Newsgroups: alt.magick.tyagi,alt.magick,alt.philosophy.tao,alt.divination Subject: Huang, I Ching, Divination, Taoism/Confucianism From: xiwangmu Date: Tue, 02 Jul 2002 21:33:27 GMT 50020629 VII please accept my apologies in advance for my inferior knowledge of prime sources and ancient Chinese language. I try to make do. :> >>I don't value Alfred Huang's books greatly. His history is unreliable it is unreasonable to expect exacting history from an oracle book. whose history do you prefer? Master Huang claims that The Chinese translation of Holy Bible is Sheng Ching. Sheng is equivalent to "holy," and Ching means "classic." Chinese understand that Ching is the Tao, the Truth, the holiest of the ancient books, and because they revere and respect the sacred writings of the Jews and the Christian church, they honor the Bible by calling it Ching. For this reason, Chinese translations of the Holy Bible never depart from the original text. On this ground, I think that any translation of the I Ching should not depart from the original text; otherwise, it is not the I Ching. Among all the translations Richard Wilhelm's (published in English in 1950) and James Legge's (published in 1882) are the best. ... ... Originally, the I Ching was a handbook for divination. After Confucius and his students had written the commentaries, it became known as a book of ancient wisdom. ... in his Preface, or Originally this book was known as the I of the Zhou dynasty (1122-221 B.C.). Before that time there were two other I, the I of the Xia dynasty (2005-1766 B.C.) and the I of the Shang dynasty (1766-1122 B.C.). Unfortunately only fragments of these two earlier books survive. Following the work of Fu Xi, who originated the eight primary (three-line) gua [trigrams], King Wen of the Zhou dynasty arranged the sixty-four gua [hexagrams] and wrote the Decisions on the Gua, his son, the Duke of Zhou, composed the Yao Texts, and Confucius wrote the commentaries (the Ten Wings). The contributions of these three sages of the Zhou dynasty bestowed upon the I of the Zhou dynasty significant meanings. After Confucius's commentaries were written, the I of the Zhou dynasty became revered as the I Ching. ... After the commentaries were written, the way opened for more scholastic study of the I Ching. In the Han dynasty (206 B.C. to A.D. 220) there appeared a new edition of the I Ching with five of Confucius's ten commentaries printed beside the original text. People have relied upon this type of presentation for more than two thousand years. ----------------------------------------------------------- "The Complete I Ching: the Definitive Translation from the Taoist Master Alfred Huang", by Alfred Huang, Inner Traditions, 1998; pp. xx-xxi. =========================================================== what did you see in the above that you disliked? I'm trying to focus on his history of the Change Classic, rather than whether he may make conceptual or technical errors (which can be corrected in future editions, or which may be attributed to differing traditions of Taoism/Confucianism). I agree there is weakness if seen from certain perspectives. if others see problem areas or virtues please do comment, as well as upon the rest of the book(s) and his assertions therein, should you have access to it. my value of his text arises from the balance of emphasis I feel he has placed on imagery and words, emotions and concepts, in his commentary and presentation. I'd compare him to the neo-tantrikas who constructed the Secret Dakini Oracle, which lacks the power of comparable expression and beauty that oracles like Master Huang's and the Thoth Oracle as painted by Harris. >>and there are clumsy errors. For instance, in hexagram 35 he is aware >>that it is the Marquis of Kang who is receiving horses, yet in his >>commentary he writes that it is King Wen receiving the horses. thank you for that insight. I found an error in his book on numerology. sri catyananda mentioned that she read you'd also found one. one may always explain away that the master seeks students and friends and inserts some twist into his instruction. the technical sometimes introduces fallably-innocent hands into the works of wizards. :> as an oracle book, I found few things which were truly problematic and many which recommended Huang over other constructions such as Wilhelm or Legge, however much 'better' might be their translations. I'm planning on comparing Wang Bi's and Liu I Ming's comments to see how they match up, plus any other Taoist-flavoured versions I can obtain easily. this would seem a more sound foundation from which to offer evaluation of Master Huang's contribution to the commentary tradition. the error I found was on page 17, in Kung Fu Tzu's explanation of King Wen's arrangement a transposition between the gua of Kun :::, where it says Delivering service to the gua of Kan :|:. and the gua of Kan :|:, where it says Toils in the gua of Kun :::. -------------------------------------------------------- "The Numerology of the I Ching: A Sourcebook of Symbols, Structures, and Traditional Wisdom/ Alfred Huang", by Alfred Huang, Inner Traditions, 2000; p. 17. ====================================================== please confirm this if you are interested in the subject. :> >>I particularly don't like the way he has taken the traditional history >>and attempted to make it sound like it is referred to throughout the >>Yi without offering any evidence but merely stating that this is so. >>Huang's knowledge of Chinese history and myth is restricted to the >>usual repeated stories regurgitated traditional, eh? makes for a good oracle. history ain't as important as storytelling, as far as I'm concerned, though I can appreciate your critique greatly, where I understand it. :> >>seemingly without any awareness of the advances made in Yijing >>research in the past 70 years. by whom? aren't we always leading into new research? it is not surprising, if he sought to be traditional, that he neglected what is considered 'new research'. does this resemble what is below quoted of Lynn mentioning inscriptions and texts? >>...elaborates in a manner >>that cannot be justified by the original sources (none of which are >>cited either, though recognisable to those familiar with Chinese >>history). this is one of the problems I've always had with oracles, until I understood that they were a different category and should be held to more practical, less conceptually-rigorous standards. I've come to favour the more balanced fables to the chauvinistic or socially- skewed historical texts. perhaps it is a factor of proximate dynastic lifespans. combining aeonics with oracular results, one might describe all manner of variation. it would seem valuable, when considering original sources, to compare the various commentary by masters and see where they line up and where they do not. if you have specific insights into this with respect to Master Huang's overall approach as a book for divination, I'd love to see them. Cleary presents Liu I Ming's commentary, Richard Lynn presents Wang Bi's, Master Huang mentions the Lian Shan I and the Gui Zang I, and I'm sure there are many others. not being a scholar of languages I could do little more than hope some beneficent scholar and translator might do it justice. perhaps you know of where this has already transpired. :> Bughuggger@aol.com: > I admire his rending of Chinese history. this is the comment that got me responding here. :> I do too. to the religious, history is a malleable and supportive resource to bolster the Work in progress. in an oracle, who cares for the citations? if it is based on fantasy this is valuable for the scholar to know, but ultimately they are of little consequence to me in its use, other than in interpretation, and Master Huang's expression is clear enough (even if in error or expressing some outworn traditional concept) for practical purposes (as a divinatory device). if I want to study the oracle as a classic religious text of course I will seek other sources. as an orable book, historical adherence to the traditional is only important to those of the tradition and those recording the events. to the diviner, either one accepts specific I for oracular use or creates one if one has sufficient inspiration/enthusiasm/chutzpah. >>analysis of Shao Yong's square Huang misses the fact that the gua on >>the 111000-000111 diagonal (bottom left to top right) are composed of >>complementary trigrams. another entire text could probably be constructed on the subject of the variety of relations between hexagrams in Shao Yong's Square Arrangement. he mentioned neither what you have suggested nor did he mention that the opposite diagonal contains hexes composed of duplicate trigrams. it is probably no oversight, merely a conservation of space, and it is valuable that you point it out. >>Given that he is pointing out things to notice about the square it >>is a major oversight not to point out this fundamental thing. why is this fundamental, or any moreso (arguably the opposite diagonal ought be considered more important, for it includes the first and last hexagrams and emphasizes the power of each row (or 'palace' as Kung Fu Tze would have it). in the production of 8 palaces, what matters some backwards diagonal proceeding from the last of the first palace to the first of the last? it is gorgeous, and I delight in it, but why is it so fundamental to an analysis of Yong's Square? >>Some hexagrams in his diagrams are also incorrect-- please make these known so we can issue errata to those interested in a serious study of his material. this is why I provided what I considered a transposition in the above: editor's assistance. :> >>Many of the things he deals with are better dealt with by >>Prof Ed Hacker, and the diagrams in Diana ffarington-Hook's >>books and Chu and Sherrill are accurate. an interesting criticism of his Numerology text, though I think it is very wonderful that Master Huang has contributed both translation and commentary on the classic, as well as the finger-method you mention. none of the sources with which I am familiar above (specifically D f-Hook/Chu-Sherrill, I don't know Hacker's work as yet) issue such Taoist-centered expressions of a traditional oracle, being instead interested in reflecting their deep knowledge of the expressions of masters as sinologists -- corrections welcomed, as I have a couple of texts by these authors and think I know to what you refer). the lack of notes and bibliography is consistent with the preparation of a classic oracle by a master of a religious tradition. it may be a weakness in an academic context, but he shouldn't be held to such standards (because the books are used in ritual -- look at their superior construction for such usage and this makes perfect sense; one does not provide citations for a Holy Bible. ;>). >>People say they like his Yijing, but I wonder myself whether they >>have bought into the idea that Huang is an authority and have simply >>believed it on publisher's hyperbole, not knowing any better. what do you know of his background and authority? please elaborate. >>Wilhelm-Baynes is still the best English translation interesting. thanks for your assessment. do you have a background the study of ancient Chinese? I know you're an author on the subject of I Ching, though I have yet to acquire your book (I'll be doing so in the next few months if it is still in print -- by "Steven J. Marshall", right? the author of the Mandate of Heaven? [...congrats on the recent paperback version of your text, btw]). if so, then why do you call Wilhelm-Baynes a "sinological maze"? will I have to get your book to find out why, or might you comment briefly? [subsequent note: an appendix explains this extremely well.] >>...is surprisingly accurate in terms of being true to the >>actual traditional history, what does "traditional history" mean here? do you want him to be historical, or to represent tradition, or something else? >>[Wilhelm/Baynes] is a true traditional Yijing, despite its Jungian flavour? traditional Confucian or Taoist? does it matter to you at all? do you like Crowley's transliterations too? :> is it the language or the history which compells you? >>Huang's I'm afraid is somewhat of a pretender to the throne >>and certainly not the "definitive" edition it claims to be. definitive within what context? >>It is not even complete, for instance both the Dazhuan and >>the Shuogua commentaries are omitted. thanks much for your comment. perhaps it is oriented toward a greater Confucian preference of the Change Classic. Master Huang explains in a brief paragraph on page 5 of his translation that his focus is probably different than what you're critiquing. he appears to be focussing on the practical aspects of the I, the hard-bound editions featuring gold ideographs of divination (classic) and symbol (numerology): Of all the commentaries on the I Ching, the Ten Wings is the best. I follow the most popular traditional editions by using the five wings considered to be the major commentaries to interpret the original text. In additino, I use the ninth wing to describe the sequence of the gua [hexagram]. All the commentaries from the Ten Wings are italicized. ------------------------------------------------------- Ibid., Huang I Ching, p. 5. =============================== your attention to the detail of missing wings is a very wonderful example of your familiarity with the subject matter, and I'm very glad of it. I'm not sure your evaluation of Huang is balanced by a consideration of his motivations and the intended use of the texts, or of a consideration of Taoist and Confucian slants on the text, the relative origins of the various Wings, etc. (see Lynn's analysis in his Introduction, pp. 2-4, and how this very excellently matches up with Master Huang's emphasis, along with Lynn's characterization of the Wilhelm-Baynes as an "alternate tradition" of its structure), but I do agree that a subtitle of "The Definitive Translation by the Taoist Master Alfred Huang" is not humble in the least and subject to criticism. Bill Smith, Master Huang's friend (+disciple/student/colleague?) may have something to say about that. :> I'm not yet familiar with what it takes to become such a Master, what the intention is in its prepending (compare 'sri' or 'swami' or even 'maha-'), or with Masters of a variety of social traditions -- I don't recall mention by Master Huang of what societal and traditional connections he might have, aside from his encounter with the blind fortune-teller in prison (someone of Taoist import?). in any case, the Dazhuan (Ta Chuan : Great Appendix -- aka the Hsi Tzu Chuan : Commentary on the Appended Judgements, Kung Fu Tzu's commentary on the Duke of Chou's Yao Text) is to be found interlineated with the Hsi Tzu itself, italicized quite clearly. the Shuogua (Shuo Kua : Discourses on the Trigrams), while definitely valuable for an understanding of I Ching, may not have been one of the traditionally popular texts for fortune- tellers (you'd probably know more about this than many others here), and so may have been omitted as was explained by Master Huang above, and in other text where he mentions how he was attempting to keep the size of the book down so that it would be more practically-approachable (thus his method of interlineation at each hexagram -- MUCH easier to use as a divinatory device; compare Blofeld's structure, who also attempted to interject the Wings into the Kua-Tzu / T'uan : Judgements / Decisions and Hsi Tzu). it is also perhaps important that it is among the latest exegetical materials included in the Change Classic translations. Master Huang instead does his own analysis of the trigrams and hexagrams in his texts, and probably reflects somewhat on the Ten Wings whether or not they were included in his 'Definitive Translation'. what I found slightly confusing about *his* expression on the matter was the following: ...all the translations, according to my Chinese point of view, are not absolutely true to the original Chinese I Ching; they are Westernized. To smooth out the English or to capture a concept, they have added their own understanding of the text in a way that limits possible interpretations of a work that is famously open-ended. The ideal translation should be English in form, but Chinese in essence. As a book of divination, Confucius's commentaries are crucial. The Chinese call Confucius's commentaries the Ten Wings. They believe that the I Ching on the Ten Wings to be able to fly. In other words, without Confucius' commentaries the I Ching cannot be understood. This is a typically Chinese orthodox point of view. Consequently, every time I read translations that show little concern for Confucius's wisdom, I feel that something is missing. Sometimes when I have used English translations to divine, I have felt so depressed that I had no desire to do it again. When I use the Chinese text it is entirely different; there is always hope. --------------------------------------------------------- Ibid, Huang I Ching, pp. xvii-xviii. ======================================== maybe his explanation of trying to make a shorter book for practical purposes is sufficient to explain this. or maybe we're looking at something a bit more complex than translations of classics (on account of his residence to a living Chinese tradition of the I, rather than being an approximated translation by a Westerner). I get implications of this in the following by Lynn (one of your Columbia University Press kindred!): ...The assertion that historically identifiable sages are responsible for origins of the hexagrams and the composition of the first layer of the material in the *Classic of Changes* has been questioned throughout the twentieth century, both in China and abroad, and more recent advances in archaeology, paleography, and textual studies, which compare the earliest textual layer of the *Changes* with roughly contemporary inscriptions on bone, shell, metal, and stone, as well as with other ancient writings that exhibit similar syntax and vocabulary, have thoroughly discredited the myth of its sagely authorship. Modern scholarship has also discovered that the original meaning of the Judgements and line statements -- as they were composed sometime probably during the two or three centuries preceding their compilation and final editing during the ninth century B.C. -- is radically different from what the first layer of exegesis took it to be and that it often has very little to do with the values and ideals of Confucian morality and ethics. Either the writers of the *Tuanzhuan* (Commentary on the Judgements) and the *Xiangzhuan* (Commentary on the Images) were ignorant of this original meaning -- concerned largely with the mechanics of divination and (often) its amoral consequences -- or they knowingly suppressed it in order to replace it with a Confucian (or proto-Confucian) reading. However, this first layer of exegesis, the collection of texts, which eventually developed into the *Classic of Changes* as we know it, was given a Confucian slant that shaped all subsequent interpretation -- right up to modern times. This largely Confucian reading required a radical revision of syntax and the meaning of individual words -- even the way the texts are divided into phrases and clauses. Therefore the original meaning of the earliest parts of the *Changes* is not represented in the commentary tradition -- except perhaps, distantly, in some Qing dynasty (1644-1911) philological approaches to the *Classic of Changes*.... [AUTHOR'S NOTE: The great pioneer in recovering the original meaning of the earliest layers of the *Changes* is Gao Heng, whose *Zhouyi gujing jinzhu* (Modern annotations to the ancient classic, the *Changes of the Zhou*) was first published in 1934. Two recent works in English revise Gao's findings, summarize and develop more up-to-date Chinese scholarship, and make new advances of their own: Edward Shaughnessy, *The Composition of the Zhouyi*, and Richard Kunst, *The Original "Yijing": A Text, Phonetic Transcription, Translation, and Indexes, with Sample Glosses*.] -------------------------------------------------------- "The Classic of Changes: A New Translation of the I Ching as Interpreted by Wang Bi", ed./transl. Richard John Lynn, Columbia University Press, 1994; pp. 4-5, and p. 22 note 2. ==================================================== I'll be checking out these two sources (and maybe one or two more from Lynn's bibliography and notes) previous to an investigation into your material, about which see below! thanks for your comments. please cc any response to me. END