Quote from Using the I Ching: Exposing the Image | dailyrevolution.net :
“One of the best examples of the clarity that the Anthony and Moog text has added to our understanding of the I Ching can be found in how the authors treat the traditional Image portion of the text: they ignore it. But they also explain why, and this is where the clarity comes in: the Image is a Confucian overlay on the original text that is riddled with prejudice, ideology, and (as the title suggests) the obsession with appearances “image.”
Leaving aside the vilification of Confucius for a moment (for other people to deal with), where does this notion of a prejudice-ridden, ideological Image come from? It’s hard to say, but I’m fairly sure it’s not from reading it.
Of course, a lot depends on where you start reading. Hexagram 32, for instance: ‘Thunder and wind, persevering. A noble one thus stands firm and does not change his bearings.’ Ah, clearly hidebound conservatism at its worse. The noble one sticks to his course even in the face of the most changeable of elements, wind and thunder. Then again…
‘Wind and thunder. Increase.
The noble one sees improvement, and so she changes.
When there is excess, she corrects it.’
That’s the Image from hexagram 42, Increase or Blessing: the same trigrams with their positions reversed. The noble one now will change her bearings whenever this could make things better. If this is an ideology, it’s a very confused one.
The Image is just like the rest of the Yijing: realistic. Different advice fits different times. Human nature isn’t going away, so it needs taking into account. Like this:
‘Below the mountain is the lake. Decrease.
Noble one curbs anger, restrains desires.’
I like the fact that the noble one isn’t an enlightened sage who’s free from anger and desires, just someone doing his best to keep a lid on things.
The Image doesn’t only echo the wisdom of the Judgement, though; it also engages with it and often deepens it. Take hexagram 35, for instance, where Prince Kang’s Prospering begins with a gift of horses.
Here’s the Image:
‘Brightness comes forth over the earth. Prospering. The noble one’s own light shines in his de.’
Kang’s horses came from the king; the noble one’s radiance comes from his own light, in his own character. Perhaps prospering doesn’t have to wait for a gift from above.
Or think of Hexagram 23, Stripping Away – a thoroughly painful experience for most people, of having something you’re attached to stripped and torn away. But the Image carries a whole other possibility:
‘Mountain rests on the earth. Stripping Away. With generosity from above, creating tranquil places below.’
Stripping away can be as natural as the constant erosion of the mountain into the valley. It can be generosity creating tranquility, not attachment creating an experience of helplessness and loss.
Or Hexagram 27. The Judgement encourages you to ‘See the jaws, and the origin of your quest to fill your mouth.’ That points towards a need to become aware of the whole process of nourishment: what frames it, what motivates it. Then the Image brings out implications of this that we might otherwise miss:
‘Below the mountain is thunder. Nourishment. The noble one thus reflects on her words in conversation, And is discriminating about what she eats and drinks.’
It’s not just about what you’ll ‘swallow’, it’s also about what you put into circulation.
And so it goes on… the Image brings out the importance of acceptance in Hexagram 7, the spiritual, creative nature of Enthusiasm, the dangers of over-investment when Gathering. Its ‘ideology’, as far as I can make out, is that there is a wisest way of responding to a situation, an ideal way to move with and use (and sometimes transform) its natural energies.
And as for an ‘obsession with appearances’ – well, one sixty-fourth of the Yi is devoted to the creation of images. So what does Hexagram 22’s own Image have to offer?
‘Below the mountain is fire. Beauty. The noble one brings light to the many standards, but does not venture to judge legal cases.’
The mountain is imposing and solid, something that endures, the perfect image for a timeless ideology. The light of awareness shines on the mountain… and the noble one brings light to the many standards, perhaps sees how each of them is a crystallisation of its own inner awareness, and does not dare to pass judgement.
Ah well…
Whoa partner, wipe that foam off your mouth and take a deep breath — ain’t nobody dissin’ Confucius. (Now McCain, that’s a different story, but another part of the blog…)
First of all, we’re big fans of the real deal — Analects is in an honored place on our shelves. But those “Images” were written by others, what Joe Campbell famously called “the forest of pencils.” Check any IC scholar you like — Whincup, Shaughnessy, whoever — and you’ll see that the facts are clear: that stuff was written centuries after the main text, and clearly with a rather cheap moralistic agenda.
Now, more to the point, about this “superior man / inferior man” illusion: our next President just came back from your wonderful continent, where civilization still has a firm foothold on this benighted earth, and he offered himself as someone who might finally break down this silly notion of American superiority, and indeed restore geopolitical relationship-building to the partnership among equals.
That’s what we need in our individual lives, too, at the psychological, family, and community (and, if you must, the spiritual) levels as well. The time for this forced and rigid division between superior men and inferior men (what happened to the women, by the way?) must end.
And I’m betting that the real Confucius would firmly agree.
Of course it was written centuries later (and not by Confucius, true)… and we’re writing millennia later… so what?
Maybe it’s the translation of junzi as ‘superior man’ that makes the Image sound ‘moralistic’ etc. Try the very literal translation of ‘noble young one’ that Brad Hatcher uses, and see how it all sounds then.
As for the contrasts drawn between junzi and ‘small people’… well, those are all in the Zhouyi itself, not in the Image at all. And whenever a text was written, I’d rather try to understand it first on its own terms, or at least as near to that as I can get. The translation as ‘superior men’ and ‘inferior men’ adds both the male gender and the moral hierarchy to a text that contains neither.
Leaving behind one’s natural reaction to W/B with their superior/inferior division, trying instead to understand what the oracle itself might mean – in 49.6 or 23.6, for instance (or 12.2 or 14.3, with great people and princes) – it turns out that there are subtle contrasts being drawn between alternative ways of being or states of resourcefulness, and the kinds of response these lead to, and what consequences this might have.
I have a big allergy to the whole notion of superior/inferior people, too. (And don’t get me started on Wilhelm and women.) But it would be a great shame to let a reflexive reaction to distasteful words in a translation – of Zhouyi or Image – get in the way.
Hope you’re right about your next President.
Where the Zhouyi only talks about virtue in 42.5, the Images are riddled with this moralistic concept. The Zhouyi talks about “my” virtue, as opposed to virtue in general. “My virtue” is kindness/compassion, and that is exactly what makes the virtue of the Images superfluous. That virtue is artificial, while kindness and compassion come from the true self.
I like the poetry in the Images a lot, especially the way I translated it myself;-) But these texts don’t really fit with the Zhouyi hexagram texts, they are an altogether different animal. I have also left them out of the main text of my work. They’re great as an appendix.
Certainly they’re a separate animal, much less of a ‘commentary’ on the original than other Wings. Some use it more or less as an independent oracle, and I can see why.
As for de in the Image… I’m not sure how it’s best translated. I don’t think it’s originally a purely moral concept – witness that Song in the Shijing where the de of people at a sacrificial meal is increased by drinking. It seems to be a blend of strength of character and a kind of charisma. Its meaning in the Image has developed, naturally, but it definitely carries hints of the old meaning. In 26, for instance, where it’s something that can be ‘accumulated’ through study. (There must be better examples, but I’m half asleep.)
Luis – nice post – I think you may almost have persuaded me to take Anthony and Moog off the shelf.
That half asleep must go for me too… I just realized there are 5 places in the Zhouyi where dé is (6.3 9.6 32.3 32.5 42.5 ).
Well, in all fairness, I think Anthony’s and Moog’s work is very much worthy of study and many people find a good resonance with it. However, let’s just try to put things in perspective and name things for what they are: a translation is a personal interpretation of a text based on certain rules and an interpretation of translations (which is much of what Anthony’s does) isn’t better than the first. She’s got very good insights, of course, but I wouldn’t discard any layer of the Yijing in the name of ease-of-use…
This whole discussion is very interesting. I have my own opinions but rather than sharing at this point – I thought I would mention a book that has interested me regarding the Images and the Analects. I set aside just for the sake of sharing this book the issue(s) of how the images related to Confucius himself and/or to his thought in general. Lets assume the images are representative of Confucian thought to enough of a degree to offer that perspective as a layer within the YiJing text. Thomas Cleary took that approach in “The Essential Confucius” where each hexagram is listed with ONLY the image text on the left-hand page and appropriate passages from the Analacts on the right. He attempts to organize the aphoristic mostly unrelated Analects passages through the Hexagram Image “themes.” Then at the end of the book in his notes he has running commentary on most of the hexagrams, as well as commentary on a good number of the Analects’ selections. Clearly writes in his forward: “Employing the Book of Changes to analyze and study Confucius, one of history’s most distinguished students of that classic, also helps to surmount yet another problem, which is the difficulty of access to the basic sayings of Confucius that has been caused by centuries of shifting convertions and controversies in later Confucian scholarship. Fortunately the primary sources themselves, the aphorisms of Confucius as found in the Alelects and in the Book of Changes, clarify each other so vividly that the reader may thereby enter into a direct relationship with the ideas of Confucius.”
Cleary’s view of authorship of the Images not withstanding, I will say that using this book along with translations and commentary on the Image texts in the YiJing has given me a wider perspective on their possible meanings and a greater respect for their inclusion in the YiJing proper (rather than as an appendix).
-Glen
That sounds like interesting reading – thanks.
That was a nice comment, Glen.
I agree, Luis, except I wouldn’t say reading Anthony’s [I don’t have the more recent book by Anthony and Moog] interpretation is ‘ease of use’ so much that attracts people–though I guess it might be to some(?)
I like the idea of a translator or interpreter who has has experience with what they’re interpreting–Sam Reifler did too.
I wouldn’t read Anthony’s (or Reifler’s ) book to the exclsuion of others, but as she herself said the book is her collected notes to go *with* the Wilhelm Baynes book.
I actually liked it, because it seemed to be more spiritually oriented than some interpretations, but more because she described what I also had experienced(to a lesser degree) in yrs of reading the I Ching.
I’m not sure what you’re all talking about(not being sarcastic)
The inferior/superior thing always seemed pretty clear.
Isn’t it always that the “superior man” is one who does his/her best, and follows the Way.
When some texts were translated, there was no ‘he or she’ in use in the English language proper.”He” and “man”or “men”, like the word “mankind” not humanity were always used– not to be sexist per se(though it *can* seem to exclude a whole lot of us) but was just the proper terminology of the time.
I have to say I enjoy reading most translations,regardless. I have to admit,I’ve seen where Confuciius might be considered sexist.
Mabye this should be separate form this conversation.Luis, I saw above you mentioned the newer I Ching interpretation by Anthony *and* Moog.
As I said I dont have it. I’d like to know more about it though–at first i was interested to buy it–but since I have a few of Anthony’s books I wanted to at least look at the newer one first–but I never see it except on Amazon, with no description.
If you or anyone knows it even enough to describe strengths and weaknesses, and/or differences than the one I have, would you be kind enough to tell me about it?
Thanks 🙂