It is since
about seventeen years that I take an actively skeptical view of the Yijing, the Chinese Book of Changes. Ever since, I have followed the ongoing debate at
a distance but, save for a booklet in 1997 and a few lectures around 2010, not
really taken part in it. Other people with more drive or more leisure for
exploring the subject have devoted themselves to original researches into it,
triggered by several discoveries of ancient texts and artifacts as well as by
the disbelieving but benevolent spirit of the times.
A fairly
recent book confirms my viewpoint that the Yijing
is, to a far larger extent than realized by the starry-eyed New Age users of
this classic, the story of a successful coup
d’état. King Wen held the Zhou fief at the western border against the
barbarians, and therefore had a better army than the other feudal lords. He
formed a threat to the regime of the imperial Shang dynasty. He spent 7 years
in prison at Youli, and was, at least according to a later tradition, released
after eating his own eldest son Yi Kao. He then prepared to seize power but
died. A single battle against the established overlord was enough for his
successor as vassal, his second son King Wu, to topple the Shang regime and
establish himself as sovereign. Not only was it a military and political
success story, it was uniquely successful as a propaganda exercise: the
propagandistic justification of the coup
d’état, viz. the depiction of the last Shang emperor Zhouxin as a model of
wickedness and decadence begging for replacement, and especially the doctrine
of the Heavenly Mandate allotted to successive dynasties, became the state
ideology of a whole civilization for three Thousand years.
S.J. Marshall’s
book The Mandate of Heaven (Columbia
University Press, New York 2001) fills in a lot of detail that most Sinologists
including myself will be surprised to learn; not to speak of the wholly new
world that it will open to New Age enthusiasts of the Book of Changes. It confirms that a number of Yijing characters hitherto given a general meaning (by the Chinese
tradition as much as by Western translators) actually refer to specific places
or persons that played a role in the coup
d’état.
This much
was clear already from the mention of Prince Ji (36/5), a privileged witness of
the corruption of the Shang court; but unlike him, others were forgotten. Thus,
Feng, the character that serves as
title of hexagram 55, and usually translated as “fullness”, is actually the
name of the temporary military capital built by King Wen in preparation of the
attack on his Shang overlord. Just as the character Kang has recently been found to refer to “the Marquess of Kang”, an
early title of the later Duke of Wei, i.e. Feng, the 9th son of King Wen and
faithful brother of King Wu, and not to the traditional “brave marquess”; so
now, the character Fa, “send out”, now
turns out to refer to the personal name of King Wu. Meng, usually translated as “the youthful folly” (hexagram 4),
means “the deceitful boy”, a nickname which King Wu earned as a lad and which
the Shang nobles remembered all too well when he had conquered their capital. The
mention of penultimate Shang emperor Di Yi marrying his younger sister off
(hexagram lines 11/5, 54/4) pertains to her marriage to King Ji, the father of
King Wen whom she bore.
Mingyi, traditionally “the darkening of the light”
and translated by some modern scholars as “the bright pheasant” (hexagram 36), may
refer to the meng Yi, the “allied
Yi-(barbarians)”, who attacked Shang from the east to facilitate the Zhou
attack from the west; an added “bowl” radical to the character ming turns it into meng, and such variations in writing were commonplace in archaic
Chinese. The lines refer to an archer
shooting a bird in the sky, but may also refer to a solar eclipse, an occasion
for shooting arrows at the dog supposedly eating the sun.
Immediately
after the death of King Wen, his temporary capital Feng witnessed a complete
solar eclipse, detailed in the lines of hexagram 55. This eclipse allows the
author to date the event, agreed to be vaguely around 1100 BC, to 1070. His
successor King Wu saw this as a sign from heaven that the mandate of the Shang
dynasty had lapsed and passed to him. Instead of observing the prescribed
period of mourning, he immediately amassed his troops and went on the attack.
He crossed the river separating his domains from the Shang’s (his own Rubicon,
as it were) and met the Shang army at Muye,
“the wilds of Mu”. Hexagram 7/5 says that the elder brother leads the army, the
younger carts the corpse: King Wen’s dead body was taken along into the battle
by his younger son, the marquess of Kang, while the army was led by his elder
son, King Wu. The judgment of hexagram 18 refers to the Jiazi day, i.e. the first day of the 60-day cycle, when the battle
was timed to take place.
Some
hexagrams refer to older forms of divination or shamanic magic. We already knew
this of hexagram 31, about “feeling” in the successive parts of the body. This
was a very simple form of divination: if a feeling somewhere spontaneously
presented itself, it meant something. Even now, some people still think that if
your ears start ringing, it means people are talking about you. Similarly,
hexagram 1 refers to an old belief in dragons sleeping at the bottom of the
well, then conjured awake, rising through the well and finally taking flight in
the sky, followed by clouds and then rain. It is a rain-provoking ritual
performed in days of great drought,--
which is the ordinary meaning of the hexagram’s name Qian. By the time of Wang Bi, the 3rd-century AD
philosopher who promoted a symbolic reading of the Yijing, elite circles had mostly forgotten about this belief or
evinced skepticism of it, but rural folk practiced this dragon magic till last
century. The last line refers to the autumnal constellation Kang Long, “Dragon’s Gullet”, the autumn
being the time when the dragon redescends into his well for hibernation.
The lines
of hexagram 18 refers to bu, the
ancestral curse that explained misfortune, and that could be remedied by
sacrificing to the specific ancestor whose grievances had led to this revenge. Hexagram
53 refers to interpreting the flight of geese by a young wife as predicting the
return or non-return of her husband from the war that King Wu had declared. Hexagram
lines 2/1, 44/2-4, 47/3-6 refer to marriage customs.
There are
also references to older beliefs held in common at the time of the coup d’état. Yu the Great, dike-builder and
founder of the Xia-dynasty which preceded the Shang-dynasty, is mentioned in
hexagram lines 43/4 and 44/3, speaking of a difficult walk due to the damage
that the heavy work has done to the legs. His impaired walking ability is
well-known, even ballet dancers have a standard imitation of “the walk of Yu”. Incidentally,
he was also credited with discovering the Luoshu,
“the book of the river Luo” found on the back of a tortoise climbing out of the
river, which the Neo-Confucian interpreters took to be the magic square of 3 x
3. Hexagram 8 and its top line refer to a custom instituted by Yu, viz. the
beheading of whomever comes too late at an important meeting.
Oh, and
where does the character Yi in the
title come from? Here, Marshall only confirms what I read in some French book
25 years ago. The character shows
sunrays peeping through the clouds, indicating the “change” from cloudy to
sunny, from yin to yang (to use later concepts, here in
their literal meaning, “cloudy” and “sunny”), and most relevant here: from
Shang to Zhou. The Book of Changes describes a revolution (geming, revolution-of-Mandate, Ge
being the name of hexagram 49), and I may emphasize: a political revolution.
Much to the
chagrin of most of its users, the book is not about spiritual matters, or about
emotions and relationships and personal growth. It is a hard-headed book about
politics and war. It is an upper-class book, not for petty-bourgeois dabblers
in the soft arts.
This year,
the Dutch Yijing symposium should
take place for the 5th time. The first two installments took place
in the hippie colony Ruigoord, and the dominant voices were the old
spiritualists with their touchy-feely interpretation. The last two, in the
cultural centre of Soest, gave more space to the hard Sinological reading of
the Changes. This is symptomatic for
the change from an unhistorical anything-goes understanding of the book to a
more down-to-earth one.
No comments:
Post a Comment