The more closely I look at the Image – the Daxiang wing, I mean – the more I think whoever wrote it was a sage.
One tiny example… you know how most of the hexagrams’ Images tell you what the ‘noble one’ would do? And then there are three that tell you about the prince, and seven that tell you about the ancient kings. (I’m sure that if someone looked hard enough, they’d find the reason behind all these choices.) And then there is just one hexagram that does something different:
‘Mountain rests on the earth. Stripping Away.
The heights are generous, and there are tranquil homes below.’
Literally, this just says ‘above thus generous, below tranquil homes’: it uses the simple words for ‘above’ and ‘below’, generally used to describe the positions of the trigrams. Of course, it’s usual to translate this as ‘superiors’ or ‘those above’, so we can understand it as social commentary about how a stratified society can function smoothly – but it doesn’t actually mention any people.
Perhaps this is talking about how the ruling class needs to keep the underclass pacified with generosity to avoid social instability, or perhaps it’s talking about the flow of water and minerals from the always-eroding mountain down into the valley. Perhaps (as Wilhelm says in Book III) it’s a picture of how to avoid Stripping Away, or perhaps it’s a picture of how Stripping Away is a constant natural process, and not a disaster after all.
But however you interpret this, this is the only Image with no human figure to imitate or become. It’s depersonalised: there’s nothing to model yourself on but a landscape – or just relative positions within a landscape. And if you think about it, this makes absolute sense: if you’re undergoing Stripping Away, this is not a time to think about the person you might become, what you aspire to or could grow into. It’s fruitless to have a direction to go, and so that sage who wrote the Image is careful not to suggest a direction. Instead there is just a mountain on the earth, and generosity and tranquility, and ongoing change as a way of being.
My interpretation is that the basis of generosity is tranquility.
That’s a good angle on it – thank you. The image just shows generosity and tranquility in one landscape: good to see them as mutually dependent, sustaining one another.
The junzi is not mentioned in the Image of hexagram 23, but I think he can be found in 上. Shang 上 and xia 下 specifically refer to the superior and the inferior – to the rulers and the common people. 厚下 means ‘to treat those below you generously’ (漢語大詞典 vol. 1, p. 921), and therefore 上以厚下安宅 could be translated as ‘above treats those below generously (thereby give them a) peaceful home’. If the people have peace, then those above them will have peace as well. If a situation is almost completely deteriorated it is best to stop the decay by addressing the lowest layer that is affected. That will give long-lasting results. With the current economy crisis, which can be described by hexagram 23, this would be sound advice: focussing on the people and their wellbeing will bring prosperity to the whole country. You are advised here to be like the 上.
I read this writing, then got this very hexagram (without a moving line) to a question I asked the I Ching a little later. 🙂 My question was about something in the future, and I think with this hexagram the I Ching is telling me that now when things are losing their old forms, and haven’t found new ones yet, I should not want to know what form they will or will not take in the future, my mind should not wander that field. “It does not further one to go anywhere.” Me below should stay tranquil and trust the heights. Of course, it’s still gonna be a lot of thinking, but your writing gave me inspiration, thank you!
Harmen – thanks. Would you say it’s still interesting that this is the only hexagram where the language is depersonalised – ‘above’ rather than noble one, prince or king?
Gabi – I think you’ve got the message completely. I’ve quite often received Hexagram 23 when I was sure it was time to start something new, when in fact all I could manage was re-starting something old and worn out. Time to plan a little less, let the change happen, let the old forms dissolve, see what grows in that newly-fertile valley.
I don’t see a ‘depersonalisation’ – ‘above’ means the nobility (in other words, persons), and ‘below’ the common people. ‘Shang’ is just another word for the noble ones like the junzi, and the image says what the ‘shang’ stratum should do, just as in other Image texts the junzi is addressed. I don’t see a real difference here. Since in all Image texts the junzi/shang layer is addressed I doubt your translation of the last sentence, ‘The heights are generous, and there are tranquil homes below’. In this context 以 has the meaning of ‘(put in)to use, apply’: Shang 上 ‘uses’ 厚. Which means there is no ‘are’. Also, I cannot find any reference to 上 with the meaning of ‘heights’.
I only mean ‘depersonalisation’ in the sense that the word used is about a relative position, and doesn’t contain or directly refer to a human figure. This is one of the attitudes I bring with me from literary appreciation – assume the choice of each word is significant, then try to understand how.
I suppose it’s a free translation – ‘heights’ for ‘above’ (with the mountain in mind), ‘being generous’ for ‘using generosity’. Interpretation gets in there, inevitable.
Hilary,
having just returned from Yosemite National Park, and having just wrote an e-mail to a friend, telling her about the generosity of the mountains, I came across your post…. In my mind I have no doubt. Your interpretation is close to the heart of stripping away.
That’s very interesting, thank you. How did you experience the generosity of mountains?
Hilary, perhaps ‘depersonalized’ is not the best word. Maybe ‘impersonal’ could be better?
Maybe… only I was just trying to talk in a neutral way about the language, which doesn’t include a direct word for a human figure like ‘junzi’, ‘prince’ or ‘king’. That’s not quite the same thing as being ‘impersonal’.
Maybe there’s a difference between British English and American English — which wouldn’t be surprising!
My dictionary says ‘depersonalize means to deprive of individual character or sense of personal identity: ‘a large corporation that depersonalizes its employees.’ The connotation seems to be that a rather harsh process has been applied, taking away something that by all rights should be allowed …
Hilary, do you think the lack of a specific word for a human figure in the Image of 23 gives it a quality like a chemical or a physics thing is going on? An objective and external process? The minerals wash down the side of the mountain because the law of gravity dictates these minerals must flow downward? People get old and die because our bodies must wear out in time? In other words, the forces involved are not personal at all; they are not influence-able or controllable; and these forces don’t care whether we like or don’t like them? An inexorable process over which we have no control?
But the same hexagram can mean that we shed our old ideas.
Don’t we need to assume human figures and relationships must be present in all the hexagrams, even if only implicitly?