Commentaries as a supplement to your reading

[nicky_p]

Hi all,

First, I'd like to extend to everyone the warmest of season's greatings.

Whilst out doing a bit of Christmas shopping I decided to treat myself and bought myself a new I Ching book. Currently I use Wilhelm's translation along with Lise's and Bradord's translations (thank you to you both

).

Now that I have my new purchase home and have had a little time to peruse I notice that it is not a translation as it says (although it does have some basic translations in) but more of an author's opinion of what the hexagrams say.

I wasn't intending to use it as the sole resource for my divination but more as a supplement (to see if it throws up anything that I miss) and I was wondering how other people felt about commentaries.

Thank you
Love
Nicky
xx

 

[bruce]

Excellent question, Nicky. I'm going to wait to read what others may have to say before offering my two pence.

 

[heylise]

I like to read lots of commentaries, and boil all the images together to one big feeling for the hexagram. It depends on the kind of commentary though. Some sound as if they have no feeling at all for the wider meaning of a hexagram. Or of anything for that matter. Then I cannot read in it at all.

Once I have boiled it all together into one essential image, I don't use any commentaries anymore in divination. Only Wilhelm and Bradford. But they are both translators.

Occasionally, when I cannot make any sense of a reading, I get a commentary, or several, and sometimes it does clarify something. But that happens very seldom. Both that I get one, and also that it clarifies anything. Usually it just makes more words in my head, and less understanding.

So I cannot say that I don't use them, because several are part of the image I made in the course of time. But I don't use them now, for divination.

LiSe

 

[bradford_h]

Hi Nicky-
Most of the books you see which are commentaries-only are written by people who can't begin to read the original, so their point of beginning is based on their understanding of somebody else's translations. By the time they get two steps removed from the original they are usually pretty far from the central meanings. Also, most of these seem written primarily to make money and fame by capitalizing on the Yi's popularity, so one is taking people who would do this for teachers. There are several exceptions, Sorrell's for example. I tried to separate the inferior ones, or those who failed to understand the core meanings of the texts, into their own section ("C") in my bibliography. Yep, that was pretty dang judgmental.
There's also a great wad of "introductory" versions, promising readers they won't have to invest so much time and effort in their understanding of the Yi. Those who fall for this line truly merit every bit of their ignorance.
You didn't say which book you picked up, so that's all just general comment. Since your question was about "commentaries as a supplement..." I'd say get a good solid base in the original first and only later concern yourself with supplements. This will help avoid building an understanding on a sloppier foundation.

 

[cguleff]

Nicky,

Some of the general interpretations -- the ones which don't even include any hint of the original text -- really bother me. There are two of them that I particularly dislike. The ones I like I use only for secondary consultation.

I like to use Karcher's Total I Ching when doing readings at home, along with Huang's Complete I Ching. I also like Blofeld's edition and the Buddhist I Ching, but I don't use them for all readings. All of those include a translation of original text along with commentary or footnotes.

In another thread today, I described a home-made "portable" I Ching reference I created for my use when away from home: http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/I_Ching_community/messages/92/5729.html?1135284802

Thanx for the question,
Chris

 

[cguleff]

Bradford,

I agree. I always attempt to research the writer's background before I use or purchase a new edition of the I Ching. I do respect the comments of those forum contributors who have a direct knowledge of the original. I've observed the process of rendering Chinese into English watching my ex-wife translate Chinese Buddhist texts for graduate school papers when I acted as her typist and English-language editor.

Chris

 

[matt]

I havnt done the deep research into I Ching commentaries that maybe someone like Bradford or LiSe has done, although I have browsed almost all of the available translations/commentaries I can find in bookshops, and 'I Ching - The Classic Oracle of Change' translated by Karcher and Ritsema is the one I like best. You would probably have to order this from the internet.

But, I do try to look for similarities between the Tao Teh Ching and I Ching, checking upon translation discrepancies or extra meaning that the author has missed. The Tao Teh Ching is a collection of 81 chapters/verses in two parts, the Upper and Lower. The upper part is chapters 1-37 and is know as the Tao Ching (classic of tao) and the lower part, chapters 38-81, is known as Teh Ching (classic of virtue). The best translation I have found is written by John C.H. Wu, although there may be better ones out there, and someone with more experience may be able to point you in the right direction. One personal note:- I would only reccomend you read the Upper part, chapters 1-37, as this is where the core knowledge is gathered. The later chapters were reputedly added by Confucius, and they get very repetitive, not as awe-inspiring, and are focused more on societies endeavours towards virtue rather than mastery of self.

 

[micheline]

LIke Lise, I have read, (and own), so many translations and commentaries ..and over time they have have all merged together in my mind (my cauldron) to form my own inherent (probably more personal than maybe accurate) interpretation, sense, of the hexagrams and lines.

In this way, almost every hexagram and line has a personal resonance for me when I do a reading...Sometimes I look again, or look deeper, if I am confused.

It has also happened that one of those little books of commentaries, written by a novice so to speak, has the words that completely speak to me at the moment of divination...they resonate with a light and energy, and I have my response......even IN SPITE of the fact that it might not be an an accurate word for word translation. Which is why I rely more on spirit, essence, and resonance than I do on being too academically oriented to the exact text.
It works for me ( ;

 

[cguleff]

Matt,

I like the early part of the Tao Te Ching (Tao Ching), too. Have you ever tried to work out correspondences between specific chapters of the Tao Ching and the I Ching? I've always been interested in this, although I've never worked at it at any length?

Thanx,
Chris

 

[bruce]

What interested me most about Nicky?s question was the distinction between text and commentary. I appreciate the scholar?s approach to the question and the necessity to hold to original form, so as not to lose the original spirit. However, I see even the most accurate records of the original I Ching text as being ?commentaries? on observations of phenomena and nature.

I think we who become entrenched in I Ching can too easily become fundamentalist in our views, forgetting that the truths in I Ching exist not only in earliest known texts and then commentaries, but everywhere one can possibly look.

This isn?t to suggest that earliest known texts shouldn?t be studied, or that contemporary writing on the subject shouldn?t attempt close continuity with the early work, but rather to say that the truths within Yi exists, with or without texts or commentaries.

 

[matt]

Exactly Bruce, very well said. This is the precise reason why I like the Tao Ching so much, with its simple poetic verses, it speaks of a knowledge so pure and simple that all we need to do is look out into the world, nature, and see those truths unravelling themselves perpetually. Then when I return to the I Ching, the truths spoken about in the Tao Ching, and the truths observed by our own eyes, heard by our own ears and perceieved by own own energies are clearer to distinguish within the texts. Almost like an exercise of not reading the words, but recieving an impression intuitively. I believe logic to be a valuable tool in the process of analysing knowledge, but a poor tool in the process of recieving knowledge, intuition and feelings are our guide here.

Chris, yes I have seen many similarities and got the feeling as to how many of the 64 texts have originated. I think the only way this can be done is in a very personal way, using your own special relationship to the world around you, learning to still yourself and adhere to the simple, then what follows can be an instant understanding of all complexities. The best way I have found to correlate the I Ching texts and the Tao Ching (upper part) is to follow the Symbol Traditions in each of the I Ching texts. This will vary depending on the commentary you have, but for example, in the Karcher-Ritsema translation, the Symbol traditions are the parts that read something like
'A Chun Tzu uses highlighting the pattern to actualise-tao'
'A Chun Tzu uses reducing the numerous to augment the few'
'A Chun Tzu uses emptiness to acquience people'
And so on..In many versions, the words 'Chun Tzu' are replaced by terms such as 'A realising person' or the 'Great Man' etc. Although I believe the term a 'Great Man/Person' is not a truth in itself, because it is not greatness for which we should strive towards, it is also the ability to be small, so a 'Small man' has as much value as a Great Man in many situations.

 

[matt]

Sorry, I should have explained the reason why i think the symbol traditions are the best way to form a relation between the two books. It is only because they are so simple, they dont involve the analytical elements of the core texts, which are valuable in their own way, but it is best not to jump over the seed planted just so we can see how beautiful the trees look in Autumn, the beginnings are important.
The symbol traditions are good seeds because they allow us to view how one would 'be' in a certain situation/energy. I see it as the balanced action in an energy dynamic, the truth within the chaos, which ultimately tells us there is no such thing as chaos. When we can see how to 'be' in a situation/energy, then we can learn what to look for, and also learn about the unbalancing of that situation and energy, and what causes it to transform. Then the I Ching becomes a tool of creative interaction rather than future-prophecy.

You can use the symbol traditions in situations with groups of people, world events, or if you apply it to Nature and Earth or the Galaxy, then a slightly different approach is needed. It can be a good way to view Nature as the Chun tzu/realising person in the situation, then see how natures elements transform depending upon the observations you make.

 

[bradford_h]

Hi guys-
I've translated first the Yijing then the Daodejing, and have made word and phrase glossaries for both, all the while actively looking for signs of some historical and other cultural connections between the two. But I was unable to uncover a single bit of hard evidence that the author of the Daodejing had even heard of the Yijing.
As to the difference between the first and second halves of both texts, I don't think they have any real meaning at all, besides marking convenient places to split the books in half.
Of course the human mind can see significance in just about anything if it's motivated enough.

 

[matt]

There is a definitive difference between the Upper and Lower parts, I felt that even the very first time I read it years ago, like they had been written by two completely different people. And this was before I knew about the book being spearated into two parts, I was just flicking through it at a friends house under the impression the 81 chapters were without separation.

 

[bruce]

Brad, that?s interesting. I?ve always seen the Daodejing as communicating quite a different message from the Yijing, even though transitioning from one to the other feels natural enough. The Daodejing seems to say ?this is what is?, while the Yijing seems to say ?this is how ?is? works?. Making one meld into the other has never worked for me, though contemplation of the Daodejing can definitely (re)introduce the most subtle spirit or nature of the Yi.

 

[bradford_h]

Hi Bruce-
I think I find the Yi to have a purer conception of Dao and De, although the words are only used a few times. Dao in the Yi is more literally the metaphor of a path - the path proper to humankind and the myriad beings, the path by which we arrived, and not the paths we never could take. While Laozi isn't really responsible for turning Dao into the abstract metaphysical fuzzball it became, he did begin to lead it down that less cogent path.
I think the two books are very different. I love them both, but if I could only have one I'd take the Yi - better counsel in the art of living.

 

[bruce]

Brad, it seems that 'abstract metaphysical fuzzball' is fitting mostly for those who haven?t ever read it, much less contemplated it. Like the new age psychic who tells me that Lao Tzu is one of her favorite spirit guides. Funny that she shows no interest in either the DdJ or Yi. Still, as I insinuated earlier, the Dao isn't limited to any text or historical record. So perhaps the psychic isn't so absurd, after all.

"Art of living" is, I think, a great way to define the teachings of Yijing.

 

[cguleff]

Early in my explorations of the I Ching, I purchased a "New Age" takeoff on the I Ching and used it alongside other interpretive versions recommended by friends. I avoided "originals" because the one I had, the Legge translation, was difficult for me to use and understand for divination.

One day I encountered a statement in the "New Age" version that if you obtained a particular changing line in a reading you would NEVER achieve enlightenment! I knew that anyone who consults the I Ching on a regular basis is apt to draw that line at some point, and concluded that I was dealing with an unreliable version.

I got rid of the book, realized the individuals in this group of friends were undiscriminating and/or unknowledgeable, and began researching the field of I Ching translations and commentaries on my own. This was long ago, before the availability of internet resources, but as a librarian I had access to excellent reference sources. Moreover, my ex-wife had a master's degree in Chinese and was familiar with the literature in the field, but like Legge, she wasn't at all interested in use of the I Ching for divination. I still seek reviews on new editions and compare interpretive versions side-by-side with a good standard translation before purchase.

Even though I dislike some interpretive adaptations of spiritual classics, especially those attempting to commandeer and re-engineer the classic in the name of "relevance" to support a spiritual/social/political cause or movement, I enjoy reading Stephen Mitchell's rendering of the Tao te ching alongside the John C.H. Wu translation Matt mentioned. I've recently purchased one I Ching adaptation for the information in the introduction, rather than for its simplified renderings of the gua.

I'm enjoying this thread. Thanx, Nicky for starting it, and thanx everyone else for your contributions!

Chris

 

[bradford_h]

Hi Chris-
Just a friendly note on the Daodejing. It's ok to enjoy Mitchell's rendering, but you should be aware that as a translator he's a complete fraud and doesn't understand a word of Chinese. It's not a reliable version at all. Wu is OK, but not among the very best.
Some of the best of the hundred I've studied are: Patrick Michael Byrne, Wing-Tsit Chan, JJL Duyvendak, He Guanghu, Robert Henricks (Mawangdui), Philip Ivanhoe, D.C. Lau, Paul Lin, Thomas Miles, Charles Muller, Red Pine, Henry Wei and Yi Wu.
More info on these at http://www.hermetica.info/LaoziE.htm
There's also a large and growing collection of free translations and versions at
http://home.pages.at/onkellotus/TTK/_IndexTTK.html

 

[bruce]

My favorite is the Dao of Led Zeppelin, but the Dao of Walking Mojo is second best.

What do you folks think of J. H. McDonald's Daodejing?

 

[bradford_h]

B-
Just tracked it down and got my first glimpse of it.
Not bad. Not strictly literal, but it never seems to venture far from the Chinese for more than a sentence. Unlike most authors nowadays I suspect that he reads Chinese. Like most translators, he seems to find it necessary to insert pronouns everywhere, then compounds his difficulties in attempting to win the female species by making all of them "she". That was annoyingly gratuitous. But all in all a pretty decent version.
http://www.wam.umd.edu/~stwright/rel/tao/TaoTeChing.html#1

 

[bruce]

Thanks for the review, Brad.

Not to derail this thread into yet another topic, but your comments beg this question, concerning the "she".

It is my understanding that Dao is itself primarily Yin (the space/void for creation to take place within, as the womb of creation), at its innermost. Therefore it seems correct to refer to Dao (in daodejing) as she.

Concur or disagree?

 

[bradford_h]

Disagree. He's not referring to the Dao, but to grammatically unnecessary people, human pronouns not in the Chinese original.
Further, I wouldn't go overboard in referring to Dao as feminine either, except strictly in the context of feminine metaphors such as mother. That would imbalance the concept too much and Laozi was careful not to do that.

 

[cguleff]

Bradford,

I didn't think Mitchell had actually translated the work. Nothing in his background or other writings suggests that he knows any Chinese. As someone interested in writing, I just enjoy his writing style.

Thanx for the links to information on other versions. I'll check them out.

Chris

 

[bruce]

Brad, that's not how I read it, but I'll go through it again in the next couple of days, just to check on my perception of it. Dao as Yin still makes sense to me. I'm certainly open to correction. Could you be more specific about this, per chance?

 

[cguleff]

Bruce,
I took a look at the McDonald one. I like the flow and feel of it.
Thanx,
Chris

 

[jesed]

Hi Bruce:

Just in case the comment could be useful

"A path fit to travel is not a general path
A name fit for calling is not a generic name
?Nothing? names the origin of Heaven and Earth" (Bradford's traslation)

If you are meaning "Dao" as the first statement of TKK, then "Dao" is neither "she" nor "he"... beacuse the distintions (Heaven and Earth) came later than "Nothing" (The One).

Another (and later) aproach: every manifestad thing is derivated from the 5 stages of energy; each state of energy are derivated from yinn/yang; yinn (she/maternal) and yang (he/paternal) are derivated from Tai Chi... and Tai Chi is derivated from The Great Void.

Ergo...Could the Great Void be yinn or yang?

Best wishes

 

[bradford_h]

Dao is neither Yin nor Yang, nor is it Wuji (the ultimate nothing), nor is it Taiji (the supreme ultimate), nor it it Taiyi (the great One). It's the path by which all of these come about, but it's not their creator. It would have to do to do that, but Dao only does not doing.
But for this particular behavior Laozi points out that in this it resembles the Mother of Being, and a valley that by its emptiness fills with life, and by its patience and allowing things to be themselves, and nourishing the beings unconditionally, resembles water. These are also assumed to be feminine traits.
Although when I think of feminine traits I tend to think of someone nagging me to take out the trash, make more money and be someone I'm not.

 

[nicky_p]

Wow, Thanks to you all for you're responses. It certainly has made interesting reading and helped further my very limited understanding.

The commentary I have bought is by Brian Brownie Walker. On the back it did say that he has studied Chinese and studied and practiced Taoist philosophy. That's why I thought it was going to be more of a translation. I did have a quick look at it when I was in the bookshop - not that there was much other choice as the only other book on the shelf was Wilhelm. At first glance it looked OK but I didn't have too much time. It also felt a little personal standing in a bookshop so I wanted to bring it home to 'get to know it better'.

In the respect of the discussion of masculine and feminine qualities in the I Ching I thought I'd read somewhere that the Eastern ideas of masculine/feminine traits were not the same as Western ideas. For example feminine does not necessarily mean subservient etc. Maybe I have this wrong?

On a slight tangent, I agree with Bradford about the unecessary use of the female pronoun and I am a woman! The world has become a little bit too politically correct for my liking sometimes. In all the other languages I've studied (mainly European) if the sex of the subject is unknown or plural and mixed then the subject reverts to masculine. It's just grammatical - nothing personal towards women. Sorry, I been having a bit of a moan recently about 'PCness'. Hope I haven't thrown everyone off!

Thank you
Love
Nicky
xx

 

[nicky_p]

Sorry, just to clarify.

I don't mean the use of the female pronoun in this book as I haven't read it - just in general. The state of political correctness in general.

xx