Spiritually: no blame > good fortune

[Freedda]

Yes, that is a good description of the trigrams and their workings. There is Fire in the hexagram; it is the upper nuclear trigram but it is surrounded by Earth: a passive attitude and a focus on feeding the present situation prevents Fire from manifesting itself. Without a goal and a clear direction the actual cause of the obstruction might remain hidden.

Thanks Harmen. That was my general sense of it as well. I'm just starting to have more experience with how to work with the surrounding trigrams - the baoti - and look forward to learning more.

My general sense is to look at the Baoti in two ways: first, to see which 'negative,' overwhelming, or over-stimulated aspects might need to be addressed - for example, for Earth, being too passive or being too open to suggestion; the second way (and I don't have as fully developed sense of this yet) is to look at the nurturing, protective (as in womb) aspects of the surrounding trigrams, to see: is there something here that might positively influence the nuclear trigram? For example, for Earth, could being accepting and open (to some extent) be helpful in working with the nuclear? But as I said, I'm just starting to explore all this.

As to the rest of the thread:

Regarding liquidity's looking for spiritual connections in how the Yi responds (I wanted to circle back to this, so I don't feel so much like I'm highjacking his thread):

I don't disagree, but I think the general tenor (if there is such a thing) of the Yi is not strickly 'spiritual' or at least not how I usually see it.

A good example is the line we've been discussing: 39.2. I suppose that if someone asked a spiritually-related question, you could interpret the answer as a spiritual one; if you asked about your family, or about work, or about creativity, you could get the same response - 39.2 - but it would carry different meanings, depending on the situation.

As to the sovereign's minister, over the many centuries-long history of China I could definitely imagine at least once where there was a feisty minister who spoke their minds! Maybe even more than once?

Also as to the differing interpretations: first, I keep in mind that Harmen said that his was a 'tentative' translation. Second, I've find this all the time in the Yi - where different people have different takes, or translations, or interpretations of the text, sometimes radically so.

As to this particular line, and whether the servant is continuously admonishing the king, or it's the minister who is being set back and interrupted - I could imagine an instance where I was doing a reading for someone and I said something like: "this line is about an impasse, perhaps a disagreement on how to move forward. Some say it's a minister admonishing their king; others say it's the minister who is being set back or interrupted, but in either case ... " So that my emphasis would be on the impasse, not so much on what is causing it.

All the best, David.

 

[Trojina]

I don't disagree, but I think the general tenor (if there is such a thing) of the Yi is not strickly 'spiritual' or at least not how I usually see it.

No, I didn't think she was saying that it was. With any translation it always pays to think what it might mean if it were a plumbing question

A good example is the line we've been discussing: 39.2. I suppose that if someone asked a spiritually-related question, you could interpret the answer as a spiritual one; if you asked about your family, or about work, or about creativity, you could get the same response - 39.2 - but it would carry different meanings, depending on the situation.

Exactly.

As to the sovereign's minister, over the many centuries-long history of China I could definitely imagine at least once where there was a feisty minister who spoke their minds! Maybe even more than once?

Possibly. They might have risked having their heads chopped off in England though.

As to this particular line, and whether the servant is continuously admonishing the king, or it's the minister who is being set back and interrupted - I could imagine an instance where I was doing a reading for someone and I said something like: "this line is about an impasse, perhaps a disagreement on how to move forward. Some say it's a minister admonishing their king; others say it's the minister who is being set back or interrupted, but in either case ... " So that my emphasis would be on the impasse, not so much on what is causing it.

But the line does emphasize this point of the cause by mentioning it at all. That is if the point is made that it is not one person's fault or it is not the ministers fault or in Harmen's 'he does not do this for himself' then that is a point being made in the line. Yi 'bother's to say this minister's efforts are not only for himself, his efforts aim beyond that, he himself did not originate this problem or impasse. I think that's a fairly central message in real life readings. If it weren't it wouldn't be there.

 

[Freedda]

No, I didn't think she was saying that it was ...

I assume the by 'she' you mean liquidity, whom started the thread? I was assuming that she was a he, but no matter ... (I'll just take a walk on the wild side, babe ....)

But ... I was responding to:

It's not so much that they are more or less spiritual on the face of it, as you put it, but that there is an underlying philosophy to Yi that is revealed as one does many castings over time. I am just giving the summary of my experience with those castings vis-à-vis the spiritual... and thus my interpretation of things.

... and I was just trying to capture the general gist of the thread, this issue of the 'underlying philosophy' of the Yi, but maybe that didn't come across as clearly as I intended.

Possibly. They might have risked having their heads chopped off in England though.

Or, if they are here in the US right now, they'd be told what a great friend they are and what a great job they've done ... as they're given the boot!

But the line does emphasize this point of the cause by mentioning it at all ... I think that's a fairly central message in real life readings. If it weren't it wouldn't be there

I was trying to address the issue of how one deals with differing text, lines, interpretation, translations, etc. even among authors we trust. It happens all the time for me.

I think the best thing to do is I'll start a new thread here about just this topic, maybe starting with a few examples, where a hexagram or line are given very different interpretations.


Best, David

 

[Trojina]

yes new thread.... but it's Christmas uch:

I've really enjoyed this thread but I doubt I'll be in possession of any of my faculties soon

Or, if they are here in the US right now, they'd be told what a great friend they are and what a great job they've done ... as they're given the boot!

Yes - I was really thinking of how Harmen used the words 'rebuke' and 'admonish' and 'reprimand' for 'jian' and I was thinking a minister surely in any age cannot exactly rebuke or reprimand a king openly because it's disrespectful but he can advise in a critical way which is a rebuke of a kind. It must have been a whole skill in itself, how to do this, which is why there is the book Harmen mentioned

I don't think that the minister is rejected here - ministers were allowed to critize the king if they substantiated their criticism with actual facts. An interesting book on how they did that is Facing the Monarc - Modes of Advice in the Early Chinese Court by Garret Olberding (ed.)

'Modes of Advice in the Early Chinese Court' - the title alone suggests one didn't just go ahead and speak without thinking - ways of speaking must have come under certain rules, norms or etiquettes. I have no idea of course. I do have the idea a king at that time in china was not as we think of kings since there were a lot more of them governing smaller areas. I have no idea about that either. uch:

I think it would be good Christmas reading though, take my mind off brussel sprouts and mince pies and all that....

 

[hmesker]

Wow at first I thought you were kidding, a whole book on advising the monarch, there must be much to say then.

Yes, it is an interesting subject. Minsiters were allowed to reprimand the king and in a way it was expected of them because they had to serve him. And when he did something wrong (and when the country was in disorder he did something wrong) they had to let him know that. Signs and portents were often a good excuse to correct the king. When the king was neglecting his duties there were far more signs and portents spotted. Amazing isn't it

The reason I thought rejection or something near to that might occur is because

1. we are in 39, there is a a difficulty in going forward as planned and so all the lines deal with phases of that.

Ah, but what is translated as 'difficulty in going forward' is the character jian 蹇 which I translated as 'admonish'. When that meaning is followed then the meaning of 'difficulty in going forward' disappears from the text.

2. Most translations including yours do say (or imply) this minister or servant is not having an easy time of it. The lines acknowledges this isn't easy whether 'limping' is used or not.

I don't see this in the text nor in my translation. The text simply says that the minister is rebuking the king and that he is not doing it for himself. It doesn't say that he is having a hard time because of that.

You imply it in 'he does not do this for himself'. It is implied in those words he takes on this onerous duty for a purpose beyond his own benefit. If we make a particular point of saying someone is not doing this for their own benefit we assume he is making a sacrifice of some kind. So what could make his task of advising so difficult ? If what he said was easily accepted then it wouldn't be so hard so rejection might be a part of that.

It does not necessarily need to be hard. Sure, there were kings that were dictators and ruled their people with harsh measures but these were a minority. A king was well aware that a good minister was a minister who said what was needed to be said. There are a lot of examples of these remonstrances to the king, written down in books like the Zuozhuan and the Guoyu.

However things are about to change since I will now go and add your tentative translation and a link to this thread unless you would prefer I didn't ?

No, that's fine. I trust you copy my findings faithfully. I have no access to WikiWings.

I guess the process of translating is always going to be a tortuous case of marrying accuracy of meaning according to the original Chinese with the necessity of producing a sentence or parts of a sentence that has some meaning for us in our modern languages.

Hmmm... I don't always need to understand my own translation. When every piece of information that I have tells me that my translation is the most plausible (for now) I accept it (for now), even though I might not exactly understand what it means, what the background is. At this point 'meaning' is not so much what I am looking for when I am translating pieces from the Zhouyi. Maybe that will be step 2.

The translator has to settle at some point to give us anything we can use as an oracle at all.

I am not in the least concerned with the applicability of my own translation. I am not thinking "my translation must be useful". Also, even a bad translation can serve well as an oracle. I could make up a translation like "the king's shoes, so cloudy, cloudy. His purple peaches are the maiden's evening dress." (I made this up, really. It is not in the Yijing.) If it contains images & symbols it is usable as an oracle.

I might start a thread in CC for all the places in wiki where there is nothing because the fact that there is nothing there for one line yet many entries for another must be saying something.

Good idea.

This is all I can say for now in this thread because I have to spend my time and mind on other things. Merry Christmas everyone.

 

[legume]

Over and over I find that when Yi considers things for me from a spiritual perspective, "no blame" is considered a higher and more important and superior outcome to "good fortune." Good fortune implies a specific reward that's obtained, whereas no blame seems to point to the stepping back or away of the ego from the situation... a stepping-back which obviates the need or the relevance of "good fortune."

Just an observation.

it's a great observation, i made a similar one a while ago and personally like to stick to it, even if others disagree

good fortune, misfortune, good luck or bad luck are transitory and relative. but taking responsibility for one's own actions (if not for own emotional states - though that's a bit too far fetched of an idea for some) is the only thing we could have a lasting influence over. that's how, i believe, we can build our character or our individuality. but it is something that's only visible through our effects on the outside world though...

not sure if it was mentioned here already, seems like it might have been missed though, but the end of hexagram 20 (contemplation, from Wilhelm's translation) summarises it in the best way for me:

Liberated from his ego, he contemplates the laws of life and so realizes that knowing how to become free of blame is the highest good.

not an easy idea to grasp, and even more difficult to put into practice i'm afraid. but we gotta start somewhere, so thanks for starting this thread!