Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
IrfanK
visitor
- Joined
- Dec 15, 2011
- Messages
- 752
- Reaction score
- 561
Yesterday, I asked the Yi an open question: Which hexagram should I read today? I received 18.3 > 4.
Living in Jakarta, the idea of wind trapped below the mountain as an image of corruption and stagnation is very powerful. Jakarta is surrounded by mountains and the polluted, stagnating air often does get trapped over the city, leading to some terrible air pollution on bad days.
Mostly, I was struck by the differences between Balkin's translation of the judgment and Hilary's. Balkin says:
Remedying what has been spoiled.
Supreme success.
Hilary says:
Corruption. Creating success from the source.
Fruitful to cross the great river.
My first intuitive reactions to these words is quite different. It's like Hilary is identifying the issue, while Balkin is emphasizing the response to the issue. If I'd just looked quickly at Balkin, I might have got the idea that the focus should be on fixing things, without thinking too much about what actually needed to be fixed, why there was a need for remedying in the first place. On the other hand, if I'd just looked at Hilary, I might have thought "Corruption, bad. How the hell does 'success' related to 'corruption'?"
I'm posting this because it gave me an insight into why I think looking at two different translations is often a good idea. I can see now that there isn't really such a large gap between them, although my initial response would have been quite different. I think I got a much better understanding by looking at both and comparing them.
By the way, I love the story that unfolds in the lines, about the son addressing ancestral corruption. It reminds me of a talk that I heard by a Javanese teacher, who spoke about inheriting the sins and virtues of our ancestors. There is no point railing against fate: there is no doubt that some people receive more beneficial inheritances, but you have to work with what you get. It's a powerful image for anyone coming from a conflicted family background. Or, for that matter, from a conflicted society. I thought of the studies that show that the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors often show the same patterns of disturbance as the survivors themselves. The great thing to do is to address it now, without handing the same burden down to the next generation.
Living in Jakarta, the idea of wind trapped below the mountain as an image of corruption and stagnation is very powerful. Jakarta is surrounded by mountains and the polluted, stagnating air often does get trapped over the city, leading to some terrible air pollution on bad days.
Mostly, I was struck by the differences between Balkin's translation of the judgment and Hilary's. Balkin says:
Remedying what has been spoiled.
Supreme success.
Hilary says:
Corruption. Creating success from the source.
Fruitful to cross the great river.
My first intuitive reactions to these words is quite different. It's like Hilary is identifying the issue, while Balkin is emphasizing the response to the issue. If I'd just looked quickly at Balkin, I might have got the idea that the focus should be on fixing things, without thinking too much about what actually needed to be fixed, why there was a need for remedying in the first place. On the other hand, if I'd just looked at Hilary, I might have thought "Corruption, bad. How the hell does 'success' related to 'corruption'?"
I'm posting this because it gave me an insight into why I think looking at two different translations is often a good idea. I can see now that there isn't really such a large gap between them, although my initial response would have been quite different. I think I got a much better understanding by looking at both and comparing them.
By the way, I love the story that unfolds in the lines, about the son addressing ancestral corruption. It reminds me of a talk that I heard by a Javanese teacher, who spoke about inheriting the sins and virtues of our ancestors. There is no point railing against fate: there is no doubt that some people receive more beneficial inheritances, but you have to work with what you get. It's a powerful image for anyone coming from a conflicted family background. Or, for that matter, from a conflicted society. I thought of the studies that show that the children and grandchildren of Holocaust survivors often show the same patterns of disturbance as the survivors themselves. The great thing to do is to address it now, without handing the same burden down to the next generation.