Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).
hilary said:Thanks for mentioning the Nanjing rules in your recent post - now I understand at least some of where you're coming from. But of course, most people will still be at a loss - so please could you put a link in your signature to an explanation of whatever method/s you are using? If there isn't a good enough explanation online for you to link to, please write us one in 'Exploring Divination'.
and I just wanted to follow up on that. I assume you mean the Shuogua and its descriptions of trigrams. Let me gather together all the attributes given for dui...5 elements are in the Wings as qualities assigned separately to the trigrams. It is not there as a system.
The author is of the opinion that the Five Processes are the ground of all creations and also of human relationships. The five measures (wudu 五度) of Heaven are to be seen in the movements of the celestial bodies, the "five elements" (wucai 五材) of the Earth in the richness of is sources, and the five virtues (wude 五德) of man in the expressions of virtues.
The change of the phases is described as different cycles, namely the productive cycle (sheng 生) or victorious (sheng 勝) and the destructive cycle (ke 克).
I don't really see where you're going with this. We have 64 hexagrams, each with 6 lines because that's what this particular divination system is built upon. We might have systems with 4 elements or based on 16 lines in the sand, or the 20 message we find with the Magic 8 Ball, etc. etc.Why do we for example have only 6 lines, why not 8 lines, what is the significance of 6. How do we even begin to combine the symbolism of 5,6 and 8 and the principles of Yin and Yang together.The total number of hexegrams is just it seems a minimalistic way of describing the "myriad things".
I claim no authority here, but some people feel that the '5 elements' work very well with acupuncture, as one practioner says,Despite what some may try to claim Chinese Medicine works so much better when 5 element "theory" is dropped. Chinese Medicine works, the I Ching works, why do we even need to try to overlay theories that can be shown to be historically derived and dont even mathematically fit.
The combination of Five Elements & Yijing might be older than you think: the Shifa manuscript, dated around 350BC uses the FE combined with the trigrams and there are hints in the manuscript that this combination was used for medical purposes, among other topics. Whatever the origin and original purpose of this combination (the way it is described in the Shifa manuscript corresponds to our current usage of FE & Yijing in for instance Wenwanggua), it was seen as a valid way of using the Yijing for more than 2300 years.We must remember the history of how 5 even became a significant denominator and so compared to the Yi it is a relatively modern contrivance .
(...)
Can anyone attemot to postulate a theory as to why 5 elements are even significant to the Yi.
Actually, if you look at the top of this forum it reads: Forum: Exploring Divination - For discussion of all kinds of divination (not just the I Ching). So, it seems most any divination system is fair game in this forum.I thought the purpose of the forum was to discuss these rather basic questions relating to the IChing. There are a myriad of divination methods we could all spend considerable time quoting ....
I am not sure if you are referring here to my quotes, above, about the 5 elements and the Yi being used in acupuncture and Chinese medicine, but if you are ...I cannot see the point of quoting other methodologies.
Again, you may want to see Harmen's comments, above.We must remember ... how 5 even became ... significant ... and ... compared to the Yi it is a relatively modern contrivance.
Yes, some may agree here, but I don't know enough about the five elements - and how they are used - to know how meaningful they are for me in using the Yi (at least right now).The discussion I raised is not whether 64 has any validity, .... But, ... can anyone explain how we 5 divide into 64, or 8. Can anyone attempt to postulate a theory as to why 5 elements are even significant to the Yi?
Jukkodave, a few responses to what you said:
Actually, if you look at the top of this forum it reads: Forum: Exploring Divination - For discussion of all kinds of divination (not just the I Ching). So, it seems most any divination system is fair game in this forum.
Point made Freedda, I came to the forum only seeing the confinement to the heading "5 element", apologies for my ignorance.
I am not sure if you are referring here to my quotes, above, about the 5 elements and the Yi being used in acupuncture and Chinese medicine, but if you are ...
The point I was making was that even though some people think the five elements are not a good fit with the Yi (but see also Harmen's comments on this), there are places were different systems work with each other - for example, the Yi and five elements being combined with acupuncture. And this was also in response to your comment that: 'Chinese Medicine works so much better when 5 element "theory" is dropped', so I was showing that this is not everyone's opinion about 5M and Chinese medicine.
My reference to Chinese Medicine was from personal and practical experience. As any "theory" has to be testable and validatable by the reality of if it works or not, those that have experience of both 5 element Acupuncture and "non" 5 element can testify the 5 element "theory" does not give an improved treatment outcome. As it is known from extensive research that any sort of "needling" produces results of some sort it is not surprising that 5 element practitioners get results and so consider that method "works" but the research shows, apart from other important factors, that the more specific the needling the better the outcome and the differential in outcomes is clearly shown to favour the non 5 element approach. Beofre I knew of any of the research that was my definite experience and the reason why the exploration of where 5 elements comes from and it application has been a recurring enquiry for the last 35+ years
Also, whether or not one feels that the Yi and 5E work together, the significance of five (as a number or scale) is ancient, perhaps as old as or older than the Yi. We have the five elements of the ancient Greeks; the pentacle, a five-pointed start; the five wounds of Jesus on the cross; the five pebbles which made it possible for David to kill the giant Goliath; the five points or directions on a Mandala; the five faces of the god Shiva .... and so on.
Of course one can relate many examples of 5, but does that vlaidate them as relevant just because they have been used historically. It would hardly seem to be a surprise that the human mind in its desire to classufy everything it sees uses one of the most basic ways of defining the world- mathematics. But to respond to your specifics: As far as I am aware Greek 5 elements was an Aristolian construction that involved the aether, that which contains everything, so not really an "equal" breakdown of elements; the pentacle and star are one part of the harmonic results that result in Chinese Medicine, Astrology, the manifestations of 12, the mandala is simply 4 elements with the 5th at the centre and so not something that can be used in the manner that 5 elements/ phases has developed into; 5 faces of Shiva is the same principle as Aristotle and as the ether is really the central part that gives the 5th element again not the same as what has become 5 element theory. I dont know where the significance of 5 comes from in the Bible but we must remember that there are all sorts of mathematical constructs that are possible simply because that is the way methematics works and I would suggest that one could just as easily find the number 7 to have historical reference. In fact because we use the particular base of 10 we end up with certain patterns that only have significance to that base, only when we get down to the fundamental "bases"do we find consistency. The Tao te Ching says everything above 3 are the "myriad things", analysis of mathematical bases would suggest a similar thing and most of the "patterns that we see are a result of the use of a particular base and number line theory. I agree 5 has become symbolic all over the world, but would suggest that the reasons are a desire for individuals to "rise above" the realities of 4 elements, an attempt to explaint the innate knowledge that everything is connected and so there must be an ether of some sort, a lot of evidence from Quantum Physics and Enstein quotes to support that possibility, and the "harmonics" that result in the manifestations of 12, a common number used to represent both the human and the world we live in, but 12 is yet anothe number that does not have 5 as a factor.
Yes, some may agree here, but I don't know enough about the five elements - and how they are used - to know how meaningful they are for me in using the Yi (at least right now).
My hope was that someone that did know about the 5 elements would have some ideas as to how 5 elements was significant for the Yi, or for anything else for that matter, but all responses are welcome and it is refreshing to have discussion with such well educated and knoowledgeable folk.
But I'd say that I would not base the significance of one system to another (say the five elements as related to the Yi), solely on whether or not the numbers of one divide evenly into the other (e.g. 5 into 64 versus 8 into 64). I'd more rely on whether or not they were meaningful or helpful.
I would suggest that the "patterns" that are demonstrated in any representation of life are entirely dependent on their divisibility as otherwise there is no pattern and the framework that is required by the human brain to comprehend the world is simply not present, there is no coherence and one just as well pick a number at random to represent significance.
By way of example: Some see the received order of the hexagrams in the Zhouyi as being divided into two unequal parts: the first part containing 30 hexagrams and the second containing 34, neither of which are evenly divided by 8. So does this mean that number or scale of 8 is not significant to the Yi - in the same way that 5 isn't?
But why would anyone break the pattern of thehexagrams in this way, although I would not dispute that analysis in this way gives potential insight into what the hexegrams are informing us and so should not be dismissed, this kind of analysis is not the same as referencing the basics of 8 trigrams, of Yin and Yang. Let us look at the facts of what a trigram is, a collection of Yin and Yang lines, Herein lies the biggest dilemma, how do we get from Yin and Yang to 5, one can see a progression 2,4,8, but why are 6 lines significant, we have to understand that forst to comprehend how we arrived at 64 hexegrams. If 5 was that significant why did we not end up with 5 lines and just32 hexagrams.
And as another example: in his Yi, Bradford Hatcher offers 'correspondences' between the Yi and other 'hermetic' systems, and he, 'gives cross-references to three other systems from the West and Middle-East: the Qabalah, Tarot and Astrology' .... and, 'I am not meaning to imply any historical or metaphysical connection here, merely simple linguistic parallels, which perhaps derived from common elements in the human lebenswelt' (def. a universe of what is self-evident or given: a world that subjects may experience together). So, here you have three other hermetic (divination/knowledge) systems that may not evenly or exactly fit with the Yi, but which have some parallels.
I shall have to read what Bradford has to say, thank you for the reference. Which parts of his volumious works should I be reading.
Although it is always refreshing to get different views from what I know of all of those would not suggest any great significance relating to the Yi, unless one breaks it down to fundamental bases, but while one can derive some inforamtion that might be relevant to the IChing, from its basic construct of Yin and Yang, yet again it still remains difficult to see from the Qabalah, Tarot or Astrology how 5 has the significance that seems to have developed and some seem inclined to try to super impose upon other frameworks.
And as far as fitting five elements into the Yi - well, you have 450 Oracle and line statements in the Yi's 64 hexagrams (7 x 64 + the 2 extra lines from Hex 1 and 2), and 5 divided into 450 equals 90. So, you can now assign each one of the five elements to a group of 90 oracle statements ... a fine fit it seems to me!
That is a very interesting concept, a new one to me I have to confess, where do you get "7" x 64 from. I can see 6 x 64 plus the two extra lines, assuming that we consider the "extra" lines from Hexegrams 1 and 2 as anything other than just a reminder that everything stems from Yin and Yang, They are surely not to be considered actual real lines, only an interpratational concept suggesting nothing than we are dealing with Yin and Yang, and so while I cannot immediately see where 7 comes from, though I look forward to your explanations with much interest, I wouldnt consider that the "extra" lines from Hexagram 1 and 2 are real anyway, but are commentaries and so have no place in any coherent framework, and that would result in 448 and not 450, and so still wouldnt result in any factors of 5. We must bear in mind that if we elaborate and expand enough we could derive almost any factors we cared to imagine. But my question is pointed very firmly in the opposite direction, one of simplification, one of reduction to the bases, which enable the elaboration and explanation to happen in the first place. I do look forward to your reasoning on where the 450 comes from.
What a fantastic forum, intelligent knowledgeable people that actually want to discuss things and not just throw unargued concepts.
Dave
Dave, if this is really the bottom line for you of what you want to know, than I can't really help at all. I know next to nothing about the 5 elements, and really nothing about their history or use.My hope was that someone that did know about the 5 elements would have some ideas as to how 5 elements was significant for the Yi, or for anything else for that matter, but all responses are welcome ....
I don't quite know how to say this, but it seems to me that it is important to you that the Yi fits into a particular 'pattern' of divisibility - some way that all these parts add up, or can be divided into each other equally, or something along those lines.I would suggest that the "patterns" that are demonstrated in any representation of life are entirely dependent on their divisibility as otherwise there is no pattern and the framework that is required by the human brain to comprehend the world is simply not present, there is no coherence ....
Dave, some references:Could you point me in the direction of what Bradford has to say on the subject. Could you post a link that details how you arrived at the concept of 450. Please forgive my ignorance but I dont get how 450 might be derived. All the best , Dave
You might also want to check out Harmen Mesker's current and older web sites as well.Freedda, thanks for the references. I shall enjoy reading Bradfords works.
It seems people are of varied opinions on this: you say it doesn't work - and doesn't work with Chinese medicine either - and others, including Harmen Mesker, say it does work. As I said, I don't know enough - or really care enough right now - to say yea or nay, and I don't need any convincing one way or the other.5E theory ... simply does not work and so does not fit into any system and certainly one that is based upon 2, such as the Yi.
As I said in my post, above, the 450 are the number of Oracle statements, not just the number of lines. And there are 450 of them, that is just a fact. And I also said, 'I would suggest that you not get too hot and bothered over this,' since it was just something I conjured up, and is not to be taken seriously.Sorry, but I just don't get the 450 concept.
Clarity,
Office 17622,
PO Box 6945,
London.
W1A 6US
United Kingdom
Phone/ Voicemail:
+44 (0)20 3287 3053 (UK)
+1 (561) 459-4758 (US).