![]() ![]() Song yi² (meaning and principle tradition)īeginning w/ the Ten Wings (received order) In the outline below, then, the terms ‘Han Yi’ and ‘Song Yi’ are intended as potentially useful reference points for orientation purposes, and not as rigid historical designators. Thus, though not as an ideology, but as organizing principles, perhaps this dichotomy can still provide a reliable trellis to support our investigation. ![]() 1 Redmond and Hon consider this traditional view too restrictive, if taken as a complete history of I Ching interpretation it lacks the nuance to see that both the “image and number” and the “meaning and principle” approaches have coexisted in some form throughout history. The competition was so intense that only one commentarial tradition remained dominant at a given time. Also known respectively as the “Han Yi” 漢易(studies of the Changes of the Han dynasty) and the “Song Yi” 宋易(studies of the Changes of the Song dynasty), the two commentarial traditions are described as constantly competing with each other. Accordingly, our syllabus aims for a balance between Classical and Contemporary sources, as well as between “theoretical” and “practical” approaches we have also made a point of respecting the validity of traditional academic viewpoints and expertise while welcoming some more “artistic” or “visionary” vantage points as well what the latter may sometimes lack in rigor, they often make up through the insights they provide and the discussions they spark.Īccording to Redmond and Hon, there have traditionally been thought to be two competing camps when interpreting, teaching, and learning about the Yijing:“…in popular accounts of the history of the Yijing commentaries, it is said that there had been two opposing commentarial traditions over the 2,000 years of imperial China: the xiangshu (image and number) tradition of the Han dynasty (206 BCE–220 CE) and the yili (meaning and principle) tradition of the Song dynasty (960–1279). whose goals include encouraging the study of the Chinese Classics– not as relics of merely historical interest, nor as being the sole provenance of experts in a few privileged scholarly disciplines, but rather as a living source of inspiration and insight, applicable in the present and in the future, as well as the past, and as a resource that, while uniquely Chinese in origin, bear messages of global significance, and are a part of our shared inheritance as human beings– of all of China’s numerous gifts to the world, perhaps the greatest. ![]() Our outline also represents an inclusive approach to learning that accords with ideas that underlie the mission of the SDCF. ![]() These poles, interpreted broadly, provide a conceptual clearing that may yield not just a means to distinguish clearly between competing methods of relating to this text in, but also helps us sift through contemporary treatments in such a manner that, either by alternating or combining contrasting methods each week, we can develop a syllabus that, while hardly claiming completeness, still might offer every participant something of value– a little exposure to new ways of thinking about the text, and a sample of several of the many different angles of approach that are available in the literature. The outline is based upon a key distinction found in Redmond and Hon’s Teaching the I Ching- a division is historically drawn between those interpreters who favored an “image and number” method, as opposed to those who preferred a “meaning and principle” methodology. It is meant to appeal to readers with varied backgrounds and disparate interests, and to provide a sense of coherence as a sort of roadmap for our series. This is an outline of texts for our discussions in the SDCF I Ching reading group. Reading Schedule for the SDCF I-Ching Study Group ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |