I want to try something new. Many of my readers have asked me to do more discussion of the Classical texts. I have been hesitant because my command of Chinese is not great and the available translations are mostly disappointing (if my teachers are to be believed). However, my need to dive into them continuously and do whatever I am able to with them is becoming more important.
My thought is that the web of readers (some of you being accomplished translators) will catch any egregious errors… hopefully…
Actually, therein lies the articulation of a problem. I have been taught about Classical texts using two main methods. The first method is more rigorously scholarly and does demand an ever developing Chinese language ability. This method is very useful for getting practical information that can be reasoned through and communicated to others. It forms the basis of the science of Chinese medicine and it is very important that it be done with respect, humility and precision. From this method comes the various conversations about terminology, the importance of historical understanding and so on. To be clear – this method of working with Classical texts leads very clearly to directly applicable information in a very obvious way. So, if I read the first line of the Shanghan Lun:
“Tai yang zhi wei bing, mai fu, tou xiang jaing tong er wu han.”
(Wiseman/Ye/Mitchell translation) In disease of the greater yang, the pulse is floating, the head and nape are stiff and painful, and there is aversion to cold.
I can take any translations available and my own (growing) command of Chinese language, a battery of dictionaries and a grounded historical understanding of the text and apply these tools rigorously to the line in order to comprehend its meaning. In my case, I will combine this with the oral transmission I have received, mostly from Arnaud Versluys and his teachers, to obtain immediately practically relevant tools that I can use immediately in clinic. The Shanghan Lun lends itself especially well to this kind of grounded perspective, but I believe any of our canonical texts are capable of this type of rendering.
This kind of perspective might lead me to consider the meaning of the stiff nape : I can think about the Bladder channel (Taiyang) and its passing through the neck and the influence of cold on tissues. I can consider the meaning of the “pulse is floating,” does this mean the entire pulse? Just one position? What if I see these symptoms and a pulse that is deep? I can consider the full meaning of “aversion to cold.” I might compare it to “fear of cold” and consider the changing use of those terms through time. I may ask my teachers questions about how literally I should take these terms, and whether a slight aversion is sufficient. I could look at the Taiyang formulas as a family and consider how they all, in some way, answer these conditions. All of this information will be DIRECTLY applicable in the clinic.
I have also learned a more symbolic, more spiritual (if you will allow me the luxury of the word) method of working with Classical texts. This method demands that I relax my grip on the reins a little bit and let my mind and spirit wander. Here, lots of potentially irrelevant material is allowed to come through including anything I’ve ever learned in my life, everything I’ve seen and heard, in whatever topic – Chinese medicine related or not. I am encouraged to dwell in this non-logical space and allow connections to be made. I may draw in historical perspective, especially as that history includes analysis of myth, religion and everyday spirituality of ancient people. I do not worry much about the historical record. I am more interested here in the text as a devotional medium, to some extent. The Yijing lends itself especially well to this kind of contemplative reading, but I have done it as well with the Neijing and even the Shanghan Lun.
However, I do not then use these fanciful translations to treat patients in a direct way. I do not take my more personal and spiritual reading of the text and use my insights there directly to treat patients. I also do not attempt to pass off these readings as scholarly material. I am using the text as a medium for those parts of my consciousness that are more subtle and less accepted in the daily work world. All of that being said, these insights certainly do inform me as a practitioner. First of all, they get me into a meditative space that impacts me positively throughout the day (much like other spiritual practice). There is another aspect as well – one I was reminded of while listening to public radio the other day.
On a program called Radiolab, they were doing a story about sleep. Here they discussed recent scientific research into the function of dreaming in animals, including human beings. There was a lot to enjoy about the program, but I was struck by one point in particular. One researcher posited that we dream, in part, to make connections between things that we would not have seen had our more analytical consciousness been active as it is, normally, when we are awake. In other words, we sleep to solve problems by coming up with novel solutions that may have seemed impossible to the waking brain. There are many stories (true or not) of dramatic discoveries being made through dreaming when a symbol catalyzed a reaction in the brain that helped bridge a gap that existed for the person working on the problem – for instance the discovery of benzene’s ring structure coming from the researcher’s dream of a snake biting its own tail.
I see this second type of Classical text reading in this way. It engages my more-than consciousness, my synthetic awareness. While I will not be able to publish my meditations in a scholarly journal, they are still potentially helpful when I am problem solving as well as having the other benefits I have described above. Sometimes, this kind of consciousness may allow me to engage with the texts from the other perspective in a new and interesting way. It may help my brain to make connections that were much more difficult otherwise. I believe as long as I maintain the distinction for myself, and keep aware of the different utility of each method, I will be of more help to my patients. I know that there will be those among you who will disagree with me on a number of points, but looking at things this way really helps me to take advantage of the gifts I have received in my education.
Over time, I will share both types of readings with you, my readers, and encourage any interested parties to do so as well (*cough* Brandt *cough*). The most important rule I want to maintain is for any commenters to be aware of these different modes of reading. I think a recent, uh… discussion in the Deepest Health comments may have been helped by such a distinction in the minds of ALL parties. Both types of reading are valuable, but we must give each its due.
I’d love to hear everyone’s thoughts in the comments.
Related posts:
- Let’s learn Classical Chinese together : encouragement and an interview with Richard Goodman
- Learn to read classical Chinese medical texts – special deal for Deepest Health readers
- What are the classical texts of Chinese medicine?
- Why does Classical Chinese Medicine seem so complicated? A continuing conversation…
- Pacific College of Oriental Medicine to offer a Classical Curriculum
{ 4 comments… read them below or add one }
This sounds great! Ultimately though, I think it is necessary to merge both of these ways in order to come up with a correct and meaningful, or most precise translation. It is an interesting thought to translate them this way, but to not put them together will render an incomplete, or possibly inaccurate translation, in my opinion. Since characters are multi-layered symbols, it is possible for many translations to exist of the same material, but ultimately, one best or most exact translation must exist. If we separate these two ways of looking at the texts, I am not sure it is possible to come up with the closest or best translation. However, to attempt to look at translating these two separate ways, could be beneficial if we are to then analyze and merge them into one best translation. I am interested to see how this goes since I never tend to separate these ways when I translate. Sounds like an interesting experiment. Good luck!
This is a very interesting article. Although you may not be able to publish your meditations in scientific journals, you may consider publishing a book to share them with others in your field. I would be interested to see your translations. Thanks for sharing.
Hi Eric,
Although I tend to prefer the first method, I agree that there is some benefit with the second, especially in looking at alternative possibilities. I have noticed that as my knowledge of history and language increases, the quality of the second type of analysis has also changed. My feathers still get a bit ruffled when people use their conclusions from a contemplative method as fact and ignore history and language. However, I find a contemplative approach helpful, especially if the contemplation is continuous contemplation and not seeking a solid answer. Great article!
Translation is a very challenging endeavor! The two have their own list of strengths and weaknesses. The technical, lexical translation may be needed to diagnose certain diseases, but I prefer the more spiritual translation. It does not only attend to the physical but also to the internal, spiritual workings of the human body.