 3 and 4 (if you see an 'upward' development in hexagrams), the process of maturing, becoming more self aware, and so on. From 2 to 5.
Distortions may occur here, we go off center, a false (sense of) self may develop, an 'ego'.

Line 1 and 6 are more or less outside the domain of self or self development. In line 1 there is no self yet or not much (what you find here are basic drives, desires, etc), while line 6 is past or beyond self development.

In line 6 a sage could appear (a real master or saint) but that is only a potential. So there are levels.
There are also level differences in the other lines. A high level line 5, for instance, would represent a rich, many sided, deep matured self, something like that.
High level line 3 and 4: some 'ego' may develop but it is transparent, aligned with the real self, not very far off.
Line 1: strong body, high basic vitality, 'good' genes?

dobro p · Nov 11, 2007

I don't mind ascribing line positions to levels of consciousness and being, as long as we don't confuse that with particular hexagrams and particular line meanings that anybody, irrespective of their own development, might draw.

Here's my take on it:

Line 6: sage, transcendent being, selfless consciousness. Ramana Maharshi.

Line 5: real Self, bridging upper and lower worlds, unified being, real will and detached consciousness. The boss, not the secretary. Adyashanti.

Line 4: the spiritual aspirant, on the path to Line 5; knows what he/she needs to get there, and is working on it. I get glimpses of this.

Line 3: the spiritual beginner, basically in a state of disaffection with life as we know it; knows that the ordinary goals of creature comforts, family, fame, fortune DO NOT SATISFY; looking around for something better. Me.

Line 2: ego; the 'secretary, not the boss'; everything is interpreted in terms of self/not-self; believes in time; conditioned self; either wants comfort or is ambitious for status and power; subscribes to social morality but kills in time of war. Look around you and inside you; it's seen everywhere.

Line 1: body consciousness, body emotions (fear, anger, lust)

Again, I want to emphasize that when you draw a line 1 in a hexagram, it doesn't mean this is a issue of the physical, or that you're being evolutionarily subhuman. The meaning is whatever that line says it is. 46.1, for instance, is really wonderful. But 46.1 can apply to anybody at any level of evolution, and it can apply to a physical issue, a psychological issue, or a spiritual issue. The Yi is flexible, and can apply to anything. What you and I are doing when we're using the hexagram structure as a model for spiritual mapping is something other than the Yi proper, I think. We're just dividing spiritual levels up according to six levels.

martin · Nov 11, 2007

I agree with what you say about the flexibility of the Yi. It doesn't make sense, in general, to interpret line 5 as 'true self', for instance. Depends on what you are looking at, through the lens of the hexagram structure. That could be anything, as long as it is possible, more or less, to break it up into six phases, levels, dimensions, whatever.

Are we not using the Yi proper, only the 'six'? I'm not sure. Of course we do use a bit more that just 'six' because every line position does have an inherent meaning in the Yi and we use that too.
But perhaps your 'Yi proper' refers to the Yi as an oracle?
I do think that there is an essential difference between the Yi as an oracle and the Yi as a collection of maps. The oracle may say something like 'stop it!' to me, for instance, and when it does that it's not throwing a map at me. It is not using descriptive language. The message is much more direct. And if I don't understand that I will misinterpret the message.

Interesting differences between our models. I link 'ego' to line 3 and 4. For you it's a line 2 issue.
It depends on how you define 'ego', I guess. I suppose you relate it more to egocentricity while I see it more as false self, not authentic.
And egocentricity can be authentic.
But line 2 represents a relatively undeveloped, 'primitive' self in both models. Raw diamond?

dobro p · Nov 12, 2007

martin said:
Interesting differences between our models. I link 'ego' to line 3 and 4. For you it's a line 2 issue.

I think that if you and I really compared notes, really found out how each of us was using the terms, that we'd probably agree with most of what the other thought.

martin said:
It depends on how you define 'ego', I guess. I suppose you relate it more to egocentricity while I see it more as false self, not authentic. And egocentricity can be authentic.

I see the ego as the false self, the pretender, the 'I' that thinks and claims it's what I am, but isn't really. The ego has a function, but that role is to serve the real self. The problem is until you find the real self and until it takes up stable residency in your consciousness, you rely on the ego to run the show. Disaster.

martin said:
But line 2 represents a relatively undeveloped, 'primitive' self in both models. Raw diamond?

I take lines 5 and 2 to be the executive pivots of the hexagram. Line 5 is the most common candidate for being the ruler of the hex, and line 2 is its 'agent in the field'. (I got that from Wilhelm, I think.) And that's exactly how I see the relationship between the ego (false self) and the real self.

martin · Nov 12, 2007

Ah yes, the 'leader in the midst of the host' (Legge) in hexagram 7.
In real life such a guy might have a big ego, and a very 'false' one at that. But in the context of hexagram 7 I see him more as someone who operates at gut level, sometimes basic survival level, and relies largely on instinct.
That is appropriate for an officer in the field. There is nothing inherently 'false' about it, I think. The alignment with line 5, the 'king', could be perfect, but the person in line 2 has a different job to do.

The unity or friendship in hexagram 13, where line 2 stands out as the only yin line, also seems 'gut level' (or belly level). The Yi talks about unity in the remote districts of the country. It is a practical, instinctive, down to earth kind of unity.
Nothing 'false' about it per se but it may be too limited, a 'we' opposed to a 'them'. Suspicious of strangers, people from other villages, or on a larger scale, from other countries.
So the raw diamond needs polishing. It's still a diamond though, a real authentic gem. You wouldn't throw it away as you would do with a fake diamond, made of glass.

dobro p · Nov 13, 2007

No, you don't throw it away, because in the first place it's necessary, and in the second place, when it knows its place, it's useful.

But you develop another facility at a higher level of consciousness. I think Idries Shah called it developing a new 'organ of perception'. I don't think you develop the ego at all, see. I think you bring it into balance and teach it how to serve.

martin · Nov 14, 2007

Umm, I didn't say that the ego should be developed. Line 2 is NOT the ego in my view.
Words, words, words, they keep confusing us.

dobro p · Nov 14, 2007

Ah, sorry. We were ahead when we were talking about line 6's. Let's get back on topic.

How about this one? 23.6. High point or endgame? The answer seems to be: Well, that all depends on who you are. For the noble one, stripping things down means he's carried along; for the ordinary guy, stripping away means he loses what he's got.

And yet, for me, the high point of 23 is line 5, not that yang at the top. The height of stripping away seems not to be the yang at the top, but the topmost yin of the stripping away process.

martin · Nov 15, 2007

dobro said:
And yet, for me, the high point of 23 is line 5, not that yang at the top. The height of stripping away seems not to be the yang at the top, but the topmost yin of the stripping away process.

It may be a high point of some kind but those fish in line 5 are no longer engaged in stripping, I think?
It sounds like they forgot about it and are having a party.

Trojina · Nov 15, 2007

But the fish in 23.5 are dead I think, the ladies have them on a line ready to eat - still partying dead fish why not

58.6 ? is that highpoint or endgame - Karcher sees it in a positive light, others seems to see it as self indulgence, decadence and all that

martin · Nov 15, 2007

OMG, they are dead?

Noooooooo, can't be.
I think they are very alive court ladies that do a belly dance for the sage. Or perhaps even, yes of course, a STRIPtease!

But let's ask Luis, he is an expert in these matters.

Line 6: high point or endgame?

visitor

visitor

visitor

(deceased)

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

(deceased)

visitor

visitor

(deceased)

visitor

(deceased)

visitor

visitor

visitor

visitor

(deceased)

visitor

(deceased)

visitor

(deceased)

visitor

(deceased)

visitor

(deceased)

visitor

(deceased)

visitor

(deceased)

Supporter

(deceased)