There is a very interesting discussion going on over at Richard Goodman’s blog – He explains…
“…Ling Shu Chapter 55
The superior physician treats that which is not yet ill. The inferior physician treats that which is already ill.
This is a fairly famous statement, which is often interpreted to be a call to preventative medicine. Modern physicians often complain that patients come in with specific complaints and it is impossible to treat what is not yet ill. I find this stance strange, as if we are to believe if someone has a disease which has already become manifest, the practitioner is prevented from treating what is not yet ill.
At any rate, the following quote from Nanjing has a completely different interpretation of the above passage:
Treating what is not yet ill means that when one sees illness in the liver (for example), this (can be) transmitted to the spleen. First fill (shi2) the spleen qi so that there is no way for it to accept the liver’s evil qi. This is what is called treating what is not yet ill.
As you can read, the writer of the Nan Jing felt that the meaning of treating what was not yet ill did not mean some psychic rendering of signs and symptoms, but a way of treating a person who comes with a specific complaint. “
Talking with my friend and colleague Michael Givens, he stated his conviction that this Classical passage tells us succinctly how we must proceed as Classically trained physicians. I agree! When a patient comes in to see us, we must be doing a number of things simultaneously. We must see the present complaint as it is an express of physiology gone awry, and we must situate that within a matrix of time and space that helps us understand the root of the disease as well as its potential for adverse development. While your chronic cough may be easy to ignore and seemingly innocuous, not to mention related only to the “Lung,” as Classically minded practitioners, we need to see under, around, beyond and between that.
This asks a lot of practitioners. We need to understand physiology in all of its manifestations, with all of the conceptual systems we have to understand them. This is particularly true of the six conformations, as they are the broadest, most comprehensive, and least misleading structures we have available. But, we must also know the five element model (and all of the interrelationships therein), the complexity of the channel system (from minute luo to cutaneous regions), and yes, we can also take into account the Zangfu information (particularly as contained in the Neijing and other Classical texts) and everything else we have learned. It is my preference to stick with the six conformations and five elements, and others may have other preferences.
We need to understand the manifold ways that physiology can be disturbed, and understand the diverse ways this can express in patients. We must understand how disease progresses through time, and what factors might upset the “normal” progression.
This is to say nothing of all we must know for treatment. This is to say nothing of the intense rectification of the self that must take place in order for our true healing power to come forth. It is to say nothing of a lot of things, but a lot about a little. And that little is critically important, so important that it was enshrined in the foundational texts of our medicine.
I don’t know if I will ever “be” a superior physician – it seems to me the kind of thing that one continually strives for, a moving target that helps to keep the thirst for excellence alive. But, I do know that the rest of my life will be devoted to attempting to understand the above, and attempting to let that understanding flow into my treatment, and to let my treatment be of service to my patients.
What about you? How do you understand the above line? Do you feel prepared to strive for the “rank” of superior physician? Discuss here in the comments or on Richard’s fine site.
Eric
Related posts:
- Why does Classical Chinese Medicine seem so complicated? A continuing conversation…
- 7 keys to understanding the Classical Chinese Medicine concept of organs
- Acupuncture is more than just needles
- More Classical Chinese Medicine courses in Portland, an update and a question
- The importance of the Spleen in studying Classical Chinese Medicine
{ 54 comments… read them below or add one }
I think this is something that physicians should be taught….to learn about the true meaning of healing and not always slapping medicine on the problem (which ends up causing more problems)LOl I don’t know about being the ’superior physician’ but you should definetely strive for that!
Hi Eric,
I believe the Ling Shu line refers to both actually preventing disease from manifesting in a healthy person, as well as preventing the disease pattern from progressing to different channels or organs.
Nowadays, most people cannot say that they are perfectly healthy, so I think that in the clinic this line would apply more often to the second idea stated. Having said that, we still see people who come into the clinic that don’t seem to have any chief complaint, but are just looking to maintain a healthy body. Theses health-conscious individuals are the ones that the first idea would apply.
I have to admit, I have been a bit confused about 6 conformation theory since day one, and I still don’t quite grasp it. Yin/yang, zang-fu, and 5 element theory all make perfect sense to me. 4 layers I don’t fully grasp, but more than 6 conformation theory. I disagree with what you say about 6 conformation being the broadest system. Clearly, yin/yang is the broadest. That is why 6 conformation theory was created by ZZJ. He realized yin/yang was too broad for diagnosis, so he created 3 yang and 3 yin to be able to further differentiate.
I tend to think of the 4 layer theory being more related to space, while the 6 conformation theory is more applicable to time. I realize both are related to both the physical body and the qi body, but somehow the 4 layers makes more sense to think about where in the physical body the disease is located, while 6 conformation gives more information about how the disease has progressed over time by analyzing the signs and symptoms. I think of it that way since ZZJ talks about each conformation corresponding to a particular day in the disease process.
I don’t think 6 conformation is broad enough of a system to be able to use it in the first idea I presented about this Ling Shu line, but it can very much be applied to the second idea I stated. How can we use 6 conformation theory on someone who has no disease present to prevent them from getting sick? We can use yin/yang and 5 element theory to treat these people on a constitutional level in the clinic though. On the other hand, if a disease is present, 6 conformation theory maybe the strongest model we have in CM for being able to predict and prevent where the disease will go next. (this is dealing with the time aspect of a disease, which is the strength of 6 conformation, in my opinion)
Again, I am just stating what I think is true based on my knowledge and studies thus far, but I would love to hear what you think about this as someone who uses and knows 6 conformation theory more than myself. I would love for you to write a detailed article on 6 conformation theory sometime if you can. Perhaps then I could pick up some missing pieces that were never presented to me or that I was unable to understand previously about it.
I am quite interested in this line from the Lingshu, as well as the parallel line (as Richard Goodman demonstrated for us) in the Jingui. This is such a great post Eric…I hope we can begin an important discussion about its significance.
In terms of space versus time, I would recommend the readers check out the translation of Liu Chang’s interview (on ClassicalChineseMedicine.org — I hope that’s the correct address…correct me Eric if I’ve mis-written it). In this interview Chang eloquently discusses how classical Chinese medicine is a Time-based system, not a space-based system. I whole-heartedly agree, and based on my studies and research into the philosophical background of Han dynasty science, I believe that if we do not grasp this important concept, we will never understand what it means to be a superior physician. I do think that Zhang Zhongjing not only understood this, but existed within the worldview that is fundamentally based upon time.
What do others think about this?
Michael
Hi Michael,
I agree that in the Han Dynasty that time was of primary importance compared to space. 4 layers theory was developed much later in history, so it kind of shows how Chinese doctors thinking started to slowly shift over time from one of time and qi as primary to space and physical body becoming increasingly important.
To disregard space completely though, well that of course is not possible. We cannot talk about time in terms of human beings without recognizing and accepting that space also exists. If ancient doctors did not accept space as being part of the medicine, well then xing/form and shen/body and other terms would not have been used, and medicine would be of no worth if he did not have a body which to diagnose and treat. On Earth, we must have both space and time. To live outside the realm of space and time is to be completely in the realm of Heaven, which is not the realm of ren/mankind.
Hey all,
I frankly don’t have the time necessary to answer Delli and Michael in fullness until Tuesday (last board exam on Monday) but a couple of points for thought.
First, let’s be simple for a moment. The six conformation system encompasses what, I think, Delli is thinking of as “space” (organs, etc) and the dimension of time simultaneously. There is no either/or – when I am using the six conformations in diagnosis, I am talking about the entire terrain of the human being – mind/body/spirit, time/space, physiology/pathology, etc… it is absolutely broad enough to encompass all of this. I’m confused, Delli, about your differentiation between 6 conformations and 4 layers as being more time versus more space based. Are you saying that you feel that the 6 conformations doesn’t tell us where in the body the disease is located? If so, I can assure you that nothing could be farther from the truth… but it is hard to understand at first, and I totally get that. Ah, this Chinese medicine – so complicated! :D
One quick note: In the end, only the treatment of patients can help us understand whether it works. I treat a wide variety of patients with success (my shifts are full, so something must be going right, or I’m just incredibly good looking) all without ever, for a single second, thinking about Zangfu differentiation. Much less the four layers. All without ever, except under extreme (supervisor applied) duress (and then only once or twice) veering from ZZJ’s formulas.
So, that’s saying something. What it says is up for interpretation, I suppose.
Whether it’s time or space or this or that is, on the level of “in the trenches,” largely irrelevant if it doesn’t treat patients effectively. Period. So, we always have to keep that in mind and not let ourselves get too abstracted.
NOW. That doesn’t mean we can’t have great conversations about it all, and I want to. After the board exam. :) I promise!
If we want to go very deep, we can talk about the actual relationship of space and time – I can contribute some material from the perspective of Philosophy that may be instructive.
I agree, Delli, that several posts concerning the six conformations are necessary and I will get to work on them after graduation.
More to come,
e
Hi Eric: Thanks for picking this discussion up over here! I think your assessment is correct-this does ask a lot of practitioners. I also believe all of this makes Chinese medicine much more interesting.
Delli: I am not sure about the four layer (I assume you are talking about wen bing) developing from changes in time-space considerations. Marta Hanson wrote a very good article in the book Innovation in Chinese Medicine about the development of wen bing. I won’t summarize it here, but if you can find that book in a library I highly suggest it.
There is an earlier line from this chapter in the Ling Shu which says 上工刺未生者. The two characters 未生 could certainly mean “not yet manifested.” But this brings up a lot of questions for me.
Is it even possible for us to know something that is not yet manifested? An imbalance in the pulse is a manifestation. A swollen tongue is a manifestation. Anything you and I can see or sense is a manifestation. 生 is likely referring to 生病, or manifested illness.
The reason I wanted to emphasize the Nan Jing and JGYL on this is simply because their take is not our first reaction. They take it to a whole different level. Neither talks about prevention in the way we see it today. The Ling Shu tells us WHAT: treat what is not yet ill. The Nan Jing tells us HOW, and the JGYL tells us WHY it works out.
Hi Sara,
I was wondering if you could say a little bit more about that. I am not sure you said enough to make me clearly understand what you mean.
To Richard:
Yes, I was referring to Wen Bing. I am by no means a SHL or Wen Bing scholar, but that is just one way I think about them in terms of strengths and weaknesses, and what they are most concerned with assessing. It may or may not be true, so take what I say with a grain of salt. That has just been an idea I have had in the back of my head for a few years. Perhaps this is not a good way to think about them in the clinic though.
I can’t say I know the Nan Jing, SHL, and Wen Bing schools of thought very well, because I still spend most of my time with the Nei Jing when I go directly to the classics. Not sure if I will ever make it past the Nei Jing because it is so dense and rich with material. In fact, one of the reasons I decided to go to Chinese medicine school was to understand the Nei Jing better. You can just imagine how lost I was reading Ni’s translation for the first time with having no exposure to the medicine or Chinese culture. At that point, I pretty had used the Yi Jing once and read a few Daoist works, but that is it. I can say with one hundred percent certainty that the secrets of preventative medicine as we understand it today, are first revealed in the Nei Jing. It is talked about in many different chapters in many different ways. We talk about it in our school in several different classes as well. Classical Chinese medicine is about time and space. If you understand both from a macrocosmic and microcosmic perspective then you can start to see and predict the changes of the world. This knowledge gives us the means to “treat” what has not yet manifested in the human body. I would be happy to have a deeper discussion around this if it interests people, as this is some of the greatest and most important wisdom the Nei Jing gives us.
This is the first time I have ever read or really even analyzed such a statement. I must agree with the first comment though that doctors should hold off on meds and think outside the box. Medicine is a wonder of this world in my opinion but there are also other great alternatives.
The Classics are open to various interpretations. In the Chapter on Biao and Ben (‘root’ and ‘branch’) Van Nghi says in his comments that there is a philosophical interpretation of the concepts and a pragmatic one. Root and Branch can refer to the (ultimate) cause of disease and its manifest form, or the primary and secondary aspects of the disease or condition.
The author of the article makes a typical error based on Aristotelian logic. The assumption that if there is one interpretation that is true. But Van Nghi’s principle applies to many other concepts that can be taken in (at least) two levels of meaning. Similarly the two basic principles of treatment ni and cong which I like to translate as ‘directive’ and ‘non-directive’ go far beyond the modern (TCM) ideas of support/attack and the use of different words than the modern principles makes it very clear that there is a difference between the philosophical implications and the pragmatic.
Heiner Fruehauf’s table of ‘CCM’ and ‘TCM’ principles is essentially saying that CCM leans towards the upper level interpretation as primary. TCM leans more towards the pragmatic.
Both are true.
It is very ironic that this website is subtitled an exploration of Classical Chinese Medicine and is arguing for a pragmatic interpretation. There is already a pragmatic interpretation of Chinese Medicine it is called TCM. CCM is not just a fine tuning of TCM to update it, it is a difference in emphasis. And particularly a more wholistic, vitalistic, interpretation of Chinese Medicine. And if one reads the Su Wen it is clear that preventative treatment not just preventing secondary conditions, is the highest ideal of the superior physician.
Please note when I use the word philosophical I am not using in the way that it is often thought of by Westerners as JUST philosophy, but in a more Eastern sense where philosophy is not divorced from the real world, i.e. but conveying more the highest level of ideas (Dao, Yin/Yang) which are applied to the real world.
My appologies for ascribing the comments to this Website. I did not notice that they are from an outside source. You may want to make that more obvious.
These quotes are very helpful to inspire new bee like me making their career in the filed of health care to perform their job well and always be on the right track.
Andrew,
Well said! You are exactly right on the same page as me with your understanding of the medicine. I actually just wrote about the difference between classical Chinese medicine (philosophical style) and TCM (pragmatic style) on Dr. Versluys Facebook page and described it in a very similar manner. It is good to know I am not the only one with this idea and understanding of the medicine.
Hi Andrew,
I don’t know that anyone is arguing for a pragmatic interpretation. In my original article, I was simply giving the later passages from the Nanjing and Jin Gui Yao Lue. Their interpretation is what it is. I also did not argue that it was true, just that it was an interesting departure from what people usually say. I am not sure what your comments are based on-I see nothing in my original article or Eric’s comments that argue for a pragmatic approach. We are all commenting on the interpretation of the Nanjing.
Richard;
I had a Look back at your original comment that is quoted here, and it may only be a partial quote of your original blog. The quoted extract seems to be arguing for a pragmatic meaning of the idea of the superior physician rather than the fuller possible implications of these ideas. And it is possible that the quote is out of context. I think I mentioned earlier that I started responding to this before I realised that it was not part of this blog.
Fair enough, Andrew. I can see where if you missed the initial link, it may appear to be quite a different discussion.
Cheers,
R. Goodman
Indeed I just looked at the original discussion on your site and realised that the second part not included in the quoted section above does give a different emphasis. I would certainly agree that some of the clarifications in the Nan Jing do seem to lean towards what I have called the more ‘pragmatic’ interpetations. I would still emphasize the need to look at these in context of the whole, and I think particularly in the Su Wen (and some passages of the Ling Shu) the more philosophical/idealistic interpretations are also well supported.
Hi Andrew,
I am not familiar with any passages in the Nei Jing or commentaries that would support an idealistic/philosophical interpretation. Do you have any you can share?
Off the top of my head, I would probably begin with Chapter 1 of the Su Wen “Of the Heavenly Truth in Ancient Times” where the Yellow Emperor asks Qi Bo to explain the reason for the longevity of the ancients – which is apparently because they lived in accord with the Dao. That certainly seems to set the tone as idealistic and philosophical – in the archaic sense of these terms.
The first part of the text you mention is: 上古之人, 其知道者
Of the Ancient people, those who knew the Dao….
Then the next lines are all of their practices:
法於陰陽, 和於術數, 食飲有節, 起居有常, 不妄作勞
In other words, I read this to mean that of the people in the past (not everyone) who knew the Dao practiced the following. I see this as practice and philosophy working quite well as one.
Indeed that is the beauty of the Eastern perspective the philsophical is not an ivory tower realm – the philsophical and the practical are seamless.
Claude Larre suggests the numerological structure of the early chapters so the Su Wen. Chapter 2 through 5 in particular take us through Yin/Yang theory the four Seasons and Five Phases and Zang/Fu. The point I would make here is that I was going to describe these as neutral in relation to your question, but that is not quite the right word. They illustrate the seamlessness of the philosophical and cosmological ideas and their practical application. Another point of note I would make is that we are introuduced to the Five Phases as the basis of health before we begin to examine disease. This is an illustration of the way I use the word ‘idealistic’. It contrasts with modern TCM that clearly places greater emphasis on understanding disease conditions. It is also a good place to mention that the Nan Jing has been described as putting forward an idea of balancing to achieve health rather than attacking the disease processes (again not my own idea, one I found on a history or OM website). This is the basis of the Five Element approach and is said to be derived from Japanese tradition and the Nan Jing. Clearly a more idealistic approach its main limitation being in the area of more severe/acute conditions, but giving us the tools for greater emphasis on prevention and health maintenance. Again this is what I would describe as idealistic.
Chapter 6 introuduces us to six stages of Yin/Yang more specificaly the Six Channels. A main point of note here is that the order is not the order of the Shang Han Lun it is the initial theory or structural order in the syste. Again illustrating that from the Shang Han Lun onwards we have a greater emphasis on the more pragmatic order used in understanding external invasions.
I have to admit here that my memory of Chapter 7 is a little weak.
Of course Claude Larre’s numerological interpretation is leading to his discussion on Chapter 8 of the Su Wen. If I remember him correctly 8 represents a certain fulfillment of the process. We have talked elsewhere of Chapter 8 of the Su Wen. It differences from Zang/Fu theory. The symbolism of the title that would suggest some kind of hidden or concealed teachings. The basic structure I would suggest is that we are starting with the phases and their basic process and identifying two functions within this. For example, Wood-Wind-Growth we identify Decision Making and Strategic Planning (a yin and yang pair). These are identified with the Gall-Bladder and Liver. But we have a top down (idealistic) model that clearly has different implications to Zang/Fu theory. These attributes are commonly subsumed under Zang/Fu theory in modern texts which appears to me to completely miss the point.
I would pause here to note that the aspects of understanding normal health function, and seeking to restore balance rather than understanding disease processes are central to Five Element approach. The ‘de-emphasis’ of Five Phases in modern TCM which is Ted Kaptchuks term represents less emphasis on these aspects and less emphasis on the health maintenance tools of CM. Again illustrating the intent of my qualified use of the terms ‘idealistic’ and ‘pragmatic’.
Further to this without access to my notes I would mention the Chapter of the Su Wen on Biao and Ben. Van Nghi in his comments on the equivalent Chapter in the Ling Shu mentions the two ways that these can be interpreted. With your original quote from the Nan Jing illustrating the more mundane interpretation. I have also previously mentioned that in this Chapter Biao and Ben are given as the important principles in understand disease, Ni and Cong are the important principles of treatment. The modern TCM principles of support and attack are clearly derived from this – but in this case the implications of Ni and Cong are more of the philosophical/ideal and attack and support are clearly more pragmatic, but do not do justice to the full implications of the terms. Several translators actually use homeopathic and allopathic ideas to try and explain these concepts. My own contextual translation of these terms based upon my psychiatric nursing background and psychology is directive and non-directive.
I hope this will have clarified the way I intend the terms idealistic/philosphical and pragmatic. I don’t think we are too far apart in our understanding of these, I think it may be the terms that are causing some confusion.
Hi Richard,
Here is my translation of that line you gave as an example.
上古之人, 其知道者法於陰陽, 和於術數, 食飲有節, 起居有常, 不妄作勞
In ancient times, mankind had knowledge of the Dao. They followed the laws of yin and yang, lived in harmony, and cultivated numerous skills. They ate and drank in moderation, and lived a daily constant routine. (in harmony with nature in terms of the macrocosm, and this correlates to in terms of the organ clock if we are talking about the microcosm of the human body) They did not act unreasonably by making trouble for themselves or more work.
You see, my translation proves the point that it can be interpreted radically different. I see it as the authors of the Nei Jing paying homage to the Daoist and folk roots of the medicine. It is also proving my earlier point about preventative medicine. This is the base prescription for all health. If people followed these basic Daoist principles, they would not develop most diseases in the first place. This is holistic, preventative medicine.
Even though the term Dao did not exist in ancient times, the knowledge of it did. That is why ancients lived in harmony with the Dao. Observing nature was how knowledge of Dao was originally obtained. The ancients did not write it down, because it was widely known by all, so they had no need to write it down. Laozi first coins the term Dao, but he basically is saying this is not the real Dao. The real Dao does not exist on a piece of paper written with ink and pen. He says that this book is NOT the Dao. It is a symbol, or a personal reflection of the Dao. As knowledge of Dao diminished, only then was it saw fit to be written down by the great sage. Sages were people who consciously cultivated Dao to live in harmony with nature in order to live as long and healthy as possible.
I think the fact that the Dao is even mentioned shows how important it is in the sentence. Why would the ancients who knew of the Dao not practice those things mentioned? If they did, then they would not be Daoist, because a Daoist is one who strives to live in harmony with nature. They certainly would not have had knowledge of cultivating life if they did not follow the laws of nature.
Here is a very similar passage I translated recently from the Fuxing Jue written by Tao Hongjing, who was a very famous Daoist doctor living several hundred years after the Nei Jing was written. It is clear that he is saying the same thing, except is talking more specifically about how to live in accordance with the Dao in terms of the microcosm, or human body.
隐居曰：凡学道辈，欲求永年，先须祛疾。或有夙痼，或患时恙，一依五脏补泻法例，服药数剂，必使脏气平和，乃可进修内视之道。不尔，五精不续，真一难守，不入真景也。服药祛疾，虽系微事，亦初学之要领也。诸凡杂病，服药汗吐后，邪气虽[难]平，精气被夺，致令五脏虚疲，当即据证服补汤数剂以补之。不然，时日久旷，或变为损证，则生死转侧耳。谨将五脏虚实证候悉列于左，庶几识别无误焉。
Yinju says: Older generations had knowledge of the Dao, because they desired to know how to live a long life, so first they figured out how to drive away disease. Perhaps they had chronic diseases, or perhaps they worried a time of illness was soon coming. One depends on the five viscera to be nourished and flowing swiftly, this is the law one must follow when taking herbal prescriptions skillfully. This will make the zang qi peaceful and harmonious. Only then can one cultivate inner vision and align with the Dao. Failing to do so, the five spirits cannot be healthy. Indeed, one will have difficulty safeguarding the spirits if they do not follow these laws, because the spirit will not enter the viscera, and they will not be present in the person.
I’m sorry Delli, but I’m just not sure how to respond. My goal is helping people learn to read the classics. You sound very sure of everything you wrote and I find no space for dialogue.
Richard I was surprised by your response to ‘Delli’ – I don’t know if the following helps – I also don’t know where you guys are in the world. But I am British and living in the US, I notice what appears to me to a be a cultural tendency here to debate in very forceful and adversarial terms. I have struggled with this because very often people seem to be expressing themselves extremely forcefully and with ex cathedra statements that brook no dispute. Richard your response to Delli reminds me of myself on many occasions untill I got more used to this. I don’t think Delli intended to shut out any debate – but he clearly believes strongly in what he is saying, perhaps I am aculturated because it did not even come accross that way to me and I was puzzled by your response untill I thought about it. Hope that helps.
I have been taking another look at the chapter of the Nan Jing that seems to give such a pragmatic and limited interpretation of the idea of the superior physician. Here is Bob Flaw’s translation below. It seems to me that one idea would put this in perspective, if one saw the answer as a ‘for example’. The writer/teacher is assuming that he is dealing with a person new to these ideas who needs leading in steps and gives a rather simple and limited example. I have done this myself as a teacher many times giving the student a very practical mundane example and then building up to more subtle/complex examples. To take this passage as a definitive explanation of the meaning of the classics is to go against a wealth of ideas expressed in many chapters of the Nei Jing – it just does not add up.
I particularly like the idea of ’single mindedness’, literally ‘one heart’.
Seventy-seven
Difficulty Seventy-seven says: The Classic says the superior worker treats [what's] not diseased. The mediocre worker treats [what's] already diseased. What does this mean?
Answer: Where it is said treat [what's] not diseased, [this means that when] one sees a disease of the liver, one should know that the liver must transmit [this disease] to the spleen. Therefore, one should first replete the spleen qi before [the spleen] obtains and receives evils from the liver. This is what’s called treating [what's] not diseased. When a mediocre worker sees a disease of the liver, not knowing about mutual transmission, [they will, with] one heart [i.e., single-mindedly], treat the liver. This is what’s called treating [what's] already diseased.
Everyone,
I feel really happy to see this discussion. Why? Well, I have to make clear a couple of assumptions I’m making. First, I’m assuming that people aren’t relying only on translations by other people – but that they themselves know Chinese well enough to do their own translations, and do them against the background of an informed historical perspective. That’s pretty important to me as a scholar, as several of my teachers have shown me how dicey English translations can be in specific contexts. Second, I’m assuming that folks have some kind of reason for their interpretation that is grounded in lived experience – preferably patient treatment. Assuming that both of these things are true, what we have going on is an interesting, spirited debate about a text that most people don’t even know about, much less have opinions about. It also excites me to think that people have not just been sitting about thinking, but actually determining how these texts work in the world, with patients, etc… Amazing!
I have nothing substantive to add because (a) I cannot read Chinese well enough and do not have sufficient grounded historical perspective to make a judgment about – for instance – whether a philosophical/idealistic or pragmatic interpretation of ANY line of Chinese text is more appropriate, and (b) certainly have not had enough experience testing either perspective in the world to determine whether either makes more sense to me.
Eric
I am very interested in discussions, but not so much in debates. I could have been reading Delli’s comments wrong, and if so I apologize. My response was mostly to the idea of “my translation proves.” I did not see where a discussion could go from there. Looking at my comment, I see that it sounds abrasive, but that was not my intent. I just was not sure how to respond.
I don’t want to speak for Delli, but he said: “You see, my translation proves the point that it can be interpreted radically different.” I read this as proving that it ‘can be’ interpreted differently, not that that interpretation is the only true one.
My own point would be that the Classics are open to various interpretations. Where I think we all get into trouble is not in saying what is possible, but when we say what isn’t valid. I want to acknowledge that the more pragmatic interpretations are valid and very important especially in the more immediate acute severe areas of medicine, but I also think the more idealistic or philosophical interpretations are also valid especially in areas of chronic, especially emotional disease, and health maintenance and prevention.
For example, in ‘Statements of Fact in TCM’ Bob Flaws quotes many texts on Shen and Jing and related ideas and then says words to the effect that clearly Chinese medicine saw ’spririt’ as an emergent property. I read the same texts and come to the opposite conclusion. But the beauty of CM is that both are possible (whether by intent of some happy chance) and actually it works (in theory and practice) either way. I would like us all to acknowledge the perspective that is more Earthly (pragmatic, mundane, technical, Confucian/Legalist etc.) while allowing for the more Heavenly (philosophical, idealistic, Daositc, spiritual etc.) orientation and vice versa.
Eric;
I very much respect your humility. And let me also say that I cannot do primary translation, I am very dependent on other peoples work. But neither of us should feel too bad I have a Taiwanese friend who is a teacher of Mandarin who also says that he finds Classic texts a challenge. I don’t think that anyone was expected to learn CM from the Classics I believe they were intended to be mnemonic for those who already knew the information. And so we have to approach them in the same way. I see what I see because of my own background and training. Others see what they see and it is equally valid. What tends to be lacking from most Western translation of the medical texts is the commentaries. The fascinating thing is that even the commentaries are full of differences of opinion on what the texts mean.
Hi Richard,
I greatly appreciate your passion and knowledge of the Chinese medical classics, even if we see things drastically different. My point was not to say my translation is the end all be all, and that it can’t be argued. My point was that Chinese characters are symbols that convey meaning on many levels. They do not only have only one interpretation because of this. Heiner always mentions this one quote, and I can’t remember it now. I think it comes from Confucius. To sum it up, only those who have open eyes and hearts to see with can see the true, deeper meaning. Otherwise, people with closed eyes and hearts will be blind to the truth. I am spacing this one. Eric or Michael G., do you remember this quote I am talking about?
Anyway, the point is, that if I only believe and want to see the classics from a Daoist perspective, that is all I will see. In that sense, you are right Mr. Goodman. I can blind myself to the truth if I so chose to see things from only this perspective.
Let me give an example. I am going to make a big assumption here, but let me assume for now that you see the term fa3 法 as a Legalist term. On the superficial level this seems reasonable, right? It is defined as 1) law 2) method, way 3) standard; model 4) legalist (Legalist school) 5)process 6) magical arts 7) process (ism) 8) follow; model
If we actually look at the components of the characters, we see that on the left we have the radical shui, water. On the right, the phoentic component is composed of qu, meaning to go. Often times, the phoentic actually does have much to do with the actually meaning of the character. So, this character literally is a picture showing and meaning the flow of water. Do you see where I am going with this? I think anyone who has studied classical Chinese culuture can tell you that the flow of water is a Daoist idea. So basically, this character today is often applied to laws and rules created by mankind, but originally it was describing the laws of nature, or following the laws of Dao. This is the more philosophical, broader meaning of the character originally. As civilization progressed, it is clear to see how and why this term would then be applied to more mundane and human created rules and laws, which would be more useful, in the pragmatic sense.
I do believe, 100 %, that that quote you mentioned from the Su Wen is a fine example of what preventative medicine was really all about back then. Since this post was originally about the interpretation of preventative medicine, I just wanted to emphasize what I was saying way back in my original comment on this post. That is, preventative medicine is about living healthy, long lives. (What all true Daoists seek) The Su Wen is primarily concerned with divulging information that is true for all people in all ages. That is the real, primary definition of classic. It does not mean a book or important work, but rather classic refers primarily to the timeless nature of the information. For example, all people of all ages should go to bed shortly after nightfall. It doesn’t matter if you live in a modern city with electricity that makes it possible to see at night, and thus stay up late doing things. You are going against the flow of nature, and this will inevitably lead to disease. If you are human, you are subject to the laws of nature. So, you see, they do talk about preventative medicine in the same sense we think of it today. It is possible to prevent disease that has not yet manifest in the body. This is the way of the superior doctor. Thus, we must educate our patients today because they are not one with the Dao. In ancient times people were closer to nature, and so it was not necessary to tell them these things. Today, people don’t understand these basic laws of nature that all are subject to, regardless if you are Daoist, Legalist, Christian, black, white, etc.
Hi Delli,
I agree with the sentiment offered by your teacher. I have found that the greatest tool I can possess in reading classical Chinese is an openness to the range of meanings.
I think you have hit on a central idea. Fruehauf refers to these two ways of looking at Chinese terms. The one interprets the graphic/hieroglyphic meaning and its relation to other characters. The other tries to find the most technical delimited modern meaning. To an extent in the former we are assuming that these broader, poetic meanings are the way the ancients viewed things perhaps even before the text was written down. So we read possibilities in the text, but we do not know if these were intended by the historical writers. There is such a coherence of ideas that I have no doubt that they were understood in this way – but it is by definition hard to prove because it is oral/pre-literate. If I had continued with my lengthy response I would have specifically mentioned the chapters of the Ling Shu on Oral Teachings and Teachings from the Masters as suggesting that an oral level of teaching is not just mythology. When I first read the former I laughed out loud. The Yellow Emperor sends his advisors out of the room and asks Qi Bo about his ‘Oral teachings’. Qi Bo bows in asknowledgement of the profound question and proceeds to elaborate on ‘belching, hiccuping, farting (I made this last one up but you get the point), etc. (Surely this is a joke). Then in the next chapter the Yellow Emperor tries again and does initially get an answer that seems a little more profound.
Is this all just quaint window dressing (I have seen a translation of the Nei Jing that leaves these introductory passages out completely) or does this point to an understanding of the medicine that is not conveyed in the words on a page.
For example, the character for Qi is commonly translated as ‘energy’. We know that the literal translation is breaths. The former translation is en vogue and we can even look to the traditional character and see the implication of vapour and solid matter that would seem to pre-empt modern physics by several thousand years. But is this just lucky chance? Did ancient Chinese really understand it this way, or are we seeing these things in light of modern understanding. Another example perhaps a bit more of a stretch, the Chinese did not appear to have a germ theory of illness – but the character for wind contains a component of an insect (bug) – literally ‘insects everywhere’. Is this just coincidence?
Hi,
I would like to offer a few thoughts here. The more we dig into the textual, historical and cultural context, the better we can understand what it is we are trying to read. I would like to at this point emphasize the word “read”. There are some great scholars out there doing some interesting, possibly good “translations”. But the rest of us are just trying to read classical Chinese texts. For anyone to say “This is my translation…and it proves….” is overstepping a bit, and I’d agree makes discussion difficult. Let’s see if we can help each other to just “read” these texts.
When we are reading classical Chinese texts, we really can’t apply the same understanding to the different texts. If we compare Confucius to Mencius to Zhuangzi, for example, we will find that vocabulary and grammar are used differently and it is in the context of the text that we will find a clearer understanding. If we assume that all characters are used with the same understanding, and that that understanding is intimately connected with its ancient etymology, I believe we are neglecting to take historical and cultural context into account.
I do think that looking at the etymology is important, and it is also important to take into account the full extent of the meaning of a character, but we must return to the context of the text.
I hope we can continue to work hard to explore these deeply profound texts.
michael
Hi Michael,
I think you and Richard have misread what I wrote. I did not say my personal translation proves that it is the only correct one or anything of that nature. I was not trying to say my translation is better or more accurate than Richard’s. (even if I believe it is) Like Andrew said on my behalf, all I said was that my translation proves that multiple, varying translations of the classical texts exist. (Maybe I should say this ’shows’ instead of this ‘proves’ so that I am not accused of coming up with to0 profound of an idea.) This is what creates the different understandings within our medicine, the creation of many schools within CM, as well as what allows for great discussions on the classical texts such as this one we are having now.
I also think that this discussion of the “philosophical” dominant vs. “pragmatic” dominant approach is much related to some of what you have mentioned. While I agree it is important to know and consider the culture, history, and classical texts themselves, I also think this is one of the great dangers within the medicine in terms of its limitations. I have noticed that the scholars who are really into the history and culture often are the same people who practice the more pragmatic style in the clinical setting. The problem I have with history, especially in terms of classical Chinese medicine, is that it is always incomplete. Historical facts are gems, but I notice how it really hinders people from becoming a superior physician.
The history of Chinese medicine is so incomplete, it is impossible to truly understand the medicine from this perspective alone. Do you know how many lost medical texts are out there? More classics have been lost than found. The history of the medicine is thus incomplete. It is currently changing all the time. For example, at the start of the 20th century the Dunhuang manuscripts were unearthed, and new texts were discovered which changed the history and understanding of the medicine. This will happen several more times in our lifetimes. Up until that point, history told us that the Shang Han Lun and ZZJ was the father of formulas. Everyone believed that as the ‘truth’ because history says so. Now we know that Yi Yin was the true father of decoctions, and that he actually created many of the formulas or the base for many of the formulas in the SHL. History was not even in the right ballpark up until then. Yi Yin lived in the Shang dynasty. (WAY before ZZJ) What does that tell us? Two things- 1) that history changes just like modern science. 2) that history is incomplete
Why is this important? Going back to my example in the last paragraph, history cannot tell us much about herbal medicine from the Shang dynasty until the late Han. That is a span of about 10,000 years! Does that mean we should disregard, or ignore the fact that Chinese medicine existed and was being used all that time? It is clear to me that history is very limiting in what it knows and can tell us about CM. History is limiting because it is usually written from one person’s persepctive, and it is limited to what has actually been recorded/written down.
This medicine was not recorded in its early stages, not necessarily because they didn’t have a written language, but it is my belief that the sages intentionally did not write these things down for all to see. Classical Chinese medicine is linneage based, and thus the students learned directly from the Master’s mouth. I believed they had to memorize these things in their head as a requirement, they did not use books to practice this medicine. Those who could not learn this way were not worthy to be doctors. I truly believe that oral teachings from a Master (and also observing nature directly) are more important than learning from reading books written on the medicine, history, and culture.
Having said that, I still strongly encourage everyone that has a passion for CM to try and learn as much in these areas as possible. It can help you tremendously, but I also feel like that for true scholars, this is often a pitfall. They only see things from this perspective, and this is dangerous, in my opinion. I think that Confucius quote would be appropriate again here… too bad I can’t recall it.
I realize I probably have most of you shaking your heads now, but that is ok. I have been wanting to express this on this blog for years now, as I think it is the root source of the confusion and differences among the two main types of practitioners. In summary, I believe, those who only focus on the historical and textual background of the medicine as primary will more than likely develop into the so called “pragmatic” type of practitioner, while those who primarily focus on directly observing nature and the oral teachings from their Master will become the more “philosophical” type of practitioner.
Hi Delli,
1. It wasn’t that I thought you were saying “my translation is better,” it was that you said essentially “because I translate it this way proves my own point.” This is nearly a non sequitur.
2. I don’t know what you mean by “the same people who practice the more pragmatic style in the clinical setting” and I do believe you are making a gross generalization and displaying judgmental assumptions with very little basis or a real substantial point. How does the “pragmatic practitioner” practice? To assume that there are 2 main types of people in CM, one who keep their noses in books and one who are philosophically superior because they have ‘direct knowing’ of nature, is an abstraction that makes me wonder why you have wanted to express this so badly. Do you assume that you are the only one who has experienced nature?
3. Are your serious about Yiyin? He and Shennong came by for tea and had many great stories to tell. Do you believe he wrote the Tangye jing, or told the Tangye jing? Do you believe that Shennong told the Shennong bencao jing? Did Huangdi tell the Neijing?
4. The Shang dynasty was only ended less than 1000 years prior to the Han dynasty.
5. Let us not limit our understanding of history because we believe “history is limited.”
michael
Hi Michael,
I am not so sure I understand what you mean by “read” the texts as opposed to “translate” the texts. Assuming we are not born Chinese and are fluent in the language, how can we possibly read a text without first translating it? The point of translating is so that we can read and understand them. I try my best to stay as literal to the characters as possible when I translate, so as not to get too philosophical and add too many words and ideas of my own that are not really there.
You said “the rest of us are just trying to read classical Chinese texts.” Very few people who study CM are trying to read classical texts. We are fortuntate to have a CCM program at NCNM that encourages this, but I think very few people, outside of those studying in China, actually try to read classical Chinese. We have a good number in our program that are into it, but this is definitely not the norm. Therefore, non-Chinese students of the medicine do have a need for translations. Even for a Chinese medicine student, the literal translations are not always so clear of what they mean. In order to make it readable and understandable, a fair amount of translating is necessary.
I think I might have an idea of what you mean, but not sure. Do you mean like how certain translators of the Nei Jing add in sentences upon sentences that are seemingly not at all derived from the characters? Are you saying they extrapolate too much by adding their own ideas and understanding instead of just translating what the text says? I see how this is both a good and bad thing. I think it is more of a good thing though, since the serious student can always go back and translate themselves to find out what was actually written in the text. These interpretations are necessary, and exist for good reason.
Delli,
What will be the substantive difference for the patient if one takes one or the other road – textual or experiential (if I may paraphrase you)? I’m interested in your perspective on this.
Aside from that: I have to admit I had a little twinge when you said that you had “wanted to express this on this blog for years now,” because I’m sensing a bit of a diss on me into your comment. That’s my own interpretation, which is most likely baseless and completely ungrounded in your intent. I just can’t imagine why you wouldn’t have expressed this deeply held opinion (which, by the way, has been absolutely apparent to me since our first driving-to-Heiner’s conversation and certainly some of your blog comments) until now. Well, thank god the air is cleared, I suppose.
I only want to offer a bit of a defense of myself, and my “brothers in texts.” The simplest statement is: I wouldn’t pay any attention at all to the texts if it weren’t for the oral transmission from my Master(s) – being Heiner and Arnaud. Both of these people have repeatedly emphasized the importance of oral transmission to use as guidance as one travels through the intricate landscape of the texts.
I think it is a grave, grave misunderstanding of the latter (Arnaud) in particular to believe that he relies on texts in the way you seem to imply and has become, in some way, a “pragmatic” practitioner thereby – whatever that means. In fact, that man in particular is one of the most “direct observers” of nature I know – an observer of human nature, and of the flow of nature through his patients. He is also a person who enjoys the bounty of nature and who feeds his heart from that. He doesn’t talk a ton about this, of course, any more than anyone reveals personal information to every person who shows up. I note it here only in defense, and only to point out what I see as the completely ridiculous notion that there is anything even remotely resembling these two main types of practitioners you seem to see in the world. Again, this man – one of the two people I have chosen to learn medicine from – combines an acute observation of nature, spiritual practice, physical cultivation, deep knowledge of Chinese language and history, insight, acutely honed diagnostic skill and countless, countless numbers of patients (in many countries, many clinical settings) to develop a systematic (but no less inspired) understanding of an ancient medicine. He also has dramatic clinical success in doing so.
It is true of me as well – or at least I hope one day it will be. Everything I am as a practitioner I owe directly to my Masters and to the greatest teachers I have ever known – my patients. The texts, my historical understanding (or lack thereof in my case) of them help me to understand what it is I am doing, what it is my Masters are doing in a more intellectual, systematic and easily taught way.
I want to learn the texts as historical documents first so I can more accurately comprehend their significance through the stream of human experience. Situating myself in a historical and cultural frame of reference helps me to avoid inserting my bias from the outset. After comprehending a text in this simple way, I may then use the symbols inherent in it as meditative devices – seeing the many permutations, both on my own and with the guidance of my Master. If I were to do it in the other direction, the deeply personal insights I had would be very likely to obscure my ability to make any attempt to see things as the ancients may have seen them – thus robbing me of a richer understanding that will help my patients.
All of this being said, I want to say to you Delli (and to myself, and to those of us at similar experience levels) that the best we can possibly hope for is to ask questions, to have profound experiences that we can reflect upon, and to ask more questions. Anything else is likely either mental masturbation, appalling hubris or both. On the other hand, if you have strong opinions that you feel need to be expressed in a public forum, maybe a blog of your own is in your future.
Excuse my extremely long comment.
Eric
1) this is petty and foolish, so no need to further discuss
2) the pragmatic practitioner (canonical style) is equivalent to the mid level physician, TCM is also pragmatic, but more like the low level physician (since TCM doesn’t even require learning directly from classical texts, but can learn it by memorizing Macciocia and such.) The high level physician is one can treat most successfully. They just know what is wrong with the person without having to ask questions, palpate, etc. The high level physician is he who is one with the Dao, and so just knows. This is either obtain through cultivation or being born with uncanny ability.
3) yes, I do believe that that knowledge was handed down orally, not necessarily word for word, but that the classics directly developed from the oral tradition that had been passed down over time.
4) a mistake. I typed an extra zero and did not proof read. Either way, it is still a long time. 1000-1500 years of history between the two leaves a lot of unaccounted time and history
5) I did say I encourage people to study the history and that is important. Obviously, I am not a history buff. My Aquarian-Wood nature makes me a future-oriented person, so I spend more time focusing on future than past. I just believe that those who need “proof” through historical findings will never be a great of a physician as they could be if they didn’t rely on history so much. (see response number 2) You will need several lifetimes studying this medicine if you are going to wait for history to give you everything you need to know to make it complete. I am not content waiting around for history to tell me what I can already know if I am one with the universe. I believe all we need to know is here in the present, we just need to open up to the information to receive it. That is why we are taught to cultivate ourselves, so we can become one with the Dao. The historical perspective IS limiting. That is a fact.
Again, I am not saying it is the wrong way, I just don’t believe it is the BEST way to learn this medicine. That is one thing I know and believe to be 100% true in my heart. We all have our own destiny to manifest, so it is ok if we all have different paths in life and medicine. The classics tell us we must always strive to be the high level doctor. Even if we can never obtain it, we must always be trying to reach that level in order to get superior clinical results.
Yes, I do believe all practitioners can be lumped into two categories. I believe that all things can be categorized by the number 2, or yin and yang. Those are the two basic types of practitioners if we categorize in the most general sense. Of course, we can analyze this in more narrower way according to specific schools of CM, but that is not necessary here.
You don’t have to agree, and I know you don’t. That is perfectly fine by me. I have no problem with it. I am just offering up my perspective in hopes to shed light on what I believe is the root cause for this whole discussion that started over 40 comments ago. Now that I have got to what I believe is the root, that is all I have to say on the matter.
If I might comment on the idea of their being two types of practioners. For myself, I can say I was not suggesting this at all. Unfortunately the format of a discussion like this makes it hard to say everything one would like to say and one sometimes expresses things in ways that one assumes the other will understand the unsaid provisos on the language.
Fruehauf in his table of ‘TCM’ and ‘CCM’ stresses that he does not intend it to be taken in the senes of two distinct types. I would like to have assumed that this would be understood all round but unfortunately it is often not. Our discussion here is about two varying tendencies or emphasis in ways of looking at the material – and we also see many similarities in what we are saying.
There are many parameters that we can look at (Fruehauf has suggested many that I agree with – I might suggest some others) and consider where we fall in relation to these, and no individual is going to fall in one ’side’ or other exclusively. But there is clearly a majority/mainstream tendency that is represented strongly in our national board exams that places greater emphasis on the ‘TCM’ side of the parameters. There are clearly minority groups that emphasise a greater tendency to lean towards the ‘CCM’ side.
I could add that the ‘truth’ ought to be in the middle – or at least a dynamic middle that depends on the context.
Delli;
I have just re-read your last e-mail and I see that you do indeed affirm that there are two types, and support this with yin/yang theory. I am afraid I would have to disagree with you on this one. It is in nature of the human mind to tend to see things in two types (see Edward de Bono’s Mechanism of Mind’) but to offer Yin/Yang theory in support of this is a weak argument: A. Yin/Yang theory is not separate to the Dao – Daoism has been called Monistic-Dualism (or perhaps it was the other way round). B. Yin and Yang are in themselves interpenetrating, interdependent and relative terms, they do not create two ‘types’ of anything except possibly in terms of human perception which tends to be limited to seeing the binary world and not the whole. I agree that it is easy to perceive there as being two types of practitioners when seen en masse and I agree there is a lot of people arguing for the ‘TCM’ side of Fruehauf’s parameters. But individually as Fruehauf emphasized it is not that simple, and he did not intend it that way as he makes clear in his article.
Eric,
In the end, it is all about the patient. The benefit to the patient is the results. I don’t recall the exact numbers off top of my head, but I think it says that the low level doc can heal 5 of 10 patients, mid level doctor can heal 6 of 10, and high level doc can heal 9 of 10. Is not healing patients the whole point of this medicine?
I have been hesitant to post this for years because I did not want offend you or any of your readers or illicit a response like the one you wrote. Please, don’t take it personal. I have much respect for you and your readers and all of my teachers. I never have thought less of you or anyone else just because we have a difference of opinion and/or understanding of the medicine. I think you will be a great practitioner. Love and passion for the medicine though is what made me do it. This perspective must also be known. It is very real, and what I truly believe.
I did not write this to upset anyone, but just wanted my opinion to be out there since it is very real. We are all entitled to our own opinion, and sorry if you don’t like my opinion on your blog. I have no desire to have my own blog though, so I am expressing my beliefs here. I have no problem refraining from commenting on your blog in the future, if that is what you would like.
Everyone is programmed differently, and so we all learn differently. I don’t think that really needs any clarification or justification, it is what it is.
Everything I say is what I believe. It is not a crime to speak from the heart, it a requirement in medicine. Sorry, if my heart-gallbladder impulse has offended anyone in the past, present, or future. It was never my attentions. Like I said, I am just making people aware of how the medicine is viewed through my eyes, because realize it is a much different take than what people of TCM schools get. No offense to you, Michael, Arnaud or anyone else who’s feathers I may have ruffled with present or past comments.
Hey Delli,
Seriously, man – no offense taken. For real! I think I tried to convey that — you know how it is when something hits you wrong. Even if you’re a grown up and know how to keep your ego in check, sometimes little things can rub you the wrong way.
I totally, totally believe that you have every right in the world to say it like you see it. I encourage it! Seriously! And speaking from the heart is no crime, it’s true. I think when people get set off is when speaking from the heart is given quotes and other things that seem to many people to be “evidence” or “proof” and when your language comes off as quite academic and in the vein of supporting some kind of rational, researched argument.
In a way, the fact that your comments come across that way shows that you’re capable of great work. May that be your aim and your gift. I was just remarking to my friends that despite everyone’s intensity around these issues, I’m just so glad the conversation is taking place.
I mean, people, we’re a bunch of people on the Internet going back and forth about the interpretation of ancient texts. It’s so awesome. I can hardly stand it. This is why I created this flippin’ blog! Yeah!
Eric
Hi Andrew,
You are right. Yin and Yang are one expression of the Dao. I really was just using yin and yang as representative of the number two, but I would have been wiser to leave that part out. Everything comes from the Dao though, from a Daoist perspective. I think most readers know one of the most famous quotes from the Dao De Jing. Chapter 42 says, Dao gives birth to one, one gives birth to two, two gives birth to three, and three gives birth to the 10,000 things. I guess what I was thinking was… Dao is the undifferentiated whole. Not to get too philosophical here, but Dao could be symbolic of Chinese medicine, as a whole (undifferentiated) while yin and yang is a symbol for these two basic types of practitioners. (pragmatic and philosophical, for lack of better terminology) The 10,000 things would represent all the myriad of schools and styles that exist under these two main branches. I was thinking along those lines, but you are right, I should have not even brought yin an yang into the conversation.
I do believe that these are the two basic types of holistic health practitioners. This extends beyond Chinese medicine even. I have worked and learned with many practitioners of different holistic healing arts, and I see this to be true. Personally, I always like the doctors that focus on the philosophical and archetypal aspects of medicine as primary, as opposed to a more pragmatic, reductionist way of learning. That is what it comes down to for me. I just align better with those healers.
Delli, Eric, Andrew, Richard, and friends….
In this case I’ll have to defer to the texts that have led us to believe there is this practice having something to do with this idea about Dao.
“Yenhui said: ‘I am making progress.” Confucius asked: “In what way?’ Yenhui said: ‘ I have given up doing good and being right.” Confucius said: ‘Very good, but that is not quite enough.”
Another day, Yenhui saw Confucius and said: ‘I am making progress.’ Confucius asked: ‘In what way?’ Yenhui said: ‘ I have given up ceremony and music.’ Confucius said: ‘Very good, but that is not quite enough.’
Another day, Yenhui saw Confucius again and said: ‘I am making progress.’ Confucius asked: ‘In what way?’ Yenhui said: ‘I just sit and forget.’ Confucius was startled and asked, ‘What do you mean by sitting and forgetting?’ Yenhui said: ‘I am not attached to the body and I give up any idea of knowing. By freeing myself from the body and mind, I become one with the Dao. This is what I mean by sitting and forgetting.’ Confucius said: ‘When there is oneness, there are no preferences. When there is change, there is no constancy. If you have really attained this, then let me become your pupil.’
michael