Having fish or no fish.....

[Trojina]

No fish or fish - it makes absolutely no difference....

Try telling them that


[video=youtube;UkzM0oR0Irg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkzM0oR0Irg&feature=player_detailpage#t=9[/video]

 

[Liselle]

You are the master video-finder, Trojina.

I like how one of them took his or her piece and ran away with it. Smart kitten. They're adorable. :hugs:

 

[svenrus]

.... concerning Yes and/or No





......

 

[butterfly spider]

I don't know the symbolism of fish or fishes but One of my recurring dreams is of being in a fish market with large half-alive fish gaping - it's not nice actually

By the way you can still go fishing in the disused fish farm - some of the fish get trapped in the rock pools. But you need a boat and have to be carful of tides otherwise you are in deep water...

 

[butterfly spider]

Have just been for a walk with the dog. I have 2 choices either round the green (turn right) or up to the woods (turn left). It got me thinking about options and asking yes or no questions.
I procrastinate too much - dithering about decisions that are actually pretty petty to be honest. But then this also happens with large decisions too. Sliding Doors- a film about a small decision to rush onto a train came to mind.

I got 44.2 4 many years ago when I asked about where my child should go to school - it was a yes or no question. It was important - and I remember thinking that it was a bit if a a strange answer - fish or no fish I wanted a definitive answer. In the end whilst the decision was important it was of no consequence as I then took her out and taught her at home. When I got
Hex 44 for the canoe trip this came back to me. It didn't matter

The yes no and the fish and the canoe trip and
The fishery seemed to resonate a chord - very fishy indeed

 

[butterfly spider]

Try telling them that


[video=youtube;UkzM0oR0Irg]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UkzM0oR0Irg&feature=player_detailpage#t=9[/video]

Yesterday I got fish heads and bits from the market to make bouillabaisse - it's free and the stock is delicious.
It is also a magnet for the church cats who sit and look at my window menacingly ...

 

[svenrus]

Russell Cottrell who also lookes at the NanJing-rule have a pick-up of the methods along the way:

http://www.russellcottrell.com/virtualyarrowstalks/rules.htm

 

[drSurya]

In my experience, 44.2 is about not revealing the inner content: "don't tell them", "they are not going to tell you", "it's better not to mention", "they are not going to mention that", "it would be inapropriate to discuss the issue". "It's there, but let's pretend everything is fine". "Yes, I'm angry with you, but I'm not going to say anything".

The 44.4 is more about a refusal. Somebody is going to say "no", or "not enough to be accepted", "not enough money", "we don't have enough money to fund your project", "you're not good enough for what you're aspiring", "sorry". The person rejected might be needed at a later time, but it can be difficult to reach them. "Don't miss the opportunity to talk to that person".

 

[gene]

Hexagram 44.2.4.

Line 2: Having fish in the cookhouse.
Line 4: No fish in the cookhouse.
(Richard Rutt, Zhouyi a bronzeagedocument)
------------------
NanJing-rule: Maintext. (1)
Zhu Xi : The upper changing line ie fourth line. (2)
Alfred Huang: The lower changing line (3)
-------------------
1) http://www.biroco.com/yijing/Shih-chuan_Chen.pdf
2) http://www.biroco.com/yijing/basics.htm In the section "How to interpret changing lines"
3) The complete I Ching; end of introduction, from his master Yin
------------------
I have seen in an online I Ching page that all of the six lines should be taken in consideration when reading the oracle; It sounds logic, and in this case it should then be something like: "In the inner/lower trigram, Fish in the cookhouse and In the outer/upper trigram, No fish in the cookhouse..." with Upper and Lower trigrams symbolic meaning taken into account.
-------------------
So: Fish in the tank or No fish in the tank ???
Possibility (1): "Though she be healthy, do not take her to wife"
(2): "No fish in the cookhouse"
(3): "Fish in the cookhouse"

​

I received this exact same reading a while back and had a heck of a time with it. I think Hilary's book on the I Ching gives a good explanation though. In line two, the earlier of the two lines, we think we have something, but then it becomes slippery and hard to hold on to. What you have early on is lost later. Of course, that is not the only possibility, but it is one.

 

[svenrus]

drSurya, do You mean that 44.2 is in the mental sphere and 44.4 in the physic ?
Gene, I have been thinking of buying Hilary's book but decided to wait as something tells me that Hilary maybe comes up with a book diving deeper into the mythological aspects of the different sayings in the I. But that's just a feeling I got. And the timely aspect You mention seems to be a good point, sort of "What You got is OK - 44.2 - But be aware that You can loose it - 44.4 - " the last in case only when 44.4 shows up together with 44.2

 

[gene]

The interesting thing about this reading is not only are the two lines contradictory, (in a manner of speaking) but hexagram 44 and 53, the resulting hexagram, are also, in a sense, contradictory. Hexagram 44, on one level, tells us not to get married, line two tells us we have something of value, and line four tells us we don't, then hexagram 53 tends to argue that a marriage would be a good thing. That is the real perplexity of this reading.

Of course, one of the dynamics here, in the relationship of the lines, is that line one has a proper correlate in line four, but line two is it's neighbor, giving it somewhat of an advantage over line four, which is farther away. So line two keeps his catch away from the other four yang lines. That makes it impossible for line four to attach itself, unless it can wrest away the fish from line two. But ultimately all things belong to the ruler, line five. And so it drops down to him as from heaven. When you get only lines two and four though, that is not so much to be considered.

This can be considered in some cases therefore, as possibly two suitors for the same female, the one closer has the advantange. Of course, that possibility does not always apply, so we have to look deeper. Sometimes it is like kids on a sidewalk who suddenly see fallen change on the ground, and they start grabbing for it. The rule, at least among boys, is that you don't share, you try to be the first to grab, and get as much as you can. There may be somewhat of an analogy here. Someone who has the advantage takes things for him or herself with considering the consequences for anyone else, including the King, who is the rightful owner. so to speak.

 

[drSurya]

drSurya, do You mean that 44.2 is in the mental sphere and 44.4 in the physic ?

Counting the occurences in my journal I would say 44.2 tends to be more mental, and 44.4 more physical. The advice 44.2 gives is not to make a transition from mental to physical, "don't let it go out", "keep it under the lid". The transition 44.2 advises against could have both ends physical, "you have some income, but not enough to buy that car, don't buy it". In the 44.4 the advice is "those rejected might become difficult to contact when needed", 44.4 can be physical, but mental as well: "your idea is not valuable, no benefit for you, no benefit for others, but it's bad to reject all ideas, you may need some later, stay in touch".

 

[bradford]

One of the commonest mistakes people make in interpreting the lines is forgetting what Hexagram they are in, and failing to subordinate the meaning of the lines to the overall or core meaning of the Hexagram as a whole.
In this case, the image of fish throughout the Yijing is a euphemism for young women, or any analogous "object" of desire. In 44 this requires the right quantum of restraint, which means neither too much nor too little.

 

[beatpoet]

Was reading through this and was struck:

Is 44.4 like our saying: "The fish that got away."

:confusion:

I always took it like something isn't there. But now I am thinking something that disappeared? Don't know.

As Bradford says proper use of restraint... too much? Like as in when you try to hold a fish, if you squeeze it too hard and slips out of one's fingers? Or you put it in the wallet, and when you open it, you don't see it there anymore? In some translation, I can't remember it suggested a thief who had stolen the fish. Another suitor?

:confusion:

 

[bradford]

Was reading through this and was struck:
Is 44.4 like our saying: "The fish that got away."
:confusion:
I always took it like something isn't there. But now I am thinking something that disappeared? Don't know.
As Bradford says proper use of restraint... too much? Like as in when you try to hold a fish, if you squeeze it too hard and slips out of one's fingers? Or you put it in the wallet, and when you open it, you don't see it there anymore? In some translation, I can't remember it suggested a thief who had stolen the fish. Another suitor?
:confusion:

This particular line is about having overdone the restraint.
Now there won't be any tempting women willing to go anywhere near you for you to say no to.
Line 6 also overdoes the restraint.

 

[beatpoet]

Thank you!

Much much clearer to me!

Now my question is: there seems to be a quality in some commentaries as if the person has shown arrogance or ...am struggling for the words ... superiority. I remember Wilhelm says something like someone or something formerly considered -- "insignificant" people --won't be there. It feels like that which was rejected was considered lower somehow. Is that correct?

Thanks
beatpoet.

 

[bradford]

Thank you!
Much much clearer to me!
Now my question is: there seems to be a quality in some commentaries as if the person has shown arrogance or ...am struggling for the words ... superiority. I remember Wilhelm says something like someone or something formerly considered -- "insignificant" people --won't be there. It feels like that which was rejected was considered lower somehow. Is that correct?
Thanks beatpoet.

Yes, except that it doesn't need to be superiority. It could be fear of intimacy.
Or it could be having joined a monastery. Or having adopted some cultural code.
It's important to remember, though, that this is a metaphor, and doesn't even need
to be about relationships with people. It could be about being tempted to chuck it all
and become a novelist or painter, but avoiding that too completely because you know
you'd have to fully commit, and being a banker promises more security. Then you
don't have any creative outlet at all. It can be a question of all-or-none decisions.
The Zhi Gua (57) suggest rethinking this decision and looking for a solution that
satisfies more of your needs (57.4, take three kinds of game).

 

[beatpoet]

Thank you.

Ok, so choosing something else has meant that having taken that choice whatever the othe choice that one considered the lesser of the will no longer be there.

So instead of thinking "it's not there," there is a much import to the line. Yi simply announcing that which you rejected is no longer available to you.

Indirectly is Yi being a mother here? "I told you'd been off asking Suzy Homemaker than Nancy Wanamaker to the BBQ? But you insisted and now Suzy has won the lottery and gotten engaged!"

I have had this line when it wasn't ppl so i took your point quickly there.

Thanks
beatpoet.

 

[svenrus]

OK, I started this thread and I could say: "I understand" but that wouldn't be honest.

Seing it the way that the upper trigram represents the past (the going) and the lower the future (the coming) hex. 44.2.4. would be: There were and is no fish in the cookhouse but there will be.

 

[svenrus]

.............. but that wouldn't do neither because there would be no sense in that the first three lines permanently being future and the last three lines permanently being past.

And why have there through the ages been made attempts for making rules concerning pointing out one out of more changing lines ? The problem seems to be which of those rules is the original and correct one. In the case of 44.2.4. one of those ancient rules been examinated ie the NanJing-rule * points out the maintext or Judgment/Image alone to be taken into consideration and personally it made at least me less confused.
But then again, is the NanJing-rule correct interpreted ?

* https://www.biroco.com/yijing/Shih-chuan_Chen.pdf


(Alternative method)

 

[Olga Super Star]

Very interesting thread

So the fish is gone, we let it slip through our own hands while watching maybe the sunset for too long