56.5 - help!

[heylise]

Originally Posted by jesed
When the "omen" or "pronostication" of the line includes "in the end" fortune comes... that implies a) a process of change from unfortunate present to fortunate outcoming; or b) a good outcoming despite the present dificulties

I don't see the problem. Shooting a pheasant did not bring praise at that same moment, but later. He had a stroke of luck, or of great skill, and in the end that brought him praise. Maybe his story went a long way, from the one who witnessed it to his brother-in-law to his brother-in-law's boss to his brother-in-law's bosses wife to his brother-in-law's bosses wife's sister the queen's maid to his brother-in-law's bosses wife's sister the queen's maid to the queen and finally to the king himself. And in the end...

LiSe

 

[fkegan]

Who is that famous wanderer...?

Hi Lise,
The issue was whether the Chinese text spoke of hitting the pheasant with an arrow, or just that the arrow was lost...and still 'in the end' the wanderer attains fame and office. The second reading being tough, but also apparently well supported from Wilhelm to Gia-Fu.

Then there is the other question about 'in the end' ---is it referring to bad times now or just that the wanderer is a wanderer and not a well-established fellow with good reputation and this crowning 5th place indicates the king of wanderers who eventually succeeds anyway without any connection to the pheasant reference at all. Which brings up why make the reference if it didn't describe the fellow in the line narrative?

Frank

 

[heylise]

Well, it wasn't my issue. For me it was a clear story which made good sense. No problem at all with 'in the end'.

Only thing you can argue about is "lost" versus "killed". But I don't know if there is an answer to that.

LiSe

 

[Sparhawk]

Only thing you can argue about is "lost" versus "killed". But I don't know if there is an answer to that.

LiSe

A very honest comment. I wish I had an answer to that myself. Murky and ambiguous, indeed.

 

[fkegan]

What is the power of narrative in the Yi?

Well, it wasn't my issue. For me it was a clear story which made good sense. No problem at all with 'in the end'.

Only thing you can argue about is "lost" versus "killed". But I don't know if there is an answer to that.

LiSe

Hi Lise,
I was quite happy with the straightforward narrative myself until Charly quite insisted the Chinese text meant lost. I checked Gia-Fu's Taoist translation and he used lost too.

Then I looked how I had corresponded this line to the Sabian Symbol for a jewelry shop filled with valuable gems which seems totally different from a lost arrow. But thinking more, I realized a shop is engaged in commerce which depends upon turnover, and to be successful enough to have an inventory on display of valuable gems, the shop keeper has to be in constant sales and inventory turnover to generate profits to pay the debt service on those displays.

With that I was caught in the more complex explanation of the line. Having doubts about the simple narrative, I thought what could the pheasant be all about? Noting Wilhelm Book III notes that pheasant is an image of trigram Li it struck me (like a lost arrow?) that this moving line which would be a drawn as a broken line with an x in its open spot could feel like a li being pierced by an arrow which then was dissolving into a trigram ch'ien so the arrow was lost. A somewhat different narrative, not about the hexagram wanderer, but about the meditation upon the component trigrams.
No, not a final answer, but an interesting discussion.

 

[heylise]

Discussion is not easy because we come from – and want to go to – very different places. You look at the theory and try to find meaning. I want a meaning which can be used. And when that meaning can make you laugh or cry or jump up with an aha, then I know that I really got it. If it doesn't, then I know I am wrong or still far from what it should be. Even if the theory tells me I am right and I don’t feel it, then I still don’t believe it.

亡 wáng, flee, lose, without, there is not, die, be destroyed, deceased

LiSe

 

[fkegan]

What does an ideogram imply, what do we infer about it all?

Discussion is not easy because we come from – and want to go to – very different places. You look at the theory and try to find meaning. I want a meaning which can be used. And when that meaning can make you laugh or cry or jump up with an aha, then I know that I really got it. If it doesn't, then I know I am wrong or still far from what it should be. Even if the theory tells me I am right and I don’t feel it, then I still don’t believe it.

亡 wáng, flee, lose, without, there is not, die, be destroyed, deceased

LiSe

bold underlining added.

Hi LiSe,
I thank you for expressing yourself, which is what open discussion is all about. Everyone wants a meaning that is useful to them. My favorite Lao Tsu poem, 11, points out that real usefulness comes from the discussion as equals (spokes) sharing the open hub of Core Source. Hex 58 jumps to mind as well, in a more pointed way.

As I have mentioned under Sequence of the Hexagrams... it is my sense of Awe, meaning, and Eureka!! (even which is one of my reactions to extreme breakthrough insight ---NOW, that is so very obvious--WOW) that occurred to me when I started explicitly fitting the individual hexagrams into the KWS matrix that makes that "theory" now self-evident to me.

Of course, your statement leaves open the other logical option, when the insight makes you feel great but turns out to be dead wrong...

I wondered about the ideogram you included in your post, so I lumbered over and got out my Wieger, S.J. Chinese Characters and tracked it down (with my old, bleary and almost round eyes) in lesson 10 as a variant of wang2 with "derived meanings, to die, to perish, to vanish."

Being into ideograms more than modern characters, I note originally it meant to hide, taking the later meaning to enter into a hiding place. That would suggest the arrow hides or enters and disappears. That would support the theoretical commentary that this line is a meditation upon the changes in the moving line imagery with the final --'in the end good things' being the oracle judgment and the part about shoots a pheasant being commentary on the moving line.

The pheasant and/or the arrow disappears ( hides inside the landscape) with the first arrow shot describing the actual experience of the impatient (though with good timing) wanderer of 56.5, who rushes by, gets off a shot hastily, only glances to see the pheasant disappear from his view, doesn't bother to go after it (he may have hit the pheasant, but is in a rush to move on) or retrieve his arrow, but instead moves on to show up somewhere just in time to succeed.

Frank

 

[heylise]

Frank: when the insight makes you feel great but turns out to be dead wrong...

yes, of course, that is also part of it. But what Luis said also applies to yourself

I bear no illusions of ever being able to fully, and reliably, share it with others. Only "approximate"...

Even for yourself you can only approximate.

Maybe the pheasant was killed with one shot, or maybe one arrow got lost. But I still think he shot the pheasant. I have a friend who is a hunter, he never talks about the game he did not get, unless it was something very big or rare.

One arrow lost sounds to me like "set a sprat to catch a mackerel", lose something small to gain something big. He shot a pheasant, it cost him an arrow because his first shot was off, but he got it. And again set a sprat to catch a mackerel: used it for bigger things than to still his hunger. It is what you'd expect a smart wanderer in a strange territory to do.

LiSe

 

[Sparhawk]

I have a friend who is a hunter, he never talks about the game he did not get, unless it was something very big or rare.

Obviously, you friend isn't a fisherman...

 

[fkegan]

The wanderer isn't the one talking in this hexagram, an observer is seeing the wanderer and commenting upon his arrow and pheasant actions. The wanderer is on the move... that is his essence. The commentary upon him is that in the 5th place he has good timing which will eventually get him success.

The open issue is whether this line commentary is describing a simple narrative of how he becomes successful or a complex tale arising from the hexagram associations and referencing the wanderer only as one of a number of imaginative metaphors.

Frank

 

[charly]

... lose something small to gain something big. He shot a pheasant, it cost him an arrow because his first shot was off, but he got it. And again set a sprat to catch a mackerel: used it for bigger things than to still his hunger. It is what you'd expect a smart wanderer in a strange territory to do...

LiSe:

Your advice is good, but maybe the text tells another story.

The text says that:

• The pheasant was shot.
• One arrow was lost.
• At the end praise and job were got. Or reputation and destiny.

Whith such elements we may built too many stories.

But the text doesn't say if...

• the pheasant died
• more than one arrow was used
• if the guy had another arrows
• praise and job were got by consequence or in spite of the results of the shot

Even more:

• According to the context of the consult we may be the hunter, the prey or, why not?, the arrow.
• Maybe guys are hunters and girls are pheasants.
• Sometimes the advice could be don't waste your arrows, another times use your arrow, but take care of the results.
• Arrows are small things but valuable indeed.

A smart wanderer far from home do well lookig for all the friends he can get, maybe his best friends are his arrow and his pheasant, and, of course, he himself.

Your

Charly

 

[heylise]

My fisherman friend also talks about the big one which got away, but not the small ones. The big one which was a big fight. Always the best stories, the ones with respect for the fish which was so strong or clever.

LiSe

 

[fkegan]

My fisherman friend also talks about the big one which got away, but not the small ones. The big one which was a big fight. Always the best stories, the ones with respect for the fish which was so strong or clever.

LiSe

Hi Lise,

Are we to have respect for the pheasant as strong or clever?

Or just note in passing by with the wanderer that we see a pheasant, shoot at it, and still keep traveling on, declining to take the traditional course of bringing a gift of a fresh-killed pheasant as part of a job application, rather just keep on keeping on till the timing of this ruling fifth line brings fame and office to us?

Rather an ant and grasshopper story with the grasshopper taking off as winter approaches to enjoy his same life in a tropical climate.

Frank

 

[heylise]

I looked at the squares today. When I search for the meaning of a line, it helps to know the general theme.
Squares are the line itself, the fanyao, and the corresponding line from the other hexagram of the pair. What Karcher calls crossline omens, but with some differences. He has some mistakes in it.

33.5-56.5-55.2-34.2
33.5 do what you are good at, stay within your abilities instead of aiming at something bigger than you can handle.
56.5 set a sprat to catch a mackerel (?)
55.2 Wu (or Fa), Wen’s son, had to convince everyone that they should attack the Shang. But right after an eclipse that was not easy, it was seen as a very bad omen. So he had his commander, Taigong, pave the way, convincing them that it was not at all bad for them, on the contrary. About hex. 55 and 56
34.2 Inner power is what makes things happen, rather than exerting power.

Theme of the four lines together: Pave the way, begin with small things within your abilities, from there you may reach the bigger things.

I also compare the theme with the one of the opposite hexagram lines: 19.5-60.5-59.2-20.2
19.5 wise nearing
60.5 sweet restraint, withdraw easily when things ask for it
59.2 a versatile open mind can grasp chances
20.2 when your view is narrow, but you adapt your actions to it, then things will go well anyway.
Theme of the four lines together: Observe well and act according to what you see, don’t go beyond its limits.
The first one seems to be the yang way to handle this, the second one the corresponding yin way.

In this set of themes, the sprat/mackerel way of seeing 56.5 does make sense.

LiSe

 

[maremaria]

I can relate to the stories of LiSe’s friends , the hunter and the fisherman . My father is a hunter and I remember lots of conversations he had with other hunters, in gatherings in our home. Endless stories in two main categories. The one of how successful was their shot and the other how strong or clever was the bird or animal they hunt. I think, from what I can remember, they indeed show respect to a strong rival. Only when the rival is strong, the success is meaningful.

Some hunters use not so right ways to kill as many birds as they can. The *community * of the sports-man hunter really don’t respect them at all. I think with fishing is the same.

maria

 

[heylise]

Frank: Are we to have respect for the pheasant as strong or clever?

Umm, I said they'd talk about the BIG prey which got away... A boar maybe, or that 8-antler, or the old cunning bear, or that 50" bass.

Maria knows what I mean. Thanks.

LiSe

 

[fkegan]

Umm, I said they'd talk about the BIG prey which got away... A boar maybe, or that 8-antler, or the old cunning bear, or that 50" bass.

Maria knows what I mean. Thanks.

LiSe

OK, LiSe,
I agree this pheasant isn't a big prey. But the Pheasant is the subject of hex 56.5.

Your remarks are part of a discussion of the details of this 5th line, and would imply that this pheasant wasn't great, wasn't worth tracking down, wasn't bagged and wasn't in any way the source of the wanderer's later success. So we all agree! Yes?

My favorite thing about this line is that even the most technical view of the line, the whole narrative of the pheasant and the arrow, can be fully explained by just the lines themselves with the Chinese text being gloss not essential to the meaning appreciation. The most that is involved is the list of Li trigram associations that includes the pheasant.

The trigram Li is filling in its open middle, this causes Trigram Li to disappear, be lost into Ch'ien sunshine or heaven. The open space in the middle, marked in an oracle with a moving Yin x marking looks like the wound of an arrow in the body of the trigram that then just goes away taking not just the arrow wound, but also the pheasant image out of the picture.

The whole hexagram changes from the wanderer to hex 33 Retreat or Flight where he is no longer just rootless vagabond but now a strong, energetic process (a commander of his own little army) clearly free of prior conditions or entangling structures. With such freedom and strength, the wanderer becomes a big fish, a major exotic creature worthy of respect and thus earns his later success.

So we agree again. For the hunting image to make sense, it must be a major respectable and clever creature, which hex 56.5 is and changes from a small prey of little merit to a nimble free lance commander...who rightly earns success with the change. Great!

Frank

 

[meng]

Your remarks are part of a discussion of the details of this 5th line, and would imply that this pheasant wasn't great, wasn't worth tracking down, wasn't bagged and wasn't in any way the source of the wanderer's later success. So we all agree! Yes?

I don't see anyone but you and Charly agreeing.

 

[meng]

Oh, and Jesed, I think.

And none of you have yet managed to provide a practical meaning and application for the pheasant's usefulness in this line, beside the obvious one, which you all disagree with.

 

[heylise]

Frank, I don't agree, Meng is right. And I wonder if you really read anything I wrote.

I cannot follow your logic. And I doubt anyone else can. When I say that hunters don't talk about a smaller animal they failed to kill, does that mean that a pheasant is not worth anything??? When you shoot it, it is a very good catch. If you don't, you don't walk around telling everyone. And it will certainly not be mentioned in a book like the Yi. Use your guts! Usually they are a lot smarter than heads. I see a lot of convoluted theory in your post but no reality at all.

 

[denis_m]

The ambiguity is fruitful: "Shooting the pheasant--his sole arrow--it is gone. Finally thereby he wins repute and a mandate." Wang Fuzhi says that shooting one's only arrow fittingly captures the gist of Traveler here at the ruling line. For a Traveler, his life's journey is an experiment. There are no guarantees, but if he gives it his best shot, at least he is a consummate traveller. (Yes, a 'king of travellers.') There are a few hexagrams where the fifth line is denied the leader's role. The traveler inherently can never be a king, but perhaps can get near one. 36.5 is like that too.
"Ming" is mandate, but it could also be one's calling: He is recognized and finds a calling."
An interesting thing about the phrasing in this hexagram: The hexagrame name is also an action personified (Lv3) in four of the lines. Such personification conveys a sense of pluck--this traveler gives himself fully to his role. Presumably that would carry over to Line 5, though the hexagram name does not appear. The same kind of personification of the hexagram name is seen in #36: the one who's light is wounded.

 

[meng]

The ambiguity is fruitful: "Shooting the pheasant--his sole arrow--it is gone. Finally thereby he wins repute and a mandate." Wang Fuzhi says that shooting one's only arrow fittingly captures the gist of Traveler here at the ruling line. For a Traveler, his life's journey is an experiment. There are no guarantees, but if he gives it his best shot, at least he is a consummate traveller. (Yes, a 'king of travellers.') There are a few hexagrams where the fifth line is denied the leader's role. The traveler inherently can never be a king, but perhaps can get near one. 36.5 is like that too.
"Ming" is mandate, but it could also be one's calling: He is recognized and finds a calling."
An interesting thing about the phrasing in this hexagram: The hexagrame name is also an action personified (Lv3) in four of the lines. Such personification conveys a sense of pluck--this traveler gives himself fully to his role. Presumably that would carry over to Line 5, though the hexagram name does not appear. The same kind of personification of the hexagram name is seen in #36: the one who's light is wounded.

Thanks, Denis, for posting this. I can see at least a semblance of symbolic reference, in 'giving his best (and I guess his only) shot', though it seems worthy of only a small console to the one who now has neither a pheasant nor arrow.

What lesson may we utilize from this ambiguous idea, in our own walk?

 

[meng]

Is it the sense of detachment from consequences, giving his fate to the gods, having thrown his very last arrow/chance/potential away?

 

[fkegan]

Must the pheasant be bagged...

Frank, I don't agree, Meng is right. And I wonder if you really read anything I wrote.

I cannot follow your logic. And I doubt anyone else can. When I say that hunters don't talk about a smaller animal they failed to kill, does that mean that a pheasant is not worth anything??? When you shoot it, it is a very good catch. If you don't, you don't walk around telling everyone. And it will certainly not be mentioned in a book like the Yi. Use your guts! Usually they are a lot smarter than heads. I see a lot of convoluted theory in your post but no reality at all.

Hi LiSe and Meng,

I seem to be pushing your buttons, my apologies. I would add to Meng's list, of course Chu Hsi cited by Wilhelm and Gia-Fu Feng who in his Taoist translation of the Yi also noted the arrow is lost, and even you, LiSe, noted such a meaning is possible with the ideogram.
I thought I was using my gut to react to your fish and big game story? I was reacting quite exactly to your post, just I didn't find bigger-or-better-game hunting stories relevant to the issue of whether this line refers to an actual incident of wanderer hunting and bagging a pheasant or just meditation upon the moving line and trigram.

In that context, I again agree with you, there is a fundamental issue whether this line judgment refers to "reality" in terms of general experience with hunting or merely 'convoluted theory' about Yi lines, trigrams and associated imagery.

And again, I would only disagree with you to the extent of saying I am following a number of other sources which I personally find as worthy of respect as your personal musings--particularly Gia-Fu. If you look back through this thread you will find my early posts agreed with your perspective that surely the pheasant was shot, killed and taken control of by the wanderer.

Then, I took the additional step of checking Gia-Fu's text and found he agreed with Charly and then I took one more step and opened my mind to the possibility that my immediate snap judgment without careful thought might be in error. Then I began to think about a new interpretation which I find far more satisfying than just assuming the line means only what it seems to say in superficial consideration.

However, I accept the adage from my childhood--De gustibus... so I fully support you in taking whatever perspective you find to your taste no matter how it may appear to the silly likes of me and Gia-Fu.

Frank

 

[meng]

Your remarks are part of a discussion of the details of this 5th line, and would imply that this pheasant wasn't great, wasn't worth tracking down, wasn't bagged and wasn't in any way the source of the wanderer's later success. So we all agree! Yes?

I didn't read this in what LiSe has said. And if you agree with the above conclusion, how do you arrive at the following?

If you look back through this thread you will find my early posts agreed with your perspective that surely the pheasant was shot, killed and taken control of by the wanderer.

 

[fkegan]

Taoist alternative to the practical and obvious

Oh, and Jesed, I think.

And none of you have yet managed to provide a practical meaning and application for the pheasant's usefulness in this line, beside the obvious one, which you all disagree with.

Perhaps there isn't a practical meaning or application for the pheasant, it is just an image associated with trigram Li which disappears as the line changes reminding the commentator of prior experiences hunting pheasants.

The obvious meaning may be what is being denied in this line judgment. An established and well connected fellow would bag a pheasant to accompany his formal application for a job. The Taoist alternative would be to note that this is a wanderer with good timing, he doesn't do any of the obvious and expected things, yet he still succeeds, thus reinforcing the intensity of the highlighting how good timing is both great and what is truly great about this line.

Why did I at an earlier post agree with the obvious, off the top of the head answer and later come to a different one?
As I stated later in my post, I realized I was wrong to go with the obvious answer which led me to see the pheasant as incidental to the line judgment and not the heart of its narrative.

Frank

 

[heylise]

Hi Frank,

The only thing which pushed my buttons was that you said a row of things which were totally contrary to my ideas and saw it as a sign that we agreed.
Contrary is no problem at all. Agreeing is neither. It was just the combination.

LiSe

 

[fkegan]

Taoist contradiction pointing out...

Hi Frank,

The only thing which pushed my buttons was that you said a row of things which were totally contrary to my ideas and saw it as a sign that we agreed.
Contrary is no problem at all. Agreeing is neither. It was just the combination.

LiSe

Hi LiSe,

I noted contradictions I saw in your various statements, the resolution of which would imply that you were agreeing with one position while continuing to state another or in other terms that your gut was jumping over some breaks in your logic.

I noticed problems in my interpretation to your posts and I was trying to resolve them by highlighting what the specific comments seemed to be saying to see what your further input would be.

To keep the separation clear and straight forward. I question whether this line is only about a simple image of a wanderer who is a great shot at least at this point and thus manages to find a way out of remaining a rootless wanderer with his catch.

Or more precisely, that there is an ambiguity in the line judgment which allows Confucian interpretation: that of course, even a wanderer must only gain a settled and successful position in the standard way--

as well as Taoist interpretation: that the wanderer can succeed as a wanderer with the right timing instead of the right protocol.

This dual opportunity view of the line offers a depth and richness that delights both my gut and my structural analysis and my appreciation of a Taoist perspective but doesn't agree with what I used to take for granted was the clear and obvious meaning of the received text.

Frank

 

[charly]

I don't see anyone but you and Charly agreeing.

But I don't agree, Meng.

I believe that things are not so simple as it seems. We shoot, we take a valued prey, we lose the arrow (why?), we get a prize → praise and job. What make this sort of story credible is the relation with proof of dexterity among officials.

If the story is so simple why the Yi doesn't tell it simply?

Things are not what they seem. I believe that with the Yi elements we may built different stories, according with the consult, according with our own nature. There is no one story, there are many stories.

One of my stories:

The wanderer is far from home. He saw himself obligued to shoot the pheasant, maybe as a proof of dexterity or, who knows?, of wiseness. He shot the arrow with the purpose of not killing him. He failed with the purpose of saving the pheasant life. He lost the arrow.

As a consequence, he got praise and job, or recognition and destiny.

Why? because one of two reasons:

• he proof was not of dexterity, maybe needed by an official, but of generosity, may be needed by a great ruler.
• The pheasant was grateful and grateful animals always are magic. Or maybe the pheasant was a princess and the wanderer married her.

In folktales passing ordeals for getting the princess hand is pretty frequent.

Yours,

Charly

 

[meng]

Charly,

He missed on purpose, and so the pheasant became magical, and great rulers appointed the wanderer to an office. 'Course! Why didn't I think of that?

Just when I thought this thread couldn't get any more bizarre.