Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

Problems with Nei-jing translations

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

Hi Doug, Z'ev, Thomas, Steven....

I'm reading both Henry Lu's and Nguyen Van Nghi's translations of the Ling

shu

and am frustrated in the inconsistency in both. Henry Lu is a scholar, but

his translation of Qi into " energy " ,

for instance is stifling. I wish he would actually just keep the pinyin

terms intact for major terminology, instead of translating them without

reference. The Nguyen Van Nghi translation lists both, but retains the

mistake of translating Qi into " energy " .

 

For instance, Ling shu 8th issue: according to Nguyen Van Nghi:

" Huang di asks Qi-bo: Every act of needling should be based on the Shen

(mind), the Xue (blood), the Mai (vessels),

the Ying (nutritive energy), the Qi (energy), and the Jingshen (mental

quintessence), which are stored in the five organs.

When debauchery cuts them off from an organ, the Jing declines, the Hun and

the Po (vegetative and sensitive souls) waft away; the Zhi and the Lu

(intelligence and pre-occupation) are lacking... "

 

What this shows me is 1. it would be sublime to be able to have clarity in

the terminology for the translations, as even the English words in

translation seem vague and open-ended.... for instance... " vegetative and

sensitive souls " for Hun and Po.

2. I need to put the hours into reading the characters themselves. If we

get the source text material wrong from the start from unclear translations

then all of our interpretations are going to be acutely off-base.

3. We need to read the commentaries from Wang Bing, Ma Yuan Tai (Ma shi),

Zhang An Yin (Zhang shi), Zhang Jing yue (Zhang Jie Bin) and others in order

to really understand the way that the Great Nei jing scholars of the past

understood the text. If we haven't read the commentaries and don't know

exactly if the text means " Shen " , " Hun " or " Ling " when it writes " Spirit " ,

how can we call ourselves an expert in the Nei jing?

 

The problem with Wu Jing-Nuan's translation of the Ling shu is that there

are barely and foot-notes or references or commentaries.

This is the saving grace for Henry Lu and Nguyen Van Nghi's translations.

 

K

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:20 PM, wrote:

 

>

>

> It's only when I started teaching the Fundamentals class did I really start

> digging into Chinese. I don't say I read but I am forever looking up words

> for meaning. Some times meaning comes from translation, some comes from

> sociology, some comes from history. Last year hearing Elizabeth Rochat

> saying rather off-hand that " oh, we can't analyze this word because we are

> only analyzing the English, we have to look at the Chinese " , that got me

> going.

>

> Doug

>

>

> --- In

<%40>,

> wrote:

> >

> > Steve et al,

> >

> > I think it is important to face some truths. If you don't read the

> original

> > Chinese then people who do, are not likely to take what you say very

> > seriously. As someone who has spent the last few years working on my

> Chinese

> > and can get through most of the basic texts without too much difficulty,

> I

> > find reading most of the Classic texts quite challenging. After nearly 20

> > years of studying Chinese medicine, most of it through translations, I am

> > now beginning to see why people like Bob have been saying for years, " If

> you

> > really want to understand Chinese medicine, learn to read Chinese " it is

> > really that simple, there are very few translations that are going to get

> > you anywhere near what you get when you actually read the original

> Chinese,

> > sorry but that is the plain truth. The Mitchel, Wiseman, Feng translation

> of

> > the Shang Han Lun is the only translation of a Classic that comes to mind

> as

> > one of these exceptions.

> >

> > To be honest, I find what you say interesting, but knowing that you can't

> > read the original makes it difficult for me to take it too seriously. I

> am

> > sure you have worked very hard and perhaps have some good insight, but

> the

> > reason I started to seriously study Chinese language was exactly because

> > after teaching for a few years I came to the realization that anything

> > outside of my clinical experience was nothing more than what the students

> > could read in English and if I could read the original I would gain both

> a

> > vastly larger corpus of information, and likely a heck of a lot of

> insight.

> > Both have borne out to be true. And, I think if you ask anyone on this

> list

> > who has gone through a similar process I feel confident they would say

> their

> > experience is the same (or nearly so :-).

> >

> > This is not to say that one can not practice Chinese medicine without

> > Chinese language skill, but to be a scholar and, in my opinion, a

> teacher,

> > you MUST be able to read the original, this is, IMHO, basic academic

> rigor.

> > I feel pretty confidant that if you went to any university and asked

> about

> > becoming a scholar in any tradition they would ALL say you MUST learn the

> > language of origin in order to pursue this endeavor.

> >

> > Although Bob is no longer with us on this forum, I will take this

> > opportunity to thank him for all he has contributed to this field. He has

> > been quite a lightning rod over the years, but all-in-all he has

> contributed

> > at least as much as anyone else has to the furthering of Chinese medicine

> in

> > the West. May you find true happiness!

> >

> > In Good Health,

> > Thomas

> >

> >

> > cell:

> > Beijing, China

> > Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> > Practitioners Guide "

> >

> >

> >

> >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

K,

 

 

 

I missed your post, below, before I posted mine. I completely agree... just

because someone uses the word " spirit " one cannot blindly assume, because

that is their personal bias, that they are referring to Spirit with a big S.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

2. I need to put the hours into reading the characters themselves. If we

get the source text material wrong from the start from unclear translations

then all of our interpretations are going to be acutely off-base.

3. We need to read the commentaries from Wang Bing, Ma Yuan Tai (Ma shi),

Zhang An Yin (Zhang shi), Zhang Jing yue (Zhang Jie Bin) and others in order

to really understand the way that the Great Nei jing scholars of the past

understood the text. If we haven't read the commentaries and don't know

exactly if the text means " Shen " , " Hun " or " Ling " when it writes " Spirit " ,

how can we call ourselves an expert in the Nei jing?

 

The problem with Wu Jing-Nuan's translation of the Ling shu is that there

are barely and foot-notes or references or commentaries.

This is the saving grace for Henry Lu and Nguyen Van Nghi's translations.

 

K

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What is problematic is making a direct comparison of the words to mean the

same as in the Western equivalent...Qi is energy when used in a certain

context, as Ling is spirit in a certain context.

 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:48 PM, <johnkokko wrote:

 

> Hi Doug, Z'ev, Thomas, Steven....

> I'm reading both Henry Lu's and Nguyen Van Nghi's translations of the Ling

> shu

> and am frustrated in the inconsistency in both. Henry Lu is a scholar,

> but

> his translation of Qi into " energy " ,

> for instance is stifling. I wish he would actually just keep the pinyin

> terms intact for major terminology, instead of translating them without

> reference. The Nguyen Van Nghi translation lists both, but retains the

> mistake of translating Qi into " energy " .

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John,

None of these translations are even remotely satisfactory. What I've been

doing is using Li Zhaoguo's translation from the Library of Chinese Classics in

three volumes, Chinese/English, " Yellow Emperor's Canon of Medicine " , and a

simple e-book from Richard Bertschinger, " Single Idea in the Mind of the Yellow

Emperor " , also Chinese/English. Bertschinger's book is based on a primer of Su

Wen by Li Zhong-zi, so it is much simpler to follow. I translate as best as I

can directly from Chinese and compare it with their translations. Tedious, but

worth it.

 

Another new textbook, " Lingshu Acupuncture " , is actually pretty good as well,

with a strong clinical bent. . .

 

I've been assured of Unschuld's Su Wen translation sometime this year or

early next. . .

 

 

On Feb 26, 2010, at 6:48 PM, wrote:

 

> Hi Doug, Z'ev, Thomas, Steven....

> I'm reading both Henry Lu's and Nguyen Van Nghi's translations of the Ling

> shu

> and am frustrated in the inconsistency in both. Henry Lu is a scholar, but

> his translation of Qi into " energy " ,

> for instance is stifling. I wish he would actually just keep the pinyin

> terms intact for major terminology, instead of translating them without

> reference. The Nguyen Van Nghi translation lists both, but retains the

> mistake of translating Qi into " energy " .

>

> For instance, Ling shu 8th issue: according to Nguyen Van Nghi:

> " Huang di asks Qi-bo: Every act of needling should be based on the Shen

> (mind), the Xue (blood), the Mai (vessels),

> the Ying (nutritive energy), the Qi (energy), and the Jingshen (mental

> quintessence), which are stored in the five organs.

> When debauchery cuts them off from an organ, the Jing declines, the Hun and

> the Po (vegetative and sensitive souls) waft away; the Zhi and the Lu

> (intelligence and pre-occupation) are lacking... "

>

> What this shows me is 1. it would be sublime to be able to have clarity in

> the terminology for the translations, as even the English words in

> translation seem vague and open-ended.... for instance... " vegetative and

> sensitive souls " for Hun and Po.

> 2. I need to put the hours into reading the characters themselves. If we

> get the source text material wrong from the start from unclear translations

> then all of our interpretations are going to be acutely off-base.

> 3. We need to read the commentaries from Wang Bing, Ma Yuan Tai (Ma shi),

> Zhang An Yin (Zhang shi), Zhang Jing yue (Zhang Jie Bin) and others in order

> to really understand the way that the Great Nei jing scholars of the past

> understood the text. If we haven't read the commentaries and don't know

> exactly if the text means " Shen " , " Hun " or " Ling " when it writes " Spirit " ,

> how can we call ourselves an expert in the Nei jing?

>

> The problem with Wu Jing-Nuan's translation of the Ling shu is that there

> are barely and foot-notes or references or commentaries.

> This is the saving grace for Henry Lu and Nguyen Van Nghi's translations.

>

> K

>

> On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:20 PM, wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > It's only when I started teaching the Fundamentals class did I really start

> > digging into Chinese. I don't say I read but I am forever looking up words

> > for meaning. Some times meaning comes from translation, some comes from

> > sociology, some comes from history. Last year hearing Elizabeth Rochat

> > saying rather off-hand that " oh, we can't analyze this word because we are

> > only analyzing the English, we have to look at the Chinese " , that got me

> > going.

> >

> > Doug

> >

> >

> > --- In

<%40>,

> > wrote:

> > >

> > > Steve et al,

> > >

> > > I think it is important to face some truths. If you don't read the

> > original

> > > Chinese then people who do, are not likely to take what you say very

> > > seriously. As someone who has spent the last few years working on my

> > Chinese

> > > and can get through most of the basic texts without too much difficulty,

> > I

> > > find reading most of the Classic texts quite challenging. After nearly 20

> > > years of studying Chinese medicine, most of it through translations, I am

> > > now beginning to see why people like Bob have been saying for years, " If

> > you

> > > really want to understand Chinese medicine, learn to read Chinese " it is

> > > really that simple, there are very few translations that are going to get

> > > you anywhere near what you get when you actually read the original

> > Chinese,

> > > sorry but that is the plain truth. The Mitchel, Wiseman, Feng translation

> > of

> > > the Shang Han Lun is the only translation of a Classic that comes to mind

> > as

> > > one of these exceptions.

> > >

> > > To be honest, I find what you say interesting, but knowing that you can't

> > > read the original makes it difficult for me to take it too seriously. I

> > am

> > > sure you have worked very hard and perhaps have some good insight, but

> > the

> > > reason I started to seriously study Chinese language was exactly because

> > > after teaching for a few years I came to the realization that anything

> > > outside of my clinical experience was nothing more than what the students

> > > could read in English and if I could read the original I would gain both

> > a

> > > vastly larger corpus of information, and likely a heck of a lot of

> > insight.

> > > Both have borne out to be true. And, I think if you ask anyone on this

> > list

> > > who has gone through a similar process I feel confident they would say

> > their

> > > experience is the same (or nearly so :-).

> > >

> > > This is not to say that one can not practice Chinese medicine without

> > > Chinese language skill, but to be a scholar and, in my opinion, a

> > teacher,

> > > you MUST be able to read the original, this is, IMHO, basic academic

> > rigor.

> > > I feel pretty confidant that if you went to any university and asked

> > about

> > > becoming a scholar in any tradition they would ALL say you MUST learn the

> > > language of origin in order to pursue this endeavor.

> > >

> > > Although Bob is no longer with us on this forum, I will take this

> > > opportunity to thank him for all he has contributed to this field. He has

> > > been quite a lightning rod over the years, but all-in-all he has

> > contributed

> > > at least as much as anyone else has to the furthering of Chinese medicine

> > in

> > > the West. May you find true happiness!

> > >

> > > In Good Health,

> > > Thomas

> > >

> > >

> > > cell:

> > > Beijing, China

> > > Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> > > Practitioners Guide "

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Z'ev,

 

Since you mentioned this book twice Lingshu Acupuncture), I will order it,

thanks for the recommendation!

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Sunday, February 28, 2010 5:54 PM

 

Re: Problems with Nei-jing translations

 

John,

None of these translations are even remotely satisfactory. What I've

been doing is using Li Zhaoguo's translation from the Library of Chinese

Classics in three volumes, Chinese/English, " Yellow Emperor's Canon of

Medicine " , and a simple e-book from Richard Bertschinger, " Single Idea in

the Mind of the Yellow Emperor " , also Chinese/English. Bertschinger's book

is based on a primer of Su Wen by Li Zhong-zi, so it is much simpler to

follow. I translate as best as I can directly from Chinese and compare it

with their translations. Tedious, but worth it.

 

Another new textbook, " Lingshu Acupuncture " , is actually pretty good as

well, with a strong clinical bent. . .

 

I've been assured of Unschuld's Su Wen translation sometime this year or

early next. . .

 

 

On Feb 26, 2010, at 6:48 PM, wrote:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Z'ev, yes... all of these translations say radically different things at

times....

even with the changing around of word-order or stringing a sentence or

adding a comma,

meaning can be turned around 180 degrees.

That being said, I've come to the conclusion that I have to read the Chinese

characters in a deep way, in order to really " get it " .

Aside from that, I really like Charles Chace and Yang Shou-zhong's

translation of the Jia yi jing. The footnotes are extremely helpful. Much

of the Nei-jing / Ling-shu is of course translated in this classic.

 

K

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 6:27 PM, <

> wrote:

 

>

>

> Z'ev,

>

> Since you mentioned this book twice Lingshu Acupuncture), I will order it,

> thanks for the recommendation!

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

> <%40>

>

[ <%40>\

]

> On Behalf Of

> Sunday, February 28, 2010 5:54 PM

> <%40>

> Re: Problems with Nei-jing translations

>

> John,

> None of these translations are even remotely satisfactory. What I've

> been doing is using Li Zhaoguo's translation from the Library of Chinese

> Classics in three volumes, Chinese/English, " Yellow Emperor's Canon of

> Medicine " , and a simple e-book from Richard Bertschinger, " Single Idea in

> the Mind of the Yellow Emperor " , also Chinese/English. Bertschinger's book

> is based on a primer of Su Wen by Li Zhong-zi, so it is much simpler to

> follow. I translate as best as I can directly from Chinese and compare it

> with their translations. Tedious, but worth it.

>

> Another new textbook, " Lingshu Acupuncture " , is actually pretty good as

> well, with a strong clinical bent. . .

>

> I've been assured of Unschuld's Su Wen translation sometime this year or

> early next. . .

>

>

> On Feb 26, 2010, at 6:48 PM, wrote:

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

 

 

""

 

 

www.tcmreview.com

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...