50.6 and perfecting something

[Liselle]

(Summarized from a previous Shared Readings thread)

I wondered if 50.6 might represent the pinnacle of transformation - something which had already been perfected, or would be perfected in the future, in a good and useful way.

Sooo proposed a different point of view, from his own experience: if a knife is highly sharpened (made "perfect"), it can be brittle and lose its edge too quickly if used for real-life tasks such as cutting rope.

I understand his point, and agree with it.

Relating this to the hexagram's cauldron, Sooo commented (in part):

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?

Pocossin replied to that excerpt:

The ding was a sacred object of spiritual communion and comparable to the Christian Holy Chalice.

I added that it's probably important to be clear about the intended purpose. Ceremonial or special-occasion objects are fine in themselves; just don't expect them to also stand up to everyday use.

 

[Liselle]

(The continued discussion, from the moderation thread )

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.

 

[sooo]

I think this is a first in Clarity's history, where a thread got moved to Moderation and then got moved out of Moderation to Exploring. Maybe its handles are made of jade so it endures.

 

[Liselle]

A jade thread - I like that, although with all the moving and quoting it's not the prettiest-looking thing in the world. (Maybe what would happen to jade handles if you use them too much...)

I know, we just kept right on discussing 50.6 there in Moderation. At one point I wondered how appropriate that was...and then I babbled on anyway...

---------------

Am now wondering about the cauldron in 50.5 as well...it has "gold ears and bronze handle." I might be mistaken about this, but is the 50.5 cauldron considered to be the everyday cooking vessel, vs. the 50.6 cauldron being for ceremonial use? I think I've seen them contrasted that way - ??

But would gold be any more suitable than jade for everyday-cauldron handles? I certainly don't have any utilitarian dishes with gold on them. Gold is soft and scratches and dents easily, doesn't it?

It's probably all a metaphor, like a lot of things in the I Ching - and maybe I'm dreaming up the everyday vs. special occasion 50.5 - 50.6 contrast?

 

[sooo]

Like getting evicted from jail for good behavior, lol.

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. Gold is a metal after all. It may refer rather to a harder gold, such as 10 karat vs 24 karat gold. By definition, 10K is 10 parts fine gold and 14 parts other metal. That would make the rings/handles both symbolically pure and refined, while not too refined to be utilitarian.

 

[Liselle]

I don't think a Ding was intended for every day cookware.

Oh, okay. Both dings (all dings) were intended to be more or less decorative, or used for cooking only on special occasions.

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.

Are you saying there's an objective vs. subjective contrast in 50.5 and 50.6 also? Or just that there's refinement in both hexagrams? The person in 20.6 is more refined than the person in 20.5? I suspect I'm missing your point altogether...

(About 20.6, I've wondered if Yi sometimes uses it with me when I am being ridiculously myopic about my own readings and therefore can't understand them at all. (I do things like panic unduly if the reading is the slightest bit negative...drag my entire life into a simple question...) "Pretend it's someone else's reading!" I think Yi might be saying, to encourage a tiny bit of objectivity .)

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.

Hilary says, ""gold ears and bronze handle"
Wilhelm: "yellow handles, golden carrying rings"
LiSe: "yellow ears, metal rings"
Bradford: "golden ears and metal grip"

Bronze (from Wikpedia) is "an alloy consisting primarily of copper, commonly with about 12% tin and often with the addition of other metals..."

Both bronze and gold are yellow (or yellow-brownish) in color...re: your translation idea, there could maybe be two things each called by two names? Bronze = gold, ears = handles? You'd think a translator would surely have straightened it out by now?

The Wikipedia article has a picture of a bronze ding. I wonder if it's completely bronze, not just the handles. There are cooking pots today made of copper, aren't there, so you could probably cook in a bronze vessel?



I'm not sure how any of this helps us in interpretation...yellow can mean the idea of middle ground, I think? Didn't high-status people wear yellow robes? Did green (jade) mean something special? I don't know what gold and jade signified, as substances or materials to make things with.

Also - I think I may have gone wrong in the very beginning of this, referring to 50.6 as "the pinnacle of transformation." Looking at the lines, they don't seem to have much to do with transforming what's in the cauldron; they seem to be about the object itself: what it looks like, what it's made of, what you do with it (e.g. turn it upside down). There also doesn't seem to be a tranformation of the vessel as you go through the lines (I don't think). The lines seem to be disconnected factoids or situations involving cauldrons, and how those might affect the contents or the people involved. But not so much about transformation per se. (I don't think, anyway )

Line 1 - "The vessel with upturned feet."
Line 2 - "The vessel contains something real."
Line 3 - "The vessel’s ears are radically changed."
Line 4 - "The vessel’s legs break off."
Line 5 - "The vessel with gold ears and bronze handle."
Line 6 - "The vessel has a jade handle."

Only line 2 seems to make direct reference to transforming the substance inside the vessel, turning it into something "real." In line 1 the point of turning it upside down is to dump the (presumably stagnant) contents out, so maybe that one, too.

(I think brambleweeds have gotten me. Hand me a nice sharp knife, Sooo, please.)

 

[Liselle]

There seems to also be some interesting information about jade in Wikipedia:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jade

I don't have time now to read it very well, but a few things:

1. "Additionally, jade was used for adze heads, knives, and other weapons, which can be delicately shaped." Notice it says adze heads, not adze handles. So maybe it's not all that delicate? (Though of course less sturdy than metal, which the article says replaced it for these sorts of uses and resulted in jade being used more for ornaments). American Indians made arrowheads out of stone, after all.

2. "In the history of the art of the Chinese empire, jade has had a special significance, comparable with that of gold and diamonds in the West.[7] Jade was used for the finest objects and cult figures, and for grave furnishings for high-ranking members of the imperial family." So was gold a lesser substance to the ancient Chinese?

3. Down at the bottom under "Enhancement," it seems there can be some difficulty in getting a nice finish (color, texture, translucency) without ruining the jade in the process. Maybe this implies that a high level of skill is needed? BUT - it's not clear (to me, anyway) which of the enhancement processes are modern, versus what was done in ancient times.

(I do realize Wikipedia is what it is, as I'm busy quoting it.)

 

[sooo]

That's true, bronze does appear to be golden color. I 've been searching for bronze ting/ding with gold or jade ring images. Maybe Charly or others can offer some help here. Just seems odd that the handle and ring are considered two separate objects. Unless the handles are the ears and the rings, earrings.

Not to dwell on my 20.5, 6 connection, it's a minor point I was making.

I think it's clear that the ding was for sacrificial rituals, even when served to royalty, who were representatives of heaven. And why three legs? I once had kitchen chairs with three legs, and it's no wonder a three legged ding would easily tip over.

I did find steel knives with jade handles.

 

[Liselle]

Yes, good points - thank you for bringing all this up, Sooo. I agree it's confusing about the handles/rings/ears.

I'm hoping to find some decent examples of readings involving 50's lines, especially 5 and 6, which might help clarify how Yi uses all this in practice. Won't be today, though, and am not holding my breath anyway. Notes on my own readings, when notes exist, tend to be things like "Huh?" and "?????" (Am trying to do better lately!)