Wilhelm's translation was ground-breaking - but remains a snapshot of his own ideas and misunderstandings. Yes - it is a good literal translation - word for word - but makes no sense when read because he did not really know (or understand) the historical, cultural and philosophical context of a) each hexagram and b) each hexagram in relation to the totality of the 'meaning' of the Yijing. How could he know these things? He was a German; Protestant Christian and this upbringing does not automatically confer an innate cultural understanding about certain aspects of China's feudalistic past! The scope of Wilhelm's achievement is often used to obscure the deviancies of his translations and the hopeless trap of 'Eurocentrism' he often got himself into. For instance, Hexagram 52 (䷳) is symbolic of a 'mountain' placed over a 'mountain' and is referred to as '艮' (gen4). However, his misunderstanding of Buddhist 'nirvana' is laughable but thought 'quaint' in the West! Both mountains assert a joint (simultaneous) 'downward' pressure from which neither can escape. Therefore, 'stillness' is achieved due to there being a 'rootedness' present - a certain gravitas operating equally through the mind, body and environment. A true scholar has aligned his or her bone-structure through calming the mind and allowing the bodyweight to drop into the ground through the feet - whilst passing through the centre of the bone (and stimulating the bone-marrow). Although this normally elicits a 'rebounding' force as the bodyweight bounces of the floor it impacts - in this instance the 'downward' force is so powerful that the onus is always 'toward the ground'. This should represent a time of extraordinary psychological and physical 'discipline' OR 'oppression' in the outer physical world that can be used as a form of inner 'discipline' as a means of coping with the pressure. Hexagram 52 is like perpetually 'drawing a bow' and yet never letting the arrow 'fly'... There is a perfect 'stillness' within movement - with such a build-up of explosive energy, what will happen next? As for the name of the hexagram - '艮' (gen4) - the upper particle '目' (mu4) represents an 'eye' on a 'face' - whilst the lower particle '匕' (bi3) which historically represents a type of deep and wide 'spoon' (common in China) as well as a 'dagger' - or stabbing implement. There is also the suggestion of an individual 'firing an arrow' or being 'struck by an arrow' - whilst on occasion this ideogram might be written as '妣' (bi3) which represents a 'post-humous' designation for one's deceased mother. Sometimes, there is a discord between the symbolic meaning of the hexagrams and the ideograms used to describe that meaning. Why is this? It could be that as time has gone by, scribes have either accidently miscopied texts by hand, or misunderstood the meaning of what they were copying and made unnecessary corrections and adjustments assuming they were putting right previous errors, etc. It could also be that as time progresses the assumed overt or implied meaning of a hexagram has undergone evolutionary development and that this has created a discord between the inherent meaning of the hexagram and the obvious meaning of the descriptive ideogram. Of course, looking at we have there are two references to weaponry (dagger and arrow), one reference to an eating implement whilst another reference is to being 'dead'. However, we must not forget that an 'eye' is watching over all that unfolds. A weapon and a spoon require mastery if combat (and cooking) is to be truly mastered. Furthermore, when a person 'dies' their body becomes 'still'. A weapon can 'kill' - but before it does the user must perfect is usage which requires a knowledge of 'when' (action) and 'when not' (stillness) to use it. The bow may be drawn but yet fired. If there is no food to eat, one becomes 'still' and ceases to 'move'. A spoon can serve food that exists or remain 'still' when no food is forthcoming. This hexagram seems to indicate the self-aware ability of remaining both inwardly and outwardly 'still' when circumstances a) allow for it, or are b) demand it. Just some thoughts.