...life can be translucent

Menu

Blog post: Hexagram 4, line 1

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,074
Reaction score
730

Mornin'

Rutt troubles me.

I am looking at the Chinese of 4.3 and can't tell for the life of me which character he thinks means 'arrow'

矢 or Shi3 means arrow or dart and it is all over the book, but not in 4.3...

Plus, I know what this line means from direct experience of two individuals having the described character flaw and indicated so by Yi. (one of the people is infamous and sometimes refered to as 'individual -1', the other is a woman who only dates/chases wealthy people.)

Reflect on individual 1's primary flaw and it will be crystal clear.
 
Last edited:

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
I am looking at the Chinese of 4.3 and can't tell for the life of me which character he thinks means 'arrow'
What Rutt's translation notes say:

(4.3) The words literally mean ‘see-bronze-man-not-have-body’. Though they may refer to dodder being of shining reddish bronze color and appearing to have no substance among its tangled-wirelike twisting stems, Wen Yiduo suggests that fu ‘man’ is a simple error for shi ‘arrow’, while gong ‘body’ is an elaborated form for gong ‘a bow’.

As I noted earlier, what I like about Rutt - aside from his quirkiness and his odd rhymes - is that he often explains his translation choices, but also offers other possibilities. And the pluses and minuses, and preferences for Rutt or others is well-trod territory in many threads here.

I brought up 4.3 only as an example in response to my_key's statement about what Meng means and what he/she it is exactly calling for us to do - which I think has an overall theme, but changes with each situtation. But even if I were to take Bradford Hatcher's translation, which includes: Not at all useful to court the woman who encounters a man with money and loses (her) self-possession, ....

The point or points I am trying to make are ...,

That how we work with and interpret the Yi is very personal, and that how we interpret a hexagram or a line is very personal. So, I say 'dodder', and you say 'youthful folly'; or I look at the text of one translation, and the trigrams and the imagery, symbols and associated meanings, whereas you might want to look at multiple translations, and also at the line pathways, or the nuclear hexagrams or the .... but I see no reason to 'call the whole thing off' - nor that either approach is the only or the entirely correct way of interpreting the Yi.

And so I like Rutt and you don't ... sort of a 'you like potatoes, I like potatoes' sort of thing I think. Additionally - as Hilary has noted - Rutt has lots of translation notes, plus he includes what for me is a very good summation of Zhou culture, AND a complete translation of the Ten Wings - so what's not to like ? (aside from the teeny-tiny fact that he 'troubles' you? :LOL:)

And my direct experience of what a line means might be the same as, or different than your direct experience of what a line means. And they are also different based on what we asked the Yi in the first place. That seems to be how divination and the Yijing works, don't you think?

Best, D
 
Last edited:

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,074
Reaction score
730
Who the heck is 'Individual No. 1', and what the heck are their 'primary flaws'? That troubles me.

Ind -1 is the wealthy con man who recently held a high office, and owns a solid gold toilet.

Gold diggers.


I think the whole preference thing we have is often due to familiarity.
And personal idiosyncracies...etc
Putting that all aside.

Let's talk about hex 52.
I think everyone gets 52 without fail or deviation. From that place of comprehension, we can work the rest out. Yi's meanings are quite specific.
 
Last edited:

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,074
Reaction score
730
And so I like Rutt and you don't ... sort of a 'you like potatoes, I like potatoes' sort of thing

Truly, no.
It's more like someone is eating a potato and calling it tomato.

There's a reason why I don't like Rutt's 4.3. (he's very wrong here!)
 
Last edited:

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
Gold diggers. (In response to dfreed said: Who the heck is 'Individual No. 1', and what the heck are their 'primary flaws'? That troubles me.)
That might be true, if 1) you used that particular translation, and 2) you asked about a relationship between two people where one of them is a 'gold digger'.

But what if - for example - I asked, "what does 'dodder' mean in Hex. 4?" Or ... "can you tell me how my friend should approach and relate to her very right-wing, gun-loving brother who is developing dementia?"

Is the Yi saying that one or both of them are 'gold-diggers'? Or, is it possible that 'dodder' and/or 'youthful folly' and/or that 'bronze arrow' and/or 'not useful to court a women ....' may all be (or be part of) a helpful and useful response?

D
 

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,074
Reaction score
730
That might be true, if 1) you used that particular translation, and 2) you asked about a relationship between two people where one of them is a 'gold digger'.

But what if - for example - I asked, "what does 'dodder' mean in Hex. 4?" Or ... "can you tell me how my friend should approach and relate to her very right-wing, gun-loving brother who is developing dementia?"

Is the Yi saying that one or both of them are 'gold-diggers'? Or, is it possible that 'dodder' and/or 'youthful folly' and/or that 'bronze arrow' and/or 'not useful to court a women ....' may all be (or be part of) a helpful and useful response?

D

There is no 4.3 in your example, 4 was.
So, I can't speak to that.
Your last post is all jumbled thoughts.
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
Thete is no 4.3 in your example, 4 was. So, I can't speak to that.
Okay, unjumbling my jumbled thoughts here ... so I asked, "can you tell me how my friend should approach and relate to her very right-wing, gun-loving brother who is developing dementia?"

And the Yi responded. 4.3: Seeing a bronze arrow, having no bow. Favorable for nothing." And here we also have the lower trigram Water, moving or changing to trigram Wind.

I might interpret the response as: Rutt's handle for Hex. 4 is 'dodder'. This reminds me of how dementia has a hold of my friend's brother and is strangling, dodder-like, his memory (And having gone through this with my mom, I can tell you that feels like a very accurate image and description!) .... Also, my friend should try to either remove her brother's guns (no bow) or take away his ammo - because him keeping both will be 'favorable for nothing'. And ... looking at Water (Hex. 4's lower trigram with the third moving line): is there some danger of depression or increasing sadness? So, maybe one of the best things my friend can do is to be Wind-like (18's lower trigram): to be patient and gentle with her brother, and to consider his long-term care.

Call me a jumbled potato, but I can see going with Rutt and the trigram interpretation on this one!

Best, D
 
Last edited:

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,074
Reaction score
730
Okay, unjumbling my jumbled thoughts here ... so I asked, "can you tell me how my friend should approach and relate to her very right-wing, gun-loving brother who is developing dementia?"

And the Yi responded. 4.3:

Please clarify, are you being hypothetical or did you really ask this?


Call me a jumbled potato.
Ok, You're a jumbled potato. :]
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
Please clarify, are you being hypothetical or did you really ask this?

Ok, You're a jumbled potato. :]
It is hypothetical.

I did ask this, but it was me asking it about someone in my life - who is right-wing, a gun lover who is really angry right now, and seems to be experiencing dementia - and not just because he's right-wing!. And I got a useful response, mainly making use of Rutt's translation and looking at the trigrams, etc. (I don't remember the specifics, but I assume that it didn't include this specific line.)

I can see you objecting to a hypothetical case, and you may decide to not respond. However, as far as I can tell, this thread was meant to be an exploration of Line 4.1, and all the different ways we may choose to look at it, and interpret it and the different ways it's been translated, etc. It was never meant to be a specific reading based on a specific translation, using only specific methods of interpretation - or at least that's not what I'm seeing here.

And as I've noted, I was offering up 4.3 as an example of how we can look at this line (or this hexagram - or any line or hexagram, or even the Yi) in many different ways. I gather that's a generally accepted notion here.

If you don't like Rutt and you think he's wrong, that fine. But that doesn't make him wrong - it only means that's what you think of him and his interpretation. That's an important distinction.

Oh, and if you want to give me a new handle, 'JP' works, though I prefer my regular handle. I told my parents I wanted to marry Ann Curry, but they said no, that no son of theirs was going to marry a 'common-tater'.

Regards, D
 
Last edited:

my_key

visitor
Joined
Mar 22, 1971
Messages
1,832
Reaction score
579

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
So it is hypothetical and real?? C'mon dude.
To clarify:

1) The example I gave in this thread is hypothetical; I offered as an example of what I meant when I responded to my-key and said, "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."

2) And ... a few weeks ago I did ask the Yi a real-world question about someone I know who is very right-wing, has been very angry and withdrawn since the election, who owns guns - and some of us think he might be developing dementia. And I used Rutt's translation and got a very useful, real-world response (though I don't think it included Hex. 4 or its lines).

You have valiantly earned the "JP" moniker.
If you meant this in a kidding, playfully way, fine. However, if you intended it as more a put-down, I'll ask you to please stop. (Sometimes over the internet and in forums it's hard to tell which is which.)

Regards, D
 
Last edited:

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,074
Reaction score
730
(Sometimes over the internet and in forums it's hard to tell which is which.)

Regards, D

Yes, online forums are a very poor substitute for real interaction & communication.

I was under the impression that we were having light hearted banter.
and I am surprised by your defensiveness.
 

Liselle

Moderator
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
8,718
Reaction score
1,297
Back to this for one second, because I coincidentally saw a relevant blog post just yesterday...
you can interpret the Yi using a far more simplistic and dumbed-down method, where you only look at one translation and only at the text, images and symbolism. And you might end up with what appears to be a helpful, useful response, but that's only if you want a 'quick' (e.g. incomplete, simplified, stupid) answer to your query.
...which is this one:

I think Hilary's point is, more or less, fit the method to the circumstances and the problem. Sometimes all you want or need is a quick answer; other times that won't do at all. Neither is dumb or stupid.

(Although it might be dumb to mix them up needlessly... I mean, there might not be much point in spending half the day trying to decipher your advice for the day...) (edited to add - this part's just me talking, it's not from the blog)
 
Last edited:

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
I was under the impression that we were having light hearted banter.
and I am surprised by your defensiveness
I was just checking. As we agree, it can become a poor substitute for communication. So good to know.
Yours, JP.
 

IrfanK

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
615
Reaction score
434
Irfan: there are really only two way of interpreting (and understanding) the Yi:
* you can either interpret the Yi using the one and only correct way - by delving deeply into many translations, and many methods of interpretation that look at all the possible connecting lines and hexagrams; and by reading lots about the Yi's history and also the traditionalist, modernist, and even the doubting antiquity-ist; and by looking at the fan yao, and the pathways, and the shadow, nuclear and ideal hexagrams, etc. etc. etc....​
Or ....​
* you can interpret the Yi using a far more simplistic and dumbed-down method, where you only look at one translation and only at the text, images and symbolism. And you might end up with what appears to be a helpful, useful response, but that's only if you want a 'quick' (e.g. incomplete, simplified, stupid) answer to your query.​
I don't recognize any of my own opinions in your restatement of them.
 

dfreed

Inactive
Joined
Feb 6, 2021
Messages
1,045
Reaction score
384
I don't recognize any of my own opinions in your restatement of them.
Well, I was incorrect then, and different ways of divination - just like different translations - might be useful. There is no hierarchy. I was perceiving differences that aren't really there; I stand corrected.

Best, D
 

IrfanK

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Dec 15, 2011
Messages
615
Reaction score
434
I think Hilary's point is, more or less, fit the method to the circumstances and the problem. Sometimes all you want or need is a quick answer; other times that won't do at all. Neither is dumb or stupid.
Hey Liselle, I agree totally. More than half the readings I do take somewhere between ten seconds and a minute for me to get what I want. Just look at the moving line, get the feeling of it, done. The one that comes to mind over the past month was the one about whether it was worth going to the vax center and possibly wasting a few hours for nothing. The Yi said 29.4. That looked like it was worth a shot, I gulped down my coffee, pulled on a shirt, jumped on a bike and was gone less than five minutes later.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top