Youthful Folly, first yin - 4,1

[peter2610]

Youthful Folly, 1st Yin - 4,1

In a recent reading I enquired about inviting a distant relative to come over and join my family at Christmas. Over recent years we had drifted further and further apart in terms of lack of contact and my last approach had not received a reply. The reading I obtained was 4,1 - 41.

The Wilhelm/Baynes interpretation of 4,1 gives: To make a fool develop, it furthers one to apply discipline. The fetters should be removed. To go on in this way brings humiliation.
The interpretation contains a direct contradiction; on the one hand one is urged to apply discipline, on the other hand one is urged to remove the fetters, the actual tools of discipline, if one fails to do this, one will suffer humiliation. The Wilhelm commentary smooths over this contradiction by developing the argument that whereas an overall discipline is necessary, it should not become a fixated modus operandi, a fixed and unrelenting attitude or approach. This, in turn, leads to the implied conclusion that in a difficult situation the time has come to relinquish a disciplined approach and extend the Christmas invitation, but I have never been entirely convinced by the Wilhelm interpretation or commentary on this line. The parallel nuclear progression for this reading gives (24 - 24) which indicates unambiguously that a return from the proposed action (the invitation) is called for and this concurs precisely with two further interpretations: Liu I-ming - Opening up darkness, it is advantageous to use punishments. If restrictions are removed, it will lead to regret - and Chih-hsu Ou-i - To awaken the ignorant, it is beneficial to use punishments; if restrictions are eased, it will be regrettable to go that way.

These additional translations along with the Parallel Nuclear Progression point inexorably to the conclusion that the contradiction within the Wilhelm/Baynes translation is, unfortunately, a mistake.

 

[rosada]

I have interpreted 4.1 to mean that to make a fool develop you can't just keep him under your control, you have to remove the fetters, let him off the leash and let him make his mistakes at which point - if he does make a mistake - then one applies discipline. To just go on controlling him is humiliating.
An example might be that while it's appropriate to hold a three year old's hand while walking down the street, by the time he is four he most likely wants to walk down the street without holding hands and to continue to insist that he does is humiliating. So you let him loose but keep an eye on him. But if he hasn't developed his understanding of how to behave and runs too far ahead, you apply discipline - you take his hand again.

As a response to your question about inviting a distant relative to Christmas I would interpret 4.1-41 as saying you have to let the relative do what he's going to do, you can't keep him under your control, you can't insist he respond. But you also let him experience the results of not replying to last year's invitation which could be that this year you 41. Decrease your enthusiasm and only send him a card, perhaps with a note saying, "Would love to hear from you!" To go on inviting him when he has ignored you would be humiliating to him as it implies he's a child who didn't know what he was doing when he ignored you, and it would also be humiliating to you as inviting him again implies that it's okay to ignore you.

 

[bradford]

It's supposed to carry a bit of an ambivalent tone, since it's a common dilemma and we are supposed to puzzle over it.
But the goal of the discipline is ultimately the removal of the shackles. If not, disgrace.

 

[peter2610]

Thanks Rosada, yes, I think a balanced middle-way response would be appropriate. A friendly card but no invitation; keep the relationship open but don't go chasing after him. I suspect that he might have had some serious problems with his immediate family, but I can't be certain, so I think a friendly presence but no intrusion whatsoever is called for.

Thanks Bradford, point well taken but if I accept that the Wilhelm/Baynes translation doesn't contain a mistake then the timing of the overall process becomes increasingly important. Some years ago this relationship was a very strong one, with frequent contact and visits but gradually it declined to a level of zero visits and very infrequent contact. If I regard this period of withdrawal as having fulfilled itself then the Wilhelm translation could be seen as prompting me to extend the invitation, if I don't regard this period as having yet been fulfilled then further discipline is called for with, as you point out, the ultimate goal of removing the fetters and renewing the relationship. The I Ching is outlining the parameters but leaving the specific decision to myself. I don't yet feel comfortable with extending myself further on this but neither do I wish to abandon the ultimate goal of a successful reunion so my intention is the middle-way as outlined to Rosada. As you point out, this situation is a common dilemma in relationships and learning to navigate these problems is an important life-skill.

Many thanks to you both.

 

[bradford]

this is as literal as I can get, from the Chinese:

developing the inexperienced:
worthwhile and useful to discipline a person
use to remove the shackles and cuffs
as a means to go forward, a disgrace


Wilhelm is sort of OK here, but the Chinese has a stronger
emphasis on the usefulness of temporary restraint, as long
as the point is in ending that and moving on.

 

[sooo]

Brad, that wording is difficult to wrap my head around. Ambivalent as you say.

But it seems to apply to this young guy that's in custody of my new landlord, house sharer. He was busted and shackled. Then he was sponsored by this guy. Now he has a job and pays rent, same as I do. There's no shackles, there's only certain strict rules he needs to respect. I don't see the disgrace though, so maybe it's a poor example. Seemed like a good kid to me.

 

[hmesker]

Another possible translation would be:

發蒙.
利用刑人.
用說桎梏以往吝.

Exposed ignorance.
Favourable to use slaves/prisoners.
Remove hand- and foot shackles as these hinder going.

(reading yi 以 as 緣故；原因；道理; 'cause, reason'; 漢語大詞典)

Fameng 發蒙 might be a loan for fameng 發矇, 'make a blind person recover his eyesight', as an analogy for making someone aware of his narrow-mindedness, to broaden his/her view:


將方舟而下流兮，冀幸君之發矇。
I shall take a barge and go sailing down the river,
Lest by some good chance my lord should yet come to his sense.
(The Songs of the South)

三子者，既得聞此言也於夫子，昭然若發矇矣。
When the three students heard these words from the Master, it was obvious they felt their ignorance exposed.
(Liji)


If a person has done something wrong and is punished, you should remove the constraints because they limit the person to improve himself. If someone is constrained he will never be able to see the flaws in his character or doings - you need liberty to see this. If you have a limited view of your situation: remove your shackles.

 

[peter2610]

Thanks for the translation Bradford. Is there anything in the grammatical content that gives a specific association to “disgrace.” The shackles and cuffs are removed as a means to go forward, yes, but does “disgrace” refer to that act of removal or to the ongoing use of shackles and cuffs? Two other translations, Liu I-ming and Chih-hsu Ou-i, both associate disgrace/humiliation with the removal of the fetters but if the Chinese gives emphasis to the temporary nature of the restraint and its eventual removal then the association of “disgrace” is clearly with any prolonged imposition of restraint.


Thanks hmesker “If someone is constrained he will never be able to see the flaws in his character or doings - you need liberty to see this.” Yes, well put, the aggressive imposition of a point of view, even if correct, restricts the other person’s freedom to share that point of view without demeaning himself. The situation becomes even more sensitive when we are dealing with someone’s personal faults or flaws, hence most spiritual teachers have preferred to state the truth clearly and endorse it through personal example (the Living Truth) rather than through criticism of others’ faults. The Essene teachings of Jesus are an excellent example of this approach.
In this particular case the restraint is being applied more to myself than to my relative. It is unlikely that he will ever know that I reconsidered my option to invite him over, even though I would very much have enjoyed to have him over. In the light of my last, unanswered, approach to him I feel that a balanced middle-course is the way forward; a friendly card but nothing further until an opening appears through which these tiresome fetters can be thrown away.