...life can be translucent

Menu

Moving lines are sometimes just an excuse to link two hexagrams

liquidity

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
424
Reaction score
125
Just anecdotally, in my experience sometimes Yi responds with with a moving-line answer where the moving lines are largely irrelevant, or at least very secondary.

They are mainly a way for Yi to summon the resultant hexagram and link it to the primary hexagram and say -- "that's your answer."

Anyone else had this sense?
 
F

Freedda

Guest
I don't recall ever having that experience. I sometimes may not understand the importance or relevance of a line (or a hexagram or trigram) but that doesn't mean its not relevant. But I suppose it could happen - hard to say.
 

rosada

visitor
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
9,890
Reaction score
3,169
I asked the I Ching to comment and got 44.5 - 50 so yeah, sometimes a quick answer comes like a gift from heaven without you having to work through all the lines.
 
L

legume

Guest
i think i might relate to this, though not sure if that's what you mean or how you see it? ;)

only yesterday i decided to ask a big question (i usually refrain from [ab]using the oracle in such a way, as am trying to use it more for "spiritual" practice / learning to be here and now, with its guidance on current matters that kind of throw me off balance, if that makes any sense) that's sort of black and white (yes/no, which i also generally avoid) and thrown into the very much unknown of the future.

and so i got 3 changing lines and spent probably an hour trying to figure out the advice hidden in them. successfully i'd say. it almost made me forget about the question. but when i came back to the resulting hex i realised - well - that's where the actual immediate answer (promising, good fortune, a yes - if you wish) was.

were the lines in this scenario secondary? not sure, as i believe the lines show me the way of how to achieve the yes, as in the resulting hex (and without that advice, the answer might have been an unchanging "no" - well... who knows ;))
but if i was looking for a simple answer to what i asked, then in a sense, they could have been considered kind of irrelevant... :)
 
F

Freedda

Guest
I asked the I Ching to comment and got 44.5 - 50 so yeah, sometimes a quick answer comes like a gift from heaven without you having to work through all the lines.
Please explain if you would. I looked at 44.5 to 50 and didn't necessarily get that as my take-away. In fact, one way of understanding this casting ...

Line 44.5:
Wrapping the melons in willow.
Restraint is displayed.
They will have fallen from heaven.

... could be that we should be careful (show restraint) before overlooking the lines, or think they are irrelevant, since they too may be an important part of the message (that they too have 'fallen from heaven'), though their importance could be hidden or hard to understand ('wrapped in willow').

I have seen where people have all kinds of ways they might interpret this - including only looking at the lines, ignoring both the lines and the related hexagram altogether, or setting aside all the text and looking only at the trigrams of the principle hexagram;

... however, I'm curious about your take on it and the conclusion you came to.


Regards, David.
 

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
1,049
Just anecdotally, in my experience sometimes Yi responds with with a moving-line answer where the moving lines are largely irrelevant, or at least very secondary.

They are mainly a way for Yi to summon the resultant hexagram and link it to the primary hexagram and say -- "that's your answer."

Anyone else had this sense?

Yes, definitely.

When there is a single change line, it is of the utmost importance.
Look closely and you can see that each individual line is a marriage of the two hex's meanings.
That's how to realize that the related hex is not future, it is more like a hidden aspect.
Fine example: 1.1 (44)
It looks like a situation you could power through (hexagram 1), but lurking in the background is 44 and the counsel:
Lurking dragon, do not act.

When there are multiple change lines, yes the more there are, the more they lose their relevance.
Even with just two change lines it is still more important to look at the two hexes and marry them together in your mind, even though you may be able to recognize what the two lines are pointing to,
but it is myopic to stare at them for too long.
(I had this experience with a 42.2.5 (41) reading, the 42 was important and the 41 was important,
Yes I was offered/asked to review and opine on a matter (turtle shells, line 2), and yes it was kind of me to do (line 5) but the experience was within a single day: Up (42) & Down (41) or going nowhere, +1 -1= 0)

Look at 1.123456 (2) to see this clearly how multiple lines lose their relevance.
The warnings in lines 1 and 6 are no longer relevant to the Promise in that reading as a whole.
 
L

legume

Guest
I asked the I Ching to comment and got 44.5 - 50 so yeah, sometimes a quick answer comes like a gift from heaven without you having to work through all the lines.

to me it's quite funny, as if I Ching's making a bit of a joke - in Wilhelm's translation the line is:

A melon covered with willow leaves.
Hidden lines.

Then it drops down to one from heaven.

first the hidden lines (plural and hidden, thus less relevant or secondary), then it's down to one (one finite answer or hexagram maybe)? and it's changing to 50, perhaps that's the actual response we should be focusing on in this context... i find the I Ching to be full of riddles, irony and humour :D
i guess we all find in the book what we already carry within? or some things i just take too lightly...

on a side note, i just did another reading, with 3 changing lines - and the resulting hex seems to be making way more sense than the lines leading to it. basically, i got annoyed with someone i was talking to and wanted more insight as to what actually got me a little upset - 22.3.4.6 > 51.
changing lines in 22 seem to be showing the general flow of the conversation, but the shock, or what got me upset, came from that person's very unexpected reaction (i actually didn't expect anything more than for someone to listen, or words of encouragement maybe... while received somewhat a reprimand or warning of some sort) to something completely neutral i said about a very loose idea for my very own future plans.

in this case it was more of display of actual change that happened within the attitudes during the conversation itself, with the secondary hex being the answer to the first one (too much of beautifying or blah blah - 22, i guess, leading to shock - 51 - which got me upset)... weird, but maybe just needed another example for this thread / for myself? ;)
 
Last edited:

rosada

visitor
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
9,890
Reaction score
3,169
I like David’s interpretation of 44.5 as the IC saying “Hey, the lines are precious and significant” but I also know from my own experience that sometimes you can get a meaningful answer just from reading the titles of the hexagrams, especially when it is not too complicated a question. For example if you asked How can I lose weight? and got 27.nourishment - 60. limitation, you might not need to read the lines to get the message you need to limit your calories and that simple insight might be sufficient for your interest. But if you felt a need to delve deeper you could read the lines and perhaps get an idea of just what it was you were needing to limit - maybe along with food the Lines would also advise limiting other activities. But sometimes you just get it, you don’t need to know the subtleties because the answer pops into your head like a gift from heaven.

Frankly, l am more disturbed by people reading just.the lines and not knowing their context in the whole hexagram. But the Universe speaks to us in what ever language we can understand, so what ever method works - I say “Work it!”
 

rosada

visitor
Joined
Jun 3, 2006
Messages
9,890
Reaction score
3,169
Just looked up 27.1.3 - 60 Nourishment - Limiting and lines 1 and 3 seemed to advise AGAINST nourishment limiting/dieting! So the heck with my example. But I still stand by my argument that at times you can get a meaningful answer without focusing on the lines, especially if one is just beginning to use the I Ching and the lines seem confusing. I guess it depends on your level of experience. 4.5 says the powers that be will be tolerant of a young fool but 25.6 says woe to those who refuse to learn.
 
F

Freedda

Guest
I like (the) interpretation of 44.5 as the IC saying “Hey, the lines are precious and significant” but I also know from my own experience that sometimes you can get a meaningful answer just from reading the titles of the hexagrams ...
Thanks Rosada. I think my take-away from all this is that there are no fixed ways of approaching a reading, and that it can often be misleading or limiting to apply a 'rule', for examle, something like:

"I got four moving lines and that means I don't have to look at the lines and should only look at the related hexagram." or ...

"I only have one moving line and therefore I should only look at that moving line." ... and so forth.

As liquidity started out saying, "... in my experience sometimes Yi responds ...." Well, yes, that's the operative word here ... sometimes ... and sometimes - as you have pointed out - we get meaningful responses in other ways as well.


Best, David.
 
F

Freedda

Guest
... moving lines are largely irrelevant, or at least very secondary They are mainly a way for Yi to summon the resultant hexagram and link it to the primary hexagram ...
LIquidity, I think I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm wondering if you can provide a reading where you found this to be true - where you found many moving lines irrelevant, and you felt they served instead to lead you to the related hexagram?

I always have an easier time understanding and relating to an actual reading instead of a hypothetical one. As I once read (and I paraphrase), the hypothetical is the antithesis of magic.


Best, David.
 
F

Freedda

Guest
Legume, for 44.5 > 50, I don't understand what you mean by:
first the hidden lines (plural and hidden, thus less relevant or secondary), then it's down to one (one finite answer or hexagram maybe)? and it's changing to 50,
I'm seeing a primary hexagram, one moving line, and a related hexagram. So, I'm lost by what line or lines are 'hidden', or are 'plural,' or 'down to one.'?


Regards, David.
 
L

legume

Guest
I'm seeing a primary hexagram, one moving line, and a related hexagram. So, I'm lost by what line or lines are 'hidden', or are 'plural,' or 'down to one.'?
Regards, David.

hidden lines is a literal quote from the middle of Wilhelm's translation of 44.5. thought it to be quite amusing to come up in this context. interestingly, the very same bit in Bradford Hatcher's is Restraint is displayed.

i'm sorry, i'm not great at explaining the irony of things, yet i cannot stop seeing it everywhere :bag:
 

Trojina

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
May 29, 2006
Messages
26,921
Reaction score
4,426
Just anecdotally, in my experience sometimes Yi responds with with a moving-line answer where the moving lines are largely irrelevant, or at least very secondary.

They are mainly a way for Yi to summon the resultant hexagram and link it to the primary hexagram and say -- "that's your answer."

Anyone else had this sense?


Yes, I have in the past - but don't for one minute think anything is wasted in Yi. All connections are meaningful but perhaps at the moment of casting there is a 'main point' you need to get. It isn't that the lines are completely irrelevant it's just at that moment you are catching the 'most relevant point' for you at that instant.

It is not random of course that those lines bring that relating hexagram so they are as much a part of the reading as our arms are to our liver.....or something like that. Not a good metaphor but if I am mainly using my arms in a task it doesn't mean my liver is irrelevant. It's all one body.



At different times different parts of the answer are going to stand out to us. Sometimes just one word is enough to answer us, or the Image or some other part or the picture the hexagram makes us think of. Interpreting is never 'paint by numbers' even if it starts off like that, there's always an unexpected 'spark' that ignites our understanding of that particular answer in that particular moment.


Doesn't mean the rest of the answer is irrelevant just that that aspect stands out in relief against the rest.


With many moving lines I feel attention will be less on each line more on the story they make, more on the sentence the primary and relating make together and of course there are always the change patterns to notice. The pattern behind the pattern. So for example when lines 1 and 2 change you can see the outline of yang pattern 19 and yin pattern 33 also rippling through the reading.


And who knows maybe at different points in one's Yi life answers come differently. For a long time I got the same impression as you - these lines are only to connect these two hexagrams and of course they are, but there is nothing accidental in those lines making that bridge between those two hexagrams. But we can't take everything in at once and so just some aspects of the answer will be our answer for that moment. Looking back months or years later you would probably see more than at the time you received the nub of the answer.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,850
Reaction score
2,388
Just looked up 27.1.3 - 60 Nourishment - Limiting and lines 1 and 3 seemed to advise AGAINST nourishment limiting/dieting! So the heck with my example. But I still stand by my argument that at times you can get a meaningful answer without focusing on the lines, especially if one is just beginning to use the I Ching and the lines seem confusing. I guess it depends on your level of experience. 4.5 says the powers that be will be tolerant of a young fool but 25.6 says woe to those who refuse to learn.

Your general point is a good one, though.

Besides, 27.1 in a frame of "nourishment, its limiting" might very well say "duh :rolleyes:"

"Giving up your own spirit tortoise,
Gazing at me with jaws hanging down.
Pitfall."

And then 27.3 -
"Rejecting nourishment.
Constancy, pitfall.
For ten years, don’t act.
No direction bears fruit."

- could, if it would happen to apply to a particular person, mean don't diet to the point of malnourishment or something.

Then look at the other way around, 60 > 27, similar general idea but maybe with an emphasis on "limiting"?

60.1
"Not going out of the door to the family rooms.
Not a mistake."

Don't eat everything in sight? Stick to your list at the grocery store?

60.3
"No measure, and hence lamenting.
Not a mistake."

This way around's "duh" line? :rofl:
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,850
Reaction score
2,388
To answer Liquidity's question - yes, I have had this experience, and no, it surely doesn't mean the lines have nothing to say. But I might not understand them, it might not be so important that I have to spend hours or days worrying about it before acting on the reading - etc., depending on circumstances.

It probably is very important to at least make sure the lines and the hexagrams aren't at complete odds with each other. Hilary's map-and-pins analogy - if you're generally in a desert, it could make a crucial difference whether you're specifically in an oasis at the moment - or not - when deciding what you ought to do.

l am more disturbed by people reading just.the lines and not knowing their context in the whole hexagram.
Agreed. Used to do this all the time myself, still do sometimes :blush: although it's been gotten through to me pretty well by now.
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,850
Reaction score
2,388
What the heck are you thinking now??

Line 1: eat at home instead of eating out. (because 90% of restaurants have portion sizes too large for health.)
Line 3: your lack of restraint (overeating) caused this problem.
27>60

Those are lines 1 and 3 of hexagram 60, aren't they, not 27?
 

Liselle

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Sep 20, 1970
Messages
12,850
Reaction score
2,388
And as I mentioned, I can see how 27.3 could be a caution against dieting, or at least too much of it.
 

liquidity

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
424
Reaction score
125
LIquidity, I think I mentioned this in another thread, but I'm wondering if you can provide a reading where you found this to be true - where you found many moving lines irrelevant, and you felt they served instead to lead you to the related hexagram?

I always have an easier time understanding and relating to an actual reading instead of a hypothetical one. As I once read (and I paraphrase), the hypothetical is the antithesis of magic.


Best, David.

I was looking for one and had a good one yesterday. I was asking Yi about the appropriateness of "just being the Self" -- in the eastern-spiritual sense of Self as being the perfect and the complete which is the background of all happenings, which is revealed in and behind thoughts.

And it responded with 14.1.2.3.4.5 Possession in Great Measure > 20 Contemplation.

Which I think is perfect. The immeasurable richness (14) of that moment, in 20, between the "ablution" and the "offering"... that never-ending in-between...
 

liquidity

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
424
Reaction score
125
Yes, I have in the past - but don't for one minute think anything is wasted in Yi. All connections are meaningful but perhaps at the moment of casting there is a 'main point' you need to get. It isn't that the lines are completely irrelevant it's just at that moment you are catching the 'most relevant point' for you at that instant.

It is not random of course that those lines bring that relating hexagram so they are as much a part of the reading as our arms are to our liver.....or something like that. Not a good metaphor but if I am mainly using my arms in a task it doesn't mean my liver is irrelevant. It's all one body.



At different times different parts of the answer are going to stand out to us. Sometimes just one word is enough to answer us, or the Image or some other part or the picture the hexagram makes us think of. Interpreting is never 'paint by numbers' even if it starts off like that, there's always an unexpected 'spark' that ignites our understanding of that particular answer in that particular moment.

Yes, so true. More and more I am learning that interpretation is not just an act of interpretation, but a creative act, an act of boldness and decision and imagination (hex 1) as much as it is an act of reception and reverence (hex 2).
 
F

Freedda

Guest
Originally Posted by liquidity -
... I was asking Yi about the appropriateness of "just being the Self" - in the eastern-spiritual sense of Self ... And it responded with 14.1.2.3.4.5 Possession in Great Measure > 20 Contemplation ...

I think I have a sense of this, but just to be clear, are you saying that you're interpretation of this would be something like: "Yes, it is appropriate for me 'just being the Self'? And are there any details you have gleaned as well, or is that message enough (at least for right now)?

My interpretation of this would be quite different than yours, but no matter. What I know is there are a lot of ways to skin this particular Self - and what Trojina wrote is way good. One way I often look at many (four, five, or six) moving lines - along with reading the lines' text and trying to understand what they are saying - is to see them as points of imbalance that need attention; but this is coming from a particular way of interpreting the images (hexgrams, trigrams).

And also Line 4 says, "This is not one's domain. No blame" which certainly seems important and meaningful enough to catch my attention.


David.
 
Last edited:

liquidity

Supporter
Clarity Supporter
Joined
Aug 1, 2016
Messages
424
Reaction score
125
I think I have a sense of this, but just to be clear, are you saying that you're interpretation of this would be something like: "Yes, it is appropriate for me 'just being the Self'? And are there any details you have gleaned as well, or is that message enough (at least for right now)?

Yes, pretty much. And it's also a reflection of what that means... an image of it -- it's the 'great possession of contemplation.'

My interpretation of this would be quite different than yours, but no matter. What I know is there are a lot of ways to skin this particular Self - and what Trojina wrote is way good. One way I often look at many (four, five, or six) moving lines - along with reading the lines' text and trying to understand what they are saying - is to see them as points of imbalance that need attention; but this is coming from a particular way of interpreting the images (hexgrams, trigrams).

And also Line 4 says, "This is not one's domain. No blame" which certainly seems important and meaningful enough to catch my attention.

David.

Ah. I prefer the Legge translation for line 4: "The fourth line, dynamic, shows its subject keeping his great resources under restraint. There will be no error."

Which completely is in keeping with the theme of contemplation on Self.
 
F

Freedda

Guest
... Ah. I prefer the Legge translation for line 4: "The fourth line, dynamic, shows its subject keeping his great resources under restraint. There will be no error." Which completely is in keeping with the theme of contemplation on Self.
So, what we're left with are different translations, different commentaries, different interpretations, and different conclusions of what it means - and the moving lines are a part of all that.
 

moss elk

visitor
Joined
Jul 22, 2013
Messages
3,280
Reaction score
1,049
So, what we're left with are different translations, different commentaries, different interpretations, and different conclusions of what it means - and the moving lines are a part of all that....

Quite a mess with so many bad translations and bad commentaries, isn't it?

Stick with your own eyes, your own experience, the original text, and the insight of other's that you trust.
 

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).

Top