PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
‘Sending out the ignoramus,
Fruitful to make use of punishing people,
To make use of loosening fetters and manacles.
Going on in that way is shameful.’
‘With the opening up of Juvenile Ignorance, it is fitting both to subject him to the awareness of punishment and to remove fetters and shackles, but if he were to set out in this way, he would find it hard going.’
Favourable to use prisoners (as slaves).
Remove hand- and foot shackles
As these hinder going.
‘Enlightening an ignorant. Favorable to set examples. Operating with shackles, going forward: humiliation.’
‘Discipline should not degenerate into drill. Continuous drill has a humiliating effect and cripples a man’s powers.’
But at least tradition, common sense and reading experience all agree that any problems with this line come from leaving the shackles on.
Thanks for sharing this. Setting aside for the time being his 'Dodder' translation of Hex. 4, for me Richard Rutt's translation of Line 4.1 feels similar to other translations:From all this, I like the idea that both punishments and freedom are teaching/learning tools, and especially the freedom to incur punishment. We need to be unshackled to experience the real world, not just learn the rules.
Indeed. I think tradition is right, and the 'I' who speaks in the Judgement text is the Oracle itself - or, by extension, anything the querent's engaging with and seeking an answer. Sometimes the world at large.Another thing that came to mind: it seems that the language of the translations point to an (or the) 'other' - that all this applies to others, and not to ourselves. For example, we have:
4 - It is not I who seek the young fool(s); The young fool (or fools) seeks me. (Wilhelm)
4 - We (or I) do not seek the dodder; the dodder seeks us (Rutt)
4.1 - To make a fool (e.g. someone else) develop / It furthers one (e.g. us) to apply discipline (Wilhelm).
I think then that this makes it a bit too easy to make the 'fool' or 'young fools' be someone else, and that therefore it is 'we' (me, myself, I, ourselves) whom the fool is seeking, or we are the ones whom are loosening fetters /and or applying discipline - or taking action to correct others foolish mistakes.
But it takes on new and perhaps more profound meanings (that I think Hilary also mentions): that in a given situation, we (or me) are the fools who need to develop, or need to be disciplined' - that it is I who needs to be disciplined or have my shackles removed ....
This is a clear instance of the tendency inspired by the Doubting Antiquity movement to substitute far-fetched meanings for received ones that are quite clear. That a plant seeks someone is self-evidently absurd, particularly as the sacredness of parasitic plants is not attested in any Chinese text, at least of which I am aware.
Perhaps quite true, I don't really know. And of course like any farmer, we don't want the 'dodder' to grow so out of control that it strangles our other crops - which might be of use to us.As for dodder... on the one hand, Redmond pours very convincing scorn on the idea: ....
.... This is a clear instance of the tendency inspired by the Doubting Antiquity movement to substitute far-fetched meanings for received ones that are quite clear ....
Most of the people who I am familiar with here seem to shy away (at the very least!) from the New Age twaddle, and there seems to be some agreement that that is what it is. But as to whether someone likes (or uses or agrees with) Rutt, or Wilhelm or Barrett or ... that seems to be based on personal choice and what works for each of us. I have my 'criteria' for what works - I'm assuming others have theirs as well.If all someone has is a pile of translation-free New Age twaddle labelled 'I Ching', might they be missing out on something ....
Good lord! I hope not. But then again you forgot to mention 22 Bedight (which I believe is an older word for 'adorn' but reminds me of 'delight'); and 30 Oriole, and oh don't get me started on 33 Pig! ... or the Outskirts Altar, Moon Pit (which reminds me of Moon Unit, Frank Zappa's daughter), the Ghost River and the River-Mountain Festival. Just sayingDo we need to stop doing readings until we have definitive answers to all this?
These kinds of questions have been on my mind since my interest in the modernist bronze age reconstruction began. Quite a few of the reconstructions add nuance, while some are just weird. I do like to think there was some continuity between the Zhou and the Han, that people just didn't completely forget the old meanings, but built on them, built more sophisticated frameworks around them. The Han didn't arrive by space ship from another planet, after all. If there's just no relationship at all, then I think I'd generally stick with the received version.And at the opposite extreme, does meng 'really' mean dodder? Is Hexagram 36 'really' about a pheasant and nothing to do with hiding brightness at all? (And if so, have all the readings with 36 been completely misinterpreted for the past couple of millennia?) Do we need to stop doing readings until we have definitive answers to all this?
Hehe. I detect a subtle dig against Stephen. Well, I'm not going to argue. All I can say is that when I was reading Shaugnessey's "Composition," I often had TIC open for comparison. All of those weird, extravagant ideas in the Myths section, presented without any footnotes or indications of how he got the ideas ... and then you see, ah! He got that directly from Shaughnessey! And did something interesting with it! I saw it with Kui, Zhen, Wu Wang, and a few others. I really liked how he handled Wu Wang, looking at the reconstructed idea of "pestilence," then linking it back to the more traditional idea of "innocence," or "disentangling." There's still heaps I don't get, maybe he got those from Kunst or someone I haven't read. But I've begun to realize that if I don't get something he says, it probably does just mean I haven't worked it out yet. I'm more curious than dismissive when it happens now. He is my great example of someone who does try to find the relationship between the reconstructions and the traditions, which is exactly what I think makes the reconstructions interesting..... and 30 Oriole, and oh don't get me started on 33 Pig! ... or the Outskirts Altar, Moon Pit (which reminds me of Moon Unit, Frank Zappa's daughter), the Ghost River and the River-Mountain Festival. Just saying
When I first read Karcher, I emailed him with some questions - but I never heard back. In my mind I had this wild fantasy that I'd drive up my island, then catch the ferry across to Port Townsend - where he was living at the time (about an hour's travel from my place) - and I'd treat him to a beer or coffee, and ask him, 'what the heck does .... mean?'. I have also seen two short videos - now no longer on the internet - of him teaching an I Ching course - and I was very taken by what he said, especially regarding the transformative (and perhaps healing) nature of the Yi.I detect a subtle dig against Stephen. Well, I'm not going to argue.
But then again, is there really no relationship, or is this just an instance when you just haven't worked it out yet?If there's just no relationship at all, then I think I'd generally stick with the received version.
I think we accept and dismiss ideas, ways of seeing, etc... all the time. But perhaps 'dismiss' means (or should mean?) that at a given moment we don't find a particular idea, or concept, or translation, or way of seeing the Yi to be either useful or meaningful for us; or at this moment, we just don't understand it. So we instead 'fall back' on what we think we know, a.k.a. the 'received version'.I've begun to realize that if I don't get something he says, it probably does just mean I haven't worked it out yet. I'm more curious than dismissive when it happens now.
Hilary, I'm curious, I assume that you mean Dennis Schilling here, correct? And if so, was this originally in German (since his Yijing is in German) and you translated it? I know he is wrote the forward to "I Ching: The Book of Changes (Great Works that Shape our World)", but my understanding is this is Legge's translation and Schilling only wrote the forward.‘One sends out the Meng-beast,’ Schilling (a bit odd…)
Hmm. The feeling I get from Meng is that of an old person giving advice to a young person, knowing that it's going to be ignored. But accepting that it's going to be ignored, that the young person is too young to catch the wisdom. That's natural at that stage of their life. Maybe they will remember in twenty years time and realize then.Hi Hilary
Hex 4 Not Knowing to my way of looking at it recounts a developmental process. A process moving from Not Knowing to one of knowing what we dont know. A journey mixed in clarity and confusion.
We all have a wise old person within us who stands firm in their knowing. Does he want to buy into the dramas of youthful folly? No he does not. That wise part of us accepts that other parts of us are unknowing and have not even smelt the aroma of wisdom, let alone catch onto it, and so allows and accepts the words, behaviours and life experiences that the immature youth creates.Hmm. The feeling I get from Meng is that of an old person giving advice to a young person, knowing that it's going to be ignored. But accepting that it's going to be ignored, that the young person is too young to catch the wisdom. That's natural at that stage of their life. Maybe they will remember in twenty years time and realize then.
How you describe this - a wise old person (a man?) who is wiser than, and dispenses wisdom to folly-filled youth - brings to mind an Abrahamic God dispensing the ten commandments to his folly-laden Children of Israel. And we can only hope that they live long enough to become as wise as this old white guy is!We all have a wise old person within us who stands firm in their knowing. Does he want to buy into the dramas of youthful folly? No he does not. As you say it may take 20 years to for the Not Knowing to become Knowing.
No that's not how I see him. He is not a god-like figure of biblical proportions more a conduit for and a recipient of our conversations with Yi. As with Yi he chooses not to engage with the folly rather than dispensing the ten commandments.How you describe this - a wise old person (a man?) who is wiser than, and dispenses wisdom to folly-filled youth - brings to mind an Abrahamic God dispensing the ten commandments to his folly-laden Children of Israel. And we can only hope that they live long enough to become as wise as this old white guy is!
I agree. Wisdom does not necessarily come with age. Neither is folly, greed and ignorance purly an attribute of the young.Instead, I see this as mythic and metaphoric, describing how any of us - regardless of how old or wise we are (or think we are!) might be the ignoramus, or be foolish, or we can - regardless of our ages - be wise and knowing. I mean, just think of all the old(er) men who have caused so much damage and harm in our world because of their folly, greed and ignorance?
I like the idea of Dodder too. Our ignorance can be seen as 'parasitic flowering'. Parasitic plants absorb food through their root like organs that penetrate the tissue of a host and may even kill it. It's goal is self perpetuation by feeding on the host to the point that it can severely diminish the host and even kill kill it. Dodder (meng) itself according to Rutt can also be seen as 'blindness'. I fancy that ignorance, folly and Not Knowing perpetuate themselves in the same way and so 'the dodder seeks us' because that is how it gains nourishment. We may not seek dodder, however that doesn't mean that we do not already have it secreted away in our psyche..Hanging out with Rutt again this morning, I'm starting to like 'Dodder' (his title for Hex. 4) more and more - certainly more than hanging with a bunch of (young or old) ignorant, foolish fools (from the Yi or from life, and not the people in this thread). So, instead we have:
Line 4.2:Pulling dodder. Favorable for giving punishment, OR for removing shackles and fetters.
Rutt describes 'dodder' as a 'parasitic flowering plant with no roots or leaves'. Besides seeming like a plant that is 'ripe' for omens, divination, and potions (like 'eye of newt') - I assume it was also not well-liked or received by farmers, since it would attach itself to their crops and destroy them. And I can imagine that the King was none too pleased either with having his crops destroyed!
I agree that there is a government health warning on the manner in which we address our dodder manifestation. It needs to be treated with respect and honour otherwise as your ice pick story relates untold damage can be caused and our level of suffering can be greater than expected.But not so fast! There is also a note of caution here and a question: (which perhaps comes from long-held knowledge of farming and the Earth): in pulling dodder are we at the same time harming or destroying the very crops we're trying to save? Are we removing the dodder-like shackles or are we harming or 'punishing' our crops?
I tend to agree with you here, and I think it could be open to variations of interpretation; for example, 'you can't learn to ride a bike by just asking questions (though asking questions and getting good answers can be helpful). You learn if someone shows you how a bike works, where the brakes are ... and then lets you hop on and ride and - if it's part of your learning - they may need to let you fall down, or get scared, or ...." .Like if you were to ask, "How can I learn to ride a bike?" this response would mean, "You can’t learn by asking questions. You have to climb on and experience it. If you fall off (punishment!) that's okay, get back on (persevere). You certainly aren't going to learn chained to your chair (shackles need to be removed)."
in the beginning we don't know what we don't know. Our Not Knowing is total.
For me the way of humiliation is sustained wallowing in our ignorance. Continuing the themes, patterns and behaviours that unknown to us were creating the chaos of Hex 3. Going on in that mindless, unconcious way of chaos while now carrying an inkling of our folly, a seed of knowing if you like, that there is a different way - this is what brings deep humiliation: we are in authentically fooling ourselves.Or, "4.1 - To make a fool develop It furthers one to apply discipline. The fetters should be removed. To go on in this way brings humiliation." 'Going on brings humiliation? What the heck does that mean?'
My_Key:(Re: Line 4.1) By 4.5 we have accepted (know of) our 'foolishness' ....
I guess there are two issues to consider:The issue for me - and one I've talked about before - is that I/we can very easily turn a reading with one hexagram with one moving line, into a reading that contains dozens of hexagrams and dozens of moving lines. What you describe above might be an example of this; you start with Hex. 4 and Line 4.1, but then you consider Hex 3 and it's lines (because they lead up to 4.1) and you then could look at the other five lines of Hex. 4, because they are part of the progression of the lines ... and so forth.
It seems you are very much seeing a progression from one hex to another (3 to 4) - or pairing of these - and then a progression through the lines: e.g. Hex 3, lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 leading to Hex 4, lines 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6.
I know that this is not an uncommon way of looking at the hexagrams and lines. But I tend to not delve that deeply into the pairings, or the sequences of either the hexagrams or lines; it's just a different way of looking at things:
If I (or someone) were to say: "help with picking a master's program" ... and they were to then get 4.1 as their response, I would focus on the words / images of that line - and perhaps the Hex. 4 statement; and I'd look at the movement / meanings / associations of the trigrams (and here we have water changing to lake).
(And the thing is, if I get 4.1, I'm not sure what "by 4.5 we have accepted (know of) our 'foolishness'" has to do with my reading or how I'd apply it?)
This doesn't preclude me looking at other aspects or other stuff; it's just that most often this gives me more than enough info. to try to make sense of. But if I were to delve more into it, I'd probably start by looking at the core, or nuclear trigrams; and lately I've been exploring the Jiao Gua or reverse pairs, where the trigrams 'swap' places: so for Hex. 4 (Mountain above Water), I'd look at Hex. 39 (Water above Mountain), and if I had line 4.1, I'd then look at 39.1 - or maybe 39.4. But that's all experimental at this point.
The issue for me - and one I've talked about before - is that I/we can very easily turn a reading with one hexagram with one moving line, into a reading that contains dozens of hexagrams and dozens of moving lines. What you describe above might be an example of this; you start with Hex. 4 and Line 4.1, but then you consider Hex 3 and it's lines (because they lead up to 4.1) and you then could look at the other five lines of Hex. 4, because they are part of the progression of the lines ... and so forth.
(One idea I have is that perhaps every hexagram and line can (or might) be connected to any other hexagram and line; at some point I might test it out: do a reading and then randomly (or with some limits) look at another hexagram and line (or lines), to see what they tell me about the hexagram and lines I actually got!)
Again, I'm not necessarily putting down any particular approach; I'm only saying adding in other hexagram and lines can very easily get to be too much for me, and it's way too easy to make all these other hexagrams and lines become the reading, instead of being background to or informational for the reading I actually got.
All the best, D
We've covered a lot of territory in this thread, from different meanings and way of looking at Line 4.1, to different ideas and way of approaching interpretation. Given that broad scope, it seems that another thing we could say is:I guess there are two issues to consider:
1) Is there any relationship between one hexagram and another and between the lines within ...
2) If there is, is it helpful in a divination to examine that relationship?
I'm not sure what this means, though it feels related to what you said above.If you just want a quick answer to your question, ...
It sounds like you have a comfortable and fruitful relationship with Yi. You ask once and you get an answer that you understand as meaningful and therefore have no need to ask again. Maybe there is nothing more for you to do nor anymore to expect from divination. Perhaps anything you are missing will not have any significance for you beyond what you have already gained from your conversation.I did a reading this morning, asking, or just stating, 'Today' and the response I got (to my perhaps poorly-worded query) felt spot-on, and gave me lots to consider: I posed a query and the Yi responded in a way I understood and was meaningful for me. Besides this, I don't really know what more I should be expecting of the Yi, or of divination? Is there some hidden meaning, or teaching. or technique that I'm not hip to? Maybe if I read some Shaughnessey or Redmond, or if I gave Karcher or Richmond another go .... it might make me aware of what I'm missing?
My 'relationship' with the Yi is continually changing - and hopefully growing. Setting aside my most clear, concise, marvelous morning reading for a moment, I am sometimes baffled by what I read or see in a response. And it might take me more time, or (god forbid!) even reading another translation or looking at the trigrams, or the fan yao ... for me to better understand the conversation I'm having.It sounds like you have a comfortable and fruitful relationship with Yi. You ask once and you get an answer that you understand as meaningful and therefore have no need to ask again.
I'm not sure if Meng or the Yi always 'calls for us' to be any certain way - at least not always, and not always in the same way.Meng calls for a willingness in us to be open to new ideas and ways, so that we can develop our character to bring about future success and the warding off of stagnation. Developing a relationship with Yi that brings meaning is important and shows that 'Youthful Folly' has not taken complete hold.
PO Box 6945,
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).