Several months ago whilst talking with an old friend, Neil, I realised that his commitment to his marriage had somewhat reduced. He and his wife were now sharing different friends and spending less and less time together. Neil had a friend, Paul, who had never hit it off with Angela, Neil’s wife, and was always leading Neil towards a single-man lifestyle. Paul was influencing Neil’s lifestyle choices more and more and I asked Neil if Paul was influencing him against Angela. Neil denied this vehemently and I accepted his answer but then he added that he and Paul never even discussed Angela and I immediately found this very, very difficult to believe. I did not want to interfere further so I simply withdrew from the issue. Months went by without change. I maintained my reservations regarding Paul’s involvement but then, following another conversation with Neil, I began to have doubts about my assumption. I decided to undertake the following reading:

Q: Should I accept that Neil is telling me the truth in that Paul did not influence him with regards to his relationship with Angela? 60,5>1

Wilhelm (5th Yang) Sweet limitation brings good fortune. Going brings esteem.
Lesser Image Text: The good fortune of sweet limitation comes from remaining central in one’s place.

An initial approach to this answer might be to consider which aspect of this situation is being limited. My intention had been to possibly limit Paul’s involvement in Neil and Angela’s relationship but I had withdrawn and applied limitation instead to myself in that I had restrained this intention and simply maintained a balanced position of centrality (as described in the Lesser Image Text) - aware of Paul’s likely involvement but taking no action in this regard. The biggest problem I faced lay in recognising this as an actual process of limitation - such had been its duration and acceptance within my outlook it had become “sweet” and was hardly seen as a form of restriction. This is a form of limitation that is not applied forcefully to others but is gently and smoothly integrated within oneself to the point where it commands respect without ever asking for respect, it is, as Bradford Hatcher describes, “good natured and easy to live with.”

So the I Ching was urging me to maintain my position of balanced reserve regarding Paul’s possible involvement but where did this leave me regarding Neil’s fading marriage? It left me in a position of having to accept a wider perspective. Yes, possibly any manipulative influence by Paul could eventually become self-evident to Neill, prompting him to take steps to save his marriage; or possibly it could prove to be correct and appropriate that Neil and his wife DO separate and follow their individual paths. I think this could well be a case of withholding help in order not to destroy the greater good.

Hi Peter2610
I know this is an old thread!
I found it this morning whilst looking up 60.5 threads.
I would love to know what happened here?

Looking the situation, curbing your desire to limit Pauls possible effects on the marriage allowed you to see a wider perspective on the situation?

Water (stream) over Lake changes to Earth over Lake, and this is like a shift in focus to the wider landscape that the stream (in need of regulation?) flows over.

I am interested to see how it worked out, because I am wondering if Neill kept someone like Paul, a confirmed bachelor, close because he had not let of of this part of himself, or phase of life yet?

Or, if Angela knew all about the kind of person Paul is, and just tolerated the friendship, or considered it a harmless outlet for Neill's masculine affiliation needs?

The need to limit your emotional flow towards the issue here I don't think meant "stop completely" however. I think it meant "calm down, regulate this, see the wider picture (including your own issues here)", but maintain a regulated stream; i.e. stay in connection and friendship with Neill.

Perhaps he also needed a man such as yourself in the background, who comes across as more mature than Paul, and supportive of his marraige? It seems to me that the casting is suggesting continued connection, and not to let go of the issue, to keep it to a minimum, but to be there for Neill, who obviously needs some mature male guidance in his life. Perhaps this was the wider perspective?
Maybe, to see that Paul, with his immaturity, is just an indicator that Neill had not let go of his 'frat boy' days fully, that Paul was just an indicator or signal that Neill needed some more mature males in his life?

I would read this from

'Sweet measures, good fortune.
Going on brings honour.'

Click to expand...

As in, once you had found your "sweet measure" in the situation, you could proceed, or move forwards with the friendship, and offering the support of a more thoughtful, mature male influence to Neill?

Did he turn to you later for advice? Or support in his marriage?

Please do update, I am interested to see how it played out
Em