Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
Liquidity:... I find that when Yi considers things for me from a spiritual perspective, "no blame" is considered a higher and more important and superior outcome to "good fortune."
No blame is higher than good fortune,
because it one thing really we have power over. (our actions being free from serious error or fault) If you fail or succeed at something, if you've held honor, virtue or character as the highest, then succeed or fail, you will have done what is right.
But, I think it is important to note that
the two are not mutually exclusive.
Set the No Blame as maxim 1, and success as maxim 1.1
Liquidity, I'm not sure if you were responding to my post, asking if you'd share some examples, but if you were ... I guess I was wondering if you could share some specific readings - including your question, and the hexagrams and lines - where you got 'no blame' as a response to a query about your spiritual path.... when I cast readings about my spiritual path, especially ... over and over I've gotten "no blame"...
Liquidity, I'm not sure if you were responding to my post, asking if you'd share some examples, but if you were ... I guess I was wondering if you could share some specific readings - including your question, and the hexagrams and lines - where you got 'no blame' as a response to a query about your spiritual path.
Moss Elk seems to grok your meaning - I'm looking for specifics to help me respond more completely.
All the best, David.
no error/no blame = 无咎. Jiu 咎 refers to an external cause, something from outside, like a curse from the ancestors, or a another calamity. That is how 无咎 is normally read in old texts: 'no calamities (will occur)'.no error (...) no blame (...) remorse disappears
no error/no blame = æ—*å’Ž. Jiu å’Ž refers to an external cause, something from outside, like a curse from the ancestors, or a another calamity. That is how æ—*å’Ž is normally read in old texts: 'no calamities (will occur)'.
remorse disappears = 悔亡. This is an internal attitude or emotion: 'regret'.
no error/no blame = 无咎. Jiu 咎 refers to an external cause, something from outside, like a curse from the ancestors, or a another calamity. That is how 无咎 is normally read in old texts: 'no calamities (will occur)'.
remorse disappears = 悔亡. This is an internal attitude or emotion: 'regret'.
Maybe, but there are a two things to be noted here. First, the English word 'blame' does not 100% convey the original German word 'Makel' in Wilhelm's translation. Second, Wilhelm followed the Confucian commentaries that give an interpretation to 无咎 that differs from what it meant around 1000-800BC.Interesting! But the way it is used in Wilhelm-Baynes and elsewhere is that "no blame" seems to suggest that the way of acting is not blameworthy... but perhaps that is connected as well to the external?
Nowhere does the text talk about a mistake nor does it say that it has been corrected. The disappearance of remorse can have other reasons, like for instance you thought you had done something wrong and you regret the outcome, but later on you find out that the outcome is actually an improvement.Whereas "no remorse" I thought seemed to suggest that a mistake had been made but had been corrected, and thus, as you point out, there is ultimately no regret.
Liquidity, I'm wondering if you're mixing up a few things here. First, my translation of 45.1.5 has neither the words blame nor error in them, so I'd suggest that you need to be careful in clinging too much to one particular take on these words. I think however, that Harmen gives some good information here about the meanings.Hi David ... I'm facing certain real-world difficulties, and was wondering between the spiritual and the material how to respond to these ... Asking what would happen if I hewed absolutely and unconditionally to the spiritual and trusted the divine to take care of the material...this is the latest casting, which I think is appropriate:
45.1.5 Gathering Together > 51 Shock
Liquidity, I'm wondering if you're mixing up a few things here. First, my translation of 45.1.5 has neither the words blame nor error in them, so I'd suggest that you need to be careful in clinging too much to one particular take on these words. I think however, that Harmen gives some good information here about the meanings.
It makes sense that if you're asking about a spiritual issue, you'll get a spiritual answer, or at least one you can interpret that way. I don't think it's any more complicated than that.
I understand that this is your perception but it is mainly your interpretation and not a general rule that goes for everybody. nor do I think it is a foundational rule in the Yijing. And what to make of the Judgment of hexagram 7 where it says 貞丈人吉无咎? We have ji 吉 'good fortune' and wu jiu 无咎 'no blame' in one sentence.The point is the distinction between no blame and good fortune and the higher spiritual significance of the former, inner correctness being higher than good fortune.
I understand that this is your perception but it is mainly your interpretation and not a general rule that goes for everybody. nor do I think it is a foundational rule in the Yijing. And what to make of the Judgment of hexagram 7 where it says 貞丈人吉无咎? We have ji 吉 'good fortune' and wu jiu 无咎 'no blame' in one sentence.
What is also telling is that the Yijing hardly ever says 'you (will) have blame'. The only exception to this that I can find is H43.1 where it says 往不勝為咎: 'to go and not be victorius will lead to blame.' This tells something about how the ancient Chinese saw 咎: winners would not receive it but the other parties probably would.
Of course it is, but in your initial post you said:Also, I never said that "no blame" and "good fortune" are opposed. One can be inwardly correct AND fortunate; there is no contradiction in that, so the judgment in 7 is perfectly fine.
How are you going to make that distinction when both are mentioned in the same line? The Yi apparently does not do that. It is you who is doing that: you find 'no blame' more important than 'good fortune' . Which is fine of course but I don't think the Yi is telling you that.Over and over I find that when Yi considers things for me from a spiritual perspective, "no blame" is considered a higher and more important and superior outcome to "good fortune."
There is no 'blameless action' in 25.5 nor misfortune (无妄之疾。勿藥有喜。) so I don't see any 'blameless action bringing misfortune' there. There is also no blame, repent or misfortune mentioned in 39.2 (王臣蹇蹇。匪躬之故。).And certainly there are opposite examples of blameless action bringing misfortune, as in 25.5 or 39.2.
Hui 悔, 'repent' should not be equaled with jiu 咎, 'blame'. As I tried to describe earlier, they are two different concepts that do not necessarily have to be related. 'Blame' comes from outside, 'repent' from inside.Here are some examples where I find it, whether they use the word 'blame' or not, there is an implication of blame: 1.6 -- "Arrogant dragon will have cause to repent."
I think I understand what you are saying (I think, maybe ).The point is the distinction between no blame and good fortune and the higher spiritual significance of the former, inner correctness being higher than good fortune.
Of course it is, but in your initial post you said:
How are you going to make that distinction when both are mentioned in the same line? The Yi apparently does not do that. It is you who is doing that: you find 'no blame' more important than 'good fortune' . Which is fine of course but I don't think the Yi is telling you that.
There is no 'blameless action' in 25.5 nor misfortune (无妄之疾。勿藥有喜。) so I don't see any 'blameless action bringing misfortune' there. There is also no blame, repent or misfortune mentioned in 39.2 (王臣蹇蹇。匪躬之故。).
Well that may well be true. So who is your translator of choice?So it is all in the eye of the beholder. And apparently it also matters how the text is translated and who the reader is following.
I think I understand what you are saying (I think, maybe ).
My point is that any phrase, word, line, hexagram, trigram, image, judgement, interpretation, etc. can have spiritual significance, and none is more 'spiritual' than any other. And none is higher or lower, nor more spiritually correct than any other.
So, on the face of it, a casting or hexagram or trigram with the words (or associated with the words) 'blame' or 'error' is no more or less 'spiritual' - nor better or worse or has more 'inner correctness' - than the phrase 'good fortune.' Just like a dragon is not any better or worse than a pig, and a well is not better or worse than a melon wrapped in leaves, or nightfall better or worse than the sky, etc.
They all have their place, which is why they are where they are. You of course may see it differently.
Best, David.
I haven't had an experience of an underlying philosophy of the Yi. I suppose it may make sense, as the Yi might be representative of a specific time, culture and mindset, but not being a Yi or Chinese history scholar, I'm only guessing about that.... but that there is an underlying philosophy to Yi that is revealed as one does many castings over time. I am just giving the summary of my experience with those castings vis-à-vis the spiritual ...
This shows 1. it is in the eye of the beholder 2. how easy it is to read things in a translation that are not there 3. how important a good translation is. There is no mention of 'fault' in these texts, at least not in the Chinese original. In 39.2 the word that Wilhelm and others translate as 'fault' is gu 故 - 'cause, origin, affair, business'. If the tekst really wanted to say 'fault' it would have used another character.Legge's translation of 25.5 is "The fifth line, dynamic, shows one who is free from insincerity, and yet has fallen ill. Let him not use medicine, and he will have occasion for joy in his recovery."
Wilhelm: "Use no medicine in an illness incurred through no fault of your own. It will pass of itself."
Wilhelm 39.2: "The king's servant is beset by obstruction upon obstruction, but it is not his own fault."
Liu 39.2: "The king's officer meets many obstructions. It is not his fault."
Me.Well that may well be true. So who is your translator of choice?
And then there is Bradford Hatcher's take on 39.2: 'the sovereign's minister is set back and interrupted, but this is not one person's cause.'... There is no mention of 'fault' in these texts, at least not in the Chinese original ... the word that Wilhelm and others translate as 'fault' is gu 故 - 'cause, origin, affair, business'.
If you can accept that it will be a tentative translation I am willing to give it a try.PS - Harmen, any thoughts of an English translation by you?
Thanks Harmen! And how about:"The king's servant continuously admonishes him. He does not do this for himself (but out of loyalty)."
Yes, that is a good description of the trigrams and their workings. There is Fire in the hexagram; it is the upper nuclear trigram but it is surrounded by Earth: a passive attitude and a focus on feeding the present situation prevents Fire from manifesting itself. Without a goal and a clear direction the actual cause of the obstruction might remain hidden.Thanks Harmen! And how about:
39.2
Here we have obstruction. The rains have flooded the mountain passes; Mountain's stubbornness has slowed down the storm, making the Abyss even deeper and more impassable. And even though no one has caused this to happen - or, if they did, they had a very good reason for it - we still need to find a way forward, to "overcome what causes (this) obstruction."
Perhaps what we need here is Fire's light to provide clarity, it's warmth to dry things out a bit, and it's protective shell (two outer solid lines) to give use some 'shelter from the storm.' We may need to have bit of patience before we find a clear way forward, but once we know what it is, we should act without being to passive or too accepting of anything that might deter us.
... or something like that.
Best, David. :bows:
"The king's servant continuously admonishes him. He does not do this for himself (but out of loyalty)."
True. 'Servant' might not be the best translation for chen 臣; I readily accepted the most common meaning of this word that I knew without checking if there were better options. The 漢語大詞典 says that it also refers to government officials that served under a monarchy (君主制時代的官吏) so that might be a better fit here. I believe it also meant 'minister'.So the king's servant could admonish him ? It's just usually a servant cannot admonish a king without being fired. A minister I guess might advise but what is meant by a 'servant' here because in English a servant implies a fairly lowly position or at least not one in which one could presume to admonish a king. In English there is something incongruous about the sentence simply for the fact that servants do not admonish kings, unless you mean 'servant' in a very general sense like being a servant of the state. The 'servant' in this sentence brings to mind someone who is bringing his food and washing his clothes ?
And then there is Bradford Hatcher's take on 39.2: 'the sovereign's minister is set back and interrupted, but this is not one person's cause.'
"The king's servant continuously admonishes him. He does not do this for himself (but out of loyalty)."
Jianjian 蹇蹇: jian 蹇 is often used with the meaning of jian 謇 which means 'to speak out boldly', 'to admonish the king'. It is repeated here which implies a continuous non-stopping action. The Shanghai Museum manuscript has jiejie 訐訐, 'reprimand, rebuke' which shows that this idea of 'to speak boldly without reservation' is the meaning intended in this line (and not 'obstruction' or 'limping', 'impasse' etc.) "The king's servant(s) continuously admonish him.
I don't think that the minister is rejected here - ministers were allowed to critize the king if they substantiated their criticism with actual facts. An interesting book on how they did that is Facing the Monarc - Modes of Advice in the Early Chinese Court by Garret Olberding (ed.).There's quite different sense of what's happening although both seem to imply the minister is rejected though the word for rejected is not there.
Yes, well, maybe not. The 'continously' does not have to mean 'every day', it could also mean 'once a month' or during regular scheduled meetings. This line might speak of a minister who uses these moments to speak his mind.So it is an unusual situation where a minister continually admonishes a king.
The classical commentaries would say he does it for the king and his country.However your current translation sounds much more heroic. The minister is challenging, criticizing the king for the sake of those he speaks for ? Or maybe a higher truth, or may be he knows the king is a bit dim.
That is odd. Does this mean this line is not received as an answer very often?(It's interesting that there are absolutely no entries in our WikiWing for this line at all in an entire decade or thereabouts. Some lines have 5 entries or more this line has nothing)
I don't think that the minister is rejected here - ministers were allowed to critize the king if they substantiated their criticism with actual facts. An interesting book on how they did that is Facing the Monarc - Modes of Advice in the Early Chinese Court by Garret Olberding (ed.).
That is odd. Does this mean this line is not received as an answer very often?
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).