Belief in the Yellow Emperor (literary vs/& oral transmission - questions)

[Guest guest]

My sense from Harper and Unschuld is that literary and oral went together

in the period from Warring States until late Han or later - i.e. important

books were passed together with intensive teaching. And then with the Song

Imperial Academy, the literary was formally established in its own right,

at least at the official level. A theme in Song times was making political

(and scholarly) status available on the basis of merit, extending access

from the former aristocratic norm. Unschuld suggests that the vast majority

of practitioners throughout the imperial era were less formal, local,

orally transmitted, usually family affairs.

 

Some here have expressed the primacy of oral transmission. This all raises

questions.

 

How can one judge the validity of claims, for instance, that an oral

tradition goes back any great distance in time? Pre-historical oral

traditions, by definition, do not have an historical sense of time. The

same applies to say, Homeric epics, the Niebelungenlied, etc.. How can we

know they went back several generations, or hundreds, let alone thousands

of years?

 

Some traditions do appear to include things like the genealogies (e.g. the

Biblical tradition), which were presumably orally transmitted prior to

being written for transmission. I'm familiar with a native American

story-teller, whose tradition conveys a highly developed cultivation of

exact memorization and transmission of tales.

 

When claimed that such a tradition can trace back pre-historically many

thousands, even 10-thousands of years (as hinted by Matt), how can we know

that this is not just something like an explicit form of the " collective

unconscious " ? Or resembles inculcation of a belief system, similar to

religion? (And is such a 'claim' also sometimes to the point of 'arrogance'?)

 

Many such traditions at times include some sort of oath of secrecy, or at

least conditions and restrictions concerning further transmission. Harper

describes this from the Warring States through at least late Han depictions

of the passing of medical texts and their interpretation, even to the

extent of " blood-oaths (pp 63-67). The native American story-teller I knew

was systematically explicit which stories were 'public', and which were to

be passed on only with permission (combined with proper training, assurance

of the accuracy of transmission and use in appropriate ways).

 

If such traditions can have rigorous methods for quality-control, so to

speak, across many generations, shouldn't it be possible to rationally

express these methods? Or is it the case that the content of an oral

tradition cannot be expressed and transmitted in some rational, formalized,

e.g. written material and cultivation procedures?

 

The 'hun' (aka non-corporeal, personal soul or spirit), according to some

sources, is said to survive a couple of generations. This appears to be a

sort of common sense phenomenon as the remembrance of most individuals

survives through grandchildren, perhaps great-grandchildren, i.e. those

who had personal contact with the person. After that, individuals blend

into the more collective 'ancestors'. But then again there's the notion of

the 'immortals' (xian), whose lives were so impressive that their memory

survives across much longer periods. Cultivation of this flourished in ages

of CM in which literary tradition was already firmly established. E.g.

LaoZi becoming a divinity; Sun SiMiao becoming a 'g*d of medicine'. Is this

essentially the same as the HuangDi issue, or something different?

 

A concrete problem: If oral transmission is the best, as some have

suggested, how can we avoid a sort of elitism here, as there is a large and

growing population of modern CM/TCM students (including practitioners), and

a limited number of teachers qualified in bone fide ancient traditions?

 

I have great faith in scholarly learning (have mentioned the background

often), but upon leaving TCM school, found it seriously inadequate when

facing medical practice. So I sought out longer term, more personally

intensive learning situations. For example pulse-reading with Dr. Leon

Hammer, and CCM with Jeffery Yuen. Lacking intensive, decade-long

relationships along these lines, life-long or from an early age, they

become acquired worldviews which I can shift in and out of. Rather than

all-encompassing, quasi absolute truth-systems, as some seem to presume by

virtue of extensive oral training.

 

Questions like these undoubtedly come up for others, in the ongoing

evolution of our educational and professional self-definition.

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Chris et al,

> Unschuld suggests that the vast majority

> of practitioners throughout the imperial era were less formal,

>local, orally transmitted, usually family affairs.

 

As they are today. Here in the U.S and otherwise. It is what we use to

call in the workplace " On the Job Training " . They way we actually did

our work was nothing like what we were taught in classrooms.

Litterally, nothing like the textbooks. My specialty for 30 years was

database design, client/server development, and Internet Web

development. The skills that I learned and used I never wrote down.

But I would train my colleagues and seminar attendees " orally " . There

are certain things that either take to long to write down or cannot be

taught through books. In my field, it was well acknowledged that " real

life " was quite different from " textbook knowledge " . And so it is so

in practically every other profession that I have ever been exposed to

- such as the " trades " .

 

>

> Some here have expressed the primacy of oral transmission. This all

>raises > questions. How can one judge the validity of claims, for

>instance, that an oral tradition goes back any great distance in

>time? Pre-historical oral traditions, by definition, do not have an

historical sense of time.

 

I believe primacy is in " experience " . Nothing has basically changed in

the " human condition " that prevents someone today from experiencing

exactly the same " energetic " sensations as the original practitoners

of medicine, e.g. Shamans and Daoists, etc., did thousands of years

ago. Just like a woodworrker learns by shaving the wood, feeling the

wood, etc., a practitioner of CM can learn by " feeling the energy " -

including the meridians, channels, viscera, etc.

 

The apprenticeship route where one learns to " sense " is open to

anyone. With this skill, the texts have a different meaning - I feel a

much deeper meaning, and a practitioner is less dependent on

translations (free from the dependency on a particular translator)

because the practitioner understands from first hand experience the

nature of the individual " energies " of a human being. This route is

for those who feel comfortable with learning in a different manner -

other than through textbooks - but I understand it is probably not

right for everyone. Everyone learns in their own way and their own time.

 

> When claimed that such a tradition can trace back pre-historically

>many thousands, even 10-thousands of years (as hinted by Matt), how

>can we know that this is not just something like an explicit form of

>the " collective unconscious " ? Or resembles inculcation of a belief

>system, similar to religion? (And is such a 'claim' also sometimes

>to the point of 'arrogance'?)

 

If one is an historian, this question may be significant. In the

manner of health not so much so. The question is whether the

" practice " cures today. I do not care whether the " lineage " goes back

100 years, or 100,000 years. For me it is a question of whether the

" principles " are clear and can be practiced in such a way to improve

health. Quantum Physics are Relativity are less than 100 years old -

but they work for me. The " limited lineage " of these theories do not

affect the efficacy of what they suggest. What I am personally

learning, I have only found in one textbook - Tom Tam's Healing

System. I do not have any idea how " old " the system is. I think it

probably goes back thousands of years - because other non-Asian

cultures use the same techniques. But for my purposes, it is

irrelevant. There is the " historical " question which for me is

distinct from the medical question.

 

>

> Many such traditions at times include some sort of oath of secrecy,

>or at

> least conditions and restrictions concerning further transmission.

 

Yes, this for me is very amusing. As if the nature of energy in humans

can somehow be kept a secret. As if the Daoists know something that

the Shamans did not. Well, whatever makes someone " feel important " in

their life. :-)

 

> If such traditions can have rigorous methods for quality-control,

 

I have never seen two practitioners in any field practice and teach

their profession/art in the same way. Whether it be CM, dancing,

singing, Taiji, database design, tennis, golf, woodworking, ... you

name it. Everyone claims to be carrying on a " tradition " , yet everyone

is doing it different. Often people fight about who is " carrying on

the true tradition " . It is a remarkable phenomenon that deserves study

all on its own.

 

 

Or is it the case that the content of an oral

> tradition cannot be expressed and transmitted in some rational,

formalized,

> e.g. written material and cultivation procedures?

 

Each person understands and acts in a unique way. Each person may

think they are " replicating " exactly what they have learned but they

are not. Observe a child trying to replicate the pensmanship of a

teacher. They cannot. Handwriting is unique for everyone. Everyone's

" signature " is different.

 

>

> A concrete problem: If oral transmission is the best, as some have

> suggested, how can we avoid a sort of elitism here, as there is a

large and

> growing population of modern CM/TCM students (including

practitioners), and

> a limited number of teachers qualified in bone fide ancient traditions?

 

I do not believe there is a " best " . Each person learns in their own

way. I try to " source " by knowledge in many ways. From experience,

from oral teachings, from books, from observation, etc. This process

creates a " viewpoint " . I do not think it is better or worse than any

other approach - just different from someone who, for example never

studied energy directly, such as through Qigong, Taiji, or Yoga (or

any other such course of study).

>

> I have great faith in scholarly learning (have mentioned the background

> often), but upon leaving TCM school, found it seriously inadequate

>when > facing medical practice.

 

Yes, this is what I discovered once I went to work in my profession.

The " On the Job Training " phenomenon is well known. That is the

disconnect between what one learns in school vs. what one learns in

practice.

 

 

>So I sought out longer term, more personally

> intensive learning situations. For example pulse-reading with Dr. >Leon

> Hammer, and CCM with Jeffery Yuen. Lacking intensive, decade-long

> relationships along these lines, life-long or from an early age, >they

> become acquired worldviews which I can shift in and out of. Rather >than

> all-encompassing, quasi absolute truth-systems, as some seem to

presume by

> virtue of extensive oral training.

 

Yes, there may be some who presume one style of learning is better

than others. But this is not my point of view.

 

>

> Questions like these undoubtedly come up for others, in the ongoing

> evolution of our educational and professional self-definition.

>

Yes, it has been there from day one. A Harvard or Stanford graduate

comes into an office climate and is faced by people who have been

trained " On the Job " . Who knows better? The " argument " begins. :-)

 

Regards,

Rich