Change all moving lines or one?

[Graybenn]

I am new and right now choose to consult only one moving line. But do I change all the moving lines - when there are more than one - to create the second hexagon or only change the one that I will consult? Thank you.

 

[Liselle]

Hi Graybenn,

You change all of the moving lines to get the relating hexagram, and then apply a rule to reduce it down to one.

But may I suggest at least glancing at all of the moving lines, even if you'd rather just concentrate on one for now? Sooner or later you'll probably notice them being relevant. (They can also be confusing, though - I can understand why you'd like to simplify things for now. When you're ready, Hilary's written some things to help.)

By tbe way, have you found the free Beginners' course?

Beginners' Course

Introduction: what you'll learn Welcome to Clarity's I Ching course for beginners. This is really for complete beginners: it starts absolutely from scratch, with no prior knowledge required at all, and by the end you'll be able to cast and interpret your own readings. (If you're already comfo

www.onlineclarity.co.uk

 

[IrfanK]

Hmm. Sometimes I use a method that always produces one line. I throw a dice 7 times, the first six times it's either a broken or solid line, depending on even or odd. The seventh time determines which line is moving. I pause after the first six throws and just consider the hexagram, before moving on to throw the dice to see which line is moving.

Not always. If it's a bigger question, or if I have more time, or whatever, I do the standard three coins method (actually using beads, but the same odds).

The problem with reducing, say, three moving lines to one is that it means there is no difference between the times the Yi gives you one moving line and three. So, why did it give you three lines, then? Just a meaningless happenstance? Hmmm.

Hilary's Foundations Course has a good long section on multiple lines and how to deal with them. Quick takeaway: she doesn't really like the idea of reducing them to one. The longer answer is it can be alternatives (this could happen or that could happen), or stages (this will happen first, then that) or ... there was more. But that's a good start.

 

[Trojina]

Reducing lines to just one is like getting the chance to talk to a very wise and wonderful person about your hopes and dreams, your choices, your feelings and then deciding they can only use one sixth of their vocabulary. Why would anyone do that?

It doesn't make readings simpler it simply makes them gagged. If you ask me 'how is the weather and I can only use stunted sentences I really can't tell you much, maybe 'It's windy' because you only allowed me 3 words. That doesn't make life easier or simpler for you since if you had given me full scope to use my vocabulary I could have told you so much more which would actually simplify your choice of what outer wear to put on. I could have told you 'It's windy, bitingly cold with heavy rain but later on it's going to be really sunny'. You then could have taken a raincoat plus sunglasses if you were also driving. It's clearly such a misunderstanding to imagine allowing only 3 words is more helpful.

It's also not a good way to start off with the I Ching. No you can't just change the 1 line you choose to look at to get the relating hexagram that's like not only gagging the wise person but telling them what to do too. There's no point in that you may as well talk to the mirror.

You could do the beginners course as Liselle suggests or just follow the instructions in a decent Yi book.

 

[remod]

If it's a bigger question [...] I do the standard three coins method (actually using beads, but the same odds).

Just to be sure, to have the same odds as coins you are using 8 beads of four colors, right?
(Say, one black bead for getting 6, three gray beads for 8, one red bead for 9 and three pink beads for 7).
Because if you're using 16 beads with the ratio 1/7/3/5 you're getting yarrow stalks odd (which is good but maybe not what you're expecting).

The problem with reducing, say, three moving lines to one is that it means there is no difference between the times the Yi gives you one moving line and three. So, why did it give you three lines, then? Just a meaningless happenstance? Hmmm.

I wholeheartedly agree with you! How many moving lines and of which nature we get is part of the answer (in the context of the method we used, of course).

@Graybenn I know it can be confusing at the beginning but I really suggest you to have a look at all the moving lines and ponder of their significance.

 

[IrfanK]

Just to be sure, to have the same odds as coins you are using 8 beads of four colors, right?
(Say, one black bead for getting 6, three gray beads for 8, one red bead for 9 and three pink beads for 7).
Because if you're using 16 beads with the ratio 1/7/3/5 you're getting yarrow stalks odd (which is good but maybe not what you're expecting).

Actually, 16 beads (6/2/6/2). Yeah, just the same as with eight beads, I just like the feel of more beads in my hand. I did get hold of them with the idea of doing it 1/7/3/5, but I never really liked the idea. I don't get why a moving broken line should have different odds from a moving solid line. It just feels weird and unbalanced.

Not that it matters, but historically quite a few people have used systems to reduce lines to one. I think Shaugnessey points out that in the old records of consultations, at around the turn of the first millennium, it's always one moving line, never more. But things change, I don't think that's a convincing argument that it's the right way to do it. Hmm ... he also suggested that it was a two-stage process, with the first consultation being conducted to determine the hexagram and then -- if you proceeded -- to determine the line. Which is where I got my idea of using the dice. Again, I strongly reject the idea that it's the right way to consult, or even that's it's clear that that's what people did in the Zhou period. But it seemed like it might be fun to try.

EDIT: I thought Shaugnessey's theory was a bit dodgy, actually. He translates some of those yuan heng zhen words as something like "It is favorable to consult the oracle." He said that would be strange if you had already just consulted the oracle. Oooookay. But what if the prognostic statement is NOT favorable for continuing the consultation? What would the six lines be doing under that hexagram if no-one ever proceeded? I think it's a bit dubious.

 

[remod]

I'm sorry I can't find the source but I too remember I've read that those promoting a "one changing line method" do so on the basis that many (the vast majority of) historical documents reporting divinations with the I Ching only have interpretation for the main hexagram and one moving line.
From this, they speculate that the divination method used only allowed for one changing line or there was some other rule to determine which changing line was relevant for the interpretation.

That said, I'll continue reading all the moving lines as I always did .

 

[Liselle]

Actually, 16 beads (6/2/6/2). Yeah, just the same as with eight beads, I just like the feel of more beads in my hand.

When I first heard about beads years ago, and read that Hilary uses them, I asked her wouldn't you get to know where they are in relation to the knot, and couldn't that influence the reading? She said the safeguard against that is exactly what you're saying - use multiple sets.

 

[IrfanK]

When I first heard about beads years ago, and read that Hilary uses them, I asked her wouldn't you get to know where they are in relation to the knot, and couldn't that influence the reading? She said the safeguard against that is exactly what you're saying - use multiple sets.

Ah, I don't have them on a string, just loose in a little bag. Usually I use a glass to roll them around in and then pick one shut eyes.

 

[remod]

When I first heard about beads years ago, and read that Hilary uses them, I asked her wouldn't you get to know where they are in relation to the knot,

I usually hide the knot in one of the beads so that they are not visible.
I also tested the idea with beads connected by a small chain The groups 1/3/5/7 are separated by one additional link that is not perceivable when you have it in your hands but is easy to distinguish when you look at the group the bead is in. Below are some examples:

I also built one with beads of one color and used small knots to separate the groups. I don't have a photo but I explained everything here.
Personally, I find the stringed beads easier to carry around and to use than putting them in a bag.

 

[surnevs]

Actually, 16 beads (6/2/6/2). Yeah, just the same as with eight beads, I just like the feel of more beads in my hand. I did get hold of them with the idea of doing it 1/7/3/5, but I never really liked the idea. I don't get why a moving broken line should have different odds from a moving solid line. It just feels weird and unbalanced.

Not that it matters, but historically quite a few people have used systems to reduce lines to one. I think Shaugnessey points out that in the old records of consultations, at around the turn of the first millennium, it's always one moving line, never more. But things change, I don't think that's a convincing argument that it's the right way to do it. Hmm ... he also suggested that it was a two-stage process, with the first consultation being conducted to determine the hexagram and then -- if you proceeded -- to determine the line. Which is where I got my idea of using the dice. Again, I strongly reject the idea that it's the right way to consult, or even that's it's clear that that's what people did in the Zhou period. But it seemed like it might be fun to try.

EDIT: I thought Shaugnessey's theory was a bit dodgy, actually. He translates some of those yuan heng zhen words as something like "It is favorable to consult the oracle." He said that would be strange if you had already just consulted the oracle. Oooookay. But what if the prognostic statement is NOT favorable for continuing the consultation? What would the six lines be doing under that hexagram if no-one ever proceeded? I think it's a bit dubious.

Do You remember which of his books? I know that Richard Rutt got such a chapter in his Zhouyi: Ch. 6, p. 173 - 201, Routledge 2007.

 

[IrfanK]

Do You remember which of his books? I know that Richard Rutt got such a chapter in his Zhouyi: Ch. 6, p. 173 - 201, Routledge 2007.

I just had a quick look. It's page 96-97 of The Composition of the Zhouyi (1983).

He says li zhen means "it is beneficial to divine ... the first stage of the divination must have resulted in one of the 64 hexagrams, in which case the hexagram statement would have been the basis for the prognostication. This divination could then be further refined, perhaps normatively was further refined, by a second stage that would indicate one of that same hexagram's six lines."

 

[surnevs]

Thank You IrfanK!
(... found a review which I'll start with)

 

[surnevs]

I do think, but not sure, that the oldest known rule to determine between multiple changing lines is that by Zhu Xi.
See article on: https://www.biroco.com/yijing/basics.htm, scroll down to:

How to interpret changing lines​

______________________

Add: Joseph A. Adler has laid Zhu Xi's book "Introduction to the Study of the Classic of Change, by Chu Hsi [Zhu Xi]" on Academia.

 

[IrfanK]

Thank You IrfanK!
(... found a review which I'll start with)

Thanks for that. Very interesting! I haven't seen it before.

What is this guess-become-insight-become-fact? It is Gu's juxtaposing of lines from the Zhouyi with lines from the Shijing, or Book of Songs, to reach the conclusion, in Shaughnessy's elaboration, that the founder of the Zhou dynasty, King Wen, married the daughter (or sister or cousin; translations and interpretations vary) of the Shang king Di Yi; that the marriage was a failure; and that King Wen then married a consort who became the mother of Wen's successor, King Wu.

You've broken my heart. The story about Shang Di's daughter and King Wen is just a delusional fantasy based on one man's wild guess? Sigh. Ah well, a good story is just as good as the facts, so not to worry too much.

But I like the grudging praise at the end:

That said, I would be remiss to end this review without noting that I heartily agree with Shaughnessy's major conclusion from his Yijing studies: that far from being a jumble of unrelated statements, the classic exhibits 'considerable creative consciousness … in the composition of the text.' We should also take to heart his conclusion that 'ancient China was a supremely literate culture, at least at the royal court and among the social elite, and was fully capable of producing the literary works of the received canon usually attributed to it.'

Yes, that's what I liked about ES's book, or thesis. Just with his little context critic bag of tricks, ignoring all the wings and all the later commentaries, he examines the Yi with a hard head and a critical eye and discovers .... GASP! ... that there are some strange and intriguing patterns to it ... that pairs seem to be there for a reason ... that bottom lines usually mean something different from top lines ... that there may be good reasons for the 1 and 2 being at the beginning ... and 63 and 64 at the end .... that sometimes the diagram actually seems to tell a story that's linked to the text ...

I mean, who woulda thunk?

Also, if you like Karcher's myths, you'll find the source for a lot of his stuff in Shaughnessy.