Written on Bamboo and Silk Inscribed in Metal and Stone, article on pictographics by prof. Shaughnessy

[surnevs]

Today I found this article which I find refreshing plainly speaking. As I couldn't decide where to place it, it comes up here, in Open space.
Link: https://www.academia.edu/37306618/S...boo_and_Silk_Inscribed_in_Metal_and_Stone_pdf



(Thought it could be interesting for some out there.....)

​

 

[surnevs]

Hi, I've been googling for the name Ching Fang who should have assembled a Version of The Book of Changes - Or have I missed something ???
Here (on pg. 75) is an article that states that The Version of the Book of Changes ascribed to Ching Fang (?) originally contained 24.437 characters but now got 1.171 characters left...
Have I misunderstood this? My search for Ching Fang in relation to this gave no results so that's why I ask here.

 

[dfreed]

Perhaps you're thinking of Jing Fang (77-37 BCE), re: Eight Palaces arrangement. See:

https://www.biroco.com/yijing/sequence.htm

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jing_Fang

He wrote extensively, but I am not sure if he authored a version of Yi (or if he did, did it survive or has it been translated). You'll need to do more research.

Also ... 'Jing Fang received The Changes from JIAO YANSHOU, and he established a school of 'new text' (今文, HAN YI XUE) studies of The Changes which was passed on to CHENG HONG, YAO PING, and YIN JIA ....'

 

[surnevs]

Thank You ! Maybe I was too absent when searching, that I forgot the possibility with Wikipedia

(I haven't found a Search possibility in Birocco but think it must be there since You found one.... ?)

 

[surnevs]

"The historian Ban Gu (32–92 AD) wrote that Jing Fang was an expert at making predictions from the hexagrams of the ancient Yijing.[1] A book on Yijing divination attributed to him describes the najia method of hexagram interpretation, which correlates their separate lines with elements of the Chinese calendar.[2]"
From: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jing_Fang#Yijing

So, yes: no doubt it's him and thank You again dfreed

 

[dfreed]

A book on Yijing divination attributed to him describes the najia method ....

I read that "Jing Fang received The Changes from Jiao Yanshou ...."

I don't know for sure, but my sense is Jing may have not written a version of the Yi, but wrote 'about' different ideas he gleaned from or were related to the Yi, i.e. about the Eight Palaces and Na jia (or Najia - the eight hexagrams' six positions), and about other ideas related to the five phases (elements) and trigrams and lines.

 

[surnevs]

I read that "Jing Fang received The Changes from Jiao Yanshou ...."

I don't know for sure, but my sense is Jing may have not written a version of the Yi, but wrote 'about' different ideas he gleaned from or were related to the Yi, i.e. about the Eight Palaces and Na jia (or Najia - the eight hexagrams' six positions), and about other ideas related to the five phases (elements) and trigrams and lines.

Yes, I see. It may then mean that the version Jing Fang (77-37 BCE, which also is the dates given in this book I refer to #2, there written Ching Fang but it has to be the same person) received from Jiao Yanshou that contained 24.437 Characters. I did not recognize that thou I know that he couldn't have been the author as it is one of the surviving Confucian Classics.
Of those 24.437 characters only 1.171 "are extant or known today", according to this book I refer to.

​

.

 

[dfreed]

given in this book I refer to #2, there written Ching Fang but it has to be the same person) received from Jiao Yanshou that contained 24.437 Characters.

The Wiki entry about his indicates that Jing Fang and Ching Fang are the same person.

I am curious what book you are giving us an image of? (I don't see the title, or missed it if you did share it with us.)

I see a few 'glitches' of sorts here: the Zhouyi (hexagram and line statements) contain approx. 5,700 characters (and these include those that indicate which line it is. e.g. 'nine in the first'). So if Jing Fang's Yi supposedly had 24,000+ characters, I assume that it either included commentaries, or perhaps it's a book that's only about the Yi, or that it may have been an entirely different document altogether; i.e. I've seen references made to Jing being the author of the Forest of Changes, which is an entirely different oracle- though some think this connection with Jing and the 'Forest' is suspect.

Also, if only about 5% or 1,171 characters remain, we have a very incomplete text - to say the least! - and perhaps one that has never been translated into English (or any other languages). That would be the same as if we had a version of the Zhouyi with 22 verses, instead of all 450 verses! That would equate to less than 4 hexagrams, and there judgements and line statements!

D

 

[surnevs]

The Wiki entry about his indicates that Jing Fang and Ching Fang are the same person.

I am curious what book you are giving us an image of? (I don't see the title, or missed it if you did share it with us.)

I see a few 'glitches' of sorts here: the Zhouyi (hexagram and line statements) contain approx. 5,700 characters (and these include those that indicate which line it is. e.g. 'nine in the first'). So if Jing Fang's Yi supposedly had 24,000+ characters, I assume that it either included commentaries, or perhaps it's a book that's only about the Yi, or that it may have been an entirely different document altogether; i.e. I've seen references made to Jing being the author of the Forest of Changes, which is an entirely different oracle- though some think this connection with Jing and the 'Forest' is suspect.

Also, if only about 5% or 1,171 characters remain, we have a very incomplete text - to say the least! - and perhaps one that has never been translated into English (or any other languages). That would be the same as if we had a version of the Zhouyi with 22 verses, instead of all 450 verses! That would equate to less than 4 hexagrams, and there judgements and line statements!

D

In the link on #2

Not a book about the I Ching but one of the Confucian classics, I Ching, and I have the same wonderings that You have: is it the I Ching Core text or the I Ching Core text including the commentaries ?

I know as little as You about this but if it is the Core text including Confutze's commentaries it's a bit more to understand while on the contrary if it's the Core text that has had this many characters there will be something to look for. I haven't counted the characters in the Core text (or the Received Text that we have today) yet but if this number reaches the number as indicated in the article (#7) maybe it could be assumed that it's the Core text including the commentaries which is mentioned, and where the lost characters mainly or solely are some of or all of the commentaries that have back in these times been present but now lost.

 

[tacrab]

京房
Jing Fang is the pinyin romanizatin. Ching Fang is the Wade-Giles romanization.
There were two Jing Fangs associated with Yijing, same names, close in time.
The more famous was 77-37 BCE, and wrote a lot, and promoted Eight Palaces and Hexagram "Breaths."
Forest of Changes is from same period, attributed to Jiao Yanshou.
For more, see Richard Smith Fathoming the Cosmos Chapter 3, and entries in Nielsen, Companion to Yijing.

 

[dfreed]

where the lost characters mainly or solely are some of or all of the commentaries that have back in these times been present but now lost.

The main point for me is that only 5% of the text survived - regardless of what it included. To get a sense of this, imagine earning 15 euros/hour and all of a sudden your salary gets cut to 1 euro/hour (not much to go around)!

I think this is even more significant because your book (from #2 above) also says that "many errors ... entered into the text"; combine this with the fact that the Xiping Stone Classics weren't started until 175 AD, approx. 200 years after Jing Fang's death, and there is a lot of time for 'many errors' to enter into the text.

Also, Jing Fang's tradition was only one of five (or more) traditions of the Han Yi Xue, or Han-era Yijing Studies. Since there are later intact and 'received' Yi versions, I think it's likely one or more of the Changes from other Han traditions - or maybe a combination of them - survived.

And I may have said, I have never heard of an English version (or other language translation) of Jing's Yi - although perhaps one exists, or perhaps there's a Chinese version, but it would only be a very small fragment of the original if it were based on the stone classics.

Best, D

 

[surnevs]

京房
Jing Fang is the pinyin romanizatin. Ching Fang is the Wade-Giles romanization.
There were two Jing Fangs associated with Yijing, same names, close in time.
The more famous was 77-37 BCE, and wrote a lot, and promoted Eight Palaces and Hexagram "Breaths."
Forest of Changes is from same period, attributed to Jiao Yanshou.
For more, see Richard Smith Fathoming the Cosmos Chapter 3, and entries in Nielsen, Companion to Yijing.

Thank You Tacrab. Two books I'll have to look in.

 

[surnevs]

The first emperor of China, Ch'in Shih-huang-ti (ruler 221-210 BC *) is said to have ordered all of the Books burned excepted The Book of Changes.
He built a Mausoleum about which many stories are told. He was said to have believed in immortality (with the help of Mercury). The Mausoleum was built "in accordance with the ancient practices of Geomancy" (Pg. 17 *) and in it were a Complete landscape of his Empire (pg. 17, Ssu-ma Ch'ien, 145-c.90 BC *) with rivers of Mercury etc. etc.
My thought is: If he spared the Book of Changes from this book-burning, could it be that he also saved a Copy like this on the Xiping Stone Tablet of this Classic?

This is of cause, not a question I expect to be answered unless a Chinese government somewhere in the Future sent a "Bronce-mole" size of a cell phone down into the Mausoleum; Why not? Recently China succeded sending a "Jade-rabbit" to the Dark Side of the Moon.....


*) The first Emperor of China, Arthur Cotterell, Penguin Books, Cop. 1981

 

[dfreed]

My thought is: If he spared the Book of Changes from this book-burning, could it be that he also saved a Copy like this on the Xiping Stone Tablet of this Classic?

I'm not quite following you here, however, you are talking about:

* Qin Shi Huang, who died in 210 BC, and whose Qin empire only lasted until 206 BC, and
* the Xiping Stone Classics, which weren't started until 175 AD, and have since been largely destroyed.

So, the stone tablets (at least this version of them) came approx. 385 years after this emperor.

said to have ordered all of the Books burned excepted The Book of Changes.

He did not order all books destroyed: Confucian texts were banned and ordered destroyed; but books on science, medicine, agriculture, and the Yi were not. It seems he did not consider an oracle / divination manual to be a 'Confucian Classic'.

 

[surnevs]

I'm not quite following you here, however, you are talking about:

* Qin Shi Huang, who died in 210 BC, and whose Qin empire only lasted until 206 BC, and
* the Xiping Stone Classics, which weren't started until 175 AD, and have since been largely destroyed.

So, the stone tablets (at least this version of them) came approx. 385 years after this emperor.




He did not order all books destroyed: Confucian texts were banned and ordered destroyed; but books on science, medicine, agriculture, and the Yi were not. It seems he did not consider an oracle / divination manual to be a 'Confucian Classic'.

I'm aware of that. After I logged out this morning and was on business it occurred to me that I'd mixed the Dates around in the wrong order.
And I have read that he spared more than the book of changes, but had in focus this book.
But nevertheless, if this Emperor had an attempt toward superstitious things, like immortality etc. and a passion for the book/books he spared I think it not unlikely for him to save it like he is said to have saved other things in his Mausoleum.
But of this nobody knows.
Btw dfreed, have You had thoughts on the book of changes having lost some of its contents along the millennias? and I thereby mean the Received or Core text

 

[dfreed]

if this Emperor had an attempt toward superstitious things, like immortality etc ... I think it not unlikely for him to save it (and) other things in his Mausoleum. But of this nobody knows.

A few years ago, I saw the Terracotta Army on display in Seattle: i.e. "a collection of sculptures depicting the armies of Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China. It is a form of funerary art buried with the emperor in 210–209 BCE with the purpose of protecting the emperor in his afterlife." So we do know some of what was buried with him, and there were other figures, people and objects as well. So it's not really correct to say that 'nobody knows' - we just don't know all of what he thought, felt, believed in - or what was buried with him.

Btw dfreed, have You had thoughts on the book of changes having lost some of its contents along the millennias? and I thereby mean the Received or Core text

That is a really (really) huge question, but in general (and very briefly), I'd say yes, there are lost - or misunderstood, or misrepresented , or misinterpreted - contents from the Yi. And it's also likely that we have instances of things / parts / words / characters not necessarily being 'lost', but instead they've been given multiple meanings and/or interpretations. But I don't see this as necessarily being a bad thing.

My question to you is, what do you mean by 'received' and core' text? I see these as each having their own (different) definition, or having even more than one definition for each. But perhaps you are using them interchangeably - to mean the same thing? So this made me wonder what is your definition or definitions of these words?

D

 

[surnevs]

Oh, I do now see after having read about Jing Fang in Bent Nielsens Companion to the I Ching, that his version of the I Ching was the one chosen at these stones tablets,
and that of those 24.437 characters from his version only 1.171 "are extant or known today" on the stone tablets -
Not from the received text but on the fragments of the stone tablets still extant.

What a misunderstanding I had there!

I'm glad I contacted this forum and asked for help with this text.

(That will not infect my belief in the possibility mentioned above: if this Emperor had an attempt toward superstitious things, like immortality etc. and a passion for the book/books he spared I think it not unlikely for him to save it like he is said to have saved other things in his Mausoleum.)

 

[surnevs]

A few years ago, I saw the Terracotta Army on display in Seattle: i.e. "a collection of sculptures depicting the armies of Qin Shi Huang, the first Emperor of China. It is a form of funerary art buried with the emperor in 210–209 BCE with the purpose of protecting the emperor in his afterlife." So we do know some of what was buried with him, and there were other figures, people and objects as well. So it's not really correct to say that 'nobody knows' - we just don't know all of what he thought, felt, believed in - or what was buried with him.



That is a really (really) huge question, but in general (and very briefly), I'd say yes, there are lost - or misunderstood, or misrepresented , or misinterpreted - contents from the Yi. And it's also likely that we have instances of things / parts / words / characters not necessarily being 'lost', but instead they've been given multiple meanings and/or interpretations. But I don't see this as necessarily being a bad thing.

My question to you is, what do you mean by 'received' and core' text? I see these as each having their own (different) definition, or having even more than one definition for each. But perhaps you are using them interchangeably - to mean the same thing? So this made me wonder what is your definition or definitions of these words?

D

- We crossed each other here I see when posting #17 Your post hasn't arrived.
And as You can see I had to realize that it's not from the Received text (Core or Received text by which I mean the Judgement and Linestatement's to the 64 hexagrams without the Confucian commentaries) in this case taken from Jing Fang's version that all of these characters are missing but from the stone tablets.
And I think what confused me was that there was no explanation in the book quoted about what was meant with "Ching Fangs Version".
To this, I can only apologize.

Since I started working with the I Ching I have been convinced that something was missing, just that I couldn't point out HOW. In the amount of text? (has many words been forgotten while the I Ching was Orally passed on from one Diviner to the next). In the words? (has some words changed their meaning since they were first spoken) but along the way, I have also received answers that clarified my situations - so: how strange it may sound, I think something is missing in the text but my understanding of it may be missing as another possibility.
That's my - spontaneous - take on it. (And I'm always curious when hearing about new discoveries, new unearthings concerning this. )

 

[dfreed]

Since I started working with the I Ching I have been convinced that something was missing, just that I couldn't point out HOW.

A few points: first, I agree with (and understand) you calling the Zhouyi the 'Core' text. I sometimes refer to it as the 'first layer of the Yi' but those are just my own words.

However, I think of the 'received text' as referring to something different. By way of example, Bradford Hatcher says his Yi is a "translation of the 'received text' of the Yijing, from the Chinese Imperial Edition of 1715 ...." I think that this 'received' version (or a very similar one) is also what Wilhelm based his translation on - as did other authors.

Based on this, I think of (or loosely define) the 'received text' as being different versions of the Yi (and I assume there are/were more than one?) which were officially approved by an emperor, or by a certain 'school' of Yi studies, or possibly that it was a version that became widely used and respected (maybe Wang Bi's Yi fits into this category, I'm not sure).

The 1715 version (and other versions) contain the Zhouyi (core text) and also some form of comment or commentary: either the Ten Wings and/or additional 'comments' (or commentaries) which were added by many people to explain the Yi; and we see this in many versions / translations, where Wilhelm, Alfred Huang, Hilary, Want Bi, Karcher, Hatcher, Nigel Richmond, etc. (and the Chinese scholars too) all added their own 'commentaries'. I have also heard some of the earlier Zhouyi (core text) versions referred to as 'received' so I assume this idea of conferring some kind of 'status' (for lack of a better word) has been around for a really long time.

**********************************

As to the 'missing parts' of the Yi. Well ... in one respect I can see the oracle and it's history as being - in part - about 'missing parts' (or also added, changed, re-interpreted, etc. parts)! And we have this because:

* There is this idea that the Yi's origins go back to Shang, or to pre-Shang, pre-writing times - which some have described as being shamanic, or the "Yi's shamanic roots." I can certainly see this; however, we have no proof (or maybe only very, very little proof - more like clues) of what these earlier practices, un-written words, unknow or little-known meanings or rituals were.

* There is another idea - which I believe has an historical basis - that by a few (4, 5, 6?) centuries after the Zhouyi, that the first layer of the Yi and many of its original character / word meanings were lost or changed. Some modern authors / scholars such as Rutt, Field, Shaughnessy, etc. have re-created a version with more of what they believe to be the 'original' (and I use that term very loosely) words, meanings, etc. of the Zhouyi. I think this lost is due, in part, to changes in language and culture, and periods of competing philosophical 'schools', and because how the Yi was thought of and used also changed: from a diviner's oracle to a book of Confucian wisdom.

* And .... Rutt shares examples of these word/character changes over time (p207), for example from approx. the early Zhou to the Han era (or thereabouts) we have:

'Li' changing from Favorable to Furthering
'Yuan' changing from Supreme to Sublime
'Fu' changing from Captive to Sincere ....​

* Rutt suggests (and it's only a suggestion as far as I know) that because the few available copies of the Zhouyi were hand-written during the Zhou dynasty, that all sort of errors, omissions, variations, variants entered into the text, or, parts were dropped (perhaps sometimes intentionally, sometimes not). For example, in his notes about the different hexagrams and lines, a few times he says something like, 'perhaps there is a word missing here' ....

* He also puts forth the idea that some of the 'Prognostic' words, such as Auspicious, No Misfortune, Disastrous ... (which Stephen Field calls 'Fortune') may have been added by individual diviners in response to the actual circumstances of the reading: things worked out when someone got the words "a calling wed-wing" (15.2) so the diviner added 'good fortune' as a note on her bamboo (or later silk) copy of the Zhouyi - which was then passed on to one of her students, who took these added words to be part of the Yi - and perhaps then copied or recopied the text, thereby creating a 'new' version with the added words / phrases in it. (An interesting fact is that diviners were also called 'recorders'.)

* The Zhouyi did not come with a set of instructions, so this has lead to all sorts of ways of doing divination - from deciding to use coins versus yarrow stalks, or deciding to literally translate the words versus looking at the images for meaning, or thinking of the Yi as a Confucian book of wisdom / morals versus using it as an oracle for divination and casting omens ....

* There is the presence of 'loan' characters (as I understand it, one character 'standing in' for another); and the fact that many Chinese characters have multiple meanings that have changed over time, and we have the idea that words, phrases. and images carry multiple, or metaphorical or mythical meanings, so 'stepping on a tiger's tail', or 'screens covering the sun at midday', can (and often do) convey meanings beyond the obvious - beyond words ....

* And finally, many thousands of comments and commentaries have been added to the Yi (in a large number of varied texts), and many ways of explaining the text and the images were also added - including using trigrams and nuclear trigrams and/or explanations based on the appropriateness, or placement, or movement of the lines, etc., etc. .... (Did I leave anything out?)

*************************

So where does that leave us (or me)? What first came to mind are the lyrics from Paul Simon's song Kodachrome:

"When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder I can think at all
And though my lack of education hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall ...."

What else comes to mind is a discussion I had a few years ago with another student of the Yi: her idea is that the act of divination - of using the Yi oracle - takes into account which version or translation we're using, and how we're 'casting' the Yi (coins, computers, yarrow stalks), or which words we use or how vague or specific we are in posing our question or query ...

... and by extension (as I see it), the Yi also 'takes into account' all the accumulated errors, additions, omissions, different meanings, different translations ... even if we have one translation we like and decide to make use of ....

Or course I - and others - make decisions about what I consider to be a good (or bad) translation, or what parts of the Yi or which methods of divination I want to make use of and work with. But given that, if the Yi 'takes into account' all this other stuff - including missing or changed parts - than that's one less thing I need to concern myself with.

That sounds a bit far-fetched, but then again we're talking about an act of divination, and the 'fact' that I really don't have a clue - or any facts - as to how or why the Yi works (though I do have some guesses! ). AND ... we are talking about a 'magic talking book' (which I believe are Hilary's words?) with shamanic roots, so ... who knows how it all works, so why not make use of an oracle - even with some of it's parts missing?

Best, D

 

[surnevs]

A few points: first, I agree with (and understand) you calling the Zhouyi the 'Core' text. I sometimes refer to it as the 'first layer of the Yi' but those are just my own words.

However, I think of the 'received text' as referring to something different. By way of example, Bradford Hatcher says his Yi is a "translation of the 'received text' of the Yijing, from the Chinese Imperial Edition of 1715 ...." I think that this 'received' version (or a very similar one) is also what Wilhelm based his translation on - as did other authors.

Based on this, I think of (or loosely define) the 'received text' as being different versions of the Yi (and I assume there are/were more than one?) which were officially approved by an emperor, or by a certain 'school' of Yi studies, or possibly that it was a version that became widely used and respected (maybe Wang Bi's Yi fits into this category, I'm not sure).

The 1715 version (and other versions) contain the Zhouyi (core text) and also some form of comment or commentary: either the Ten Wings and/or additional 'comments' (or commentaries) which were added by many people to explain the Yi; and we see this in many versions / translations, where Wilhelm, Alfred Huang, Hilary, Want Bi, Karcher, Hatcher, Nigel Richmond, etc. (and the Chinese scholars too) all added their own 'commentaries'. I have also heard some of the earlier Zhouyi (core text) versions referred to as 'received' so I assume this idea of conferring some kind of 'status' (for lack of a better word) has been around for a really long time.

**********************************

As to the 'missing parts' of the Yi. Well ... in one respect I can see the oracle and it's history as being - in part - about 'missing parts' (or also added, changed, re-interpreted, etc. parts)! And we have this because:

* There is this idea that the Yi's origins go back to Shang, or to pre-Shang, pre-writing times - which some have described as being shamanic, or the "Yi's shamanic roots." I can certainly see this; however, we have no proof (or maybe only very, very little proof - more like clues) of what these earlier practices, un-written words, unknow or little-known meanings or rituals were.

* There is another idea - which I believe has an historical basis - that by a few (4, 5, 6?) centuries after the Zhouyi, that the first layer of the Yi and many of its original character / word meanings were lost or changed. Some modern authors / scholars such as Rutt, Field, Shaughnessy, etc. have re-created a version with more of what they believe to be the 'original' (and I use that term very loosely) words, meanings, etc. of the Zhouyi. I think this lost is due, in part, to changes in language and culture, and periods of competing philosophical 'schools', and because how the Yi was thought of and used also changed: from a diviner's oracle to a book of Confucian wisdom.

* And .... Rutt shares examples of these word/character changes over time (p207), for example from approx. the early Zhou to the Han era (or thereabouts) we have:

​

'Li' changing from Favorable to Furthering​

'Yuan' changing from Supreme to Sublime​

'Fu' changing from Captive to Sincere ....​

* Rutt suggests (and it's only a suggestion as far as I know) that because the few available copies of the Zhouyi were hand-written during the Zhou dynasty, that all sort of errors, omissions, variations, variants entered into the text, or, parts were dropped (perhaps sometimes intentionally, sometimes not). For example, in his notes about the different hexagrams and lines, a few times he says something like, 'perhaps there is a word missing here' ....

* He also puts forth the idea that some of the 'Prognostic' words, such as Auspicious, No Misfortune, Disastrous ... (which Stephen Field calls 'Fortune') may have been added by individual diviners in response to the actual circumstances of the reading: things worked out when someone got the words "a calling wed-wing" (15.2) so the diviner added 'good fortune' as a note on her bamboo (or later silk) copy of the Zhouyi - which was then passed on to one of her students, who took these added words to be part of the Yi - and perhaps then copied or recopied the text, thereby creating a 'new' version with the added words / phrases in it. (An interesting fact is that diviners were also called 'recorders'.)

* The Zhouyi did not come with a set of instructions, so this has lead to all sorts of ways of doing divination - from deciding to use coins versus yarrow stalks, or deciding to literally translate the words versus looking at the images for meaning, or thinking of the Yi as a Confucian book of wisdom / morals versus using it as an oracle for divination and casting omens ....

* There is the presence of 'loan' characters (as I understand it, one character 'standing in' for another); and the fact that many Chinese characters have multiple meanings that have changed over time, and we have the idea that words, phrases. and images carry multiple, or metaphorical or mythical meanings, so 'stepping on a tiger's tail', or 'screens covering the sun at midday', can (and often do) convey meanings beyond the obvious - beyond words ....

* And finally, many thousands of comments and commentaries have been added to the Yi (in a large number of varied texts), and many ways of explaining the text and the images were also added - including using trigrams and nuclear trigrams and/or explanations based on the appropriateness, or placement, or movement of the lines, etc., etc. .... (Did I leave anything out?)

*************************

So where does that leave us (or me)? What first came to mind are the lyrics from Paul Simon's song Kodachrome:

"When I think back on all the crap I learned in high school
It's a wonder I can think at all
And though my lack of education hasn't hurt me none
I can read the writing on the wall ...."

What else comes to mind is a discussion I had a few years ago with another student of the Yi: her idea is that the act of divination - of using the Yi oracle - takes into account which version or translation we're using, and how we're 'casting' the Yi (coins, computers, yarrow stalks), or which words we use or how vague or specific we are in posing our question or query ...

... and by extension (as I see it), the Yi also 'takes into account' all the accumulated errors, additions, omissions, different meanings, different translations ... even if we have one translation we like and decide to make use of ....

Or course I - and others - make decisions about what I consider to be a good (or bad) translation, or what parts of the Yi or which methods of divination I want to make use of and work with. But given that, if the Yi 'takes into account' all this other stuff - including missing or changed parts - than that's one less thing I need to concern myself with.

That sounds a bit far-fetched, but then again we're talking about an act of divination, and the 'fact' that I really don't have a clue - or any facts - as to how or why the Yi works (though I do have some guesses! ). AND ... we are talking about a 'magic talking book' (which I believe are Hilary's words?) with shamanic roots, so ... who knows how it all works, so why not make use of an oracle - even with some of it's parts missing?

Best, D

Thank You, if it happens that You do not have Bent Nielsens book, Companion to I Ching You can get it from this link:
https://www.pdfdrive.com/a-companion-to-yi-jing-numerology-and-cosmology-e158448347.html

In this one can follow the persons who received the Changes from Confutze (Look up Kong Qiu in the alphabetic register to the left in the pdf file, pg 138) and onward to, to example Jing Fang (pg. 129).
As I have just started my day I'll go on with my doings and return.

 

[dfreed]

... one can follow the persons who received the Changes from Confutze

Sven, I responded to your question about parts missing from the Yi. I'm not sure why you're now pointing me (us) to a list showing the supposed transmission of the Yi, from Confucius to the Han? I don't see what this has to do with what you asked about?

Of interest to me is the last sentence of this entry: "Today few scholars believe Kong Qiu had anything to do with The Changes" (p140).

 

[surnevs]

Sven, I responded to your question about parts missing from the Yi. I'm not sure why you're now pointing me (us) to a list showing the supposed transmission of the Yi, from Confucius to the Han? I don't see what this has to do with what you asked about?

Of interest to me is the last sentence of this entry: "Today few scholars believe Kong Qiu had anything to do with The Changes" (p140).

Hi Dfreed, I left home this morning after having linked You to the book, A companion to the I Ching, which was essential to understand what I asked about in my initial question #1.
This day went on longer than I expected and I will - first thank You for your kind reply on #19 (!) - give You a reply when I'm ready, but first of all have patience with me in this.

 

[dfreed]

but first of all have patience with me in this.

Yes, of course I will be patient. I already have Nielsen's book which is where I got some of the information I've shared here. A few things:

* I don't see that you asked a question in post #1. Perhaps you mean a different #1 - though I looked and didn't see it?

* I'd ask you to read my response in #19, where I addressed the issue of stuff 'missing' from the Yi; this is my response to a direct question you asked me about.

* Also, see my questions in #21, about why you're discussing Confucius - I don't understand what he has to do with 'missing' parts of the Yi, especially when in Neilsen's book it says that the lists are only:

"supposed transmissions" - which means we don't know if they even existed, and this is made even more questionable by: "Today few scholars believe Kong Qiu had anything to do with The Changes" (p140).

So, yes we do have 'missing parts' to the Yi, as I discussed at length; but no, I don't see that Confucius has anything to do with this missing stuff, OR that he had much at all (or anything!) to do with the Yi.

D.

 

[surnevs]

Yes, of course I will be patient. I already have Nielsen's book which is where I got some of the information I've shared here. A few things:

* I don't see that you asked a question in post #1. Perhaps you mean a different #1 - though I looked and didn't see it?

* I'd ask you to read my response in #19, where I addressed the issue of stuff 'missing' from the Yi; this is my response to a direct question you asked me about.

* Also, see my questions in #21, about why you're discussing Confucius - I don't understand what he has to do with 'missing' parts of the Yi, especially when in Neilsen's book it says that the lists are only:

"supposed transmissions" - which means we don't know if they even existed, and this is made even more questionable by: "Today few scholars believe Kong Qiu had anything to do with The Changes" (p140).

So, yes we do have 'missing parts' to the Yi, as I discussed at length; but no, I don't see that Confucius has anything to do with this missing stuff, OR that he had much at all (or anything!) to do with the Yi.

D.

Ok, Yes, it was on #2 (sorry) I asked
"Hi, I've been googling for the name Ching Fang who should have assembled a Version of The Book of Changes - Or have I missed something ???
Here (on pg. 75) is an article that states that The Version of the Book of Changes ascribed to Ching Fang (?) originally contained 24.437 characters but now got 1.171 characters left...
Have I misunderstood this? My search for Ching Fang in relation to this gave no results so that's why I ask here."

But most important, and this was where I went wrong in thinking that 24.437 characters minus 1.171 characters were missing, that it wasn't from the book of changes but from those stone tablets... I didn't get that at first sight.
I asked and I got the answer.
And yes: Richard Rutt, who also questions whether Confutze had anything to do with the ten wings.
And yes: About whether the term Confucian Classics covers his engagement in the Changes or not.

About all of this, we can't say anything but just keep on searching, make failures, mistakes and again search. Maybe the question about Confutze's engagement in the Changes find more weight in Tradition than in later times speculation - or? It's called The Confucian Classics and probably this is the best term.

 

[dfreed]

Btw dfreed, have You had thoughts on the book of changes having lost some of its contents along the millennias?

Above is one of your questions I was responding to. I thought you were asking about how complete or incomplete our current versions of the Yijing are.

But to clarify, instead you meant this question to be specifically about the missing parts of the Yijing section of the Xiping Stone Classics - which according to one author (you shared) were supposedly based on Jing's version and also that only 5% of these Yi stones survived.

And perhaps you are/were also wondering if there's a complete 'non-stoned', written version of Jing's Yijing you can look at? And perhaps you're also pondering if Confucius actually did write - or have a hand in writing - the Yi?

If so, I misunderstood your question. And as to these other questions, I don't have much of an interest in them, nor can I be of help with your search.

D.

 

[dfreed]

PS, in #5 you wrote, or quoted someone who said....

.... Jing Fang was an expert at making predictions from the hexagrams .... A book attributed to him describes the najia method of hexagram interpretation ....

Looking back I see how I may have misread this: its says only that he may have written a book about a specific method of divination, which is very different than saying he actually wrote one of the 'received texts' of the Yi.

 

[surnevs]

Above is one of your questions I was responding to. I thought you were asking about how complete or incomplete our current versions of the Yijing are.

But to clarify, instead you meant this question to be specifically about the missing parts of the Yijing section of the Xiping Stone Classics - which according to one author (you shared) were supposedly based on Jing's version and also that only 5% of these Yi stones survived.

And perhaps you are/were also wondering if there's a complete 'non-stoned', written version of Jing's Yijing you can look at? And perhaps you're also pondering if Confucius actually did write - or have a hand in writing - the Yi?

If so, I misunderstood your question. And as to these other questions, I don't have much of an interest in them, nor can I be of help with your search.

D.

Hi dfreed, You haven't misunderstood ! I actually did think that there were missing parts in the written text. You did your best to answer this aspect of my question, but it showed up that it was me who had misunderstood the sentence from this book I quoted. And along the way, I almost felt the same as You, regarding the writings of Richard Rutt.
But shouldn't we leave the subject, unless something unclarified shows up?

 

[surnevs]

Out of context: On #18/19 our postings crossed each other which I felt a bit frustrating I may admit, but Yesterday morning when reading your post I was preparing for leaving for the job and the initiative I had to reply when reading it that morning faded away during the day and returning late evening this initiative was gone - that's kind of frustrating for me too, I mean the gap in timezones between us.

 

[dfreed]

Okay thanks. Perhaps then what I shared was useful for you.

I almost felt the same as You, regarding the writings of Richard Rutt ....

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you think I'm misunderstanding him in some way? Or are you saying that you also like Richard Rutt?

D

 

[surnevs]

Okay thanks. Perhaps then what I shared was useful for you.

I'm not sure what you mean by this? Do you think I'm misunderstanding him in some way? Or are you saying that you also like Richard Rutt?

D

Shortly: years ago Rutt's translation was among those I often used. What I remember was that his book gave me the first information about the earlier use of the Book of Changes.