Zhu Xi's rules

[Gmulii]

A good guess is that more info about Liu Yao can be found in the topic called "...Liu Yao...".

How to read the lines without the text with a specific line... Well, there are many ways. moss elk showed one. Can also be done with Trigrams, or as we said with the lines.

In Asia there are many schools, there are number schools that would read using math formulas and stuff. Other swill read with images etc. Liu Yao was part of "five elements" school if I remember correctly. But that doesn't matter much, the idea is there are endless ways to read all this without specific text with specific line. Doesn't seem needed to post any now and the ones I'm using will be difficult to understand as they are very related to the Chinese calendar(stems/branches etc.), also not needed for this specific topic as using what is already in the forum is more then enough to read without the specific lines.

 

[Freedda]

In a single line, we can see the marriage of hex 'A's meaning with hex 'B''s meaning, which produces a new meaning with qualities of both.

In 1.1.2.3.4.5.6 (2), we see Hex 1 and Hex 2 married into the 'super line' text of 1.7
(we can see from 1.7 and 2.7 that Yi is unfinished, .... someone started with The Forest of Changes)

Moss Elk, this sounds very nice, but I don't really undersand what you're saying here. Is the 'single line' you mention in your first sentence the 1.7 and 2.7 statements from the Yi, or something else? I'm a bit befuddled here.

The same can be done with any reading with change lines. Marry the Received and Related text=there is the answer.
Consider the Received text to be the subject/'meat' of the answer, and ... the Related text ... the qualities, to color or 'pull' the meaning of the received hex. The more lines there are, the less signifigance they have, being merely fine details that can actually distract: staring at the wood grain, when the answer is a table.

Okay, so my general sense, and initial approach is to see the primary hexagram as the subject of the reading and the resulting hexagram as a suggested attitude or approach to the situation. But that's just my starting point, and that often morphs or changes as I get more into a reading.

As to the lines, well, sometimes the devil and heaven are in the details, and they provide valuable information - instead of being mere distractions. However, when do they become too much information? Is it based on a numerical count of the lines - three is enough info; but four or more lines is too much? I don't think so. Instead I take it on a case by case, hexagram by hexagram, and line by line basis. Maybe all six lines are providing the info we need; sometimes it might only be one.

After all - and borrowing from your table anology - isn't it the wood's grain which gives the table its strength, its beauty and its uniqueness? And going a bit further, if we look closely at the grain, might that show us how best to cut or shape the wood, and in which direction the wood's strength lies?

What I don't do - which is what Gmulii suggests - is to immediately disregard the line statements whenver there is more than one moving line in a reading. But I'm not sure if that's what you too are suggesting?

And finally, what is the 'Forest of Changes'? and do you really think the Yi is unfinished?

Regards, d.

 

[Freedda]

How to read the lines without the text with a specific line... Well, there are many So, ways ....

So, what I understand you to be saying: that based on two out of the 450 oracle and line statements found in the Yi, you have concluded that we should forego the text of the line statements in a reading whenever we have two or more moving lines.

Further, that you've read into these two lines a 'hint' that this is what we're supposed to do, but the Yi (including these two lines) offers no explanation or directions for how we might do what you are suggesting. Instead, over the centuries people have come up with many, many different ways of doing a reading without looking at the text of multiple moving lines.

I assume from what you've been saying that some of these methods are very complicated, and some include math and even specific dates for them to work. And I have to think - given that we are human - that some of these might not even work, or might be overly complicated, or be entirely bogus.

But dispite all these possible issues or complications, it's your opinion (based on a 'hint') that any of these methods would be better than actually looking at the text of multiple lines.

Is that about what you're telling us here?

D.

 

[Gmulii]

So, what I understand you to be saying: that based on two out of the 450 oracle and line statements found in the Yi, you have concluded that we should forego the text of the line statements in a reading whenever we have two or more moving lines.

Further, that you've read into these two lines a 'hint' that this is what we're supposed to do, but the Yi (including these two lines) offers no explanation or directions for how we might do what you are suggesting. Instead, over the centuries people have come up with many, many different ways of doing a reading without looking at the text of multiple moving lines.

I assume from what you've been saying that some of these methods are very complicated, and some include math and even specific dates for them to work. And I have to think - given that we are human - that some of these might not even work, or might be overly complicated, or be entirely bogus.

But dispite all these possible issues or complications, it's your opinion (based on a 'hint') that any of these methods would be better than actually looking at the text of multiple lines.

Is that about what you're telling us here?

D.

Not entirely. : )
I'm saying that the book was a point of time. There was specific understanding then, with time that understanding evolved and expanded. As we can guess happened before the book as well, although that was so far back its difficult to be sure.
Yet for some historical reasons in the western world when it comes to Yi it seems often practitioners are stuck at that time, they rarely know there was anything that came after and they don't have any idea of what came before as well.
Now, in the Chinese lineages where divination is practiced professionally, they aren't aware what came before either, for the most part, but they have very clear idea of how to expand the system, so it moves far way beyond what we can find in the book.

Similar view of being stuck with the book we can see in Confucianism, as the commentaries on the zhouyi are very connected to it, so in a sense we can also see it in China as well. All that is philosophical in its essence, many of the people with that point of view may write books about how to divine with Yi, yet to never use it in divination.

Then there is the professional approach very connected to taoism. People that do that for a living there(what we call masters, as in mastery of the Art), have expanded what is used through the years. As already said mostly around Han dynasty that becomes known, but how long it was passed in lineages, we may never fully know.

What I'm saying is that it may be worth it to go beyond the book. And that is more or less all for now. The west is stuck at that point in time for some reason. So in topics about the rules and about what part of the text to use, so we don't end up trying to figure out how the system works by itself, there is only one thing I can recommend. And that is simple to go beyond the book. Until that is done, the whole art would still be stuck in a point of time way, way back. And at that time we still have reasons to believe there was more known. Once that is done with time even more can be found.

So why the "hints" and everything else... Because practice has shown that many followers of confucianism, or western practitioners that are mostly familiar with the western sources, wouldn't accept anything that came after the book. In practice most of them won't even know anything that happened after it. So if we want to advice on using osmething more, sometimes we will have to use that same book to show that back then they were very aware there was something more. And even though its good book, there was a lot more important points in the history of these systems that that. And we can be sure there have been long path before it as well.

Here may be interesting to mention that this has never been considered their most powerful systems. For example they have something called the 3 ancient systems(三式 ), this is what is used in war and situations like that. And the reason Wilhelm and the others couldn't bring any info on that, was because it was forbidden to even mention them to a foreigner.
So again - while the book is very interesting by itself, its a small step in a very long road.

So I'm trying to give some idea of how al this is perceived by the people that are considered "masters" of these Arts in China. And that the book, while good book, no arguing there, shouldn't be the beginning and the end of our understanding of the changes. As if we want to evolve in these arts it can be very first step in a very long road ahead. : )
Sadly, for most western people that came to realize parts of that, they usually just find reasons to ignore all of it and stay with the book or leave the whole field. Nothing wrong with that, its a free world and most people haven't even heard of even that. Yet I do think its a correct thing to do to offer the opportunity to see there is more.

I assume from what you've been saying that some of these methods are very complicated, and some include math and even specific dates for them to work. And I have to think - given that we are human - that some of these might not even work, or might be overly complicated, or be entirely bogus.

Great, stick to the book then! ; )
Its not very complicated, the sentences are explain well, with the confucianian commentaries and overall will probably work nicely. While the way you explain it I have to agree and I never said the idea to go beyond is for everyone.

Believe or not is up to you, won't change anything for me, as for me the interest of what is beyond the book came long time ago and I didn't need reasons to do it, other then the fact I did know in China for the last 2 thousand years when it comes to professional use of these systems the story is quite different then what one would think from the west.

 

[moss elk]

Is the 'single line' you mention in your first sentence the 1.7 and 2.7 statements from the Yi
, or something else? I'm a bit befuddled here.

The single line is when a reading has only one changing line.
Look at hex 8, then look at hex 2 Then look at 8.5:
See how the two hex meanings marry together and create the offspring of the text of 8.5?
See how it has a bit of each parent, moms eyes and dads hair?
1.7 is a single 'super line', meaning that text replaces the 6 changed lines text with a meaning that has attributes of both hex 1 and 2. (The Dragons...Without a leader..)

Okay, so my general sense, and initial approach is to see the primary hexagram as the subject of the reading and the resulting hexagram as a suggested attitude or approach to the situation.
But that's just my starting point, and that often morphs...

Try seeing the entire reading as your response, and the details may help you,
But based on my observation, the Big answer always lies in hex A + Hex B.
(As it does in a reading with a single change line, which defines the offspring in the single line)
And as it does with the super line of 1.7)

when do they become too much information?
... Maybe all six lines are providing the info we need; sometimes it might only be one.

They become too much information when you can't recognize the big pattern of hex A married to hex B, zoom out. Your reading may say "Run away from this axe murderer with all your strength",
don't get caught up on the one tiny line that mentions his handsome red suede shoes.

What I don't do - which is what Gmulii suggests - is to immediately disregard the line statements whenver there is more than one moving line in a reading. But I'm not sure if that's what you too are suggesting?

Yes, it is similar to what I am suggesting, there is some merit in just 'making the sentence thingy'
As in Hex A zhi B, or with 31 > (47) an Exhausted Wooing.
I personally do look at the lines...but focus moreso on the two hex's.

And finally, what is the 'Forest of Changes'?

The Forest of Changes (notice how the metaphor 'can't see the forest through the trees is applicable?)
Was a work that attempted to turn all possible multi line readings into all super-line text.
It was unfinished, and a forum member here has published a translation.
(Someone please provide his name?)

and do you really think the Yi is unfinished?

It certainly looks that way to me.
Though, the inclusion of 1.7 and 2.7 are enough of a hint on how to read multiple lines,
that I may say it is both complete and incomplete.

And just an fyi:
Modern Yi Newbies are exposed to Zhu xi's rules when they cast a reading at

I Ching Online.NET

Any vital question you have, ask the I Ching Online, and save your reading in a personal account.

www.ichingonline.net

(it isn't explained there, it is just calculated so)

 

[Freedda]

Look at hex 8, then look at hex 2 Then look at 8.5: See how the two ... marry together and create the offspring of the text of 8.5? See how it has a bit of each parent, moms eyes and dads hair?

... the details may help you ... but based on my observation, the Big answer always lies in hex A + Hex B.

Okay, thanks. I do try to look at the entire reading as the response, though I think each of us might have different approaches to doing that - which is fine.

For me, I see no reason why I can't look at the whole and still include multiple moving lines. In fact I think if I get rid of some of the lines as some suggest (re: any more than one), I run the risk of not getting the whole meaning or missing an important aspect of the reading. Therefore, I usually start by looking at all the parts, and then try to cull it down to what I sense is the most important.

By way of example, I did a recent reading for myself and got 39.1.5 > 36 as the response. And while certain aspects pop out at me as being meaningful, I see no reason why I'd immediatly get rid of either line 39.1 or 39.5 as being unimportant. After all - and using your anology - aren't they both the legitamate offspring of 39 and 36? And do I really want to be playing favorites when I'm looking for a wholistic response?

(And wouldn't we think sometime was amiss - or seriously wrong - if a family photo only included mom, dad, and the family dog; because the parents said, 'only include us, since our three kids are just a reflection of us anyway,' or they said, 'we've decided to replace the kids in this photo with their cousin Ned because we had a 'hunch' we should do so' ?)

I had quite a different response in another reading: it included multiple moving lines - and of course two hexagrams - but the part that struck me (like a ton of bricks!) as 'the answer' was the meanings I found in the trigrams of the primary hexagram and the interactions between these two trigrams. That was the focus and the most powerful part of the response, so much so that I'm not sure I even looked at the oracle or line statements!

... As an aside, I know that I am often guilty of doing readings where I give TMI (to myself and to others), and I am trying to work on that! But I don't think that removing lines at the start is the way to get there ...

When I first started out with theYi, I often envisioned a reading as an entity - floating through the universe - made up of two hexagrams with 'connecting' (moving/changing) lines running between them, holding the two hexagram 'parts' together.

Looking at that now, it seems like it might still be a good role model for the wholeness of a reading - and how all the parts fit together.

They become too much information when you can't recognize the big pattern of hex A married to hex B, zoom out. Your reading may say "Run away from this axe murderer with all your strength", don't get caught up on the one tiny line that mentions his handsome red suede shoes.

Agreed, for the most part. I'd only say that for me, sometimes, a small detail can lead me to larger insights, but this is a slippery slope that needs to be tread carefully.

.... there is some merit in just 'making the sentence thingy' - As in Hex A zhi B, or with 31 > (47) an Exhausted Wooing. I personally do look at the lines ... but focus more so on the two hex's.

Again, no disagreement. Most of the time, however, I don't find the 'Hex zhi Hex' model all that helpful (and it's often confusing to me), but that's just me. I still try to find connnections however.

Best, D.

 

[svenrus]

MossElk (#35)

"The Forest of Changes (notice how the metaphor 'can't see the forest through the trees is applicable?)
Was a work that attempted to turn all possible multi line readings into all super-line text.
It was unfinished, and a forum member here has published a translation.
(Someone please provide his name?) "

cjgait is his name (or avatar ?)

I found this:

https://www.onlineclarity.co.uk/fri...orest-of-changes-translation-available.22619/

Amazon ("Look Inside" gives You the introduction about what F.O.C. is)

 

[svenrus]

A second edition is on it's way....

 

[svenrus]

In this PDF You'll find some valuable information also about Chu Hsi written by the co-author of "Teaching the I Ching" *) On pg. 3 we read:
".......................................In contrast, Zhu Xi regarded the sixty-four hexagrams as the “original version” (guben) of the Yijing. Adopting Lü Zuqian’s (1137−1181) view, Zhu Xi believed that the true meaning of the Yijing lay in the imagery of the hexagrams, not the Ten Wings. To distinguish the core text from the Ten Wings, Zhu Xi created two separate categories in his Zhouyi benyi. One category was “the classic” (jing) which covered the sixty-four hexagrams; the other was “the commentarial materials” (zhuan) which included the Ten Wings. With these two categories, Zhu made clear that the Ten Wings were at best supplementary materials in understanding the hexagrams. Underlying his view was a different understanding of the history of the Yijing text. Unlike Cheng Yi, Zhu Xi did not see the formation of the Yijing as a progression from graphic representations of nature to moral-metaphysical philosophy. For him, the sixty-four hexagrams are the foundation of the Yijing because they are the visual representations of the constant changes in the natural and human worlds. This pictorial depiction of transformation — begun by Fu Xi and completed by King Wen and the Duke of Zhou — was later turned into a moral-metaphysical discussion by Confucius. As a result, the Yijing ceased to be a pictorial description of the awesome and awe-inspiring transformation in the universe; it became merely another text (like the Book of Poetry and the Book of History) that taught morality to kings, nobles, and government officials. Therefore, Zhu Xi asked his readers “to separate Confucius’s Yijing from King Wen’s Yijing, and separate King Wen’s Yijing from Fu Xi’s Yijing .............................................."

*) by Geoffrey Redmond and Tze-Ki Hon, Oxford Universsity Press, 2014

 

[moss elk]

Therefore, Zhu Xi asked his readers “to separate Confucius’s Yijing from King Wen’s Yijing, and separate King Wen’s Yijing from Fu Xi’s Yijing .............................................."

Can anyone explain why paintings of Fu Xi show him as half human, half snake?

And does anyone think Fu Xi ever existed?

 

[svenrus]

My answer is no, but I've seen somewhere on the www someone proposing a similarity between the egyptian god Thoth and Fu Hsi. It sounded interesting I remember but also a bit out of reality.
But couldn't we likewise ask whether this egyptian god ever existed ? Could both Thoth and Fu Hsi be emblems of imagined originators of the knowledge obtained (having no sourches for whom it in reality might have been) back then ? Like having forgotten who invented the electric bulb (wasnt't it Thomas Edison ? woooo) calling "it / the god" Xyczstrrr or something... - if You follow me.

 

[svenrus]

My thought on the term mythical covers the meaning as well (being -) forgotten.
- and that because someones true identity being forgotten doesn't mean that he/she necessary is pure phantasy.
Anyway, interesting questions, MossElk ! (Turning on ones phantasy, hmmmm )

​

 

[Freedda]

And does anyone think Fu Xi ever existed?

And I am curious, are you asking this in a serious way, or ... are you being sarcastic, or .... something else?

I ask because it seems like an unanswerable question - an unknown - to me, much like asking if the Christian / Jewish God exists (or existed), or the Navajo's Changing Woman (Asdzą́ą́ Nádleehé), or Gitche Manitou (Great Spirit) of the Algonquian, or Kawa-kami Gozen (upriver princess) the Japanese goddess of papermaking, or Vishnu or Shiva, or .....

 

[moss elk]

I was asking seriously,
on account of Zhi Xi's reference to
'Fu Xi's version of the I Ching'.

I am comfortable with the answer being
'lost in antiquity'.

 

[Freedda]

I was asking seriously, on account of Zhi Xi's reference to
'Fu Xi's version of the I Ching' .... I am comfortable with the answer being 'lost in antiquity'.

Thanks. 'Lost in antiquity' pretty much describes anything that's happened in my life earlier than the day before yesterday!

 

[Gmulii]

Sometimes Fuxi Yi can just mean earlier heaven arrangement, while King Wen Yi can mean later heaven. : )

Was Fuxi real... I don't know, he has a tomb that people cherish even today, but it doesn't seem old enough to possibly been made when he died. Although it would also depend how accurate the dating is, they say the tomb is 3 thousand years old, if they mean "at least 3 thousand" then maybe... But if its around 3 then no way.

 

[svenrus]

44.2.4.
24.2.5.
8.2.4.
(more exceptions ?)

Maybe 1.1.5 but about that I'm not so sure as a Dragon is a Formchanger (can shift visibility and body)

 

[Freedda]

44.2.4.
24.2.5.
8.2.4.
(more exceptions ?)
Maybe 1.1.5 but about that I'm not so sure as a Dragon is a Formchanger (can shift visibility and body)

Sorry Svenrus, but I think I lost the 'thread' of why you're posting these? What do they mean? 'Exceptions' to what?

Best, d.

 

[my_key]

My answer is no, but I've seen somewhere on the www someone proposing a similarity between the egyptian god Thoth and Fu Hsi. It sounded interesting I remember but also a bit out of reality.
But couldn't we likewise ask whether this egyptian god ever existed ? Could both Thoth and Fu Hsi be emblems of imagined originators of the knowledge obtained (having no sourches for whom it in reality might have been) back then ? Like having forgotten who invented the electric bulb (wasnt't it Thomas Edison ? woooo) calling "it / the god" Xyczstrrr or something... - if You follow me.

Hi Svenrus
Jung would probably agree with you that "both Thoth and Fu Hsi be emblems of imagined originators" floating around in the collective unconscious. The similarities in their close positions to Ra and Pangu and the mythical* roles of Thoth and Ma'at and Fuxi and Nüwa as dual pillars guarding / enlightening / balancing the path of man in those early ancient times adds some credence to this viewpoint.

*Mythical = "forgotten" you said previously........ as in moving from the conscious realms to the unconscious realms?

 

[svenrus]

#48:
#1 This thread, the question: Does any one else use them ? (Chu Hsi's rules for determinating among multiple moving lines) followed by some instructions on how better to read all of the moving lines (as to example C.G. Jung did in his foreword to the Wilhelm/Baynes ed. of the I Ching) unto which I pointed out some exceptions that could raise question to this method (HeyLise also recomment this method). Suppose You ask for direction and got the answer: "Go right and go left" (equivalent to hex. 44.2.4), wouldn't You be confused ? More examples like this I tried to point out.
----
#49:
No, I just mean't that because many myths could be suspected to be utter phantasy that is not necessesarily allways the case; the origins of these myths been forgotten doesn't mean that they never existed....

 

[Freedda]

#48:
(HeyLise also recomment this method). Suppose You ask for direction and got the answer: "Go right and go left" (equivalent to hex. 44.2.4), wouldn't You be confused ? More examples like this I tried to point out.

Thanks for clarifying that Svenrus. What I read on LiSe's web site is:

For this same reason you don't skip lines of an answer

Every line you get is one thing you have to do. Don't skip any. If two lines contradict each other, then think or reality. If the toothbrush is broken and the toothpaste is excellent quality, is that a contradiction?

(No.)You get another brush but you still use this toothpaste. Same with the lines. You look at each line individually while reckoning with the meaning of the line-place.

.... one needs all the aspects. Some a bit more, another less, depending on the moment. ​

So, to me LiSe's advice is to not use Zhu Xi's rules, or any other method that would reduce the number of lines, or 'condense' the answer is some way. Harmen Mesker also talks about this, and recommends that we think of the lines as different points/steps in a process. And LiSe also talks about how these lines are different and representative of different aspects of the response.

For me, I look at them as I might look at travel directions:

'first you go right, then you walk 100 yards straight ahead, then you turn left ...' ​

And, if we were to get these directions would our response really be: 'gee, I'm confused, I'm being told to go right, left, and straight ahead ... and I just don't know what to do?!?!?' No, because these are steps at different points along the journey, not a mash-up of confusing or conflicting advice.

Best, D.

 

[Trojina]

Svenrus the link you have posted to Lise's 'method' isn't a method, she is giving reasons to use all the lines you get. I see David posted a quote.

 

[svenrus]

As all of the moving lines leads to the evolved/resulting hexagram so all of the moving lines playes a role, thats logic and I also found HeyLise's argumentation logic (right from the first time I visited her site several years ago and up to now) and I'm not into arguing against neither C.G. Jung, HeyLise, David, You Trojina or any of You here. To me the hexagram is a unit - a momentary whole (or a Sphere) wherein the medium used (coins to example) points out an eventual text to pay attention on. There are these steps from first to sixth line where it seems that an evolution of a situation grows up. And my point of wiev is that one of these steps sort of lights up when one or more lines are met with 6' and/or 9's. I will not deny that I can be wrong - and hopefully haven't beforehand here - but I don't think that there would have been contradictionary line-oracles if more (or non) than one line was meant to be taken into consideration in this oracle.
After all, I think that - call it a method or not - plenty of ways can be used to draw out an answer from it, using the advice of Chu Hsi, the NanKing-rule etc. etc. etc. or not.

 

[Freedda]

As all of the moving lines leads to the evolved/resulting hexagram so all of the moving lines play a role ... I'm not into arguing against neither C.G. Jung, HeyLise, David, You Trojina or any of You here.

Thanks. No argument from me about what you're saying!

It's just that I don't make use of the Zhu Xi's rules, and prefer instead to look at the lines - and the hexagrams, and the trigrams, and the .... (And of course others differ in their approaches or 'methods').

I often find themes within lines from the same hexagram, so I think one might 'condense' their meanings if they find that is fitting.

Also, even considering all the moving lines in a reading, it may be likely that one or a few of them 'light up' or stand out as being more important or timely to the reading. But I like to keep my 'approach' fluid and not reduce it to a rule. I just find too many possible meanings, approaches, suggestions, lessons, directions, images/imagery, correspondences, etc. in my readings to ever try to apply just one rule to them.

Best, David.