...life can be translucent

Menu
Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 15

Thread: Multiple moving lines

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Apr 1970
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK
    Posts
    13,466
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)

    Default

    Hello all...

    I'm working on an article on how people can deal with multiple moving lines in a reading - especially when the lines 'contradict' one another. The question just keeps on coming up.

    You've probably noticed that my preference is to read all the lines, often as a sequence or as alternatives. But I know there are other methods (thanks to Felix for posting one of them here).

    What's your approach? Do you use a system to reduce the multiple lines to the most important? Or a divination method that can't give multiple lines? Or do you have your own way of integrating several lines?

    Please share your ideas!

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 1971
    Posts
    15
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Hi

    I'm new here and haven't had time to review the whole thread Re multiple moving lines so if these points have been made already I'll beg pardon.

    I think Haung has a good idea in approaching each individual line as founding a new hexagram. I would add that one could think of each line as an energy level. The more lines one takes into account the more energy it will take to change the situation described by the first hexagram into one described by the second. Further, each line is constitutes a potential circut which can take one to a different place. The more of these circuts one can open and follow at any given time the more energy will be used in the transformation.

    So a second hexagram formed by taking all lines into account can be thought of as the most complete possible transformation in a given situation. I tend to look at the hexagram formed by taking all moving lines into account. If one line in particular strikes me as really important I might look at the hexagram formed by taking only that line into account and looking at the situation discribed by that hexagram as either something I need to pass through or something to be carefull not to get cought in.

    I hope this all seems somewhat clear.
    It is wonderful to have peaople to throw these things around with

  3. #3
    hmesker Guest

    Default

    I would like to add to this a translation from Zhu Xi's 'Yi Xue Qi Meng', by Adler, where Zhu's rules are mentioned:

    Any hexagram may have all unchanging lines. In that case we prognosticate on the basis of the original hexagram's T'uan statement, taking the inner hexagram [I'm sure this must be 'trigram', but both words use the same character in Chinese HM] as 'chen' (the question, or present situation), and the outer hexagram [idem HM] as 'hui' (the prognostication).

    When only one line changes, we take the statement of the original hexagram's changing line as the prognostication.

    When two lines change, we take the statements of the two changing lines of the original hexagram as the prognostication, but we take the upper line (of the two) as ruler ['zhu' HM].

    When three lines change, the prognostication is the T'uan statement of the original hexagram and we use the original hexagram as 'chen' and the resulting hexagram as 'hui'. In the first ten hexagrams (of this sort) we make 'chen' the ruler; in the latter ten hexagrams we make 'hui' the ruler. [see my remark about this at the end HM]

    When four lines change, we use the two unchanging lines in the resulting hexagram as the prognostication. But we take the lower line as ruler.

    When five lines change, we use the unchanging line of the resulting hexagram as the prognostication. When six lines change, in the cases of Ch'ien and K'un, the prognostications of both are used. Fot other hexagrams, the prognostication is the T'uan statement of the resulting hexagram.
    (Adler, 'Yi Xue Qi Meng', p. 49-52)

    About three lines changing: "In the first ten hexagrams (of this sort) we make 'chen' the ruler; in the latter ten hexagrams we make 'hui' the ruler." This refers to the charts at the end of the YXQM, where 32 tables show how every hexagram can change into another; the hexagrams are sorted by the number of yin lines. There are twenty hexagrams with three yin lines, in every table these hexagrams are grouped together. The first ten hexagrams of this group are 'chen', the other ten hexagrams are 'hui'. If you don't have these tables this rule is useless.

    Adler had his YXQM translation online, but recently it is published as a book and he took his translation from his site. The book also has the Chinese original.

    Harmen.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Oct 1971
    Posts
    132
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Hi Harmen, thanks for this!!! Ontop of the unresolved conflict depicted in some single lines, the addition of multiple changing lines presents me with furthur juxtapositions to crack, and many times confounds a clear insight. (evident in other discussions in this community.) Being in the fog of a conundrum can be worthwhile, makes for long contemplations and ripe fruit when it is ripe, but many times long after the stream has passed. Still. would like to keep my fingers out of the electric socket SOMEtimes. ha ha. you know, how long must one stay in the dark??

    So, I found this very helpful, and gave some interesting insights into my recent multiple throwings. Particularly, seems to be with 4 lines, so far. Seems like an appropriate time to relook at this thread.

    THANKS!!!!

  5. #5
    hmesker Guest

    Default

    I always keep a simple rule: the more moving lines, the more serious your situation is out of balance. And if you, or your situation, is out of balance, you need to stand still and contemplate. With three or more moving lines you can't think 'Oh well, it's nothing'. All the moving lines are hints to the imbalanced aspects of your situation, every moving line points at a different aspect. That's why lines can contradict: they don't point at the same aspect.

    So, how can you determine the aspect af a line? The division of Heaven, Man and Earth in a hexagram can help.

    Heaven is thoughts, ghosts, the un-seen
    Man is relationships, the others
    Earth is matter, money, the physical stuff

    Try this (the numbers refer to the lines in a hexagram):

    6. Heaven (yang) -> How you think about Heaven
    5. Heaven (yin) -> How you (re-)act to Heaven

    4. Man (yang) -> How you think about Man
    3. Man (yin) -> How you (re-)act to Man

    2. Earth (yang) -> How you think about Earth
    1. Earth (yin) -> How you (re-)act to Earth

    Or something like this, there is no fixed rule for the meaning of the lines. It is even better to define (or divine) your own meaning of Heaven, Man and Earth.

    I hope this helps a bit.

    Harmen.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 1971
    Posts
    1,115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Hi Hilary
    Transitional hexagrams has been my method of choice for multiple changing lines since 1976. I actually thought I'd invented it until leaning that Mondo Secter and a less known author, Bruce Hammerslough, had figured it out that same year. I've yet to hear of a Chinese discoverer, but there are thousands of books I haven't read in Chinese. There is an alternate description of the method and an example in my Intro under Methods of Divination.
    I like it because it takes the path in steps, between hexagrams only one line apart. Further, I have the theory that each of the line texts was written with the resultant hexagram (zhi gua) and its corresponding line text (fan yao) in mind. This method stays closer to those two dimensions, and so the changes, especially the last one, seem more logical to me.
    brad

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Apr 1970
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK
    Posts
    13,466
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)

    Default

    You mean, three people came up with this idea 'independently' in the same year? Good stuff...

    (I was too busy studying Peter Rabbit at the time )

    How would you compare this 'transitional' method with the non-cumulative one, taking the zhi gua for each line of the original hexagram in turn? Ie with 1 changing to 28, looking at 1,1, 44 (and 44,1), 1,6, 43 (and 43,6) and 28?

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Nov 1971
    Posts
    1,115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Hi Hilary
    I'll bet you were one of Peter Rabbit's best little students.
    I'm inclined to agree with Gary Bastoky's assessment on this and change them completely one at a time as steps in a process, but now that you mention it, it might be a good project for some thoroughgoing empiricist such as yourself to keep a log and compare them in retrospect. I'm too theoretical to do this and don't read for many other people anymore.
    BTW, for folks interested in Mondo Secter's work, his "The I Ching Handbook: Decision-Making With and Without Divination" is a redo of his older book with about 20 pages of good new material. Also, he just sent me his recent dissertation "The Architectonics of Culture: A Critique, Modification, and Extension of Hofstede?s Model of Societal Culture Based on the I Ching, Book of Change." I can't just publish his Email address but interested people can contact me for this through my website.

    brad

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Nov 1971
    Posts
    1,115
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)

    Default

    Ooops
    Forgot to mention the main reason why I'd prefer transitioning through changed hexagrams over the "non-cumulative" method- I'd rather deal with the extra complexity here than with the outright contradiction that different lines within a single hexagram often have.
    b

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Apr 1970
    Location
    Oxfordshire, UK
    Posts
    13,466
    Mentioned
    96 Post(s)

    Default

    First he ate some lettuces, and then he ate some French beans, and then he ate some radishes. And then, feeling rather sick, he went to look for some parsley.

    But, round the end of a cucumber frame, whom should he meet but Mr MacGregor!

    Mr MacGregor was on his hands and knees planting out young cabbages. But he jumped up when he saw Peter, and ran after him waving a rake and shouting,
    "Stop thief! Stop thief!"
    <CENTER>&#42;&#42;&#42;</CENTER>
    Ahem, er, right, sorry, where were we? &#40;Yes, I do know it by heart.&#41; Ah yes - no architectonics &#40;?!&#41; or Hofstede in Beatrix Potter, so I&#39;m a little lost here. But would certainly love to be put in touch with Mondo and see if I can understand any of his dissertation.

    As for contradictions - I&#39;ve always enjoyed them as choices or perspective or action, precisely because they have close thematic &#40;and familial&#41; links that lines from disparate hexagrams generally lack. But a few times of late I&#39;ve found that looking more closely, there is actually a smooth unfolding of &#39;argument&#39;, almost as if three lines were just one long line, and no contradiction at all.

    But then, I&#39;ve never really tried &#39;transitioning&#39; at all. I can hardly experiment on the people I read for, but will try to become my own guinea pig.

    Lettuce, anyone?

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom

Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).