How does he feel? 60.3>5

[foxwriter]

I took Hilary's asking relationship questions advice and decided I could ask "How does he feel?" when initially I had wanted to ask "Arrgh, why are we still not properly in touch two weeks after I exploded (with some good cause but wrongly too angrily) and he initially said I'd burned my bridges but then suggested we postpone our mini break until we're in a better place". He has messaged a bit, but we've not spoken on the phone for five days and he hasn't suggested a day we could meet though I'd suggested yesterday we do something enjoyable (like see a film) and he said maybe.

I got 60.3 changing to 5.

"He who knows no limitation will have cause to lament. No blame"

I feel like the Cafe au Soul text applies exactly to me as well. I am definitely feeling regret over my lack of restraint. Is it perhaps answering how I feel rather than him- or do we both feel it at some level?:

"Not knowing limitation gives cause to lament = no blame. Changes to 5 Waiting. Because you do not understand why limitations have been thrust upon you, you may be feeling disenchanted. Don't give up because by Waiting for the right time to act you can still achieve success. Because boundaries or limits are not being respected others can feel invaded or threatened. Step back and allow the situation to develop before making any assumptions. A period of Waiting is required to understand how to approach the Limitations you face".

Can't help but worry that if we're both waiting then there's an impasse (but I know internal stuff could be happening- it certainly is for me, despite the anxious voice inside asking "when, when?")

 

[diamant]

How does he feel? 60.3 > 5

This is a cast which describes paying the consequences of overstepping boundaries.
He overstepped yours and you got angry.
Then you overstepped his, and now he wants you to lament and wait.

This is a battle of boundaries - he very obviously wants to continue doing whatever it was that made you angry. All of a sudden, after his silent treatment, you have forgotten what he did, and you lament, you blame your own reaction, and feel desperate to overcome the whole thing without addressing whatever it was that he did wrong. It looks like he's trying to impose two boundaries on you: a) you will accept the outrageous behaviour from him, and b) you are not allowed to tell him off, or he'll leave you.

The winner will be whoever imposes their boundary on the other.
Have a think if you would tolerate this type of behaviour in the future.

 

[becalm]

Sounds to me like you may have both been upset and said things you regret BUT no one's to blame. If you don't just wait it out, for the time being, then you'll have cause for sorrow.
A guy I was going out with said to me, however you feel, the other person is feeling the same way....it helped me a lot. Hope it helps you.
So how he feels is - it's best to just wait for a while in case you get caught up in what happened.

 

[diamant]

however you feel, the other person is feeling the same way

That's not my experience and I find this assumption quite dangerous.

 

[dfreed]

"How does he feel?"- got 60.3 changing to 5.

60.3 reads, "If he is not node-like, then he will be knell-like. (This way) No harm will come."

It means that he needs his space in order to work through the hurt he's feeling. For your part, if you suggest anything at all to him, it's better to ask that you two talk, and not suggest an 'enjoyable' activity.

 

[becalm]

That's not my experience......

but it's mine

 

[Liselle]

60.3 reads, "If he is not node-like, then he will be knell-like. (This way) No harm will come."

Whose book is that, D? I can see how it makes sense, if I compare it to someone else's like Hilary's.

'No measure, and hence lamenting. Not a mistake.'

So "node" = measure, like the nodes of a bamboo stem, I guess.
"Knell" like death-knell, lamenting.

Can't help but worry that if we're both waiting then there's an impasse (but I know internal stuff could be happening- it certainly is for me, despite the anxious voice inside asking "when, when?")

I see what you're saying here, both about the impasse and the internal stuff, but 5 is the relating hexagram, not the direct answer.

It's a tricky line because it talks about lamenting, but then says no blame / not a mistake. The inclusion of "(This way)" in the book Dfreed quoted makes it sound like a warning - "Bear this in mind, and then no harm will come." The quote was modified; see below.

Other translations, like Hilary's and Bradford Hatcher's, interpret it more like, "Lament is not a mistake here." (That's a direct quote from Hatcher's commentary.)

Hilary explains in Language of Change that "No blame / not a mistake" really means "there is nothing to alienate the spirits." Or as I believe she's also explained it, no ancestors will be angered.

Whether the reading really describes how he feels, or whether it's advice to you, is hard to tell. Maybe keep it in mind if/when you meet, and then if things get overwrought you can remember what Yi said - maybe it'll help in the moment.

 

[Liselle]

Maybe keep it in mind if/when you meet, and then if things get overwrought you can remember what Yi said - maybe it'll help in the moment.

That sounds an awful lot like a re-statement of what I said about the translation Dfreed quoted. That was unintentional - I only meant it in the sense that it always helps to try to keep readings in mind during the incident asked about.

I honestly don't know which spin on 60.3 is "correct" - "correct" often isn't the best way to think about it, anyway. Often better to try to see what the two have in common, something like that.

(edited to cross out parts because the quote had been modified; see below.)

 

[diamant]

but it's mine

So when you interact with another person, you always both feel the same way? That's an interesting life experience you've got. You're lucky.

 

[Trojina]

60.3 reads, "If he is not node-like, then he will be knell-like. (This way) No harm will come."

Any chance you could tell us what 'node-like' and 'knell-like' mean here? What is being like a node? What is being like a knell? What is a node? What is a knell?

You can have a node of the moon or nodules...but I never heard of a person being like a node or like a knell? Where's this language from or what language is it? Or rather what translation is it using these odds words that make no sense in English.

It means that he needs his space in order to work through the hurt he's feeling. For your part, you should not make light of this - if you suggest anything at all to him, it's better to ask that you two talk, and not suggest an 'enjoyable' activity.

Is that your opinion rather than Yi ? If so fair enough but there's nothing there particularly to say she should ask to talk not to do something enjoyable is there? And why would you think he needs space to work through his hurt? She hasn't said he needed to do that or even if he is hurt. And why the suggestion she doesn't make light of it? There's nothing in her post to suggest she is making light of anything ? She seems pretty upset to me so she needs the space.

 

[Trojina]

I took Hilary's asking relationship questions advice and decided I could ask "How does he feel?" when initially I had wanted to ask "Arrgh, why are we still not properly in touch two weeks after I exploded (with some good cause but wrongly too angrily) and he initially said I'd burned my bridges but then suggested we postpone our mini break until we're in a better place". He has messaged a bit, but we've not spoken on the phone for five days and he hasn't suggested a day we could meet though I'd suggested yesterday we do something enjoyable (like see a film) and he said maybe.

I got 60.3 changing to 5.

"He who knows no limitation will have cause to lament. No blame"

I don't think 'how does he feel' is suggested in the relationships sticky as the most useful question to ask is it? It generally isn't helpful to ask how others feel because often one cannot tell if the answer is about them or if Yi is addressing you from your position of approaching the oracle to ask. It is however a perfectly understandable question to want to ask so....hmm just reading the situation without Yi it seems to me this guy is a waste of time, he's not showing the enthusiasm that would make you feel wanted/desired or happy is he. He seems to be doing that thing of giving you just enough time and attention to keep you hanging on. In your shoes if I suggested a date to a romantic interest and he said 'maybe' that would be it, he'd lose all attraction, who wants that wet dopey half hearted kind of a boyfriend, it's not appealing. Also he seems manipulative and punitive saying you burned your bridges, and maybe when you are in a better place, he's trying to control you by making you feel shamed. To me that's clear just from reading your post no Yi involved. I could be wrong but in your shoes I'd wash him right out of my hair ! You know are you just too not well behaved enough for him to meet you??


The line says


'Not like limiting means it will be like lamenting.
Not a mistake.'

So there's much emotion yet not a mistake as Liselle pointed out. I wrote this of the line in wikiwing

The very opposite of 'playing it cool'. You may express yourself because you need to and it is not wrong or blameworthy because it is your truth but saying it still leads to suffering. Lack of restraint here can put you at an emotional disadvantage. In line 6 too much restraint leaves a bitter taste but here in line 3 too little restraint can lead to another kind of sorrow. Not the bitterness of withholding desire or feeling but the pain of leaving oneself vulnerable. This seems to be reflected in the fan yao of 5.3 where waiting in mud attracts robbers. Emotions aren't really naturally made to be rationed out into neat proportions anyway so there is no particular moral failing here but I think this line shows there is a useful place, in emotional terms, for what is sometimes known as 'game playing'. It may be necessary for you to apply measures to your emotional self expression in order to protect yourself from the fall out you might expose yourself to if you allow your emotions free rein here. (Trojina)

That won't always apply, no commentary ever will always apply ...but if you got angry at his unpleasant manipulative little wranglings then well there's sorrowing but it's not a mistake ?

What are you waiting for, kick him to the kerb and enjoy your life. If you want to play it very well controlled in accordance with his schedule and his approval of your behaviours and desires then you can go on with it but I can't see why you would? Why would you want anyone like that?

 

[dfreed]

dfreed said:
60.3 reads, "If he is not node-like, then he will be knell-like. (This way) No harm will come.

Any chance you could tell us what 'node-like' and 'knell-like' mean here? What is being like a node? What is being like a knell? What is a node? What is a knell?

Sorry i was not more clear. Here, 'Nodes' refer to the places of division on a bamboo stalk. Knell is the strike or slow sounding of a bell rung at a death or funeral, as in the expression 'a death knell'.

I understand this to mean that he needs space (as a node provides on a plant stem) in order for things to work out. All of what I wrote above is my interpretation of the reading; it's not based on my opinion. I did edit the part about making 'light' so as to make my interpretation clearer.

D.

 

[redoleander]

It’s possible 60.3 > 5 is simply showing you a picture of the situation since you’re asking about how he feels. I don’t think you received a whole lot of info on how he feels, simply that things went too far, there’s some regret, and now you’re waiting. 5 implies to me that it won’t stay like this forever, something will change or some kind of future conversation. The amount of time does seem quite long but that’s subjective I suppose. Since this is the answer you received, not rushing it seems best (it’s all about boundaries and not going too far.) What Diamant mentioned about the original issue not being resolved or addressed does seems important; perhaps you can ask about that or to see the relationship dynamic in general?

 

[Liselle]

dfreed said:
60.3 reads, "If he is not node-like, then he will be knell-like. (This way) No harm will come.

?

But whose book is that from, is what I wanted to know, who's the author. Karcher? Rutt? Nothing wrong with it - I think I understand what it's saying - translations differ from each other after all - I'm just interested to know where it's from.

 

[dfreed]

dfreed said:
60.3 reads, "If he is not node-like, then he will be knell-like. (This way) No harm will come."

Whose book is that, D?

Stephen Field's 'The Duke of Zhou Changes', his translation of the Zhouyi, the hexagram and line verses. ('This way' are my words for clarification.)

 

[Liselle]

It's a problem if you re-write an author like that and then quote it without explaining... at least tell us upfront, okay?

 

[dfreed]

It's a problem if you re-write an author like that and then quote it without explaining

I will think about your advice. However, the words and my interpretation stand on their own, so I don't see a 'problem' here. And if foxwriter has any questions or problems with what I or anyone says, I hope she will let us know. After all, it is her reading and that's who my interpretation is for.

 

[Liselle]

But there's a difference. Interpreting an author however you see fit is perfectly fine. But presenting something that looks like a direct quote, when in fact you've added your own words to it, isn't okay. That's what you did here.

 

[dfreed]

But there's a difference.

Liselle, do you have some issue with what I actually said; do you have a problem with my interpretation or my meaning? Or is your criticism based only on how I presented and wrote the line, 60.3? My small addition did not alter the meaning, nor change my interpretation, therefore I don't see that there's much of a problem here, or any problem at all. So perhaps we'll have to agree to disagree - and lucky for foxwritert, none of this changes the meaning of what I said.

 

[Liselle]

Or is your criticism based only on how I presented and wrote the line, 60.3?

Yes, that's literally all it is, a mechanical thing.

Anything you want to do for your own clarification is perfectly fine, but if you could let us know, is all. "That's from Field, but I added the words in parentheses for myself" or some such.

Part of my confusion is that the convention of adding a couple of words for clarification is something authors do. Brad, for instance (but with typeface, not parentheses):



He added "It took" and "were."

So I really did think it was a direct, word-for-word quote of whichever author it was. I had no way to know differently.

Again, like everyone else, you work with things however it helps you. I'd just like to know what's what, is all.

Also - maybe my reaction is because I went off on a whole exposition as to how I thought Field's take was slightly different from Hilary's and Brad's, based on those couple of words. But unlike Field you're actually here and we can ask you if need be instead of speculating.

Thanks for explaining what you said about "needs space"; I see how you got that now.

 

[dfreed]

because I went off on a whole exposition as to how I thought Fields' take was slightly different from Hilary's and Brad's

It seems you don't have an issue with my interpretation; good, because that's my main focus, and I think this is what foxwriter is most interested in.

All translations are different from each other - either slightly or in big ways. The Zhouyi translations (of the hexagram and line verses) by Richard Rutt and Stephen Field are the two I am currently working with - and quite like; but I most often only use one per interpretation.

 

[Trojina]

All translations are different from each other - either slightly or in big ways.

Liselle has known that for many many years, she has worked with Yi for many years. That's why she asked you for clarification about the translation and who it was from. If you use a translation it is necessary to say who it's from. If you always use the same one or two it can save time to put it in your signature rather than write it in every post.

 

[dfreed]

Liselle has known that for many many years

That's good to know. I wondered why Liselle felt the need to make a point about "how (she) thought Fields' take was slightly different from Hilary's and Brad's"? That's what I was responding to. But all of this is just extra at this point, and not really about foxwriter's query - I have clarified my interpretation, and you and Liselle seem fine with it. I hope foxwriter finds what we've said in our interpretations of use.

 

[Liselle]

I talked about the difference - or what I thought was a difference, I might have been off in space - because I thought it might matter for Foxwriter's question.

The inclusion of "(This way)" in the book Dfreed quoted makes it sound like a warning - "Bear this in mind, and then no harm will come.

When I tried to apply it, I thought it might have meant to be careful to avoid getting into a situation of lamenting.

"If he is not node-like, then he will be knell-like. (This way) No harm will come."

It sort of sounded to me like - paraphrasing - "Bear in mind, here is what could happen: if you're not measured, you'll lament" - statement made, end of sentence. Then, "(This way) No harm will come" - if you keep in mind what could happen, no harm will come.

Which is different from what Hilary and Brad seem to say, that lamenting isn't wrong.

To be clear, though - I really don't know what it might mean for Foxwriter's question. There have been numerous ideas, including Redoleander's that the reading described the fight that already took place.

(Or maybe his feelings about that fight, if it's a really literal answer which it may or may not be.)



David, after all of this, would you have any appetite for telling us what was behind you putting "(This way)" in?

 

[dfreed]

would you have any appetite for telling us what was behind you putting "(This way)" in?

Not really - at least not in this thread. Foxwriter has a couple of different interpretations to consider. I hope mine - or someone else's - is helpful for them. That is what I want to focus on.

 

[Liselle]

By the way, I have Googled and now know the author's name is "Field," not "Fields." Stephen Field. Have gone through and edited. It's still wrong in quotes, though, oh well.

 

[foxwriter]

So sorry not to have replied sooner-I hadn’t seen any notifications or realised there were replies.

I feel like dfreed was spot on.
my boyfriend needed space. Though we also needed to talk rather than just do an activity. He initiated this on Sunday.

At this point (having not seen Diamant’s quite correct-feeling advice) I did address some of the issues that had caused me to explode (his boundary issues) as well as apologising for my own.

although our initial conversation was quite fraught, it felt like we had more of a “connected” conversation when I read him a letter I’d previously written but not sent. It addressed the explosion, but also the issues leading up to it.

I certainly did feel that (as in Trojina’s Wiki Wing on the interpretation of the line) that I was making myself vulnerable by not restraining my emotions in the letter (especially when he was not making clear how he saw our future) but I had a sense that I had to show him I was still wanting to move forward as he may have doubted it after what I said in my explosion.

he said he would “chew things over” & has messaged & phoned me in the past couple of days, though ostensibly mainly about work things (we have some joint creative projects, though today’s phone call was to thank me for sending some files & was more of a pleasant chat like we’d usually have in a daytime phone call). I’m not initiating messages, contact or suggesting another meeting. I know he’s busy with childcare until Thursday & he knows I’m away working from Friday so there’s probably at least another week of “space”. I have a sense we both need it to rebalance how we spend our time (scheduling has been an issue). I asked for an image of where our relationship is now & got 58 1,2,4,5 changing to 2.

Thanks so much everyone for your thoughts, interpretation (and debating!)