Harmen

6 hours ago, wandelaar said:

Before I knew anything about it I thought the I Ching was literally thrown like Mikado sticks and the pattern of the fallen sticks was then studied and interpreted. At some sites the I Ching is explained that way. Has this any basis in historical facts?

No.

26 minutes ago, OldDog said:

Still, I have always wondered how the word "throwing" entered the lexicon. Is it a modern invention? Is there any basis in translation from original older sources for such a word? Perhaps there term derives from use of coins or other devices.

 

Yes, it comes from the throwing of the coins but it seems to be a word that is only used in the West. Chinese texts often talk about yaochu 搖出, which literally means 'shake and go out'. 

37 minutes ago, OldDog said:

Does this suggest that the yarrow stalks (plants) method has primacy over other methods, coins for example?

The coin method was looked upon with disdain by the Confucian elite because it was mainly used by Daoist mediums, shamans and fortune tellers who represented everything the Confucians disapproved of, so they favoured the yarrow stalks even though for a long time they did not know how to use them and therefore focused on a more philosophical use of the book. In The Old Days yarrow was used alongside the oracle bone method, and there are known cases where the bone was consulted first and since its answer was not decisive the yeaaor was consulted. For more about this see my article The Yijing as oracle bone’s sidekick – a study of ‘heng’ 亨 https://www.yjcn.nl/wp/the-yijing-as-oracle-bones-sidekick-a-study-of-heng-亨/ 

On 2-7-2018 at 8:18 AM, Taoist Texts said:

https://m.91ddcc.com/t/8426

 

list of hexas vs anatomy

 

 

 

 

If I read this correctly it is not so much about hexagrams but about trigrams.

The question that OP started the thread with refers to a 'daoist perspective.' I wonder if a medical perspective (TCM) would not be a better approach. I have a few books on TCM & Yijing. I'll see if I can find something in them that answers OP's question. Might take some time though.

Answer from Ed:

Hi Harmen,

Yes, I think it must be an error. The only place in the divination where "four or less" is appropriately mentioned is in the sentence: "The left heap is counted through by fours, and the remainder (four or less) is inserted between the ring finger and the middle finger."

I believe that if one could count through the left heap by four or less, the probabilities of obtain the four different kinds of lines would vary considerably.

I do not remember the source I used. It was a long time ago. I have no idea how that error occurred. I think it is best to trust only the descriptions of the divination given by sinologists, like Wilhelm and Shaughnessy. My description was obviously incorrectly copied.

My best regards,

Ed

11 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Yes - I like to know. It would be highly relevant to this topic and his calculation of the probabilities.

I have sent him an email. If he replies I'll let you know.

27 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

@ Harmen

 

The pdf was an interesting read, but I'm afraid it didn't answer my question. Let me quote from Google Books:

 

 

See the part in the red box drawn by me. That's where the procedure deviated from the way I have seen the I Ching thrown on YouTube. Why are the stalks on the right pile not counted by fours until one, two, three, or four stalks remain?

Ah yes, I see. This does not correspond to his description in Ch. 10 and yet in Ch. 10 he says that Method B is used in Ch. 9. Especially the first sentence, 'From the right pile take a number of stalks, but no more than four' is ominous - this does not at all correspond with either the traditional method or Method B from Ch. 10. It implies you can also take less than 4 stalks which is not correct.

If you want I can ask Ed if this is an error.

3 hours ago, wandelaar said:

 

I took a look at the calculations of Hacker (chapter 9) just now but they seem to based on an uncommon variant of the yarrow stalk method. Is that so, and why is that? What do you think about it?

In Chapter 10 Hacker gives two versions for the yarrow stalk method. He says,

"Yarrow-Stalk Methods. Versions A and B are both based on Chapter 9 of the Great Treatise (Ta Chuan), one of the Ten Wings of the I Ching. These two versions are mathematically equivalent; use of one over the other is a matter of preference alone. 

1A. Yarrow-Stalk Method: Version A. This method is described in Greg Whincup's book and in a paper by Koon-Loon Leung. Whincup says that it is a reinterpretation of the traditional method described in other translations ([A] Whincup, p. 227)- Leung says that this method is "the way practised in ancient China" (Leung, p. 244)."

Whincup = Rediscovering the I Ching. Leung = "An Algebraic Truth in Divination." Journal of Chinese Philosophy 9:2 (June 1982): 243-58. 

At version B he says, "This method was also explained in Chapter 9." This is also the method that Wilhelm describes. I don't really see why you call it 'an uncommon variant.' What differences do you see with the traditional method?

AN ALGEBRAIC TRUTH IN DIVINATION - Leung.pdf

Does this correspond to the tables that Edward Hacker gives in his I Ching Handbook? If you don't have this book I can scan the pages if you want. I remember Wandelaar referred to these pages somewhere else with a link to Amazon.

https://www.yjcn.nl/wp/the-oldest-source-for-the-coin-method/

On 23-6-2018 at 2:41 PM, OldDog said:

 

I see. This is very helpful in understanding the significance of moving lines. Can you point to older commentaries where the relationship of dong and bian are discussed? I would like to explore this idea further.

The Dazhuan might be a good start I think. For know I can't think of another title. Let me get back on that.

2 hours ago, OldDog said:

Wouldn't it make more sense to say instability in anticipation of impending change? And, if so, in the case of thunder, would agression always be the reaction?  Wouldn't the influence of the transformed trigram begin to express itself? Or, is there a tendency to resist the change and in Thunder's case it expresses as aggression?

These are good suggestions that can work very well in personal readings, so I'd say if you find the idea of changing trigrams interesting you can try to find out what this change means to you - you don't have to assign one principle to it. It can be very valuable to explore your own view of the trigrams and their changes, and I think this is more important than how I use it. 

The old commentaries  speak of 'movement' (dong 動) and that movement leads to 'change' (bian 變). Before the change there is movement. If we apply this to changing trigrams it means that something is affecting the trigram which leads its change. But as said, in the application of this the two trigrams were seen as a unity and not simply as 'one trigram changing into another'. 

No doubt there are several ways to apply all this, and investigating these can be very rewarding.

13 minutes ago, Apech said:

 

 

Wang Bi in his Zhouyi lueli seems to see the hexagram as a whole which sums the Yijing's response to the question.  So the sources which you call 'the oldest examples' pre-date him presumably - is that right?

 

 

Yes  Another interesting aspect of Wang Bi's book is that in his introduction (or appendix, depending on which format you have), in the 明爻通變 chapter, he does not talk about 'changing lines that change to make a new hexagram'. He only talks about change within a hexagram. It seems as if the concept of H1 --> H2 originated quite late in Yi history.

29 minutes ago, OldDog said:

Very good video. Thank you.

 

One of the key ideas I gained through the Zuo Zhuan examples is to look at changing lines as working through the trigrams; ie, one trigram transforming into another. I think this is very important. I believe you touched on this in the video when you discussed the forward/backward relationship of trigrams needing to be considered together. I would like to hear you elaborate on this, perhaps in some future video. 

Yes, this is definitely something I will touch upon in a future video, actually I am considering to make it the subject of the next video. I have developed my own way of dealing with moving lines & trigrams though, a way that does not entirely correspond to 'the old way' but is more an expansion of it. To me moving lines make a trigram unbalanced, it will show itself in a more exaggerated  way. Earth that is unbalanced will become passive, submissive, meek; Thunder unbalanced will become aggressive and not consider consequences, etc. To restore the imbalance you need the trigram that it changes into: Thunder with the first line moving needs Earth to regain balance, Mountain with the 2nd and 3rd line moving needs Water etc. Every combination of moving lines in a trigrams results in a different trigram that is needed to regain the balance. I am fully aware that this is not how the early diviners did it but at least it let's the changing and changed trigrams cooperate - just as we see in the Zuozhuan examples.

Quote

Also, I would like to hear your views on the significance of internal or nuclear trigrams. What is their proper role in interpretation ... or should they be considered at all?

I see nuclear trigrams as a secondary layer that can be used when more information is required. But I always consider them in relation to the baoti 包體, the trigram that 'envelops' the nuclear trigram (of 2, 3 and 4 are the lower nt then 1, 5 and 6 make the baoti). This gives you information what aspect in your situation is blocked. For instance, nt Lake might be blocked by baoti Heaven - this might indicate something like "you have trouble enjoying life because thoughts, ratio and yang in general are blocking your feelings of happiness." I think nuclear trigrams are a much later development but that does not mean I discard them. I find them quite useful in certain contexts. If I have trouble starting something new and I consult the Yi which gives me a hexagram with trigram Thunder ('a new beginning') as a nt then it becomes especially useful to see how it is blocked.

Quote

I think there may be a tendency to view your focus on trigrams as an alternative to considering the resultant hexagram as a whole in an interpretation. I don't believe this is what you intended. It seems to me that looking at the composition of an initial hexagram through the lens of the trigrams - upper/lower but also nuclear - should then be brought together (confirmed?) In the resulting hexagram as a whole. If this is the case, perhaps this could be demonstrated in future videos where you walk through the analysis of a particular consultation.

When I look at the oldest examples I don't see much references to the resulting hexagram as a whole, I mainly see references to its trigrams. That doesn't mean that the second hexagram was not given meaning, but I don't think this meaning was considered equal important as the initial hexagram. In my own readings I hardly look at the second hexagram. This makes the reading easier because often the two hexagrams give mixed messages and by focusing on the initial hexagram I don't need to be bothered by that.  

9 minutes ago, Apech said:

Very nice video - and don't worry about your accent

 

I have read in several places (but I would have to look up references if you want them) that the hexagrams came first (presumably from the method of the yarrow stalks) and the trigrams came later as a method of interpretation or perhaps to fit with the metaphysics of the number and symbol (?) interpretation.  But you seem to be saying that the trigrams were the original basis.  Is that right?

Yes. I know of two authors who postulated that the hexagrams came first and the trigrams later: Steve Moore in The Trigrams of Han and Cyrille Javary in ... I don't know because I don't read French but this is what I remember from a conversation with someone who had read Javary's books. They both suggested that the trigrams were 'invented'  during the Han dynasty. But the archaeological excavations show us that the trigrams were already in use before the Han dynasty. These example also show us that hexagrams were (almost) always divided in trigrams, which shows that they did not really come after the hexagrams. This is the subject of my first video, in case you haven't seen it 

I hate my accent and my pronunciation is terrible but that does not keep me from making videos 

4 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

 

Correct.   I wouldn't say "Laozi + Zhuangzi = daoism" but rather: Just Laozi + Zhuangzi = also a form of daoism.

Further see:

 

Thanks for the clarification. The Yijing is not a book that is part of the foundation of daoism and with respect to that I agree with you that daoism in its earliest form can easily do without it. That goes for humanity as well. We don't need the Yi. Nevertheless there are times when it is a welcome tool.

About that thread you mentioned: it seems to me that some users of the book have expectations of what the Yijing should do or tell; expectations that do not correspond with its original usage and content. The Zhouyi itself does not talk about change or any inherent philosophy. It is best to read this core text without any commentary and let the Yi speak for itself. Originally it was a book of divination and nothing else.

11 hours ago, Lost in Translation said:

I look forward to it! I also enjoyed the video on the dice. Google translate is a bit kludge but it does well enough. It took me a while to figure out how to coerce 8 trigrams into a 6 sided die, the I realized thunder=mountain and wind=lake - duh!

Yep, that is how it works. 

12 hours ago, wandelaar said:

@ zafrogzen

 

Taoism doesn't need the I Ching. Lao tzu and Chuang tzu don't recommend it.

Laozi + Zhuangzi = daoism? I think the compilers of the various Daozang 道藏 editions would not agree. There is more to daoism than Laozi & Zhuangzi.

34 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

Excellent video! Nice job! This was a pleasure to watch. I very much enjoyed the portion on the trigrams. You explained the characteristics of and relationships between the trigrams very well. Thank you!

Thank you, that is very kind of you. The next video will discuss a few early examples of Yi divination from the Zuozhuan and Guoyu and explains some of the awkward trigram associations from the Shuogua (why all these horses at Qian, why is Dui associated with 'broken' etc.

2 minutes ago, Lost in Translation said:

Yes. Does that place a caveat on the results?

No. It is just that I am not good at it 

38 minutes ago, wandelaar said:

Michael Sternbach already gave the following example: "receiving hexagram 4 (Youthful Folly) so many times that I soon stopped trying".

See:

 

However he writes:

 

But why is that?

Michael received H4 when he asked the same question several times. Is that also how you want to test for patterns? Ask the same question multiple times?

I think you want to see if the answers of the Yi (and their quality) can be scientifically tested, and if patterns emerge during its consultations? Patterns that can be objectively measured? I have attached a few articles by Lance Storm who conducted similar studies. I can find more if you are interested. The Yijing has been tested during several parapsychological investigations.

I_Ching_Storm_2009.pdf

I_Ching_Storm_2008.pdf

para-ac07_Storm_2003a.pdf

para-ac07_Storm_2003b.pdf

Storm_2002.pdf

Can you define what kind of 'patterns' you are referring to?

" Future events..." Is this an attempt to predict the future?

The way you turn the yarrow numbers from each line into trigrams was first described by Zhang Li 張理 in his Yixiang Tushuo Neipian 易象圖說外篇 (1364) and I mention it in my Dutch book De I Tjing stap voor stap. But it never occurred to me that you can combine these trigrams to hexagrams and link them to the sancai 三才. That's just......brilliant. 

5 minutes ago, Michael Sternbach said:

 

 

Rereading OldDog's post, I don't think he meant that the Yijing could give replies that are totally off the mark. However, as I experienced myself on some occasions, the answer may address important aspects of the situation at hand quite beyond what has been specifically asked. That's why I like the suggestion above not to ask particular questions in the first place, but rather let the Yijing comment on a given topic as it will.

Ah yes, I see what you mean. His post triggered one of my pet subjects, hence the way I responded.

15 minutes ago, OldDog said:

 

Someone had suggested that the oracle may not answer the question posed ... but the answer would be to a different form of the question or a related questiin ... as if the oracle was sensitive to and responding to the situation rather than the question posed.

 

Does that make sense? Is it a fair way of looking at unexpected results?

Not in my book, no. I have read this in numerous Western books about the Yi and I find it a really misleading and dangerous statement that is completely alien to the ancient Chinese. If the Yi would not answer the situation that was addressed to it the book would already been burned a long time ago. Oracles are meant to answer your question, that is what they do. Al these kind of stupid rules like "you have to concentrate", "you have to phrase your question carefully", "you should not be disturbed during the process" are Western inventions that are very convenient fire exits in the case you don't like or understand the answer: "Hexagram 29, 6th line moving? Yikes! But wait! I didn't really focus on my question that was clumsy phrased anyway so I'd better consult the Yi again." Or "Hexagram 6, Conflict? I don't have a conflict at my work. Sure, I don't like my boss but to call it a conflict.... I avoid confrontations with her anyway. Ah, I think I got it. It doesn't refer to my work but to the quarrel I had with my boyfriend last night! Of course! That must be it!" etc.

In early China the kings employed diviners who interpreted the oracles regarding important matters of the state. What would happen to such a diviner if he said to the king, "I can't tell you if you will win the battle tomorrow but let's talk about your mother-in-law"?