TCM terminology (Wiseman system)

[Guest guest]

Sun, 2 Apr 2006 14:53:06 -0700 " " <zrosenbe wrote:

> The Wiseman system itself is an evolving one…

 

Granted, as I have also seen in using their books

over the years, starting with the infamous 1st

edition of " Fundamentals of "

(FCM) still cherished for Ted Kaptchuk's

watershed preface, but notable for its disastrous

lack of editing. On the other hand, the

" Fundamentals of Chinese Acupuncture " (FCA) is

still, from what I've seen, the best reference

for channels, points, and especially point

functions (as distinct from " indications " ). There

was one lengthy errata list for this book, which

cleaned it up well. (The " second " /current edition

is simply the incorporation thereof; all else,

down to the page numbering, is the same, as far as I could see.

 

(I once saw a book from the PRC Technology Press

which seemed to me an explicit answer to the FCA,

even using exactly the same graphic

illustrations. This book pretended to list

" functions " for points, but actually in terms of

describing in WM terms how indications are

treated. This aligns with my experience with PRC

trained practitioners/teachers at the school

where I taught they insisted that indications

were the " function " , and that the " therapeutic

functions " using classical terminology were " too

non-standard " . Actually, my understanding of

significance of point functions (as in the FCA)

has been since reinforced by Jeffery Yuen's

pointing out that this body of knowledge is one

of the major accomplishments of the Song-Jin-Yuan

Imperial Academy, and essentially the same

theoretical framework they used to integrate the

herbal medicine into the theory, i.e. use of the

Li/principle notion, which you (Z'ev) also noted in the Delphic Boat article.)

 

Back to evolution of Wiseman et al work…

 

Our little discussion here some months ago

investigating the point names of GB-3 and St-7

(and the parallel or lack thereof with SJ-5 and

PC-6) illustrates the fact that the sheer

magnitude of the task that Nigel, Andy Ellis, et

al have undertaken all but guarantees occasional

attention lapses and inconsistencies. Such that,

in fact, the work can never be exhaustively complete.

 

If Xie XhuFan et al come out with competing

dictionaries or glossaries, a major test would be

whether they understand the importance (for

Western scholars) of multiple and in-depth

cross-reference indeces, which are a hallmark of

the Paradigm books, especially the Practical

Dictionary. I have yet to run across any PRC book

with more than a token index, if at all.

Presumably this touches upon some difference in literary customs.

 

On a practical note, and along already

established lines, and as also at times used by

Xie, as well as Wiseman, I tend to favor using

the pinyin term in instances where the

translation choices are intractable or

controversial. With, of course, clear reference

to the translational understanding intended, and

with reference to the item in an authoritative

source (i.e. currently the Practical Dictionary).

 

One direction I would welcome would be more

explicit documentation of the historical layers,

such as in the " traditional point functions " in

the FCA. The idea, as put forth by, probably

among others, Jeffery Yuen, is that each of the

various functions was discovered in the context

of a particular school of thought or style (e.g.

Sun SiMiao, or one of the 4 Great Masters). So

using a point for a particular purpose would be

greatly enhanced by being able to understanding

it and associate with other points from the

viewpoint of that particular school of thought.

Premise to this would be, of course, that the

motivating diagnosis also closely matches the

focus of concern in the particular style.

 

Factoring of the commentaries published with the

ShangHanLun book into their historical layers

would be similarly useful, as those layers

probably derive from particular historical

periods and schools of thought. E.g. an earlier

discussion here revolved around whether the

notion of ShaoYang-pivot belonged exclusively to

the ShangHanLun (where the term appears only in

commentary), or was in fact more general, as in

passages in the SuWen and LingShu.