What should I do with this extra set of yarrow stalks. Hexagram 14 lines 1, 3, 6

[Daeluin]

Hello! I have been gifted with an extra set of extra long yarrow stalks, and I was curious what is meant for them. The seller, YarrowDivine on Etsy, suggested I consult the I Ching to divine the answer. Perhaps y'all can help me interpret.

"What should I do with these yarrow stalks?"

979789

Great Possession indeed!

Perhaps given the answer a little backstory is required. I purchased these stalks originally in 2016, and since then a couple had broken, so I reached out to Mireille recently to see if I could purchase another set with a few extra stalks. She created a special product for me and, receiving them, I now had 2 full complete sets.

I liked them and favorited them on Etsy. At the time I didn't know this, but apparently Etsy has a public profile for people with their full name, and someone I have not been not speaking to saw that I favorited them and purchased them for me as a gift. It created some confusion for us until I realized what had happened. So these stalks weren't something I needed, and Mireille suggested I consult the yi to discover their destiny!

I also recorded my divination, so people can see how yarrow stalks are used, or at least how I have come to use them. There are some shortcuts taken to reduce the time, but it is all in alignment with the dazhuan. Reserving the remainder between the fingers represents the leap month. Since there are two leap months in every five years, the second remainder is also put between the fingers. Using this method my yarrow stalk divinations take ~15-20 minutes, which allows yarrow to be my go-to for readings. I enjoy that I don't need to set them down - tuck the one behind my ear and my hands do the rest. I feel like these longer 12 inch stalks help to make this manageable. I do have big hands, so that helps. But I think anyone could learn to do this, since I don't think the Chinese are known for their big hands.

 

[surnevs]

Achillea millefolium [LINK]
​

Where I live, Scandinavia, they reach their maximum around September/October. Go out and find around 20 plants. Find the most straight pieces on each plant and finally cut 50 pieces out and let them dry for a year or so. I started using them years ago going out and collecting several sets in this way. Where to find them ? They grow on the same spots generally as those described here.

Oh - Nearly forgot: Thanks for the inspiring video!

​

 

[surnevs]

9 in top place, according to the Nanjing rule *, is a Good Omen. Hilary adds to this Line: ".... Whether or not this is the way You had in mind, it is good fortune; it will bear fruit, though perhaps not as You anticipated..... " **
I think that, out of this, the answer to your question (#1) might be something like: use them.
And I think it's OK to buy yarrow stalks as long as they are not made of plastic or any other material than that given by Nature. The reason I'd prefer to prepare them myself is that I can cut them the size I want, namely the exact length of my hand - but this I know, is my personal approach to it...


*) https://www.biroco.com/yijing/Shih-chuan_Chen.pdf

**) I Ching, Arcturus 2020, London

 

[Trojina]

... Whether or not this is the way You had in mind, it is good fortune; it will bear fruit, though perhaps not as You anticipated..... " **

Can I ask why you always put the word 'you' with a capital Y in the middle of sentences? Hilary doesn't do that (she did not put a capital Y in that sentence you quoted so you've changed the whole tone of her sentence there), no English speaker does that and it looks odd. It kind of makes any sentence have an accusatory flavour. Also why? I'm curious and have often wondered why you always do it? It's not helpful in communication in English, it's off putting. Is there a reason you do this or is it a misunderstanding and you think the word 'you' in a sentence has to be 'You'. One never ever puts 'you' with a capital letter in mid sentence unless perhaps one were really very angry and accusing someone of something in a row though it is never grammatically correct.

Apologies for digression but this is something I have wondered about for a very long time. I don't think it gives the impression you think it gives. I know you are Danish so English is a second language so you may be confused.

 

[Trojina]

re the yarrow stalks - nice video who knew casting yarrow stalks could be so casual

Your cast was 14.1.3.6>40

You have something, the sticks (14) you can either keep them or give them away depending on how generous you feel able to be (14.3). Probably you may give these away quite quickly (40)

I would have said that without the cast as what else can you do with them? You'll either keep them and use them or give them to someone else. I think the cast leans much to giving them to someone else.

Perhaps everyone should post a video of themselves casting their question, it does add an extra dimension

 

[Daeluin]

https://www.biroco.com/yijing/Shih-chuan_Chen.pdf

Thank you for this. I've only made it half way through so far, and will comment here on the calculations, as it is relevant to the method used in the video. I am also quite interested in this idea of how to gauge when a line is changing or not changing. In my signature there are links that explain how I approach this, and I'm curious to explore if my methods may be able to reconcile the issue with these historical examples, but I'll need to study that some more.

Harmen had mentioned there were other reconstructions of the yarrow stalk method, and I assume this is what he referred to. Oddly enough the very argument against Zhu Xi's calculations ends up being argument for them, for the criticisms are baseless.

The 2 and 3 thing hardly matters as when the sets of 4 are counted the result is 6, 7, 8, 9 - so the 2 and 3 thing is just a convenience that allows the stalks to be calculated in the hands more easily without setting any stalks down.

Thus, the only criticism I would have for Zhu Xi's method, is that if we are speaking of placing two remainders between the fingers, the point would be to avoid setting any stalks down.

In Zhu Xi's method, he places the 1 between fingers, then the remainder of pile A between another two fingers, and the remainder of pile B between another two fingers. There are now 3 sets of stalks being held between the fingers, even though they are to be counted as one unit, even though we have only completed 1 operation of the 3, and Zhu Xi has us set them down to conduct the other two.

In the video it can be seen that instead I place all of these stalks that are counted as one unit between one set of fingers, which allows me to subsequently proceed to the second of three operations, where I do the same. I now have the remainders of 2 of the 3 operations held between my fingers, just as the Xici Zhuan suggests. And I am able to proceed to the 3rd operation - where there is no point in holding between more fingers because one can simply proceed with the counting for the 6 7 8 or 9 of the given line being calculated.

This is much more elegant, and allows the whole divination to be conducted without placing any stalks down. Comparing the two methods, this makes one of them much more convenient - not to go into the issue of how the probability changes when we take the one stalk from A pile and proceed to count the A pile first, instead of taking the stalk from the B pile before we count the A pile.

who knew casting yarrow stalks could be so casual

I mean, yeah. It just makes sense. I merely stumbled upon this as a convenient way to use them, and that way happens to resonate with the Xici Zhuan description even better than Zhu Xi's method. It allows the yi to be divined from horseback while traveling, or in any number of circumstances where it would not be convenient to set stalks down somewhere. Often divinations were made while traveling, to see about hunting and crossing rivers and such, yeah?

Making ceremony out of what needs no ceremony seems odd to me. The important part for one to meditate on is ONLY related to dividing the stalks into two piles, which this method allows just fine. You can see me closing my eyes, straightening my spine and connecting with heaven, carefully finding my way to a resonant division 18 times. Sometimes the divisions are spontaneous and ready, sometimes they take me time to find. What one does with the stalks in between the divisions can certainly be drawn out and made more ceremonious, but this is not part of the divination.

So you can call it casual if you like. It is certainly faster. But it does not sacrifice what matters.

 

[surnevs]

Can I ask why you always put the word 'you' with a capital Y in the middle of sentences? Hilary doesn't do that (she did not put a capital Y in that sentence you quoted so you've changed the whole tone of her sentence there), no English speaker does that and it looks odd. It kind of makes any sentence have an accusatory flavour. Also why? I'm curious and have often wondered why you always do it? It's not helpful in communication in English, it's off putting. Is there a reason you do this or is it a misunderstanding and you think the word 'you' in a sentence has to be 'You'. One never ever puts 'you' with a capital letter in mid sentence unless perhaps one were really very angry and accusing someone of something in a row though it is never grammatically correct.

Apologies for digression but this is something I have wondered about for a very long time. I don't think it gives the impression you think it gives. I know you are Danish so English is a second language so you may be confused.

I have had no intention to spoil the tone of Hilary's writing and thank you for leading my attention to this bad habit I got used to here. I can see that Hilary does not use 'Y' in 'you' in this quote I made and for that, I can only apologize. I hope I'll remember this lesson; no specific intention lay behind it.

 

[Trojina]

No problem, it's just something I have wondered about for a long time and finally asked.

I mean, yeah. It just makes sense. I merely stumbled upon this as a convenient way to use them, and that way happens to resonate with the Xici Zhuan description even better than Zhu Xi's method. It allows the yi to be divined from horseback while traveling, or in any number of circumstances where it would not be convenient to set stalks down somewhere. Often divinations were made while traveling, to see about hunting and crossing rivers and such, yeah?

It does seem feasible that they would have been used this way, able to be used impromptu although I thought the point of using yarrow stalks was to provide the time for a protracted meditative space to consult. I have never found any need for a protracted meditative space in order to consult, it just doesn't seem a needed pre requisite for consultation and as you say if consulting while travelling, needing to know when to cross rivers and so on, yeah I can see you doing that on horseback. I however would fall off the horse if I tried it I would have been the diviner who had to get off the horse to divine. And imagine, if you were using the stalks to divine as the horse was walking and you dropped the sticks you'd have to halt the entire team while you got off to find them. Unless yarrow stalks were so plentiful you would have had lots spare on your person.

 

[surnevs]

Total remainders of stalks after one turn:
13 gives ritual number 9 (which is: 5+4+4)
17 gives ritual number 8 (which is: 9+4+4 OR 8+5+4)
21 gives ritual number 7 (which is: 9+8+4 OR 8+8+5)
25 gives ritual number 6 (which is: 9+8+8)

- for me to remember this I just have to remember it starts with 13 stalks giving the highest Ritual number and then steps of four likewise up to the highest amount of stalks giving the lowest Ritual number.

 

[Daeluin]

Total remainders of stalks after one turn:
13 gives ritual number 9 (which is: 5+4+4)
17 - " - 8 ( -"- 9+4+4 OR 8+5+4)
21 - " - 7 ( -"- 9+8+4 " 8+8+5)
25 - " - 6 ( -"- 9+8+8)

Ah! It took me a moment to fathom this as I've never counted the total remainder, but that makes sense.

I've generally just found it easy to at a glance see if I have a large or small remainder from each of the three operations, which doesn't require counting the total remainder, but this is a nice trick that works too. Thank you for adding it here!

although I thought the point of using yarrow stalks was to provide the time for a protracted meditative space to consult

That seems to be the contemporary perspective for sure. Does this come from historical accounts?

And imagine, if you were using the stalks to divine as the horse was walking and you dropped the sticks you'd have to halt the entire team while you got off to find them.

Yeah I was imagining a slow caravan, so not a whole lot of jostling. I typically do NOT drop stalks. This is my first time using this set, maybe that is why, but sure enough I dropped three in the video.

In a carriage though, I imagine it would also be too bumpy for the piles of set aside stalks to avoid being jostled, even when placed in a tray.

 

[Daeluin]

I suppose also unspoken so far about the method I use in the video is that I am only counting pile A's remainder, and simply deducing pile B's remainder without counting them. Counting B's remainder would reveal if a mistake were made in counting, which is a nice bit of redundancy, so one needs to be very careful about their counting 4's if they plan on deducing. It just works to avoid the awkwardness of trying to count the right hand (B) pile while holding the remainders in the other hand.

My thought is that for those who did a lot of divinations this way, as they might have before the coin method arose, this way is somewhat intuitive. That is how I stumbled onto it - after counting so much of both piles, it did not take long to realize there was a clear pattern that always emerged and I reasoned it out.

One of the neat things about this yarrow stalk method, is that the first of the three operations involves dividing and counting an odd number (49) of stalks, and the last two operations of three involve dividing and counting an even number of stalks.

So the first operation involves different probability than the second two operations.

For the first operation, if the left pile has an even number of stalks, the right will have an odd number of stalks. And if the left pile is odd, the right will be even.

For the subsequent operations, if the left pile is even, the right pile is even. If the left pile is odd, the right pile is odd.

Ignoring the 1 stalk taken from the other pile for now, for the first operation:

If I end up with 1 from the left, I will have 4 from the right = 5
If I end up with 2 from the left, I will have 3 from the right = 5
If I end up with 3 from the left, I will have 2 from the right = 5
If I end up with 4 from the left, I will have 1 from the right = 5

However, in the subsequent operations with an even number of stalks:

If I end up with 1 from the left, I will have 3 from the right = 4
If I end up with 2 from the left, I will have 2 from the right = 4
If I end up with 3 from the left, I will have 1 from the right = 4
If I end up with 4 from the left, I will have 4 from the right = 8

Now we see that by taking one stalk from one of the piles before counting, all 3 operations have a chance of a different end result.

With Zhu Xi's method, taking one from the right pile, first operation:

If I end up with 1 from the left, I will have 3 from the right + 1 = 5
If I end up with 2 from the left, I will have 2 from the right + 1 = 5
If I end up with 3 from the left, I will have 1 from the right + 1 = 5
If I end up with 4 from the left, I will have 4 from the right + 1 = 9

And operations two and three:

If I end up with 1 from the left, I will have 2 from the right + 1 = 4
If I end up with 2 from the left, I will have 1 from the right + 1 = 4
If I end up with 3 from the left, I will have 4 from the right + 1 = 8
If I end up with 4 from the left, I will have 3 from the right + 1 = 8

It doesn't actually take a whole lot to remember to deduce the right hand pile in this way. The first operation is straight forward - only 4 on the left (+ the 1) will lead to 4 on the right. Otherwise we take the remainder from the right that leads to 5.

And for the second two operations it is mostly the same, but now a 4 AND a 3 on the left will mean we calculate for 8, otherwise we calculate for 4 when taking from the right.

The Nanjing method is similar, but here we take 1 from the left pile instead of the right pile, but still count the left first. The first operation:

If I end up with 4 from the left, I will have 4 from the right + 1 = 9
If I end up with 1 from the left, I will have 3 from the right + 1 = 5
If I end up with 2 from the left, I will have 2 from the right + 1 = 5
If I end up with 3 from the left, I will have 1 from the right + 1 = 5

And operations two and three:

If I end up with 4 from the left, I will have 3 from the right + 1 = 8
If I end up with 1 from the left, I will have 2 from the right + 1 = 4
If I end up with 2 from the left, I will have 1 from the right + 1 = 4
If I end up with 3 from the left, I will have 4 from the right + 1 = 8

However, that only works for the first line calculated. In the Nanjing method we set aside this total remainder and use what is left for our 3 divisions for the 2nd line, and so on. Setting aside our odd number of stalks we now only have an even number of stalks remaining from which to calculate the subsequent lines. This means that the probability for calculating 6 7 8 and 9 for the first line will be different from the subsequent lines. With the Zhu Xi method each line's calculation probabilities are identical since we return to dividing from 49 stalks each time.

With the Zhu Xi method, and the 1st line of the Nanjing method, our odds* are:

6 = 1/16th
7 = 3/16ths
8 = 7/16ths
9 = 5/16ths

For the 2nd through 6th lines with the Nanjing method, the odds change to:

6 = 1/8th
7 = 3/8ths
8 = 3/8ths
9 = 1/8th

Could there be a satisfactory reason for the change of odds? That is my question regarding the Nanjing calculation method.

The above I have struckthrough was from a mistake of mine - naturally if the remainders were left aside for subsequent calculations there would be no way to end up with the correct numbers.

So in the end this method is nearly identical mathematically to Zhu Xi's method. They are merely counted using different principles.

*(Concerning actual odds, refer to Andrew Kennedy's book Briefing Leaders where may be found two appendix's that address the issue that we cannot divide the stalks such that there would be 0 on one side, and cannot have only 1 on the side where one stalk is taken from.)

 

[surnevs]

As far as I'm informed the so-called NanJing-rule is solely for determining which of more changing lines is the Oracle - I could have missed something here, or?
(First I read about it was in Richard Rutt's 'ZhouYi, a bronze-age document' ch. 6 pg. 170, where I think that the article he refers to that this group of researchers from NanJing worked out in an attempt to reconstruct the praxis used by diviners back then is the one I linked to above from Joel Birocco's site; not sure about this but it looks like it could be.)
________________________________

Add.: Just realised that you refer to the method mentioned on pg. 240 in the pdf (marked in red here: see attachment), and I could actually be wrong in assuming that the NanJing-rule only consists of the choices mentioned above.
But the counting on your reading (#1) goes:
55 - (9+7+9+7+8+9) = 6. Counting six steps up from the bottom line gives the top line and as the top line is Nine, this line is the Oracle.

------------------
Editing: Choices, not determination

 

[Daeluin]

Just realised that you refer to the method mentioned on pg. 240 in the pdf

Yes! I was reading through the PDF you linked earlier, from the beginning, so I might understand your NanJing-rule. Naturally I stumbled over this calculation method mentioned in there first and followed my natural course of digesting it.

The first operation:

• Step 1. Divide the 49 stalks into two portions, A & B, at random.
• Step 2. From portion A take one stalk out and put it between two fingers.
• Step 3. Count off the rest of portion A in fours.
• Step 4. Put the remainder of either 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 between the two fingers.
• Step 5. Count portion B in fours. (This statement is demanded by the text but mas omitted in the original.)
• Step 6. Put the remainder of either 1 or 2 or 3 or 4 between the two fingers. This is the repetition of step 4 because "there are two intercalations in five years and, therefore, there are two such operations". (This statement is demanded by the text but it was also omitted in the original.)
• Step 7. Take away the stalks from between the two fingers and put them aside (or hang them on a register). (This statement was meant by its author to imply the 5th and the 6th steps, but unfortunately it is ambiguous and causes confusion to its readers.)

Then the first operation is ended. The remainder of
both portions, A & B, must be 44 or 40.

The second operation:

• Step 1. Use the remainder of the first operation and divide them into portion A and portion B.
  Step 2 to step 7. They are the same as those conducted in the first operation.
• At the end of the second operation the remainder must be 40,36, or 32.

The third operation is the repetition of the second operation.

At the end of the third operation the remainder of both portion A and portion B must be either 36 or 32
or 28 or 24.

After the three operations we are able to determine whether the monogram is a yang or a yin. If it is a yang, we may determine whether it is a lao yang or a shao yang. If it is a yin, we may determine whether it is a Lao yin or a shao yin. ;is a result of the third operation the remainder is either 36 or 32 or 28 or 24. We count off the remainder in fours and the result may be 9 or 8 or 7 or 6.

What I find most curious is that the authors (Rutt calls them young?) don't seem to realize that Zhu Xi's method may also be counted the same way.

49 - (5+4+4) = 36

49 - (5+8+4) = 32
49 - (5+4+8) = 32
49 - (9+4+4) = 32

49 - (9+8+4) = 28
49 - (9+4+8) = 28
49 - (5+8+8) = 28

49 - (9+8+8) = 24

And actually I was incorrect in my earlier assessment in regards to the next yao being calculated by not using 49 stalks. They still use 49 stalks.

Which means that aside from their taking 1 stalk from pile A first instead of from pile B first before counting, both methods are identical in how the math is used to determine the result. They just count it from different sides. The NanJing calculation method counts the sets of 4 after setting aside the remainders to conclude in 6, 7, 8 and 9, while the Zhu Xi method uses a short-hand way of using the remainders to deduce what that division would be using the 3 and 2's, to determine exactly the same result.

There is something interesting here. The coin method predates these rediscovered techniques, and uses the 2's and 3's. And we can see that this rediscovered short-hand method of counting the yarrow stalks, by Zhu Xi that uses 2's and 3's to calculate the remainder enables (as I have discovered) the stalks to not be set down.

When not set down, we need to bundle all the remainders from the first operation between two fingers, and then the second operation between two fingers, but bundling the third is unnecessary. This naturally gives us the 2 sets of remainders between the fingers as the XiCi Zhuan demands, even though neither Zhu Xi or the NanJing group do it this way.

And completing the circle, if we are using these 2's and 3's as shorthand to calculate what the sets of four would be, it really does not take long before someone realizes that 2 and 3 are a binary set and we just need to flip a coin to get them. Flip 3 coins at once and we don't need the three operations of the yarrow stalks. It is not very hard to create this method from the yarrow stalk method Zhu Xi rediscovered.

To me this refutes arguments that the rediscovered method may be different from the original method, especially given that the supposedly different calculations of the NanJing method are not different at all.

It all adds up. What criticism could there be?

But the counting on your reading (#1) goes:
55 - (9+7+9+7+8+9) = 6. Counting six steps up from the bottom line gives the top line and as the top line is Nine, this line is the Oracle.

I've now digested the next part of the PDF and see how the NanJing-rule you are referring to works. However I have not finished "Biting Through" it fully.

My initial impression is that Zhu Xi's method would work in most of these cases just fine. There is too much confirmation bias in these 'recreated' divinations. And using this method requires lots of extra rules, which detracts from the elegance.

However, I quite like the way they try to make sense of this phrase from the XiCi Zhuan:

The sum of heaven's numbers is 25; the sum of earth's numbers is 30; the sum of the numbers of heaven and earth is 55. This is what stimulates alternation and transformation and animates spirits.

On the other hand, sense can be made of it in another way. In the sense that the heavenly number and the earthly number are not equal, which necessitates a back and forth, and alternation and transformation. Is it not much the same with the idea of 10 heavenly stems and 12 earthly branches? It is these that do not add up, but intermix within six groups of 10 cycles and 5 groups of 12 cycles to form the sexagenary cycle.

So... thank you so much for bringing to me another method to explore. I imagine you did not imagine you were coming here for me to digest the methods, but to share your reading with me, so for that I apologize.

So perhaps I should get on with the reading then.

 

[Daeluin]

9 in top place, according to the Nanjing rule *, is a Good Omen. Hilary adds to this Line: ".... Whether or not this is the way You had in mind, it is good fortune; it will bear fruit, though perhaps not as You anticipated..... " **
I think that, out of this, the answer to your question (#1) might be something like: use them.

I do like this interpretation, and like reading from Hilary's book. You can participate in the energy of this natural order; there's no need to force things to happen in a certain way.

This is relevant to my reading because of how these stalks came to me, ie from soneone I am not talking to, and as stalks I don't need (as I have 2 other identical sets).

So perhaps as the natural order of things unfolds I will find their use called for naturally, whether that is in some specific way where I end up needing multiple sets, or where I discover someone who needs a set of stalks to own or borrow.

Thank you!

Your cast was 14.1.3.6>40

You have something, the sticks (14) you can either keep them or give them away depending on how generous you feel able to be (14.3). Probably you may give these away quite quickly (40)

I would have said that without the cast as what else can you do with them? You'll either keep them and use them or give them to someone else. I think the cast leans much to giving them to someone else.

I had similar thoughts. Indeed I thought that perhaps posting here someone might be excited about them and it would be easy to find a home for them. It doesn't seem to have sparked much interest though, so indeed not as I anticipated. But perhaps someone will show up who needs them in my life.

Thank you!

 

[Trojina]

I had similar thoughts. Indeed I thought that perhaps posting here someone might be excited about them and it would be easy to find a home for them. It doesn't seem to have sparked much interest though, so indeed not as I anticipated. But perhaps someone will show up who needs them in my life.

I had thought earlier to suggest you have the thread moved to Exploring Divination since although this is a shared reading it's probably going to get more attention in Exploring Divination. If you want it can be moved. There's quite a different audience, generally speaking, in these different forums. Can't guarantee it would get more attention but it might. In this Shared Readings section threads crop up fast and threads are easily 'buried'. It's also an area where there is less attention to ideas around divining, including methods, more attention to how to solve an immediate issue. I know you are asking about how to solve an issue but it's also a thread with more academic (for want of a better word) content.

 

[Daeluin]

I know you are asking about how to solve an issue but it's also a thread with more academic (for want of a better word) content.

It did end up being like this, unexpectedly so. I am happy for it to be moved. Thank you Trojina.

 

[surnevs]

Concerning the 'NanJing-rule' what I don't like about it, is that it's incredibly Complicated. What I do like about is that it's at least an attempt to reconstruct how divination was practised, well: being wrong or right.
Many uses "the Carl Gustav Jung-method" (though I don't think he possibly would like me to call it that ) meaning counting all the changing lines into consideration in the interpretation; a very straightforward and simple method, that maybe for the first time was represented in his famous foreword to the Wilhelm/Baynes-translation of the I Ching. To that, I've here and there met conflicts like with Hex. 44.2.4 where the direction is not always from 'Having fish in... ' to 'Having no fish....' (as it would be if you count from bottom to top each and every time in your interpretation) but sometimes also the other way round.
__________________

Minor spell. err. + maybe this comment should have been put into [ ... ] as it's out of the context...

__________________

Recommendation: As Richard Rutt, in his book (concerning the Nanjing-rule, see #12 here above) mentions that this rule is based on readings from the Warring states-period in China I've found an interesting chapter concerning this in "The Cambridge History of Ancient China, from the origins of Civilization to 221 B.C." * This chapter can either be read from the Book or it can be downloaded for reading **
_____________________________________

*) Cambridge University Press, U.S.A. 1999, ch. 12 pg. 852-860
**) pg. 880 - 888 in the PDF