I wish I had time to respond in depth to this, but I don’t have the time to do so. Apparently, you have greatly misunderstood me as well. Aren’t all translations an interpretation of the classics? That is why they are so varying. I am not sure what the difference is because they both seem to meld together. I was actually trying to have a discussion with Richard about the lines. I was not trying to dismiss his ideas completely or say that my translation is correct. I translated those in a matter of minutes, so I am sure it is not completely correct, or the best translation. The organ clock idea, was in paranthesis because it was my idea, not in the text. I guess, this is what I would call an interpretation. The rest is what I would call a translation. You will have to explain the difference to me.

2. This is obvious to me. I don’t know what to tell you or how to make it any more clear. Yes, this I know to be 100% true. 12 years of studying natural medicine makes this evident. Sorry, I don’t have time to answer this question in detail, and I feel like I have commented on this enough that my POV is clear.

3. Perhaps, I may be way off on this one. I didn’t research that well. It makes sense to me though. Yes, the DDJ always refers to the Dao as being like flowing water. It is the ultimate earthly symbol of Dao in ancient China. That is the association I was making reference to with that.

4. I have taken almost every class at NCNM offered on CCM at this point. I am a 5th year student focusing on my thesis and internship now. Well, my teachers in my classical texts classes seem to agree with most of my translations in class, so I must be doing something right.

You know, I was never big on asking questions until the last year. That is not how I like to learn. It seems like asking questions often times doesn’t help me much, so it is not very important to my style of learning. (hey, just being honest)

Sorry for disheartening you, but I like to tell it like I see it. I am not always right, but I am seldom wrong. Wish I had time to say more, but I have to study and work on translating the Fuxing Jue. I am NOT an expert translator by any means, so my translation will definitely be guided by Dr. Fruehauf once I get past the first round on my own. I am sorry if I mislead anyone into believing I am proficient translator/interpretor or reader of classical Chinese. I have much work to go in that department still. I also don’t feel the need to defend myself against such criticism anymore either. It is just plain silly and a waist of time. All I ask is that you respect my POV and I will do the same. Afterall, I am just the ignorant student, so you might as well just laugh or dismiss my ideas anyway since they are bound to change once I get into practice, right?

M. Bayh does make valid points, but complains about the tone of Delli, but I am afraid the tone of this response was also somewhat heated.

I have several translation of the Nei Jing and Nan Jing and all have numerous red marks and footnotes, that I have inserted that denote omited characters, differing terms standardized to one translation, words added, often to make the passage conform to modern recieved understanding, and explanatory/interpretive translations even complete inversions of meaning in some cases to try and make sense of what appear to be conflicting ideas – and these are published folks – not bungling amateurs like myself.

1. You offer us an interpretation of the line Richard gave and then say it is a translation. You ignore the grammar and don’t bother with a couple of characters in your ‘translation.’ You also add things that are not there, for example talking about the time clock. This is interpretation, not translation. You then give a text that is a couple of hundred years older, ie someone else’s interpretation, as a claim that it proves your interpretation? The original article also uses commentaries, but notice the difference in tone-you are convinced that the commentary you offer is “the same thing”, while the original articles is simply offering perspectives.
2. I’m curious how you reconcile an open mind and heart to get at the deeper meaning while being 100% convinced that your current view is correct? Can you provide us, for example, a commentary that shows your ideas about prevention were what the original text meant? Even if you can, are you so willing to dismiss the other commentaries above? Or are you just so convinced that your view is the same as the Ling Shu that you are going to read it that way no matter what? As a student, you believe you have the BEST way to learn this medicine? Another thing you know to be 100% true?
3. I find your discussion of 法 and the water radical an astounding misunderstanding of Chinese. Studying radicals to understand characters is important, but I do not follow your logic. The flow of water is a Daoist idea? Which means that the use of 法 contains a Daoist idea? When I see phrases like “I think anyone who has studied classical Chinese culture can tell you that the flow of water is a Daoist idea,” I am at a loss for words. I thought the flow of water was a natural phenomenon that writers throughout Chinese history have used in analogies. I would say most people who have studied Chinese culture seriously would make such a simplistic statement.
4. For how long have you been studying classical Chinese? Chinese medicine? You are a student, and instead of asking questions of someone who is recognized as an expert in reading the classics, you offer up an interpretation masked as translation and then believe that your ideas are better than (your words) someone with much more understanding of the language than you have demonstrated here. What exactly are your translation qualifications? Ever had a class in translation theory? Linguistics? Even a basic sinology course? How many classical courses have you taken? You are a student with access to a couple of the best teachers in the US at your school, and yet you show them very little respect here by judging their work in ways that I cannot even comprehend. You say you are not questioning or insulting them even as you do so. You say you respect them as you qualify their work as belonging to the category of mediocre physician.
5. You have decried history as incomplete but then use mythical figures as historical ones. We have a lot of great historical information, and you are right, it will never be complete because we will discover new things. I agree that we shouldn’t be waiting for historical proof (whatever that might mean), but I would also add that doesn’t mean we should fill in the cracks by just making it up. This is why people who are more knowledgeable write knowing that anything they write is only one perspective. I prefer to work with incomplete, but still very valuable, historical information than cooking up my own ideas and seeing if I can find them in the medicine.
6. Believe it or not, there are plenty of people who can read classical texts who were not born in China. They do not translate first, but actually read the Chinese. I can do this, and I know a lot of other people who can. I’m surprised you don’t think this is possible…it is. Classical Chinese is its own distinct language from modern Chinese, and trust me-most people in China cannot read the classics either. I also find the number of Chinese practitioners interested in the classics is far less than you would imagine. If you read the classics through your own translations and never really learn to read the language, then are you reading the classics or just expounding your own ideas?
7. I agree with Eric, and respect his humility, when he says “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.” Why not take advantage of being a student and ask questions instead of trying to provide so many answers?

I have never read that text, so it definitely is not where my understanding of Dao comes from. Believe it or not, I would say The Bible is where my original understanding of Dao comes from, before I first read the Dao De Jing. All it took was for me to read the first chapter of the DDJ once after studying The Bible for many years, and I instantly found a new spirituality that fit me better.

I was not trying to give the impression that I am one with the Dao at all times, but merely my understanding of Dao and glimpses of being one with Dao is what makes me strive to try and always want to be in the flow of it. It is something you can alway strive for, but will most likely never truely attain. Much in the same way a CM practitioner must always strive to to be a high level doctor, even if you will never be able to become one. Calling myself a Daoist does not mean I am always in a state of harmony and Oneness with the Dao, but rather that this is what I seek.

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

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.

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

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.