Confusion over #63, Ji Ji

[DanielH]

I recently received #63, line 2 moving, in a reading, and am somewhat confused about what it is saying, since my I-Ching texts have very different explanations for the line. I was asking the oracle if, in a previous reading, the subject of line 1, hexagram #17, Sui, was such and such a person (i.e. one of the people involved in that reading's question). Therefore, I think that #63, line 2, is saying that my interpretation of the subject of line 1, #17 (from the previous reading) was essentially correct, fulfilled, and at the peak of success, hence nothing else, except for consolidation of those significant gains, would be required. My interpretation of #63, line 2, is based on the explanations offered by Cheng I, Richard Wilhelm, and Tuck Chang (who has a profile on this website). Their view of #63, line 2, being similar to line 1, is that one "great river" has just been successfully crossed and that no further moves to cross a second "great river" should be made at this time; just consolidate those gains and wait for the natural cycle of significant forward movement to start up again.

However, I just read (on the Friends Area Archives Forum) an old conversation from 2004 between Malka and others on the forum, in which Malka received #63, lines 1, 3 and 5 moving and changing into #2, Kun. Malka's question had been "will I get the job"? The job went to someone else, and that outcome was very different from Malka's auspicious initial interpretation. In recognizing a similarity to my #63, line 2, reading, I am confused. If, as she initially felt, #63 was not saying that her attempt to get the job was successfully completed, at the pinnacle of success, and in perfect balance (as #63 clearly describes), then what in actuality was successfully completed, perfect, etc.? Line 1 stated to her that something or someone in her situation should refrain from moving forward at that time, but who or what was it referring to? And, her transformed hexagram, #2, Kun, might well have meant that she would take second place, if you will, or be the loser in the bid for the position (i.e. similar to the "mare", in Kun's explanations, that must act submissively to, and thus follow, the male horse).

Does anyone have any more info. on Malka's reading from 2004, and/or any other insights into her reading's answer, and/or insights into the somewhat similar reading which I received recently (i.e. the one with #63, line 2 moving)?

Dan Hussey

 

[pocossin]

The late Mary Halpin believed that the woman of 63.2 was Fu Hao.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fu_Hao

 

[sooo]

Hi, Dan. While 63 is widely believed to be something already achieved, I see 63 as a process of finishing something. This comes from my own readings where the project was absolutely not already across, but that there was no longer any turning back. This is what separates it from 64, where something is implied but not yet in a completing stage. So there is completion vs completing. Either can apply depending on the specifics involved. Further, line 2 changes to 5, where one waits at the river bank to cross, and meanwhile nourishes themselves to be ready for the crossing. So one has already committed to crossing but has not reached the other side, nor even launched to cross over. Line 2 shows your wife (symbol of partnership or duality-----"the spirit is willing but the flesh is weak"-----has lost something which preserves her dignity, and until it's found, you must wait. Dignity in some cases is more than superfluous. In some cases it could mean survival or saving face. If one loses face, they no longer may qualify for the office they were to hold once they reach the other side. But my main point here, and some do not agree, that 63 can be the act of completing as well as complete. In this case one is waiting to complete. This is not the same as 64, where a commitment has not yet been made to complete. In a sense, being engaged is the process of marrying, and as such can be considered 63. Ideally, courtship too is with the intent to marry, to cross the great water. Dating, on the other hand, is clearly 64.

I don't know if this helps, but thought it worth mentioning.

 

[DanielH]

Thanks to both pocossin and sooo for your input on my questions and concerns regarding #63. I do indeed find it helpful.

Specifically in regard to the view offered by sooo, that being that #63 may (at least in some of its moving lines) show a process of working toward completion, etc., I believe that you have really gotten at the crux of the matter; whether or not the moving lines (for example, lines 1 and 2) are representing a stage of development after a "great river" has been crossed and completed, etc. or if they are representing a situation where the "great river" has yet to be crossed and completed! From your divination experience with #63, I find it very informative that you believe that it is often showing situations that were clearly not completed or fulfilled yet. I am still trying to process all the available information of this issue, including that which you offered me, but your view and experience regarding #63 may explain why some of my readings with that hexagram, as well as Malka's "will I get the job?" reading which I cited earlier, clearly involved situations that were not successfully completed, fulfilled, etc. However, one problem (among many) that I still have with Malka's reading is that line 1, according to numerous I-Ching texts, shows the very beginning of Malka's attempt to cross the "great river", and she said that she had been going to numerous job interviews with that company, and had given presentations to those hiring managers to try and get the job. Therefore, it doesn't make sense that Malka's attempt to cross the river and achieve completion, etc. was at an initial stage.

If you two or any other forum members have any more to add to these issues I would be glad to hear it, including specific readings that you have performed involving #63.

Thanks again,

Dan

 

[sooo]

Hi Dan

I'm glad you found the idea helpful.

Regarding situations like Malka's, just because one is either in the process of being interviewed or if the interview process has been completed, 63 in no way suggests that the position applied for will be or has been won. One can complete a race without winning it.

I had at one time created an original pictorial online of 64 hexagrams with a very brief poetic comment for each. For 63 it said something to the effect of 'Make camp for the night. This is as good as it gets, for now.'

Being an electric guitar geek, in my earlier stages of performing modifications I had lopped off the long lead of a new pickup. Because there was some peculiar additional circuitry involved, I had planned on taking it to a guitar tech to complete the installation. Looking at the decapitated lead wires, I thought - "oh, chit, now what did I do? I should have thought this through more carefully." I asked the Yi, now what do I do? Answer: 63. Now, there's more than one way to interpret that answer. 1) Take it to a professional, someone who has completed their training in this procedure. 2) NOW you really did it! No turning back now; you're committed. 3) Finish what you started. There's no way it could have been interpreted as being completed successfully! That's just funny. Well, living in a cow-town with no competent guitar techs, I took it to an appliance repair store. He wired it up like a refrigerator with all the finesse of, well, a refrigerator repairman. It was all I could do to stuff all that electrician tape and wire back into the small guitar cavity. A few months later I sold the guitar, with full disclosure of a large snake living in the control cavity. 63, huh....; no, it doesn't mean the race was won, only completed, or in that case, in the process of being completed.

As I see it, it's no accident that 64 follows 63. Is anything ever really complete? Even sacred Navajo and Tibetan sand paintings deliberately leave it with something not yet.

Campbell tells a story of a group of Navajo sand painters creating a sacred work at a New York museum exhibition, and as always, left the final small section of it incomplete, as they presented their completed work. The curator begged the artists to, just this one time, complete the final missing section. The artists all laughed, and their leader said, "You do not understand. If we were to complete this sand painting, every woman over 16 in New York City will wake up pregnant tomorrow morning."

I've heard 63 described as perfect balance. There is no such animal. Even after the great river is crossed, there are endless things that need to be established and accomplished.

 

[DanielH]

Hi sooo,

Your personal divination example involving the guitar modification was very helpful, and one which I can very directly relate to having for years been an electric guitarist in various rock and blues bands (those guitar modifications can definitely be nightmarish!). Of the three possible interpretations you offered for that reading, I think the second and third, which really seem like they go together, made great sense (i.e. that being that the oracle recognized that you were working toward completion and therefore that you should continue toward it).

Regarding my recent reading with #63, line 2 moving, and changing into #5, it would seem, according to your understanding of Ji Ji overall and its second place line specifically, that the oracle is telling me that my interpretation of the subject of line 1, #17 (from another, previous reading) is missing something that is preventing me from moving across the "great river", and so I should wait and nurture my knowledge of the matter until I am able to proceed toward completion (i.e. toward a point of having a complete interpretation of the subject of line 1, #17). If I am understanding it correctly, it seems to be saying that my interpretation of the subject of line 1 is missing something (i.e. the carriage's "back curtain") which is necessary for a complete answer; missing something that will help to define or identify the subject. How do you see this?

Thanks,

Dan

 

[sooo]

Hey Dan,

Fellow guitar nerd, most excellent. It's embarrassing to talk about that incident now as I've come a long way in regard to those kinds of mods. This was a Music Man Silhouette Special, and their proprietary Silent Circuit is what intimidated me.

Yes, options 1, 2 and 3 were all pretty much saying the same thing, and none of them saying it's done, plug in and play. Still need to tune up and let those tubes warm up first. Also good to have a backup at a gig, right?

I'd mentioned a thought on line 2 in my first post, but let me put it another way. The boat is ready to launch but one of the oars fell out on the way to the river. Rather than risk launching with one oar, it's best to wait (change to h5) for someone to go fetch a second oar. Or how about this. Have you ever launched a boat and forgot to put the drain plug back into the transom? It's embarrassing, to say nothing of your boat sinking on the launch ramp! I think this second example is even more like a woman who loses her veil before the journey across begins, because it is an embarrassment. For royalty it's a disgrace, just as it is for a big shot launching his shiny gel coated boat with his powerful outboard motor, sinking unceremoniously to the bottom. As sad as it is, onlookers are laughing. Best to avoid those kinds of premature launches. A checklist is invaluable and patiently waiting for all the details to check out before launching. This is the antithesis of an arrogant showoff who can't wait to get that boat onto the water and speed off, dumping his wake on the smaller boats behind him. It can be applied to any undertaking, only the particulars change.

Line 1 has the same basic elements, only there 'he brakes his wheels... no blame.' So, using the boat launching example, he almost backs it in without the drain plug but remembers at the last moment and hits the brakes while backing up. He gets the transom wet but doesn't sink the boat. Line 1 changes to 39, so it's time to breakout that check list as he's turned back for a time. Not sure where 17 enters in?

Anyway, just some thoughts on it.

 

[DanielH]

Hi sooo,

Thanks for the additional insights into #63 in general, and lines 1 and 2 in specific. Your views overall on this matter do seem to make sense. Regarding my attempt to find out for sure who the subject of line 1 was in #17 from a previous reading, I tried two more readings in recent days and the oracle gave #48, Ching/The Well, no moving lines, for each one. Since my proposed interpretation of the subject of line 1 #17 was only slightly different in these two "follow-up" readings, it makes sense that it gave me the very same answer each time. I take it that it is saying that with those two interpretations (which, in a sense, were pointing to the same proposed subject) I was drawing upon the resources of "the well" (i.e. the various pieces of relevant info.) and nourishing or replenishing myself with them, which would appear auspicious. What do you make of the oracle's answer (#48) ?

Thanks,

Dan

 

[sooo]

Hi Dan,

I'm glad my comments made sense to you. I speak layman, not scholar, but after nearly 50 years of working with Yi on a practical level, I figure I should have it fairly well figured out in another 50 years.

I get pretty much the same impression as you describe from 17 and 48, though I don't know the specifics involved. But theoretically, yes, drawing from your inner resources and following your deeper consciousness as your guide seem sensible to me.

Have a safe, pleasurable and profitable crossing! Keep on rockin in the free world!

Bruce

 

[DanielH]

Thanks again, Bruce. Another point relating to #63, Ji Ji involves an issue which I hope to raise soon on another "thread" in these forums; that being moving lines in the nuclear hexagram of any given reading. A reading I've been working on for quite some time (one on an historical situation) consists of #40, Hsieh/Deliverance, with line 2 moving, changing into #16, Yu/Delight. To sum it up, the historical issue involved one group (i.e. the "good guys") pursuing another group (i.e. the offenders or "bad guys"), and the question which I put to the oracle was "what should the former group have done in their pursuit of the latter group when the former was becoming overstretched in their operational capacities?" These so-called "good guys", historically, ended up pushing beyond their limits in order to pursue, etc. the "bad guys", and consequently encountered a disastrous turn of events at the hands of the "bad guys." So, I believe that #40, line 2, in speaking of hunting down and chastising/removing the "three foxes" is saying that at that point the "good guys" should have continued to pursue and deal with the "bad guys," which would lead to "good fortune." When line 2 changes and produces #16, Yu, it seems to say that the "good fortune" manifests, in part, as a state of delight and enthusiasm on the part of the "good guys", but with a strong warning against getting carried away with the success, or else misfortune would likely arise. This all makes sense and very much points to the group's historical mistake of becoming cocky, overconfident, and overly delighted at their growing success against the "bad guys," which led to poor choices subsequent to that period and, ultimately, the disaster which I described above.

My specific question here is in regard to the two nuclear hexagrams (#63 and #39, Chien/Obstruction) and #63's single moving line, line 1. To me, #63 is saying that at that juncture the "good guys" were still pursuing the "bad guys," or attempting to cross the "great (dangerous and difficult) river", which makes sense, since they clearly were not yet finished or "completed," as many people erroneously view #63. But, I can't reconcile moving line 1's advice to "Drag the Wheels" (i.e. to stop their forward movement or pursuit of the "bad guys") with the corresponding moving-line information in the primary hexagram (i.e. line 2 of #40, which says they should hunt down, etc. the "three foxes" ). If line 1, #63, means to stop the attempt to cross the "great river", as opposed to simply moving forward with caution as Alfred Huang's text states, then how can these "good guys" suspend their attempt to deal with the "bad guys" while SIMULTANEOUSLY acting and "hunting" them down to achieve "Deliverance" (i.e. #40) from them? The large majority of this historical reading fits that situation very well, and very directly with the wise advice in the transformed nuclear hexagram, #39, Chien, which strongly advises them to halt their forward movement at that time because they were faced with excessive danger, etc. (i.e. largely pointing to the fact that they were starting to overextend themselves and their collective capacities). How would you, Bruce, or anyone else reading this, approach my interpretation dilemma regarding what the nuclear-line info. says for line 1, #63, and that which is given for the primary line (i.e. line 2, #40)?

Thanks,

Dan

 

[sooo]

Hey Dan,

I'm afraid this is where I must get off the bus, as I've never used nuclear hexagrams. I try not to complicate my readings beyond the fundamental primary hex, reading all change lines, and the relating or changing hexagram, which I use as much for context as for result or what it changes to.

I'm not one who favors the whole good guy/bad guy routine. There are typically at least two sides to every story, and the bad guys in my life no doubt see me as the bad guy. Who is right? I'd rather not get entangled in that whole mess. I'm not saying I don't believe there are evil people or people who are psychopaths, but if you were to ask them, they are the victims. 40, imo, is a great response to that whole paradigm. Even the idea of good and bad fortune can be tricky to navigate, as can the questions: why do bad things happen to good people, and why do good things happen to bad people?

Perhaps someone else can address your last post and situation more helpfully.

Nice hearing from you.

Bruce

 

[DanielH]

Thanks anyway, Bruce, for considering the nuclear/primary moving-line issue. It's frustrating to have so much of it fit the circumstances well, yet to have a pronounced lack of continuity or cohesion with some of it.

As far as the references to "good guys" and "bad guys" however, I must clarify the situation. By using such admittedly simplistic classifications I was merely trying to give a strong sense of the delineation of these groups and their respective roles and relationships within the context of the reading. To go into detail on the historical situation would have been extremely involved and overly time/space consuming. I simply wanted to give enough basic info. to enable a direct discussion of the moving line dilemma. However, even though I used quotation marks to create an obvious sense of relativity and arbitrary determination, I can not, now or at any time, bring myself to label the Nazi SS (who constituted the second group or "offenders" in question) as anything other than "bad guys," which given their extreme and unprecedented brutality, genocide, and Slavic purges would be the very nicest thing that one could, in all honesty, refer to them as. This relative term very much fits for the context of the reading, especially in order to get a quick, easy sense of who the "three foxes" were in #40. And, anyway, we as sane, reasonable people can not, I believe, give equal weight and consideration to the obviously unhealthy moralistic determinations of those who clearly violate all rules of essential and fundamental decency (as opposed to simply violating extremely arbitrary, man-made laws such as the Ten Commandments or the Confucian ethical code). Therefore, to say, in such an extreme and obvious historic example as the one I'm working on in this particular reading, that labels of "good" and "bad" are purely relative, would be, in a sense, greatly minimizing the heinous nature of their behavior. Like you, I don't wish to go into too much depth on the philosophical side of this situation, but I just felt I had to clarify that very significant point.

But, anyway, I'm glad you considered the questions and I'll keep researching to see if I can see if I can find any info. on the relationships between primary and nuclear lines, although so far, most of what I have been able to unearth corresponds to medical I-Ching, which I also practice. If anyone reading this knows anything about either these technical/theoretical matters or anything about medical I-Ching, I would be grateful for your input.

Thanks,

Dan Hussey

 

[sooo]

Hi Dan,

Yes, I think I understand your contextual meaning, and it gets complicated without knowing the complexities involved.

Heinous extremes often have high moralistic beginnings and intentions. This is especially true of collective consciousness movements and what they consider to be righteous acts of God, or of Allah, or of a Christ who turns out to be an antichrist. Were the slaughterers during the Crusades good guys or bad guys? Was Hitler's lust for world dominance worse than Pope Urban's promise of forgiveness of sins for those who would take up their swords against unbelievers, and was Germany's unholy union with Mussolini any more heinous than the Roman Catholic's alliance with Muslims, both who had the goal of extinguishing the Jews in the name of God? Hitler believed he was the savior who would usher in the millennial reign, written of in old and new Testaments. "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." And "to know the seed, that is divine indeed."

Yes, I'm very cautious of branding evil.

If evil is branded, it thinks of weapons, and if we do it the favor of fighting against it blow for blow, we lose in the end because thus we ourselves get entangled in hatred and passion. Therefore it is important to begin at home, to be on guard in our own persons against the faults we have branded. In this way, finding no opponent, the sharp edges of the weapons of evil becomes dulled. - Wilhelm 43

What I am more on guard against is radicalism in any shape or form. When someone claims: this is it! This is THE way! Everyone should see it my way! I walk away.

When something is finished, it turns into its opposite, as do change lines, and as 63.

 

[DanielH]

Hi Bruce,

I agree with some of what you wrote, and especially that things can often become very complicated. But, without prolonging this philosophical discussion too much further, one observation I would make is that another form of radicalism or extremism is the failure to use ANY strong or decisive language for the purpose of reasonably identifying and calling out unjustifiably destructive behavior, etc. (such as unprovoked attacks against those individuals or groups posing no threat to anyone). For example, the Vatican, as I understand it, failed for many years to publicly denounce the actions, intentions, and ideology of the Nazis. We mustn't ever forget that radicalism, etc. is not just manifest in the area of actions (including what one DOES say, etc.), but equally in NON-actions (such as when a blind eye is turned toward obvious harms, injustices, etc., as in the case of the Vatican), where one fails to use powerful, however unpleasant sounding, names or classifications to point it out. For that is mere political correctness, or worse yet, behavioral paralysis. As always, balance and discernment are vitally necessary.

One other observation relating to some of your comments and quotations is that, although I could not agree more with you that the historical examples of heinous violence and extremes which you cited were definitely valid in pointing out evils in both secular and religious movements, they only compared groups or individuals that were, as far as unjustified violence is concerned, on par with one another or sufficiently similar to warrant an avoidance of clear terms such as "good guys" and "bad guys," "right" and "wrong." If, however, we cited and analyzed groups or individuals that were at, or behaving at, very opposite ends of an admittedly complex and calibrated spectrum (such as Hitler and Mother Teresa, Stalin and Gandhi, or, as In my previously discussed historical reading, the Nazi SS and fighters within one of their occupied nations who were trying desperately to disrupt the Germans' operations and eject them from their homeland) then it becomes, in all intellectual honesty and objectivity, quite easy to recognize an overwhelming difference in the respective moral statures of the compared individuals or groups, and to thereby classify "good" and "bad," "right" and "wrong," as they relate to one another in the examples. But your point about widespread atrocities and guilt throughout the ages, and the "gray area" regarding the classification of various individuals and groups is a good one.

Additionally, in regard to your good point of any given changing line (or lines) in a hexagram POSSIBLY changing the overall circumstantial "equation" markedly, it is imperative for us to realize that the essential roles or relationship of (what may be) two subjects (i.e. people, groups, etc.) within the hexagram ARE NOT necessarily changed or altered significantly by the change to a new hexagram. Quite often, only minor alterations in the overall situation are made with the change to the new hexagram, thus leaving the BASIC or FUNDAMENTAL roles/relationships essentially the same. Many hexagrams are so similar in structure and content that, despite some difference, they are essentially reflecting or illustrating the same overall scenario. Just thought I'd throw this in as food for thought.

Thanks for the input. I hope you will continue to weigh in on other I-Ching issues in these forums.

Dan

 

[sooo]

Hi Dan,

I get you, I think. I realize that any statement regarding these things have an opposite side, and I guess above all points I tried to make, that is one. The way I wrote could easily mark me as someone concerned with political correctness and of liberal persuasion, when quite the opposite is actually true. Oh, I sure do have my judgments about things I consider to be wrong, and I've had run ins with out-and-out psychopaths, and it's not easy for me to defend them in any sort of relative behavioral manner, though I do try. I think it is the words of Laozi, echoing "say good and evil is born," which causes me to seek the golden mean in such matters. Yet, I can not deny things I view as gross injustices, and I admit they are my personal bias, yet I feel no less passion concerning them. Within this group and those of similar intellectual and feminist persuasion, my personal biases would make me an outcast. I try to maintain a "don't get me started" frame of mind on those subjects, lest whatever contributions I may have to offer to this group be drowned by greater opposition based on the liberal bias of others.

As to "old yin" and "old yang", more commonly referred to as change lines, representing lines which have reached their completion (the original topic of this thread), it is noteworthy that they contribute to one of the most sited causes of confusion: that of so-deemed contradictions within readings. Rather, they are not contradictions but represent various changes brought about because after a line has reached its completion, it switches polarity to its opposite; this being the very nature of change. Thus there is no permanent after completion, no finish line which does not become a starting line for its opposite. This is also the case for things which start out with the best of intentions, the highest of ideals and morals, becoming the very opposite. This is true in small things in everyday life as well as grand things in social states of humans, and I must imagine in universal phenomena as well.

I think it's not a contradiction to separate ones personal opinions and beliefs from a more detached and objective view of truth. I believe many things which I would not put forth as "the truth", yet I believe them nonetheless, in varying degrees and according to my subjective circumstances. Like an atheist, who when in sudden peril, shouts, Oh my God! We are not nearly as objective as we'd like to think we are, and maybe that's a good thing, or bad thing, or neither a good nor bad thing.