Comments on: Multiple changing lines again

By: Hilary

Hilary — Thu, 28 Jul 2011 10:26:57 +0000

Here are the rules:
http://www.russellcottrell.com/VirtualYarrowStalks/NanjingiRules.htm
Looks like when you get remainder 7, you read line 6… though maybe not if all lines are changing… hm, perhaps I shouldn’t be trying to understand this on a quick skim-through…

By: panfluteman

panfluteman — Mon, 25 Jul 2011 06:03:55 +0000

I tried going by the Nanjing Rules with a reading that I had that had all 6 lines changing. I got Hexagram 37, and, with all 6 lines changing, it added up to 48. I subtracted 48 from 55, and I got 7! But there aren’t 7 lines in a Hexagram, there are only six! So which line would be the ruling line for me according to the Nanjing Rules?

By: fred

fred — Wed, 22 Nov 2006 18:38:42 +0000

Steve says: “but the main thing is whether the rules or methodology you apply work in practice over a long period.”

If that is indeed the main criterion, then all theories as to why these rules work are irrelevant and immaterial. Unless of course, you say, this theory works in practice for this person, and that theory works in practice for that person.

By: Steve

Steve — Mon, 20 Nov 2006 01:45:27 +0000

http://www.biroco.com/yijing/basics.htm#rules

By: Hilary

Hilary — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 18:20:08 +0000

“what matters is whether he has found them to work, not whether they sound well thought out”

Agreed. The idea of posting a link here is to give people interested in these methods a chance to test them out. Do you have a link to your adapted Zhu Xi rules?

By: Steve

Steve — Sun, 19 Nov 2006 17:32:37 +0000

If you apply Eric’s rules then your interpretation of the oracle will sometimes agree with Zhu Xi’s rules (and my slight adaptation), and sometimes not. Eric’s rules though take little account of change moving upwards in a hexagram. In my view if your application of Eric’s rules leads you to favour a lower line of a two-line change then you will be misinterpreting. It is all very well to come up with rules that seem to have a rationale (though actually Eric’s rules aren’t really any less arbitrary than other methods), but the main thing is whether the rules or methodology you apply work in practice over a long period. The apparent arbitrariness of some aspects of Zhu Xi’s rules is neither here nor there, when you have tested them extensively in practice and find them to provide accurate interpretations. Eric’s approach, though interesting, seems mainly about providing a set of rules that have an apparent logic, but what matters is whether he has found them to work, not whether they sound well thought out.