Reading Relating Hex Lines

[elllybellly]

Hey all -
I'm sure this has been asked here before but Im having trouble surfacing a similar question. If you know specific thread please feel free to just point me there.

Why is it that we don't read the relating hexagram's lines?

It seems natural to me, and I've been doing it recently as a way to see a fuller picture of the reading. Is there some huge leap in logic that Im missing or need to make?

Multiple lines seem to make more sense that way. With one line, the fan yao is read of the relating hex to get a clearer picture, so with 2 or more lines why would you also not read those lines in the relating hex - rather than the individual fan yaos with other relating hexagrams?

Thank you!

 

[Liselle]

Ha ha, we were just talking about this in Change Circle earlier this month. Are you in Change Circle?

The person who started the CC thread uses them. I look at them sometimes but not always, and sometimes they seem quite relevant but I'm not sure how to describe the difference between what they seem to say vs. what the individual steps of change seem to say. Looking at anything like this and trying to get a feel for it probably isn't wrong - as long as you heed Hilary's oft-repeated warning that they're not your answer. They're not the lines you cast directly, so they're not what Yi wants most to show you.

Do you have any interesting examples you could share?

 

[Trojina]

We don't read them because the relating hexagram doesn't have any change lines. Change lines are what create the relating hexagram, there would be no relating hexagram without change lines. I'm sure you know that but I'm wondering if it's less clear to those who always use the online casting tool.

That's the simple truth anyway, there are no change lines in the relating hexagram.

Wouldn't it clutter a reading terribly anyway to read the lines of the relating hexagram? You'd be reading change lines you didn't cast and possibly making a clear reading more uneccesarily complex wouldn't you ?

Yes the fan yao is considered, but not really as the answer just a reflection of the line cast. We have talked about the fluctuating role of the fan yao here often, it's a slippery thing, in fact sometimes I wish it would slip out of the picture altogether since now people use it instead of the actual reading. .but I refer to it too sometimes, it seems worth a look....up to a point.

 

[dfreed]

Why is it that we don't read the relating hexagram's lines?

One question I have is, are you looking at the related moving lines as 'adjuncts' * to the primary moving lines - to help clarify or otherwise make sense of the reading you actually got? OR, are you replacing the primary moving lines with the related ones? (* And here I mean adjunct as "a thing added to something else as a supplementary rather than an essential part.")

Part of the challenge I think is the fact that there are many methods and techniques people use that "add to" the actual reading. Off-hand I can think of methods that 'add' a dozen and a half hexagrams, plus additional lines and trigrams to a reading (and there are also methods that reduce the number of lines in a reading) - and often many of these are used by people on this forum. (And often people give them as much or more weight as the actual reading!)

In one sense then - given these varied methods (and how they are applied and how much value they are given) - I don't see that what you're proposing is necessarily off-base. And having gone down many 'rabbit holes' - some of my own design - I know how appealing these 'alternatives' can be.

But getting back to basics, the simple answer is (as someone has said): the Yi's response is the one you got; you didn't get something else. For example, if I get 2.4.6 as the Yi's response, I DID NOT (also, or instead of) get 4.2.6!

Example: Using 2.2.6> 4, I looked at and compared the primary and the resulting moving lines:

​

2.2 - Straight, square and complete. Without repetition, nothing cannot be turned to advantage​

​

4.2 - Embracing the inexperienced is promising. Involving the women is promising. The young one can manage the household​

​

2.6 - Dragons at war in the wild. They bleed indigo and golden​

​

4.6 - Smiting the halfwit. Not worthwhile to practice transgression. Worthwhile to defend from transgression (trans. Hatcher)​

In this instance, I don't feel that 4.2 and 4.6 added to my understanding of the primary moving lines. I suppose I could see (or alter or change) 2.6 to be 'half-witted dragons at war, and therefore practicing transgressions ...." but that changes both the imagery and the meaning I get from 2.6 on it's own.

I can imagine instances when the related hexagram's moving line(s) might add to my understanding of the reading - similar to how people use many of the other methods and techniques (which generate additional hexagrams, trigrams, lines) - but for me, with this 'method', I don't see that it is at all consistent, or adds much value or clarity.

Another aspect of all this is about how we learn the art and craft of divination - of making use of, and interpreting and understanding the Yijing. As with other trades and crafts - be it learning the Yi, or Tarot, or becoming a karate master, or learning carpentry - there is a long tradition of 'starting with the basics'. I'd say then if you develop a basic understanding of the Yi - you can always branch out (experiment, try new stuff), but your doing this from a firm base or basis of understanding.

I think this is how almost all of us here work with the Yi - we each have our set of tools or methods, but hopefully also some sense or a good grasp of the basics.

One final idea is about intention (for lack of a better word to describe it): Early on, I remember reading where one Yi author said that when she was first learning the Yi, (not knowing any better) she built the hexagrams from the top down - but she found that the Yi's responses (even with her doing it 'incorrectly') gave her meaningful and insightful answers.

So, if you were to start out with the intention that the related hexagram's lines ARE - for you - the Yi's response, this might (or could) work. However, I DO NOT RECOMMEND IT: first, it can lead to a very slippery slope where you never look at the actual reading you actually got; and second, why would you do this when the Yi has already given you a perfectly, workable, meaningful, acceptable answer (and it's hexagrams and lines) to work with?

Best, D

 

[moss elk]

Why is it that we don't read the relating hexagram's lines?

Because you did not actually receive them.
This is important, the example below shows why:

If you cast 5.6 (which gives a course of action that will lead to good fortune)
And read the fan Yao of 9.6 (which says, among other things, to not take action)
Then take 9.6's advice, you'd miss the good fortune available from
the 5.6 reading you actually received.

It seems natural to me, and I've been doing it recently as a way to see a fuller picture of the reading. Is there some huge leap in logic that Im missing or need to make?

I think looking too much at the fan Yao can become a distraction by complicating.

In my opinion, the best use of looking at the fan Yao is when you don't immediately grasp the
message of your reading (so while learning) , so look to get 'hints' about general meanings.

Example:
With hex 5 & 9 we can see both hex's share the element of [/I]waiting.[/I]
(One hex is named such, the other implied in the Image of those far off clouds that aren't here yet)
AND we can see that
1-the wait is over in 9.6
2-the wait in 5.6 will be over if...
See how they share a 'kinship of qualities.'?

 

[dfreed]

PS -

Why is it that we don't read the relating hexagram's lines? It seems natural to me, and I've been doing it recently as a way to see a fuller picture of the reading.

As Liselle suggests above, I too would be interested to see how you use the related lines in an actual reading. As with so many things in life, what we think, or imagine, or suppose (or make rules) about something is often quite different than what it actually is - or turns out to be.

 

[surnevs]

Hey all -
I'm sure this has been asked here before but Im having trouble surfacing a similar question. If you know specific thread please feel free to just point me there.

Why is it that we don't read the relating hexagram's lines?

It seems natural to me, and I've been doing it recently as a way to see a fuller picture of the reading. Is there some huge leap in logic that Im missing or need to make?

Multiple lines seem to make more sense that way. With one line, the fan yao is read of the relating hex to get a clearer picture, so with 2 or more lines why would you also not read those lines in the relating hex - rather than the individual fan yaos with other relating hexagrams?

Thank you!

Hi bandomary, I have tried to guess: is it this You mean, Mondo Secter's method as discussed here in this old thread?
Else, in my view, the resulting or secondary hexagram is "the endstation" or the final result of changing the lines process.

 

[dfreed]

Is it this (what) you mean, Mondo Secter's (and Hatcher's) method as discussed here in - this old thread

As the originator of the old thread you refer to ... I believe banjomary is talking about something different -
she's simply referring to the corresponding moving lines in the resulting hexagram; whereas Secter and Hatcher are talking about something different and a bit more involved.

But Ms. Banjomary will have to be the one to tell us this for sure.

 

[elllybellly]

Ha ha, we were just talking about this in Change Circle earlier this month. Are you in Change Circle?

The person who started the CC thread uses them. I look at them sometimes but not always, and sometimes they seem quite relevant but I'm not sure how to describe the difference between what they seem to say vs. what the individual steps of change seem to say. Looking at anything like this and trying to get a feel for it probably isn't wrong - as long as you heed Hilary's oft-repeated warning that they're not your answer. They're not the lines you cast directly, so they're not what Yi wants most to show you.

Do you have any interesting examples you could share?

Everyone,
Sorry for my epic delay in getting back to this.

Dfreed, your 2.2.6>4.2.6 example is what I mean. I can use an example from a recent cast: 47.1.2.5>51

I would then say: ok consider 47.1 as it reflects into 51.1, which is a line about being afraid and then feeling easier about it after the initial shock, instead of 58.1, contended joyousness. So when considering this situation, me buying this condo, I could expect more of a 47.1 into 51.1 "flavor" to be involved in this situation, rather than a 47.1 into 58.1 flavor. Or a 47.1 > 51.1 cause/effect chain rather than a 47.1>58.1 cause/effect chain.

Wouldn't it clutter a reading terribly anyway to read the lines of the relating hexagram? You'd be reading change lines you didn't cast and possibly making a clear reading more uneccesarily complex wouldn't you ?

But yes this way can get a little more complicated and you can go down a rabbit holes for sure. When I've done this method it takes a while to break down each line and it's usually easier to just consider the primary hex, but I do feel like Im getting a more complete picture... which is why I wanted to ask you all, in case Im making a big error.

MossElk - I am not meaning that I read the fanyao instead of the primary hex, I mean using the fanyao of the transformed hex when receiving multiple lines.

Surnevs, X_X That is way too complicated for me : p I don't think that's what I am talking about .

I hope Im making sense here, let me know if I can explain further. Thank you for everyone's time in writing me back on this. This is my favorite online community, you guys are amazing and I am honored to get to be in dialogue with you all.

 

[surnevs]

Everyone,
Sorry for my epic delay in getting back to this.

Dfreed, your 2.2.6>4.2.6 example is what I mean. I can use an example from a recent cast: 47.1.2.5>51

I would then say: ok consider 47.1 as it reflects into 51.1, which is a line about being afraid and then feeling easier about it after the initial shock, instead of 58.1, contended joyousness. So when considering this situation, me buying this condo, I could expect more of a 47.1 into 51.1 "flavor" to be involved in this situation, rather than a 47.1 into 58.1 flavor. Or a 47.1 > 51.1 cause/effect chain rather than a 47.1>58.1 cause/effect chain.

But yes this way can get a little more complicated and you can go down a rabbit holes for sure. When I've done this method it takes a while to break down each line and it's usually easier to just consider the primary hex, but I do feel like Im getting a more complete picture... which is why I wanted to ask you all, in case Im making a big error.

MossElk - I am not meaning that I read the fanyao instead of the primary hex, I mean using the fanyao of the transformed hex when receiving multiple lines.

Surnevs, X_X That is way too complicated for me : p I don't think that's what I am talking about .

I hope Im making sense here, let me know if I can explain further. Thank you for everyone's time in writing me back on this. This is my favorite online community, you guys are amazing and I am honored to get to be in dialogue with you all.

When things get too complicated it's sometimes an indication of a lost beginning. Or, that an initial understanding was forgotten. But not always. I find the very beginning of an I Ching reading in what's called the Judgement to be The Omen (Beside the Image). Later came the Line statements. But if these line statements are expanded then I can't help but see that something that has already been expanded, namely the Judgement will lose its roots. So, when it's way too complicated it's good to make a halt and reconsider - to justify You I agree.