Hey everyone,
Well, the winter holidays are upon us here in the Northern hemisphere. For those of you in school, that means you’ve probably got some free time coming up. Why not use some of that to get going on the honorable project of learning to read classical texts of Chinese medicine? Sounds like fun to me. I wrote recently about a special deal for Deepest Health readers on a bundle of two books – Richard Goodman’s Classical Chinese Medicine Texts. These are great books for learners, ideally set up to take complete newbies through the steps of picking up critical language skills.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I will be heading up an online study group around the texts. We will work through a Google Group and have weekly “assignments” and discussions, and even try to put together a hosted chat every now and again. The hope is that by going through the books as a group, we will be better able to commit to learning, and have a group of people to help us work through particular challenges. Goodman has even offered to be a part of the group, in whatever capacity the group wants him to be. If you are interested in joining up with the group, please send an email through the contact form letting me know. You will need both books and a willingness to participate on at least a weekly basis. It should be a wonderful experience.
Now, I have a treat for everyone. Richard Goodman agreed to a short interview about his books, learning Classical Chinese and even some tips for aspiring writers in our field. Hopefully, this information will be useful, but will also convince you that learning Classical Chinese is worth doing, and worth doing now! Get the books, and join the group!
—-
Deepest Health (DH): What is the biggest impediment for English speakers in learning to read Classical chinese?
Richard Goodman (RG): “Every aspect of Chinese, and especially classical Chinese, is different from English. From learning and memorizing characters to grappling with a grammar that has no tense, much of what we encounter in Chinese is difficult to understand. When I was finally at the stage that I could start approaching classical Chinese medical texts, I was overwhelmed-where does one begin? The vast number of medical books written before the 20th century is alone enough to scare people away. This combination of learning a language that is different in every way from English with the sheer volume of classical texts available overwhelms people and even the most well intentioned people never begin.”
DH: How do your books help folks with that?
“My overall goal was to address as many of the frustrations I had in my own studies as I could in one series of books. The two I mentioned were two of my biggest frustrations and I addressed this first by just selecting texts that are fairly easy for beginners. Volume One starts out very slowly and builds very purposefully on the characters and grammar already taught. In both Volumes One and Two, 95% of the characters will be found in every medical text. I didn’t want any “filler” or terms that were rarely found. I was never trying to “wow” readers with impressive texts, but instead made language learning the priority. This does not take away all of the difficulty in learning Chinese, but learning slowly and building upon an ever increasing vocabulary makes the task seem a bit less daunting.”
“One thing I have heard from people over and over is that they did not feel overwhelmed by these books, and that is satisfying to hear because that was definitely one of my goals. Learners need confidence and they need it quickly.”
DH: Have you seen real clinical impact when people learn to read the classical Chinese medical texts? Why do you think this is?
“I think this very much depends on the type of practitioner one is when they begin to study classical texts. If one practices in a way that relies upon starting with a disease, moving on to its standardized differentiation, and then giving the formula and point prescriptions based upon that, that type of practitioner will not find classical texts clinically useful. There are virtually no classical texts that proceed in that way, which is why I suspect most people read translations of the classics and then decide learning to read classical texts is no longer relevant to modern day practice.”
“For practitioners who rely on understanding the underlying theories of Chinese medicine to treat patients, the classics are a treasure trove of information. Even rudimentary concepts like Qi, yin and yang, and the five phases are used to describe healthy and ill states with a depth that is quite astounding and much more refined than anything I have seen in English. I personally never had a really firm grasp on these basic ideas until I began reading them in the context they were originally discussed.”
“A lot of practical information also exists in the classics. For example, my views on pulse examination have transformed many times over by reading classical authors’ methods. Just one practical example is the relationship between the breath and the pulse. Most modern books teach us to use a watch, but rapid and slow pulses are determined in relationship to the number of times the pulse moves per breath. This changes the pulse dynamic considerably, leaving the focus entirely on the patient. Additionally, the terms for the pulses make much more sense to me in Chinese and the translations, such as slippery or choppy, do not really capture the image. Having access to all of the more detailed information on virtually every aspect of Chinese medicine, from prescriptions to diagnosis, will most certainly create a more refined practitioner.”
DH: Do you plan to write more books on the topic?
“There will be one final volume in this series which will focus more on herbal texts and their theories. I have already selected all of the texts and I expect that book to be available by early 2010.
I have already started working on what I am currently calling “learners’ editions” of the classics. That seems to me to be the next logical step so that people can continue studying while also tackling entire books. These will not be translations per se, but people who are not interested in learning the language could still use them as such. All together, I have about 10 books planned to come out over the next two years and all of them are related to Chinese classics and language.”
DH: What advice do you have for people in the field looking to write books? Any sagely advice? Tips and tricks? Things to avoid?
“I think the best advice I can give is simply do not try to force a book out of yourself. Everyone is different and I can really only share my own experience. I never really had the intention of writing books at this stage of my life and I just kind of fell into it. I found work as an editor at a publishing company to support myself while I studied Chinese. As my Chinese got better, I was moved to their Chinese language department and started translating Chinese language textbooks.”
“After editing what was probably hundreds of language teaching books, I got a real sense for what worked and what didn’t. My life circumstances were such that this series was just a natural extension of what I had been doing for the past five years. This is not to say that there weren’t times I struggled with the writing, but the idea and outline was very easy to come up with. Just write what you know and ask for help from others once you have something written—no one can write a book alone. “
Tags: scholar, Learning, study, chinese-language, habits, professional-development, students, classical-chinese-medicine
{ 16 comments… read them below or add one }
Great interview Eric. I have enjoyed Richard’s first text and look forward to the second. Thanks to both you and Richard for offering creating the study group. It will be a wonderful asset.
Ken
Wouldn’t it be a better idea that instead of tackling the classical Chinese language, which very few people use it nowadays, beginners focus most of their time learning modern Chinese, either the traditional or simplified forms? I mean, there are already several translations in modern Chinese of these classical texts (trust me, there are tons!). If one was so inclined to peer into the classics, they can read the less difficult, easier-to-understand version in modern Chinese. I don’t see the need to delve into classical Chinese, which usually requires a lot of time and effort, unless for curiosity or academic purposes. In fact, I think there’s a better way for beginners who are merely interested in understanding and communicating in a foreign language. The rule of thumb is that language beginners should first learn the new language that is currently in use, and once they become proficient enough, they can study the “old language”. Further, the classical texts have already been translated into modern texts, so there’s really no need to tackle the old language. This journey is really something more tailored to advanced learners. I think this is a more pragmatic way to approach learning Chinese or any other language in any case. I don’t want to be discouraging or condescending in any way, but I just want to let you know, as a matter of fact, that there is a better alternative to grasp the ancient wisdom of the classical texts; and for beginners, it is not in studying the archaic language, at least not yet.
Steven,
I can’t speak to all of your points, because I don’t know much about how people best learn languages. I’ll speak to the points I feel strongly about, however.
I believe that, if a school is going to teach the Classics (they all should, imho), they should teach them from great English translations, guided by a competent teacher with the intent to extract clinical guidance from the texts.
Unfortunately, there aren’t very many good translations. In fact, not many at all. Most of them are painful, really. Until this can be remedied, I believe we avoid a lot of damage by teaching students enough of the Classical language that they can begin to decipher the texts for themselves. While this can sometimes lead to hilarious and sad results, most of the time I have seen it elevate students’ understanding of the medicine and improve their clinical results.
All that being said, my blog isn’t a school. What I wrote was an open invitation for anyone with interest in the Classics – regardless of where they are in their training. People will self select, and will get out of it what they put in.
I have received TREMENDOUS benefit from learning the Classical language. I’m now beginning my adventure in learning modern Chinese so I can read more contemporary works. I don’t think I would have reversed this order – Classical first, modern later. But, that’s a personal feeling and doesn’t come from any rigorous understanding of the “best” way. Hopefully, people more learned than I will respond to this post to give their opinions on the matter.
Eric
Hi Stephen,
I understand where you are coming from and would like to address a couple of the points you bring up. You are entirely correct in stating that there are tons of translations of the classics from classical Chinese into modern Chinese. I have read many of these (not all of them), and some of them have helped me understand the classical texts much better. The problem is that a far majority of these translations into modern Chinese are not very good-most written for a non-medically trained audience. Having said that, there are also good ones written by scholars of medicine, history, and/or Chinese language, but these are few and far between. Of these, their purpose (like mine) is not so much to translate, but to explain the texts using their own modern and native language.
Without knowing the classical language and being able to compare the modern Chinese translations not just with each other, but with the source text itself, it is very difficult for readers to know which translations actually reflect the classical language. I do not know your background, but it sounds like you have some knowledge of modern Chinese and these translations. If you have read any number of them, I’m sure you can agree that their interpretations vary quite a bit. All of the interpretations, whether translated into modern Chinese or English, are interesting, but they become a lot more interesting when a reader can compare them to the source text and see how each translator came up with a different interpretation.
My own experience was much different than you have described. Like most people, I learned modern Chinese first. In that window of time between knowing modern Chinese and learning classical, I could read the modern translations and a lot of the modern medical books, but felt like I really was not learning anything that I could not have access to in English. Learning to read the classical medical texts has been (by far!) the single best thing I have done in my Chinese medicine career. Every day, I am quite literally floored by some of the things I read and the depth with which classical authors talked in a very poetic way about medicine. Modern Chinese and English translations may be able to convey the general meaning, but in my opinion they do not capture the essence and beauty of the texts.
The biggest reason to jump straight into the Classical and Literary Chinese and not go with the modern is because modern Chinese is ideologically tainted. The simplified character set removes a ton of not just useful but absolutely necessary information that is contained in the older characters.
Take a look at the characters for yin and yang for example in both modern and classical. The modern shows a hill, and then interpolates the sun radical or the shade radical, which basically tells us “ok, the difference between yin and yang is the difference between the sunny side of a hill and the shady side of a hill. Ok, they’re opposites. One is the presence of light an done is the absence. That presents dichotomies such as light and dark, good and evil, etc.”
If you look at the Classical version, its a whole different story. The hill radical is still there of course. However, it’s important to keep in mind what that hill radical would have been a symbol for to teh ancient mind. The character looks more than a little like a pregnant woman and is the symbol for communication between heaven and earth. Yang now is that symbol of communication, followed by a symbol of the sun’s rays reaching the earth. This is a statement about the nature of yang. The character for yin is even more telling. The hill radical is present again but now it is coupled with the image of steam rising up from a bowl of rice being cooked in the home. This is a marked difference from the modern interpretation. Now put together, yin and yang appear to be making a statement about SOMETHING ELSE, one showing active energy, the other showing latent or passive energy. It’s the active principle vs the passive principle. They are not shown as opposites, but instead are demonstrating Something Else being manifested two different ways, that yin and yang are manifestations of something, not concrete ending points in and of themselves.
Look at the character shang (damage) from the Shang Han Lun. In the classical character set, we see the radical for man paired with the rays of the sun striking the earth as in yang, but also with an arow, the symbol for injury. The statement that can be inferred here is that shang or damage is what harms someone’s yang qi.
This has enormous implications in the way one treats. If you treat yin and yang as polar opposites and treat in such a way that you are trying to achieve perfect equality between the two states in the patient, this is going to produce a completely different result than if you are trying to preserve and support yang as the prime factor. This is the difference between seeing Heat everywhere and trying to constantly cool down the body vs using warm herbs to try and bolster function. One cures the patient, the other is spotty at best.
So there are numerous and important reasons for learning Classical Chinese with very tangible results from doing so. Relying on modern translations that have to be authorized by the governmental edifice that stripped Chinese medicine of the bulk of its efficacy (thus creating TCM) is simply not going to cut it.
Hi,
First of all, I have to admit that I’m not a practitioner. I come from a background which encourages me to adopt an interest in Chinese Medicine. So in a way, I’m speaking my own opinion as someone who is leisurely interested in CM. I just want to be clear about this before I go on.
What I was trying to say in my last post is that people will struggle a lot to understand Classical Chinese and once they get the hang of it, they’d have already spent a lot of time on it; whereas, they could have used that same amount of time to study works or transcriptions by scholars in modern prose, which is much easier to understand. You can even compare them to figure out where they differ and to investigate why they differ. However, I won’t deny any additional benefit of being able to understand the classical texts. But like I said, the classical texts have already been transcribed by several well-known scholars, so the work has been cut in half for you.
I’m also trying to remind people that they should not merely expect to become better doctors by studying the classical text. Clinical experience counts the most for any doctors. The ancient texts are not absolute bibles; there are parts that are questionable as well. Ultimately, unlike Western medicine, Chinese medicine does not have a rigid system where it trains practitioners to think and to follow the same system (i.e., Herbalism). There are more shadowy grounds where you have to “experiment” with different methods to acquire sufficient clinical experience to become better doctors.
Modern texts have an advantage in resolving this dilemma. Nowadays, scholars publish their methods, findings, transcriptions of the ancient texts, etc. in books…I mean, the study and the practice of Chinese medicine is evolving and inevitably the new will sometimes contradict the old. I agree that more insights can be gained by looking into the past. But I question, at what cost on a person’s time and effort? The modern transcriptions are easier to read and forward-looking. They are more synoptically designed than the Classical texts; especially those that are written and published by people specialized in the field. As a result, it’s much more efficient and effective to study the modern texts.
Lastly, I would encourage anyone to learn to read the Classical text. But don’t expect to learn anything substantially different than what is already covered in Modern Chinese texts (don’t know about English translated texts though).
Hi Steven,
I think there is a little too much generalization going on here, which I also contributed to in my last comment. I want to address what I see as readily available in modern Chinese based on my (often obsessive) visits to Chinese medicine bookstores here in Taipei. If we are talking about the Su Wen, Ling Shu, Shang Han Lun, and Jin Gui Yao Lue, then yes, many translations into modern Chinese exist and many of these are quite good (though as I stated previously, their goal seems more to be on teaching people to understand the classical texts based upon their annotations). There are also books that help practitioners come up with innovative ways of using the principles of these books in a clinical setting, and some of those books are now making their way into English.
However, if we are talking about the thousands of others medical texts that were written between the Han and Qing dynasties, there are few translations available. I would say that 95-98% of those books have never been translated into any language and exist only in their original form. Many of these books are available in their classical Chinese form with commentaries from later authors, but there are no translations available. For example, I recently bought copies of all of Zhang Jie-bin’s works, but they are only available in their original form; in my view, Zhang writes some of the most interesting essays on medicine available.
The only way I know of to have access to the vast amount of information available is to learn to read classical Chinese. So yes, there are tons of translations into modern Chinese, but only of a fraction of medical books.
I also disagree that learning to read modern is much easier than learning to read classical. That has simply not been my experience. I find classical Chinese much more succinct. It very much depends on the types of texts people want to tackle. For example, I still have a VERY difficult time with classical literature (Tang Poems, for example), but because I have a Chinese medicine background, medical texts are not that much of a leap. Perhaps, you coming in as a non-clinically trained person, you find the modern texts much more illuminating than people who have already learned that information in school. Like I said in my last post, that was my personal experience…modern books were not teaching me anything I hadn’t really already heard. It was not until I got into the classical texts that I began seeing theoretical and practical information that no one is currently teaching or writing about.
Personally, there are not many books in modern Chinese that I would heartily recommend to people and that is why I don’t recommend people spending their time learning modern Chinese if understanding the classics is their goal-it just doesn’t make sense to me. The greatest benefit I have gained from learning modern (apart from the fact that I live in Taiwan and must speak Chinese daily) are the commentaries on some of the texts that helped me grasp classical Chinese. There are also some good scholarly books on the history of Chinese medicine in modern Chinese that are good. I am curious which books you are recommending people to read in modern Chinese?
I think we do agree that learning both is probably the best way forward. I often say that learning to read the classics is not for every practitioner and I do not personally think it is a prerequisite for being even a very good clinician. I wrote the series I did for the obsessive people, like myself (and there are many of us) who prefer to learn as much as they can from as many sources as possible. It’s not for everyone and I hope that nothing I write ever makes any practitioner feel like they are inferior because they can’t read the classics. It’s just that for me, nothing else I have done has increased my theoretical and clinical understanding as much as learning to read the classics.
Steven: Thank you for stimulating an interesting discussion on the topic of reading the classics! I agree with the fine points Richard and Michael have made, and would like to add the following. In my opinion (and those of my teachers), the question is not so much whether to read modern or classical Chinese texts, but why it may be beneficial for a Chinese medicine practitioner to read either.
The ultimate goal in Chinese medicine is to understand the intricate workings of the body, which is a part of nature. The body’s intricate–that is energetic and thus invisible–dynamics are hard to grasp by human senses and a brain made of matter. The story of King Midas tells of this predicament, when he wishes that anything he touches will turn to gold, and it does (with dire consequences). For modern people like us, anything we touch turns to matter. The people who established the functional/energetic foundation of Chinese medicine in Han and pre-Han dynasty times were respectfully called sages (shengren), because they could directly perceive the layer of reality that governs all others and is thus most important, yet most subtle and elusive and not perceptible to the untrained eye.
The ultimate classic, of course, is nature itself, and it is undoubtedly most beneficial for any Chinese medicine practitioner to learn how to read it directly. At a time, however, when there are very few “sages” alive who can instruct us how to read this ultimate text, it is most helpful to read manuals written by people who once could. For me, this is the ultimate essence contained in the term jing (classic)–an unveiling of the invisible “warp” that the material weft of reality is being attached to, and the core message that all Chinese books called jing/classics are dedicated to transmitting.
In one commentary to the Yijing it is said: If you read this book with the eyes of love, all you will see is love; if you read it with the eyes of wisdom, all you will see is wisdom. This implies that if we read the classics with our not-very-special matter oriented eyes, all we will see are not-very-special commentaries on matter; something that can be checked off as known once a modern translation has been produced.
Most modern translations, unfortunately, are just that: letters produced after reading transmissional information with common eyes. The original text, in contrast, has the potential to effect us like nature itself. As we gaze at it, its secrets may gradually become revealed. True classics are meant to be an inspiration tool that can unlock our intuition, like a mandala. As Zhang Zhongjing once emphasized in his preface to the classic Shanghan zabing lun: “The guiding hand of the classics serves as a source for constant reflection and improvement, for the purpose of evolving one’s static bag of inherited tricks.”
This is the benefit of reading the classics in their original form–similar to why it is better to walk in nature than watching nature on TV.
Fantastic to hear from Heiner on this issue. Hard to go wrong with the opinions of someone with a PhD in classical Chinese lit. :D
I think we need to be clear here that Classical Chinese and traditional characters are not the same thing. Yes, the mainlanders have simplified the written language, and yes the older complex characters hold much more meaning (just look at the word for listen is written), but there are serious grammatical and word usage differences between modern and classic Chinese. Which is more useful? For me that is hard to say, I read and understand modern Chinese much better (and thanks to Rick’s books my classic is improving as well). I have found there are some excellent resources written in modern Chinese, and especially lately as things open up on the mainland, there are voices worth reading, and a revitalized interest in the classics and classic medicine. One must sort the wheat from the chaff. Modern Chinese is also a useful tool when you want access to treasure house of Chinese medicine.
Chinese like any other ancient languages has its evolution and transformation and maturation periods and it is a very well evolved language.
The terms used and alphabets are so much close to nature and so beautiful that at times I cannot help but gaze at the written matter (though I cannot read Chinese). I particularly like the strokes and lines which Chinese alphabets use.
I would like to have the book collection for myself to read and learn this language. Who knows one day I might be talking with one of my Chinese friends and amaze them !
This is my first comment but I feel like I should have been making loads of comments now because I always like your stuff. Maybe comments are for more hit and miss blogs than your own. When you maintain a consistent level of high quality output I reckon people are less inclined to comment because they have come to expect it from you. Just a theory.
Huh, that’s very interesting. I had considered the impact of the difficulty of interpreting Classical with a modern eye, but you bring up an excellent point in that the Classical texts are written with a different approach to begin with. Very interesting point!
Chinese like any other ancient languages has its evolution and transformation and maturation periods and it is a very well evolved language.
The terms used and alphabets are so much close to nature and so beautiful that at times I cannot help but gaze at the written matter (though I cannot read Chinese). I particularly like the strokes and lines which Chinese alphabets use.
Anyone who seriously think of getting an in-depth understanding of the Chinese language/history / qigong/kungfu / TCM / Acupuncture should seriously consider jumping over the hurdle of the classical Chinese. In fact, hardly can anyone attain high level in the mentioned areas without having done so ,and, it is not only true for the Westerners , but also for the Chinese .
As a much refined form of the language, classical Chinese writings , its usage of every words , has much abundant meanings than texts written in modem Chinese . It is especially true when we consider those written by great TCM doctors /thinkers.
One easier way to enter this wonderful world is through reading those TCM writings written in the Ming and Ching dynasty , provided that you already master some modern Chinese.
Another point I want to add is the necessity of qigong practice that Richard seems misses to mention. With personal feeling of qi running inside your body, I think many strange description in the classical TCM texts will no longer sound odd to you .
You got me thinking on where exactly is humankind going as far as communication goes. So many languages with their own dialects, so many ways to say the same thing, so many different ways to say it etc, etc, etc. Makes you wonder on whether or not we’re going to find a universal language or not and if so, when will that happen? In a way that seems like a logical step our world is big and communication is the basic necessity for good relations among nations. In a way, i believe we’re heading to a symbol based language, similar to chinese, because letter are so…outdated.