dominating influence of the last line

[khait]

I would like to know your opinion on the following question:
apparently the idea of asking I ching is to receive a balanced answer from 6
coin casting or 18 yarrow sticks manipulations, but in many cases the
influence of the last line is absolutely dominant on the reading of the
previous 5 lines, for example 11/26 with the moving 1st line: if the last
line is yin (11 hexagram) the conclusion is that vigorous action is needed, if it is yang (26 hexagram) actions should be avoided. The is no fine tuning and the final decision
is reduced to the yes/no fashion dependent on the last casting or stick manipulation.

Alexander Khait

 

[bruce_g]

Afraid you’ve lost me on this, Alexander. You seem to be making more than one point, but it’s unclear how they come together.

First, the council of the top line of 11 is: Do Not take vigorous action, which changes (fan yao) to storing of energy or power. Whereas the top line of 26 is: Do take vigorous action, but to withhold excessive energy or power – thereby attaining the way of heaven. This seems to be the opposite of what you’ve said; unless I’m not understanding you correctly.

A consistent theme throughout the Yi is force (energy), which grows and expands, while at the same time is stored and efficiently managed. Store and release, store and release. It all hinges on time and what the time demands. Acting in accord with the time creates a condition of efficiency, and no energy is wasted or excessive.

Second, I believe it is always a matter of fine tuning this flow – in and out – which effectuates a clean release of energy, such as can be illustrated through archery, for example.

Third, I’m wary of yes/no conclusions, though there are times when the council appears definitively one way or the other. Yet, it is wise to exercise some fluidity in making stern conclusions like yes and no, because there is always danger of excess, in either direction.

The ‘dominating influence’ is neither yin nor yang, but rather the dynamic and efficient flow between them.

 

[jte]

Bruce, I'm pretty sure Alexander is referring to the fact that as you build the hexagram from coin or yarrow tosses, the last line you toss determines the hexagram - e.g., the last line determines whether you receive 11 or 26. Seemingly giving the last toss an inordinate impact on the reading.

Alexander, I would point out that the last line is not really more important than any other - for example, the 3rd line in your casting determines whether you get Hexagram 11 or Hexagram 20 - is that somehow less important than the last line differentiating 11 and 26? I think it's just a perception resulting from the fact that you already have 5 lines of the hexagram "built".

Welcome, Alexander, by the way, and also welcome back Bruce!

- Jeff

 

[lightofreason]

If you focus on the binary sequence of hexagrams this all becomes 'obvious'. In that sequence 11 and 26 form a PAIR where the common ground is the five previous lines and the last line adds a difference. This is detectable in the form of the unconditional/conditional dichotomy reflected in the characteristics of that last line. (compare this to the 02/23 dynamic - same issues with 02 as unconditional, 23 conditional and the overall focus is on devotion to another/others (positive) or outright darkness (negative).)

Thus both 11 and 26 are mediating in form but 11 is unconditional, 26 focuses on a particular preference to 'traditional' ways but with the warning of not letting them 'take over' - they serve to guide not replace (where in yang the intention is to replace so one must be wary of this)

The traditional sequence is a sort of an example of metonymy where a part is treated as if whole. The perspective of the traditional falls within the bounds of deriving many sequences from the one set of hexagrams where that set is derived 'naturally' through the self-referencing of yin/yang.

Focus on the binary sequence and out come all of the structural issues of the hexagrams. FROM that position you can then 'play' ;-)

For issues/patterns of the 'Book of Structures" see:

http://members.iimetro.com.au/~lofting/IChingPlus

Chris.

 

[bruce_g]

Hi Jeff,

Kicking the idea around a bit, it is interesting the way the mind builds along with the developing hexagram, when fully observing the construction, isn’t it? You throw the first line, and the mind “begins” to process. Then the second line makes a small “ah ha”, and so forth up the ladder of lines. When it comes to the last line there’s a bit of apprehension, because it is the pivotal line, which completes the answer. Perhaps this is what Alexander was referring to?

What brought this to mind is, there’s a house being built right in back of mine. From the kitchen window I observe the clearing of land, the establishment of borders, the foundation, and then the superstructure, and finally the embellishments. Not so unlike building and interpreting a hexagram; I mean, not just physically but emotionally and psychologically.

 

[jte]

Bruce, I think that's right, but in my view the perception that the last line is more pivital is just that - a perception. Whether any other line is broken or unbroken has just as much effect, (e.g do you get Hex 2 or 24 - depends on the first line. Is 23, last line, more different from 2 than 24? I don't see it.).

I definitely agree, though, that the last line "feels" more important, since perceptually the rest of the hexagram is already there. I think that's essentially just a byproduct of the hexagram creation process vis a vis human psychology.

Not sure what Chris would say... Chris, for you would each line would have a different type of impact on the hexagram "build", per the characteristics of the line position? Creating a different pair dichotomy. That's just my guess based on what you wrote above.

- Jeff

 

[bruce_g]

Jeff, I think we’re in agreement on one line being no more or less pivotal, but that the 6th line can “feel” more pivotal.

But let’s get a little kinky for a moment with this feeling, or this gradual effect or influence.

Let’s say you’re throwing the coins, and your inner condition begins to change as you process the first line, second line, then the lower trigram is completely formed, and this makes an impression, as your inner condition begins to modify or adjust. Let’s say the first 3 lines are all yang. Oh, you say to yourself, heaven is below. Then the 4th and 5th line appear. Now let’s imagine that all lines so far are yang. There’s just one line to go, and you reflect: this could be 43 or 1, depending on the last line. All the while your mind is processing and searching for meaning, the answer to your question. Wouldn’t this gradual influence of the first 5 lines already be having an effect on your psyche? And, wouldn’t that gradual developing influence be effecting the outcome of the hexagram, culminated by the 6th line? And wouldn’t that make the 6th line the pivotal line?

So, it’s possible that each line may have a pivotal effect on the moment, thereby effectuating the next line, and so forth, up to the final and ultimately pivotal 6th line. But this is only if we’re attentive to the growing hexagram and fully vested in each moment and with each line.

 

[khait]

The problem I had in mind posing my question is this:
One traditional interpretation of hexagram reading is in terms of time, beginning from below. In these terms the natural interpretation of the process is addition, to what has been already laid. Using a house construction metaphor of Bruce, adding roof cannot change the floor. It seems that the future influences the past.
If we think about I ching as a tutor, good explanation is built up so that additions fine tune previous statements, here it seems as until the last stage you cannot figure out anything at all.
I do not think that the apparent importance of the last line can be explained out as just an aberration of human psychology: I ching exists for humans and for their psychology.
There is another reason for special importance of the last line: When you receive your lines it is certainly possible to make a "mistake". If it is not the last line this mistake can be corrected, a mistake in the last line is terminal.

Alexander

 

[lightofreason]

The qualitative movement up a hexagram is a movement from general to particular. Thus line 1 is a generic quality of A XOR B. Line 2 is a less generic quality that comes with FOUR possible qualities covering the line 1 & line 2 combinations and so on.

Thus the QUALITATIVE distinctions move us from approximate to precise and the last line makes the 'point' of the hexagram; makes it all 'particular'.

Add more 'lines' and you add more precision. If we focus on the line texts of the Duke of Chou so they reflect the making of finer distinctions WITHIN the knowledge of each hexagram. By this I mean that if the line comments are supposed to reflect basic line development then the first line would be the same meaning for all; but it isnt, and that implies that the line comments where done AFTER the complete hexagram was considered allowing for the meaning of the completed hexagram to contribute to the line comments meanings. Thus the 'traditional' lines do not represent the building of the hexagram where there is no hexagram meaning until one completes building with all six lines.

As such the 'traditional' line comments are the equivalent of adding more lines, more precision such that we are in fact dealing with 12-line forms, not 6 (This making of line comments reflects a focus on self-referencing).

As such, the first 6 literal 'lines' form the 'whole' that is a hexagram and the line comments add more detail. As such line one comments do not relate literally to line 1, more to literally line 7 but are then superimposed on the literal lines.

Still with me? ;-)

Then comes the recognition that the six lines are more so snap-shots of 64 qualities in each hexagram (or using a wave approach so we get 64 qualities from each line representing a particular frequency). IOW each line has four possible natures and so there are 4^6 meanings = 64 expressions, not 6.

Now we move to the XOR realm where the focus is on the core, base, 'whole' hexagram where the bottom line for all hexagrams IS the same - it is associated with the generic qualities of 24. The complete hexagram then GROUNDS that universal into some particular state of 'beginning' or 'returning' etc for that line position.

IOW the XOR focus is on the archetypal hexagram made-up of the configuration of all of the hexagrams contributing to describing the one. That is a different, more generic, mapping of meaning in each hexagram where there is no such concept as a 'changing lines' and so we move from hexagrams as 'wholes' with hexagrams-with-changing-lines as 'wholes'.

Thus the 'line 5' position is mapped to the qualities reflected in hexagram 8. This sets down a generic state that is then refined through consideration of LOCAL perspectives of that hexagram's particular nature through which is expressed those of hexagram 8.... and so on. (and so the ability to extract the 8-ness of some hexagram through XOR-oing. We are dealing with the generic, whole, hexagram, not the line 7 upwards form where we have to move into dodecagrams for considerations).

Chris.

 

[bruce_g]

Alexander,

Your comments provoke thought.

One area we definitely see differently. For me, the Yijing is, above all things, an “aberration of human psychology: I ching exists for humans and for their psychology.” Granted, it uses and describes natural phenomenon apart from just human nature, but what other definition would you give it, if not that of an intimate psychology teacher?

 

[rosada]

When using the yarrow stalks I've found my mind contiues to think about the question a bit as I sort the sticks. It seems to always turn out that the answer is responding to where I am at in my thinking by the time I count the last stick, rather than refering to where I was when I formed the question. For example, perhaps my question is, "Should I go to the party?" and as I sort the sticks I'm thinking, "Well, it will probably be alot of fun, but what should I wear? Blue jeans or a yellow skirt?" and when I look at the completed hexagram it doesn't just say, "Go to the party," it says, "Wear the yellow skirt."
This isn't so likely to be the case when tossing coins, perhaps because the method is quick the thinking doesn't evolve between the toss and the answer. But perhaps it should. Then the last line could really be responding to the exact thought of the moment.
Anyway, I get my most synchronistic answers when I use the yarrow stalks.

 

[heylise]

My first reaction was, to agree with Jeff. But after thinking a bit, i found this:
With the first throw, you choose for half of 64 hexagrams. Second line: half of those 32. and so on. With line 5 half of 4 hexagrams, and with the top line one of two hexagrams. So they have all the same importance, they all are either yang or yin, always a choice between essentially two values. But only in the top lines, you see this black-white result.

LiSe

 

[martin]

Nowadays I prefer a computerprogram that gives a hexagram with one mouse click, because I don't like this building up effect very much. I become a bit tense when there is only one line left.

 

[martin]

I was thinking - every conventional method that builds hexagrams sequentially, line by line, starts with the bottom line.
First line 1, then line 2, and so on.
Suppose we start instead with the top line and work downwards - first line 6, then line 5, and so on - would that go against the "grain" of the I Ching somehow?

From a kind of "sage" perspective it makes sense. You start with a cause on the spirit level and then, working downwards, observe how it gradually becomes physical/material, how it incarnates.

What do you think?

 

[jesed]

Hi martin

In traditional teachings, the would be a mistake.

The diference between ru and fang shi is: fang-shi looks from heaven to earth (try to adapt macrocosmical realm to microcosmical situation), ru looks from earth to heaven (adapt the microcosmical situation to the macrocosmical real.. the Way of heaven).

This is pointed in the traditional secuence that goes from Heaven to Earth (it is a mistake say that the traditional secuence is only the one that goes from Heaven to Not Yet Crossing). Ru uses it in one way, fang-shi uses it in the other way.

Best wishes

 

[jesed]

ps, this same can be derivate from other aproach...

Tao's direction (if one can think in something as tao's direction ) goes from Void, to the 10,000 things. The sage's work is returning FROM 10,000 things to Void. So, the sage's perspective is not "start with a cause on the spirit level and then, working downwards, observe how it gradually becomes physical/material, how it incarnates", but ascendt from the 10,000 things to the Non-being (and this is why the sage's perspective can be described as a Return)

 

[bruce_g]

Martin, interesting thought. I don’t know much about sages, but I do know that things grow upward, and where the Ching is concerned, I believe that’s relevant, possibly even critical.

I have the exact opposite response to one-click-readings. I have always ‘felt’ that the time sequence between each line is an inherent part of what makes a reading grow.

 

[jte]

Wow, some very good points made above. Especially responding to Bruce, Rosada, and Alexander’s psychological points, and to Lise’s point about reducing the number of possible outcomes as you go (which had also occurred to me on further reflection):

I think a lot of this might boil down to one’s underlying view of the process of casting, who/what you are asking the question of, and what the answer really is.

For example, at least for many questions, in theory the answer should fit the question (at least loosely ;-) ) and be an accurate and appropriate answer. (Perhaps even the best or even the only possible answer?) If that is the case, isn’t there a very real way in which my psychological state as I cast coins or stalks or the fact that I’m halving the number of possible answers with each line should have nothing to do with the answer?

Maybe if your underlying view is that you’re asking your own unconscious or “innermost mind” (or however you choose to describe it), then it makes perfect sense that your psychological state affects the answer – might even be pivotal. If you see yourself as asking something external, “the universe” or superhuman intelligences (or whatever else you might believe it is), then probably not. Another way of looking at this is one thinks the answer is somehow predetermined (i.e. by virtue of having asked the question and it having a “right answer”) or not. In other words, do we "create" the answer or do we "receive" it?

I’m not saying one view is right or wrong, just pointing out that a person’s views on these issues affect how they see the impact of psychology, etc. on the answer as it is built.

- Jeff

 

[martin]

Tao's direction (if one can think in something as tao's direction ) goes from Void, to the 10,000 things. The sage's work is returning FROM 10,000 things to Void. So, the sage's perspective is not "start with a cause on the spirit level and then, working downwards, observe how it gradually becomes physical/material, how it incarnates", but ascendt from the 10,000 things to the Non-being (and this is why the sage's perspective can be described as a Return)

I think this depends on the tradition to which the sage belongs.
In some traditions there is more conscious emphasis on ascending, aspiring upwards (breathing in) while others focus more on descending (breathing out).
Kundalini yoga, for example, is very much an ascending discipline. But Buddhism and especially Taoism seem on the whole to emphasize descending more.
At least, that is my impression. Not every Buddhist or Taoist is the same of course, some focus more on ascending, some less. And every tradition that is anywhere near complete must somehow represent and take care of the whole cycle, breath in and breath out.
But when I read Lao Tzu I do not see much "aspiring upwards". It's like he doesn't need to reconnect with the Source, the Void. He doesn't need to return to it. He is already there, he is not a "seeker".
Lao Tzu speaks AS the Source and listening to him is wonderfully relaxing. Life is soooooo simple.

 

[martin]

Maybe if your underlying view is that you’re asking your own unconscious or “innermost mind” (or however you choose to describe it), then it makes perfect sense that your psychological state affects the answer – might even be pivotal. If you see yourself as asking something external, “the universe” or superhuman intelligences (or whatever else you might believe it is), then probably not. Another way of looking at this is one thinks the answer is somehow predetermined (i.e. by virtue of having asked the question and it having a “right answer”) or not. In other words, do we "create" the answer or do we "receive" it?

Yes. For me consulting the I Ching is communicating with an external intelligence, an "other". That is the way I see it.
The apparently random mechanism that is used functions as a kind of sensitive membrane through which the relatively subtle vibrations of that other can reach me.

Of course on subtler levels the difference between self and others becomes more and more fuzzy. It is sometimes hard to say where the self ends and the other begins. And it doesn't really matter that much where the boundaries are, if there are any. In a sense it's all "we". I can also see that "other" as one of my future selves, for example.

Still, the idea of the other makes sense to me. Consequently I like to minimize the influence of what I understand to be "me" (in a more limited sense). I am receptive when I consult the I Ching, I don't want to "create" anything.
I can imagine that it must be different for those who don't feel that they communicate with another when they consult the oracle.

 

[khait]

The problem of using I Ching is that we do not understand its mechanism, as Jeff explained it, one can conceive different options. However, I think that since this tools was designed in a specific cultural tradition (ancient China) various possibilities have to be seen it the framework of this tradition. For example cause-effect view is controversial in this context (at least from C.G. Yung's point of view).
I cannot see any reason why ancient Chinese thinkers did not consider the problems of
1. the last line casting emulating the future influence of the past (maybe in terms of simultaneity);
2. educational explanation by the sage: how is it possible that until the end nothing can be understood because the explanation is utterly dependent on the last casting;
3. stability against errors: the effect of the last line cannot be balanced by further castings.
I wonder whether there are Chinese sources dealing with these questions.

Alexander

 

[jte]

Hi, Martin -

"...I like to minimize the influence of what I understand to be "me" (in a more limited sense). I am receptive when I consult the I Ching, I don't want to "create" anything. I can imagine that it must be different for those who don't feel that they communicate with another when they consult the oracle."

Yes, I have a similar view and and try to be "receptive" to the Yi's answers. As I'm now very familiar with the hexes/lines, I often realize what my possibile answers are as I near the 5th and 6th lines of the reading. So I find myself deliberately trying to avoid "thinking too much" about a possible response - rather, I try to focus on being open and letting the Yi speak to me. Also realize this could/would be different for others who see things differently...

- Jeff

 

[bruce_g]

“Also realize this could/would be different for others who see things differently...”

Mmm, for me, not really. Openness is vital to me in order to receive an answer. I think that’s fundamental to oracle consultation.

The question is, receptive to what or whom? I think there is confusion about what it means to say “the answers come from within me”, as though “me” represents the ego-self rather than the Divine inherent in all things. As many here no doubt know, the word Namaste means (loosely) “The Divine in me honors the Divine in you.” To me this represents the idea of hexagram 61. Inner Truth or Inner God; they mean the same to me.

Though I’m not very keen on the term “higher self”, I think it comes close to the same idea. “Higher Intelligence” feels better to me. I just view myself (and everyone else) as belonging to it, not as separate from it.

I see it as a veil which separates seen from unseen, local to universal; and when I consult the oracle, the veil is lifted, just enough for an image to come through, as with an omen or divine revelation. The system of Yijing is such that it uses reliable and repeated images, through which the Divine can speak to the individual – if the individual is open and responsive. But in my conclusion, the Divine and the individual are one. There can only be one. To me that’s just logical. The veil is a window, like Lewis Carroll’s “Through the Looking Glass”: What you see depends on which side of the glass you’re looking from. Revelation is, when we make the quantum leap to the other side. From there, the answer to our question is very clear.

 

[frank_r]

Interesting point Martin,

I think this depends on the tradition to which the sage belongs.
In some traditions there is more conscious emphasis on ascending, aspiring upwards (breathing in) while others focus more on descending (breathing out).
Kundalini yoga, for example, is very much an ascending discipline. But Buddhism and especially Taoism seem on the whole to emphasize descending more.

Maybe with this in the back of your mind you can say, that the last line is more what happens with ascending, the choise from one out of the 10.000 possibilities, being the source, heaven, yang. And the first line going with the flow with the 10.000 possibilties,more the descending.Being in the source. Earth- yin. You also see it when you build up the lines, as LiSe already wrote.
Both lines fall outside time. And are in that way always and already connected with the source

Frank R

 

[lightofreason]

The methodology in creating meaning is general to particular but this is a movement from the unconscious to the conscious. The position of consciousness is then INTERPRETED as 'originating' and so the movement is then from particular to general. As such one can interpret lines from the top down as long as one works from a particular perspective to the generalisation. (OR you can hold the upward movement constant and shift the interpretations from general-particular to particular-general)

The TEMPORAL methodology is in the step format where each line position is identical in quality with all others, all that is different is the time element.

What is essential here is a syntax focus where position in the sequence is vital, all meaning is in one's position.

Chris.