Moving Lines Question

[Retro158]

I've read about a system of selectively interpreting moving lines when there is more than one in a hexagram. For instance if two lines are moving and both are Yin, then only the lower line is read. If one is Yin and one Yang, then only the Yin line is read. Various other rules apply for more than two moving lines.

Do many use this? If there has been a previous discussion, I'd be glad to read that but am unsure how to search for it.


Thank you!

 

[Liselle]

I've heard that such methods exist, but I've never used them myself. Well...the only times I currently use something like that are when there are five moving lines, I read the one that's not moving. And if there are six moving lines, I might read just the relating hexagram (I've gotten six lines moving maybe once or twice, ever, so I'm not exactly sure what I'd do with that!).

There are some members here who use systems like what you're describing. One person in particular talks about a method which always reduces the reading to one moving line, and he/she says it's worked well for years. Unfortunately, I can't remember the person's name - but he/she has been posting fairly regularly lately, so you might just keep an eye open and/or browse threads in Shared Readings for the past month or so.

These systems are controversial, however, as you may already know. I'd guess that the majority of people here don't use them, on the grounds that it stifles the oracle's voice. Personally I agree with that. I certainly don't always know what to do with multiple moving lines, but I've had enough multiple-line readings where I did understand the various lines to feel that I want to keep them.

(Oh - I also just remembered that years ago I used a shareware program I'd downloaded to cast my readings, and it had a built-in option to produce readings with only one moving line. I don't know what rules the software used, but after trying it for a while, I realized that the readings with only one moving line were actually no more (or less) comprehensible than readings with multiple lines! In other words, it didn't help much! So I went back to just letting there be as many moving lines as there want to be. Of course that's just my own experience.)

 

[fabio galassi]

Hy.
What retro158 wrote about, is similar to Alfred Huang/Master Yin method.
You can find useful methods survey at Russellcottrell site

Interesting one-line progression methods are from Mondo Secter (Transition Hexagrams) and Stephen Karcher (Steps of Change). You can find a survey of these methods in this paper (pages 3-5): Flowers and Steps

The so-called (and so criticized) Nanjing rules, are interesting too, see this paper about:
'HOW TO FORM A HEXAGRAM AND CONSULT THE I CHING'

 

[bradford]

There is no system for dealing with multiple lines that has any basis in the nature of the Yijing or that is an expression of its basic structural dimensions. Every system out there is just something that somebody made up and decided it worked. That's sort of up to you and your pareidolia. The closest system to respecting the old forms of the Changes is Transitional Hexagrams, changing the lines one at a time from the bottom up, and tracking your way through multiple changes. But even this is probably a recent discovery or invention. The purest way is just to meditate and imagine yourself on a journey partway from the original to the final gua.

 

[soma]

Try this http://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/learn/consult/mml.php

The search funtion isn't great here, I have struggled with it before. Eg. if you search for 'multiple moving lines' its says you have too many keywords...

I have experimented with various techniques but now just stick to the the direct cast and include all the moving lines. If I am to work with the oracle, I have to trust it completely, which means each moving line has something to say. Otherwise it gets too heady and analytical for me, and I lose the gestalt. @For me the lines describe a journey just like Bradford says, or they could also describe the options available - helpful when they seem to contradict each other.