Hexagram 13: 同人

tóng rénfellowship with others

Upper TrigramHeaven
Lower TrigramFire

Judgment

tóngfellowship with, community
rénothers, people, humanity
in, amidst; on
countryside, wilds, uncultivated, frontier
hēngfulfillment, satisfaction, success, completion
worthwhile, rewarding, favorable
shèto cross, ford, ferry, venture, experience
great, big, major
chuānstream, river, current, waters
worth; rewarding, warranting, meriting
jūnnoble, worthy, honored
young one, heir, disciple
zhēnpersistence, determination, resolve, loyalty

Fellowship with men in the open. Success. It furthers one to cross the great water. True fellowship based on universal concerns, not private interests, can accomplish difficult undertakings.

Image

tiānheaven; the sky, celestial
accompanies; along, together with
huǒfire, flame
tóngfellowship with
rénothers
jūnnoble, worthy, honored
young one, heir, disciple
according to; uses; with, by
lèikind, type, class, category, species
family, clan, tribe, relation, kin
biànto distinguish, identify, differentiate
beings, creatures, entities, things

Heaven together with fire: the image of Fellowship. Thus the superior man organizes the clans and makes distinctions. Fellowship requires organization within diversity—not chaos, but structured openness.

Digital Artifact

ARPANET's Request for Comments Protocol

Steve Crocker / ARPA researchers (1969)

Building the first internet nodes, researchers faced a problem: how to create fellowship among people at different institutions working on an unprecedented system? Steve Crocker invented the RFC—Request for Comments. Not mandate. Request. RFC 1: 'These notes are intended to be informal fast reactions... not official policy statements.' This humility created genuine fellowship. Fire (clarity) rising to Heaven (universal scope). One yielding nature (Crocker's modesty) uniting many firm persons (brilliant computer scientists). RFCs became internet governance foundation—fellowship in the open, through shared goals not authority. Anyone can read. Anyone can comment. The protocols we use daily exist because fellowship succeeded.

Historical Context

Period
Zhou Dynasty
Oracle Bone Etymology
Heaven (☰) above, Fire (☲) below—fire's nature is to flame upward to heaven, creating the image of fellowship. One yielding line unites strong lines.
Traditional Use
The classical text describes this as peaceful union of people based on universal concerns, not private interests. Clarity within, strength without—the character of lasting fellowship.

Lines

Line 1: 同人于門無咎

tóngfellowship with, community
rénothers, people, humanity
at, by, before
méngate, door, entrance
no; not; nothing; without, with no
jiùblame; wrong; mistake, error

Line 2: 同人于宗吝

tóngfellowship with, community
rénothers, people, humanity
only in, within, inside
zōngclan, sect, faction, exclusive circle
lìnembarrassment, humiliation; poverty

Line 3: 伏戎于莽升其高陵三歲不興

cache, hide, conceal, crouching with
róngweapons, arms; armed
in, inside, within, amidst
mǎngunderbrush, thicket, bushes, weeds
shēngclimbing up, ascending to
one's, the, that
gāohighest, prominent, lofty
línghills, ridge, mound; ground
sānthree
suìyears, seasons, harvests
of, with no, not much, without
xīngexuberance, rising up, encouragement

Line 4: 乘其墉弗克攻吉

chéngmounting, climbing up on, upon, astride
one's, the, that, those
yōngbattlement, ramparts; fortified wall
but not, un-; nowhere; cannot
capable of; able to
gōngto attack, take the offensive; aggression
promising, lucky, auspicious; good fortune

Line 5: 同人先號咷而後笑大師克相遇

tóngfellowship with, community
rénothers, people, humanity
xiānbegins, starts, leading with, in
háowailing, howling, crying out; outcry
táoweeping; lament, complaint, moaning
érand then, but then, yet
hòufollows with, is followed by; afterwards
xiàolaughter, good humor, mirth, merriment
great, large, big, whole, complete, mighty
shīarmies, hosts, legions
can manage, master; are able
xiāngeach other
to entertain, meet, receive, accepting

Line 6: 同人于郊無悔

tóngfellowship with, community
rénothers, people, humanity
in, on, at, before, facing, towards
jiāoouter districts, frontier, edge, horizon
no, with no, without; nothing; not
huǐto regret, repent of; remorse; sorry

Practical Guidance

You're trying to get people to work together on something that's never been done before. No established authority. No clear hierarchy. Just shared goals and the need to coordinate. Here's what this probably means: you need fellowship but you can't command it into existence. Steve Crocker faced this in 1969. Brilliant researchers at different institutions, all building pieces of ARPANET, needing to coordinate without any one person having authority over the others. His solution: RFC 1. Request for Comments. Not mandate. Not specification. Request. RFC 1 begins with an apology: 'These notes are intended to be informal fast reactions... they are not official policy statements.' This isn't weakness—it's the one yielding nature that unites many firm persons. When you're coordinating people of equal or superior technical capability, you can't command. You can only create conditions where fellowship emerges naturally. The classical text says fellowship must be 'in the open.' Not secret factions, not exclusive groups, not inner circles with privileged information. Everything public. Participation open. Process transparent. This isn't naive utopianism—it's engineering pragmatism. Difficult problems need all available intelligence, and intelligence won't participate if it's excluded or manipulated. Your version: open-source governance. Public design docs. Transparent decision-making. The Linux kernel mailing list. Python Enhancement Proposals. W3C standards development. These succeed because they're principle-based rather than personality-based, open rather than closed, humble rather than authoritative. The practical consequence: when you need to coordinate capable people on unprecedented work, your role isn't to control but to facilitate. Create the minimal structure that lets strong opinions coordinate productively. Make everything accessible. Invite critique. The alternative—closed-door decisions, inner circles, information asymmetry—creates factions rather than fellowship. Factions cannot cross the great water. They can't accomplish difficult work that requires genuine coordination of diverse capabilities. Crocker's RFCs are still how internet standards get made, fifty-plus years later. That's what fellowship in the open accomplishes.

Get an interactive reading with this hexagram

Try the Oracle →