Those familiar with consulting the Yi will know that answers come in the form of hexagrams either with line changes or none at all. When there is no line change, the prognosis is contained in the judgment and image of the hexagram. Diviners often prefer Yi’s answer to come with one or two line changes. With any line changes, the initial hexagram will then changed into a resultant hexagram, giving diviners more to ‘chew on’. But, if there are three or more changing lines, diviners tend to be unsure of Yi’s answer.
Of course from experience, diviners also know that we have no control whatsoever over the number of changing lines or how the Yi answers our questions. Therefore we need to find a reliable method to interpret ‘multiple answers’ (that is a hexagram with two or more line changes), in order to obtain a clearer understanding of the answer provided and perhaps build a better rapport with the Yi.
A reliable method for such interpretations can be found in Chu Hsi’s ‘Introduction to the Study of Classic of Changes’ (translated by Joseph Adler). Chu Hsi (1130 to 1200), an acknowledged Confucian scholar during his time, introduced it (paraphrased) as follows:
Take the judgment of the hexagram and the image as the prognostication, when there is no line change.
When only one line changes, the line is taken as the prognostication.
When two lines change, both lines form the prognostication with emphasis given to upper changing line.
When three lines change, take the judgments of both initial and resultant hexagrams as the prognostication*.
When four lines change, the prognostication is contained in the two ‘unaffected’ lines of the resultant hexagram with emphasis given to lower line.
When five lines change, the remaining ‘unaffected’ line of the resultant hexagram constitutes the prognostication.
When all six lines change, take the judgment of the resultant hexagram as the prognostication.
By following Chu Hsi’s basic method or rules in interpretation, diviners will perhaps obtain a clearer meaning to Yi’s answers. We can apply further variations to this methodical interpretation, just as Steve Marshall has done, when we gain more knowledge and experience over time. Meanwhile, it may be advisable to learn and keep to the basics.
*Steve Marshall’s variation of reading the three changing lines with emphasis given to the middle line is also workable.
3 comments:
Zhu Xi's method for three changing lines is more complicated than you give above. It is described in Adler's work, which reproduces the required diagrams, but I find it cumbersome and without merit or justification. This is why I devised my simpler version for three changing lines, while keeping the rest of Zhu Xi's rules. But remember this is just one person's idea, from the Song dynasty. I happen to find his rules useful, with the above exception, but then I started using them from the beginning of my study of the Changes, had I used some other method I may well have found that equally as useful. The trouble is, with most people, is that they do not have a method at all, so sometimes interpret one way and another time another way, without consistency. Consistency is the important thing.
Steve
Perhaps I should take this opportunity to explain a simpler way of applying Zhu Xi's rule for three lines changing. Zhu Xi doesn't use the line statements at all for three lines changing but rather the judgment (tuan) of both hexagrams. But then Zhu Xi provides a set of 32 charts so you can decide whether to lay emphasis on the first or the second hexagram's judgment text. (All of his rules have in common the removal of contradictory messages by guiding you to a single prognostication out of a choice of many, this is why they are so useful and worth applying in the absence of any other way to resolve ambiguity.)
I never liked his three-line method. First, because it requires the use of extraneous materials in the form of these 32 charts. Second, because I do not think it is justifiable to ignore what the lines say when three change, which surely reflect the dynamic of the change better than a kind of balancing act between the two hexagram judgments.
That said, if you wish to apply Zhu Xi's rule for a three-line change but do not have the charts, then you may be interested to know that Ed Hacker discovered a much simpler rule that has the same effect as Zhu Xi's 32 charts but does not require them. Namely, when three lines change, if the bottom line of the hexagram is among those changing then the first hexagram's judgment should take precedence over the second. If not, you stress the second hexagram's judgment over the first. There is no rationale for this beyond the fact that it just happens to give the same result as Zhu Xi's charts.
Steve,
It is nice of you to drop in and share your thoughts on Chu Hsi’s method or rules on the lines change. And to explain why you have varied the three lines change rule of his. Thank you.
As an aside, it appears that the mountain has come to Mohammed (it saves the readers a trip to the mountains to ‘tap’ your brains on this method)!
You are correct in saying that his rule on the three lines change proves complicated and unwieldy; and that I have simplified it. In fact, my private notes written for the purpose of a simple introduction to Yi readers on interpreting line changes omit this rather complicated rule. One agrees that the complication does not serve the purpose. That was why I had simplified it to taking the prognostication from both judgments of the initial and resultant hexagrams. And add in your variation on the three lines change rule which also works (see ensuing paragraph).
A good example of applying both Chu’s and your method can be drawn from Yi’s recent clear answer to Sam (Professor Crane) on the redevelopment of New Orleans. The answer came in the form of Hexagram 2 Kun / The Receptive with the third, fifth and top lines changing and a resultant Hexagram 53 Chien / Development. (Friday I Ching: New Orleans- The Useless Tree.) In his blog, one commented on the judgments, relating to the mayor (in Kun) and the development (in Chien) and when the development may start. In my blog entry on September 6, “A note on Hexagram 2 Kun and its top line”, one has interpreted all three changing lines to represent the respective local and federal officials involved in the redevelopment of NO. So far, the interpretations seem correct under the circumstances. Therefore both methods are workable and if combined (it may prove slightly more complicated to less experienced diviners), provide a much clearer answer to the question.
Ed Hacker’s discovery of a simpler rule to Chu’s rule on the three lines change is also discerned to be correct if applied to the same example. It was good of you to share it.
An interesting point of note is his discovery that if the first or bottom line changes then the judgment of the initial hexagram takes precedence, ties in with my experience that if the first line changes, the situation described thereby will be about to start, if not already commenced. Therefore this may help explain why the initial hexagram is crucial to the prognostication and takes precedence. And why Hacker’s discovery dovetails with that of Chu’s. After all, Chu was also a prolific diviner like you and I once was, and probably know how his charts work from experience.
Post a Comment