Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2010 All observations are included when determining a pattern. You may find treating a pattern a problem, I find it the backbone of solid Chinese medicine that is been practiced for 2000 years. And you know what, it works. -Jason On Behalf Of Lonny Tuesday, March 02, 2010 6:44 AM Re: Ming=destiny? just treat the pattern! Lonny: I would say that what is at issue is 1. What observations are potentially included in the pattern? 2. What context is the pattern being held in? and most importantly 3. What is the pattern being referenced to? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2010 1. The name of the dictionary is 黄å¸å†…ç»è¯å…¸ (天津科å¦æŠ€æœ¯å‡ºç‰ˆç¤¾)， it is about 1200 pages。 I find it extremely helpful and there is no question that it is much more comprehensive compared to Unschuld’s ‘abridged’ version. Hence why I returned that dictionary. I will send you a photocopy of the shen entry so that you can have the full information. But very quickly, yes shen can mean “the attention of the physician†and is specifically discussed in the article by Bensky and Chase that I mentioned yesterday. Unfortunately I cannot read your characters so my comments are limited. But you ask, how does this list help you translate? Of course, one can just choose to use the term " spirit " for every time they see the term shen (神)。 However, in doing so, if one does not provide the proper commentary (which is rarely done in English), then the reader is left to their own imagination to what this term the “spirit†can mean. Hence a huge problem in the West and the point of my recent posts. Context with commentary is just absolutely essential in deciphering these classical texts. You also ask, “Why is there no definition amongst these seven that reflects shen2 as a nonmaterial constituent of the organism (at least not in a direct and clear way)?†- my answer: I'm not sure, but I would guess because this is not what it means to classical Chinese authors. 2. Yes you are correct, under ming there is no " fate " or " destiny " as a definition. I will also send you the entry for ming. -Jason On Behalf Of aowenherman Tuesday, March 02, 2010 10:46 AM Re: Ming=destiny? Jason, For & #31070; shen2, your NJ dictionary gives seven meanings: shen2 (¿À) ¡Êspirit¡ËIn the NeiJing has seven basic definitions: 1. essence-spirit 2. magical, miraculous 3. smart or intelligent 4. extremely clever 5. the attention of the physician 6. the natural law of things 7. the body's correct qi ad 1. So, shen2 in the meaning of jing1shen2? I would like to learn where and why shen2 means jing1 shen2 in the Neijing. If the list of meanings is exhaustive, this meaning would apply to many instances of shen2 and then the question arises: What is the difference between shen2 and jing1shen2? A complicating factor can be that some people read essence-spirit and others essence and spirit. ad 3. and 4. I can't see why these should be separated as different meanings but well. `Having spirituality' (I found that somewhere in Unschuld as translation of the first occurrence of shen2 in the Suwen) could replace all of this, couldn't it? ad 5. Is that a definition of shen2? ad 6. ?? idem ad 7. Ah, yes, directly from Linshu 3: & #31070; & #32773; & #27491; & #27683; & #20063; & #23458; & #32773; & #37034; & #27683; & #20063; The spirit is right (Unschuld: proper) qi4; the guest / visitor is evil qi4. ad 1.-7., in general: How can a list like this help you understand /translate, for instance, phrases like & #29572; & #29983; & #31070; & #31070; & #22312; & #22825; & #28858; & #39080; & #22312; & #22320; & #28858; & #26408; & #22312; & #39636; & #28858; & #31563; (etc.) in Suwen 5, 66 & 67, or terms like & #39740; & #31070; (appearing in Suwen 11 & 25)? How would we read & #24515; & #34255; & #31070; when we have to /want to choose from these definitions? Heart stores essence-spirit? Is that a clarification of `Heart stores spirit'? (Both phrases appear in the Neijing, maybe they mean exactly the same, je ne sais pas). Why is there no definition amongst these seven that reflects shen2 as a nonmaterial constituent of the organism (at least not in a direct and clear way)? By the way, Suwen 66 gives an interesting definition: & #38512; & #38525; & #19981; & #28204; & #35586; & #20043; & #31070; The unfathomable(ness) of yin and yang is called spirit. About ming4: The list you quoted from the dictionary reads: 1. Life 2. A Name 3. an order or command, lecture or lesson 4. inborn; natural gift, talent ad 2. verbal usage ad 3. lecture? lesson? hm, `(imperative) instruction' is maybe better... ad 4. I would like to see a context with this meaning of ming4. In general: no `fate' or `destiny' here. --- I use several commentated editions of the Neijing. The dictionaries I've seen in China were not particularly helpful but sometimes the modern Chinese commentaries are, or the versions rewritten in modern Chinese. Working with Unschuld's dictionary, especially in combination with his introduction to the Suwen, has helped me solve translation problems in quite a few instances and continues to be valuable in other ways as well. I agree with others on this list that it would be fantastic to make Zhang Jingyue's Leijing available in English. If we start now with a collective of translators and other specialists we might even be able to beat the publication date of Unschuld's Suwen translation (joking). Anyway, I haven't heard about any follow-up after Stephen's suggestion for fund-raising (a few weeks ago on this list). Can you give the full title of the dictionary you quoted from? Does someone else use a Neijing dictionary that she or he finds helpful? Best Wishes, N. Herman Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2010 All observations are included when determining a pattern. You may find treating a pattern a problem, I find it the backbone of solid Chinese medicine that is been practiced for 2000 years. And you know what, it works. Lonny: Actually Jason, in a certain sense, one can only treat patterns. I have no trouble at all with the notion of treating patterns except, of course, when the human being him or herself becomes nothing more than an intellectual abstraction. What I was pointing to is that, in fact, not " all " observations are necessarily included when determining a pattern. It is clear that from some of our discussion here, rather a lot of information that is potentially available within the context of CM may not be included by certain people in their diagnosis. The assumption seems to be that " if I treat the pattern " I am necessarily accessing all levels that need to be diagnosed and addressed. I am saying that while may be theoretically true, it is not necessarily so. For example I will suggest that the venerable Hur Jun as translated by Mr. Freuhauf might consider that the standard " mainstream " TCM patterns weren't quite comprehensive enough when it came to the highest practice of medicine that he was pointing to. In the " inner tradition " that Mr. Hur Jun is pointing to only Shen, with a capital " S " , is the standard of reference against which every " thing " is measured. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2010 yes, in the phrase å„ä»¥æ° " å`½å…¶è— (Suwen 12) and in å`½æ›° (several instances) To render this in English we would use a verb though. Herman Jason, if we want to communicate about Chinese characters can you please figure out how to read them? It took me a bit of playing with the encoding settings to be able to read your characters and you might be able to see mine when you try that. thanks , " " wrote: > > Lonny, > > > > Ming (Ì¿) can be translated as ��a name�� in the Nei Jing. > > > > -Jason > > > > > On Behalf Of Lonny > Tuesday, March 02, 2010 5:40 AM > > Re: Ming=destiny? > > <%40> , " trevor_erikson " > <trevor_erikson@> wrote: > > > > Unschuld translates Ming as Name. > > > > > > Lonny: It's a totally different character. Destiny (ming) is given through > the ascribing of name (ming) and enlightenment (ming) happens from waking up > from sleep (ming) through meditation (ming) to see through the name (ming) > to the light (ming) of destiny (ming). All different characters though. > > > > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2010 Cara, I would love to see a paper, but I guess clearing heat is just not as glamorous as saying you are realigning someone's destiny... -Jason On Behalf Of cara Monday, March 01, 2010 5:37 AM Re: Ming=destiny? I agree Jason. I wrote a paper this year on using heat clearing herbs to calm the spirit that echos your point below. just treat the pattern! Cara Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 2, 2010 , " " wrote: > > Cara, > > I would love to see a paper, but I guess clearing heat is just not as > glamorous as saying you are realigning someone's destiny... > Lonny: Clearing heat can calm the spirit with a small " s " . Spirit with a large " S " doesn't need calming. From internal causes, a significant amount of the pathological heat that might need clearing comes form being lost in the illusion of the personal, shen with a small " s " . You can symptomatically clear it the rest of a person's life and you'll never be doing more than skimming the pool. Only seeing through the small self, developing conviction in the Shen/Self with a large " S " , and shifting one's identification to it can ultimately resolve the issue. It's a resolution beyond the mind at a soul level. This is the highest medicine and the way of the superior physician that the venerable Mr. Hur Jun points to. It's a level of practice that we should all aspire to and show great humility in the face of. It's not something to be taken lightly or to assume that we are doing it because we are " resolving syndrome patterns " or " treating on the CF " . It's a level of practice that exists in the core of the heart, beyond the mind, and as the heart and soul of medicine itself. TO aspire to such a level of practice is the only goal for those who are awake to the path of medicine. It is the singular goal of my own practice, writing, and teaching to inquire into this great endeavor and to awaken such a striving in the hearts of others. We may well all be very, very, far from this absolute calling pointed to by Mr. Hur Jun's words. But his words are the sun that illuminate the striving of the superior physician. It takes courage to face into the possible implications and meanings of such words and we should have the utmost respect for what is being pointed to and not assume that we already understand it, and least of all should we deride it. When Tao is heard by a man of high intellect, He practices it with diligence. When Tao is heard by a man of average intellect, He follows it half-heartedly. When Tao is heard by a man of no intellect, He will have a hearty laugh at it. And it would not be Tao without being laughed at. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 3, 2010 Since Lonny as mentioned Mr. Hur Jun a couple of times do we have anything more than this one single paragraph that Heiner translated? Since this 16th-century Korean doctor seems to be not that big of name in Chinese medicine, I'm having difficulty finding anything in my library. Furthermore, I am unsure what to even do with this one paragraph. So we have a 16th-century Korean doctor that is a little disgruntled with the medicine around him and that it is not up to par as compared to the " sage healers of ancient times " (whoever that might be??). Okay... quite honestly, if you read introductions to a large percentage of medical texts they all have some kind of diatribe. Even the Nei Jing discusses how the people of today, as compared to their ancestors, do not live in harmony. I think people just like to complain, trying to make their " medicine " better than the rest. Furthermore, I do not think anyone is arguing that there are doctors throughout history that were not happy with the " current " situations and think things should be more about the heart-- this is far from the debate. However, it would be nice to see more from this doctor and how he applied this type of thinking to his treatments. For example, do we have any case studies illustrating his methods? Without such further information, I don't see that this paragraph is that meaningful in and of itself. Does anyone have any more information to read? - On Behalf Of Lonny Tuesday, March 02, 2010 7:11 PM Re: Ming=destiny? <%40> , " " wrote: > > Cara, > > I would love to see a paper, but I guess clearing heat is just not as > glamorous as saying you are realigning someone's destiny... > Lonny: Clearing heat can calm the spirit with a small " s " . Spirit with a large " S " doesn't need calming. From internal causes, a significant amount of the pathological heat that might need clearing comes form being lost in the illusion of the personal, shen with a small " s " . You can symptomatically clear it the rest of a person's life and you'll never be doing more than skimming the pool. Only seeing through the small self, developing conviction in the Shen/Self with a large " S " , and shifting one's identification to it can ultimately resolve the issue. It's a resolution beyond the mind at a soul level. This is the highest medicine and the way of the superior physician that the venerable Mr. Hur Jun points to. It's a level of practice that we should all aspire to and show great humility in the face of. It's not something to be taken lightly or to assume that we are doing it because we are " resolving syndrome patterns " or " treating on the CF " . It's a level of practice that exists in the core of the heart, beyond the mind, and as the heart and soul of medicine itself. TO aspire to such a level of practice is the only goal for those who are awake to the path of medicine. It is the singular goal of my own practice, writing, and teaching to inquire into this great endeavor and to awaken such a striving in the hearts of others. We may well all be very, very, far from this absolute calling pointed to by Mr. Hur Jun's words. But his words are the sun that illuminate the striving of the superior physician. It takes courage to face into the possible implications and meanings of such words and we should have the utmost respect for what is being pointed to and not assume that we already understand it, and least of all should we deride it. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 3, 2010 Jason, Ho Jun's Dong Yi Bo Gam was translated into Chinese and Japanese and is a medical encyclopedia of 25 volumes researched from 500 classical medical texts from the Imperial library. It took 15 years to complete. What makes it unique is that it also incorporated Korean regional herbs and uses as well as what is seen in earlier materia medicas. It is divided into 5 sections: internal medicine, external medicine, materia medica, acupuncture and miscellaneous diseases. Ho Jun is the most prolific writer in Korean medical history (25 volumes), as well as seen as a doctor who dedicated his life to all walks of life.. poor and wealthy, while writing in Hangul, the simplified phonetic characters of the regular folk, instead of writing in Chinese characters, which were accessible only to scholars. A television series was made about his life, which was the highest grossing series in Korean history, until Dae Jang Geum, which broke all of the records in Asia (about the only woman to be the king's head chef and chief medical physician). There is a team of people in LA right now working on translating the Dong Yi Bo Gam into English. When it's ready, I'll let you know. If anything, you could admire Ho Jun's dedication to compiling the classics in a systemized manner. K On Wed, Mar 3, 2010 at 6:27 AM, < > wrote: > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Jason: Since Lonny as mentioned Mr. Hur Jun a couple of times do we have anything more than this one single paragraph that Heiner translated? Since this 16th-century Korean doctor seems to be not that big of name in Chinese medicine, I'm having difficulty finding anything in my library. Lonny: Jason, to what degree do you think ethnocentrism, political factors, and cultural conditioning might account for Mr. Hur Jun not figuring prominently in State sanctified Chinese medical history? I remember well receiving a letter from Mr. Flaws after I published my first article " Myth and Meaning in " (1992)announcing my work in Nourishing Destiny. He had been surprised that I wrote that the Shen Nong Ben Cao placed ming, destiny, at the top of the hierarchy of treatment since his texts placed it at the bottom. He was interested to procure a copy not published in the mainland only to realize the Chinese had altered the text. There are a lot of forces at work in history that determine what gets published and how. One can't form a fair picture of the medicine based solely on state approved texts. And, one can only ever understand the texts in a bigger context than just " medicine " which does not exist in some kind of magical isolation from the rest of culture. Jason: Furthermore, I am unsure what to even do with this one paragraph. Lonny: The paragraph stands on it's own terms as a complete, total, and utter refutation of the notion that medicine is in any way separate from the enlightenment teachings or a cosmo-centric perspective. What one does with that is up to ones level of interest in deeper matters and in having an integrated understanding and practice of medicine. Jason: So we have a 16th-century Korean doctor that is a little disgruntled with the medicine around him and that it is not up to par as compared to the " sage healers of ancient times " (whoever that might be??). Lonny: I provided in my first text and many articles a historical basis for the exact same strain of thought throughout the history of the medicine. Heiner, Elisabeth Rochat, and Claude Larre have done the same. To characterize Hur Jun, after reading his magnificent piece, as " a little disgruntled " because he refutes your position seems a bit small. Maybe he knew something you don't. If your not interested in what he, or I, or others are pointing to that's fine. If you're satisfied with what you already know about the medicine that's well and good too. But please don't pretend your standing on science, scholarship, or firm intellectual ground with your opinion. Jason: Okay... quite honestly, if you read introductions to a large percentage of medical texts they all have some kind of diatribe. Even the Nei Jing discusses how the people of today, as compared to their ancestors, do not live in harmony. I think people just like to complain, trying to make their " medicine " better than the rest. Lonny: Diatribe? Actually, Jason the introduction sets CONTEXT. What comes first, ONE (yi), the single stroke, HEAVEN, sets the context for everything else that comes after. WHen the Jia Yi Jing says in the first line " ALL TREATEMNT MUST BE ROOTED IN SPIRIT " the author is not talking about " the psychological process of the individual " (shen, small " s " ). The author is setting a context that it is recognized at the outset that all treatment and healing is rooted beyond the small self in what Hur Jun points to as, " for the glorious universe wherein we are all one " . And, in fact, every time shen with a small " s " is mentioned, from beginning to end, Shen with a large " S " is implicated as the gold standard of reference, pure motive, and perfect functioning. Jason: Furthermore, I do not think anyone is arguing that there are doctors throughout history that were not happy with the " current " situations and think things should be more about the heart-- this is far from the debate. Lonny: No Jason, it isn't relative. It's not that " things should be more from the heart " it's the recognition that the heart is the ONLY true source of healing and that every clinical matter ultimately boils down to the degree a person is, or is not, in touch (tong shen ming) with the pure light of heaven, consciousness, illumination (ming) and destiny (ming). Jason: However, it would be nice to see more from this doctor and how he applied this type of thinking to his treatments. For example, do we have any case studies illustrating his methods? Without such further information, I don't see that this paragraph is that meaningful in and of itself. Does anyone have any more information to read? Lonny: What he expressed is the current that runs through the entire medicine, their clearly for anyone who has the interest, and the eyes, to see. It is too bad that Mr. Flaws retired just as this conversation was getting going. Interesting. Nonetheless I think his point that Shen with a large " S " doesn't exist is " " standard professional Chinese medicine " is well taken and points to everything wrong with " standard professional Chinese medicine " from beginning to end. Its the Clear Channel of the tradition. What Bob calls " Buddha Mind " sees only itself in everything. It all depends on what eyes one is looking through. This is not a question of " those who read classical Chinese " and " those who don't " and it is no more than a tactic to present it that way. This is a matter only of perspective. Those who translate Chinese and interpret the classics do a great service. But they are not immune to cultural conditioning and political and personal biases. While those taking an anthropological perspective can tell you what they think a person meant at some distant point in the past, a modern clinician can tell you exactly what they mean and exactly what they are doing and how they think about it. Many of us have articulated and will continue to articulate a position that wont go away regardless of how many times one chants the old same tired rhetoric regarding " " standard professional Chinese medicine " . While the perspective of those who understand Chinese medicine from a cosmocentric perspective may be, and may have always been, a minority view there is sufficient evidence for the perspective that I don't think it can be ignored, denied, or derided. Again, if your not interested just say so. But stop pretending that your position has historical or scholarly merit. It is odd to think that the Confucians who wrote the classics where unaware of, and uninfluenced by, the vast Confucian discourse on ming as destiny. Certainly this persisted throughout history to the degree that the Communists felt compelled to launch campaigns against it. Here is Scholar Dang Zhunyi summing up Confucious' veiw on ming: Therefore, the determined and human-hearted man does not feel that his purpose and human-heartedness are possessions of his own; they are rooted, rather, in Heaven. In his sublime state of mind at the moment, he is in union with Heaven: his task of self-examination and realization of his purpose, for which he commands and looks to himself,is absolutely identical with the entire situation sent to him by Heaven. His unceasing exalted spirit, encouraged and nourished by duty, is one with his unceasing duty commanded by Heaven, a duty that increases daily, continuously shining forth and flourishing in his heart. In such a state of mind, where his duty is, there, too, is hisming; there is no way to avoid his duty, and, similarly, no way to avoid ming. The two become one in their absolute goodness. Hierarchy Finally is the issue of hierarchy, the anathema of the post-modern pluralist. The Shen Nong Ben Cao, written during the ascension of Absolutist consciousness (blue meme) acknowledges hierarchy at the outset and places heaven, ming, highest and first. But to the postmodern pluralist all perspectives are equal because, after all, they are all perspectives. Nothing is recognized as being higher. Hence, people take exception when those with a " spiritual " perspective assert that their tradition is somehow higher than another. Now it's clear that there is a lot of pretense to go around regarding the " psychospiritual " , humanistic, newage, process oriented pablum that's most people are so morbidly infatuated with these last 50 years. But that doesn't change the fact that spirit is, and always has been first. And, that it is only from a spiritual perspective that the rest of TCM is contextualized in any meaningful way. Regards, Lonny Jarrett Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 , " Lonny " <revolution wrote: > There are a lot of forces at work in history that determine what gets published and how. One can't form a fair picture of the medicine based solely on state approved texts. This argument is so baseless that it stuns me that people still try to bring it up. There is no point trying to hold a rational argument about this. No amount of evidence can convince somebody to change their mind- if people evaluated the evidence and thought about it in a reasonable, rational way, there would be nothing to argue about. Historical texts in Chinese medicine have been very well-preserved and scholars in places like Korea, Japan, and Taiwan have never had any influence of " communism " or any other boogeyman that mysteriously wiped out everything that we wish Chinese medicine had in our little perfect fantasy world. I've been into library vaults in Beijing where I got to look through 800 year old original copies of the Neijing. Trust me, no one took an exacto-knife to the text and the scholarship and preservation is astounding. Different generations of scholars meticulously preserved the original and wrote in different colored ink to separate their comments from the original, a tradition that has been maintained ever since Tao Hong-Jing's first extant edition of the Shen Nong Ben Cao Jing. There are whole vaults of original, unaltered texts in Beijing, and Neijing scholars invariably use editions from Japan and other regions when they research the transmission of concepts and textual variations. It is an insult to the history of Chinese medical scholarship to make sweeping statements about the nature of Chinese medical texts that are based purely on propaganda, assumption, naivete, and wishful thinking. If we respect the history and wisdom of Chinese medicine, we owe it to the world to continue our investigations with the same degree of scholarship that past generations put in. > Lonny: Diatribe? Actually, Jason the introduction sets CONTEXT. What comes first, ONE (yi), the single stroke, HEAVEN, sets the context for everything else that comes after. WHen the Jia Yi Jing says in the first line " ALL TREATEMNT MUST BE ROOTED IN SPIRIT " the author is not talking about " the psychological process of the individual " (shen, small " s " ). The author is setting a context that it is recognized at the outset that all treatment and healing is rooted beyond the small self in what Hur Jun points to as, " for the glorious universe wherein we are all one " . No one would argue that spirit in this context refers to psychological processes. Most likely the word spirit here is referring to a sense of animation, the same intangible thing that we associate with the tongue, the eyes, or, as Al pointed out, that quality that makes a fresh fish look fresh and an old fish look lusterless. On one level, the use of the word shen does have an overlap with what we would call oneness (for example, Neijing says " that which cannot be fathomed in terms of yin and yang is shen " ), but to assume that this is its most common and fundamental meaning in Chinese medicine to me seems like a distorted understanding of the Chinese concept of shen. Obviously it sells lots of books and hits the G-spot for people's expectations and desires, but it misses the point and really distorts the spirit of the passage " all treatment must be rooted in spirit. " Oneness is profound, of course, but the simple meaning of luster, vitality and animation that shen usually refers to in Chinese medicine is equally profound. There is no shortage of depth and profound implications in normal Chinese medicine, so why do we feel a need to muddy the waters by imposing Western religious, philosophical, and spiritual ideas onto Chinese medicine? There are plenty of other outlets in our lives for expressing Western philosophy and spirituality, but it seems to me to be disrespectful of Chinese medicine to ignore CM's history and cloud its wisdom with our own ethnocentric ideas. Eric Brand Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Lonny, I am sorry to say this, but the more you try to claim your position as being an authority of Classically written Chinese medicine, the weaker your ground looks. It does not take a genius to understand that the only people who could possibly come close to having such a grasp is someone who can read the root text, for which it seems you cannot. In order to be a scholar, in Chinese medicine, does honestly involve the ability to read the original, along with all it's commentary, from many sources. If you are just relying on someone else to translate for you, you are even more vulnerable to the comment you declared about being "  not immune to cultural conditioning and political and personal biases " . At least when one can read the original, can read the commentary, can look up various others authors interpretation of the same piece, they are able to gain a wider perspective, with less bias, compared to relying on only  one or two third party persons translation (that may  not even  include the commentary).  As has been mentioned by many on this forum, the tradition in CHina was to write the original in one colour ink, then commentary and additions in another colour.  This tradition predates the communist era by almost two thousand years. IF one can actually read Chinese, it seems pretty clear that they could see the common thread of thought written in the commentary about the original piece. This is much different than one westerner looking at the original and suddenly declaring they understand it better than the 2000 year old conversation which has been taking place over it. I think it is an insult to blame Jason for not being a good scholar, when in many posts on this topic he has asked for original Chinese characters from which the people on this list can interpret. You have provided nothing. Jason has actually, several times, listed passages with translations from various authors, so as to gain a wider perspective. You have not done anything similar. So to reiterate, you, I, and anyone else on this forum, could never be a true " Chinese medicine scholar of any works, either pre or post modern, simply because WE CANNOT EVEN READ THE ORIGINAL. We can only trust those that have done the hard work for us. All your opinions are based on some third party person who is not even here to support their own thinking. You are merely creating your own agenda for them. So, hats off to all those out there who set " the standard " by being good scholars, by putting in the time to actually read Chinese and providing us with the endless supply of work that you do. So that us illiterate westerners can become knowledgeable of the mysterious east. But please ,do be patient with us, as we may get excited from time to time, declaring that our opinions of what is written is more important than what is actually written. Trevor --- On Thu, 3/4/10, Lonny <revolution wrote: Lonny <revolution Re: Ming=destiny? Received: Thursday, March 4, 2010, 9:25 AM  Jason: Since Lonny as mentioned Mr. Hur Jun a couple of times do we have anything more than this one single paragraph that Heiner translated? Since this 16th-century Korean doctor seems to be not that big of name in Chinese medicine, I'm having difficulty finding anything in my library. Lonny: Jason, to what degree do you think ethnocentrism, political factors, and cultural conditioning might account for Mr. Hur Jun not figuring prominently in State sanctified Chinese medical history? I remember well receiving a letter from Mr. Flaws after I published my first article " Myth and Meaning in " (1992)announcing my work in Nourishing Destiny. He had been surprised that I wrote that the Shen Nong Ben Cao placed ming, destiny, at the top of the hierarchy of treatment since his texts placed it at the bottom. He was interested to procure a copy not published in the mainland only to realize the Chinese had altered the text. There are a lot of forces at work in history that determine what gets published and how. One can't form a fair picture of the medicine based solely on state approved texts. And, one can only ever understand the texts in a bigger context than just " medicine " which does not exist in some kind of magical isolation from the rest of culture. Jason: Furthermore, I am unsure what to even do with this one paragraph. Lonny: The paragraph stands on it's own terms as a complete, total, and utter refutation of the notion that medicine is in any way separate from the enlightenment teachings or a cosmo-centric perspective. What one does with that is up to ones level of interest in deeper matters and in having an integrated understanding and practice of medicine. Jason: So we have a 16th-century Korean doctor that is a little disgruntled with the medicine around him and that it is not up to par as compared to the " sage healers of ancient times " (whoever that might be??). Lonny: I provided in my first text and many articles a historical basis for the exact same strain of thought throughout the history of the medicine. Heiner, Elisabeth Rochat, and Claude Larre have done the same. To characterize Hur Jun, after reading his magnificent piece, as " a little disgruntled " because he refutes your position seems a bit small. Maybe he knew something you don't. If your not interested in what he, or I, or others are pointing to that's fine. If you're satisfied with what you already know about the medicine that's well and good too. But please don't pretend your standing on science, scholarship, or firm intellectual ground with your opinion. Jason: Okay... quite honestly, if you read introductions to a large percentage of medical texts they all have some kind of diatribe. Even the Nei Jing discusses how the people of today, as compared to their ancestors, do not live in harmony. I think people just like to complain, trying to make their " medicine " better than the rest. Lonny: Diatribe? Actually, Jason the introduction sets CONTEXT. What comes first, ONE (yi), the single stroke, HEAVEN, sets the context for everything else that comes after. WHen the Jia Yi Jing says in the first line " ALL TREATEMNT MUST BE ROOTED IN SPIRIT " the author is not talking about " the psychological process of the individual " (shen, small " s " ). The author is setting a context that it is recognized at the outset that all treatment and healing is rooted beyond the small self in what Hur Jun points to as, " for the glorious universe wherein we are all one " . And, in fact, every time shen with a small " s " is mentioned, from beginning to end, Shen with a large " S " is implicated as the gold standard of reference, pure motive, and perfect functioning. Jason: Furthermore, I do not think anyone is arguing that there are doctors throughout history that were not happy with the " current " situations and think things should be more about the heart-- this is far from the debate. Lonny: No Jason, it isn't relative. It's not that " things should be more from the heart " it's the recognition that the heart is the ONLY true source of healing and that every clinical matter ultimately boils down to the degree a person is, or is not, in touch (tong shen ming) with the pure light of heaven, consciousness, illumination (ming) and destiny (ming). Jason: However, it would be nice to see more from this doctor and how he applied this type of thinking to his treatments. For example, do we have any case studies illustrating his methods? Without such further information, I don't see that this paragraph is that meaningful in and of itself. Does anyone have any more information to read? Lonny: What he expressed is the current that runs through the entire medicine, their clearly for anyone who has the interest, and the eyes, to see. It is too bad that Mr. Flaws retired just as this conversation was getting going. Interesting. Nonetheless I think his point that Shen with a large " S " doesn't exist is " " standard professional Chinese medicine " is well taken and points to everything wrong with " standard professional Chinese medicine " from beginning to end. Its the Clear Channel of the tradition. What Bob calls " Buddha Mind " sees only itself in everything. It all depends on what eyes one is looking through. This is not a question of " those who read classical Chinese " and " those who don't " and it is no more than a tactic to present it that way. This is a matter only of perspective. Those who translate Chinese and interpret the classics do a great service.. While those taking an anthropological perspective can tell you what they think a person meant at some distant point in the past, a modern clinician can tell you exactly what they mean and exactly what they are doing and how they think about it. Many of us have articulated and will continue to articulate a position that wont go away regardless of how many times one chants the old same tired rhetoric regarding " " standard professional Chinese medicine " . While the perspective of those who understand Chinese medicine from a cosmocentric perspective may be, and may have always been, a minority view there is sufficient evidence for the perspective that I don't think it can be ignored, denied, or derided. Again, if your not interested just say so. But stop pretending that your position has historical or scholarly merit. It is odd to think that the Confucians who wrote the classics where unaware of, and uninfluenced by, the vast Confucian discourse on ming as destiny. Certainly this persisted throughout history to the degree that the Communists felt compelled to launch campaigns against it. Here is Scholar Dang Zhunyi summing up Confucious' veiw on ming: Therefore, the determined and human-hearted man does not feel that his purpose and human-heartedness are possessions of his own; they are rooted, rather, in Heaven. In his sublime state of mind at the moment, he is in union with Heaven: his task of self-examination and realization of his purpose, for which he commands and looks to himself,is absolutely identical with the entire situation sent to him by Heaven. His unceasing exalted spirit, encouraged and nourished by duty, is one with his unceasing duty commanded by Heaven, a duty that increases daily, continuously shining forth and flourishing in his heart. In such a state of mind, where his duty is, there, too, is hisming; there is no way to avoid his duty, and, similarly, no way to avoid ming. The two become one in their absolute goodness. Hierarchy Finally is the issue of hierarchy, the anathema of the post-modern pluralist. The Shen Nong Ben Cao, written during the ascension of Absolutist consciousness (blue meme) acknowledges hierarchy at the outset and places heaven, ming, highest and first. But to the postmodern pluralist all perspectives are equal because, after all, they are all perspectives. Nothing is recognized as being higher. Hence, people take exception when those with a " spiritual " perspective assert that their tradition is somehow higher than another. Now it's clear that there is a lot of pretense to go around regarding the " psychospiritual " , humanistic, newage, process oriented pablum that's most people are so morbidly infatuated with these last 50 years. But that doesn't change the fact that spirit is, and always has been first. And, that it is only from a spiritual perspective that the rest of TCM is contextualized in any meaningful way. Regards, Lonny Jarrett ________________ Reclaim your name @ymail.com or @rocketmail.com. Get your new email address now! Go to http://ca.promos./jacko/ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Most likely the word spirit here is referring to a sense of animation, the same intangible thing that we associate with the tongue, the eyes, or, as Al pointed out, that quality that makes a fresh fish look fresh and an old fish look lusterless. Lonny: You know Eric, " most likely " according to your opinion just isn't good enough. The texts can be read at many different levels from the mundane to the sublime. I take exception to the notion that such an inner tradition of reading the classics isn't valid or that it has no significant historical basis. In pointing out Mr. Flaw's letter I wasn't suggesting that the Chinese communists had doctored all the original texts, just his and those for popular consumption. I'm not recommending that we all become Daoists. Frankly, I couldn't relate to the general level of myth, superstition, and animism it wold take to relate the texts on the terms of the greater culture in which they were written. For example, I'd have a hard time believing that the " primordial spirits of root destiny " live in the Big Dipper. However, I will insist on the validity of the recognition that Spirit/destiny is highest and that this is recognized in the structure of the language and the texts. It is this recognition that we all must seriously grapple with, to the degree we are interested, within whatever context we recognize as being " spiritual. " What does it mean for us nearly wholly materialistically conditioned postmodern Westerners to put Spirit first? The serious and wholehearted contemplation of this is medicine enough for most of us. I reject the notion that I am superimposing anything on the medicine and will suggest that the postmodern structure evident here is the failure of some to recognize hierarchy as it is obviously consistently present throughout the language and the medicine. Regards, Lonny Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 , " Lonny " <revolution wrote: > Lonny: > I remember well receiving a letter from Mr. Flaws after I published my first article " Myth and Meaning in " (1992)announcing my work in Nourishing Destiny. He had been surprised that I wrote that the Shen Nong Ben Cao placed ming, destiny, at the top of the hierarchy of treatment since his texts placed it at the bottom. He was interested to procure a copy not published in the mainland only to realize the Chinese had altered the text. Not sure what you mean here, and of course I don't know the original context of the letter. I asked Bob Flaws and he doesn't recall this. To be honest, I have no idea where destiny comes into the discussion of Shen Nong Ben Cao Jing in the first place. The only thing I can think of is that the Shen Nong Ben Cao divides the medicinals into three categories, superior, middle, and inferior. The superior category of medicinals is said to " yang ming, " nourish life. Maybe this is what you are calling nourishing destiny, so this is presumably the hierarchy you are talking about. (I can imagine that you might have a tough time finding a scholar in China, Taiwan, HK, Japan, or Korea that would agree with your interpretation of that passage as " nourishing destiny " instead of " nourishing life, " but that is beside the point. Basing your entire hypothesis on the meaning of one character in isolation is also probably something that would be a tough sell to scholars, but that is also beside the point.) At any rate, I looked at the Shen Nong Ben Cao editions that Bob has on the shelf. Most of them are in traditional script and several don't even have punctuation (i.e., like the original). They sure don't look as though they've been altered, and they seem to be basically the same as the versions I have from Taiwan. The comments on superior medicinals that nourish life are right there at the beginning, no juxtaposition or anything like that that I can see. The Blue Poppy translation was an early publication and it isn't incredible by any means- our community needs someone to do a huge, scholarly tome on SNBCJ but unfortunately there probably isn't a big enough market for anyone to undertake it. That said, good versions of the Chinese original aren't lacking and the only apparent differences between the mainland versions and the non-mainland versions are the use of simplified characters. The simplified vs. traditional script makes no difference because most serious classical scholars tend to revert to the traditional script for research even if they are in mainland China. Just like the Neijing or Shang Han Lun or Ben Cao Gang Mu, different Chinese versions of the text are out there and some are thought to be better than others, but I don't think you'll find any version that puts the superior medicinals in the inferior category. (Surely if there was revisionist government influence we wouldn't still find marijuana listed in the superior category in the mainland texts.) One comment that Bob made upon my inquiry was that the edition that they used was selected by the author Yang Shou-Zhong. The edition that he used was edited by Cao Yuan-Yu, and Yang considered it to be the closest version to the original that was available. Yang Shou-Zhong himself had a strong classical education and his family was sent for re-education in the cultural revolution, so he was both 1) qualified to assess his sources and 2) not in any way revisionist or sympathetic to the PRC gov't. Eric Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 " de plane de plane " . Welcome to Fantasy Island... here on the Island we have a single paragraph (without any actual follow-up text) that is an " utter refutation of the notion that medicine is in any way separate from the enlightenment teachings or a cosmo-centric perspective " -- this paragraph overturns thousands of textbooks and the academic and historical perspective of classical Chinese medicine. We also on the island have a man that is free to believe that he has some ability to know the absolute truth and its deepest meaning about classical Chinese texts without scholarship / any fluency in reading, writing, or speaking Chinese, let alone classical Chinese. He is also free to believe that all of the thousands of documents and hundreds of thousands (if not millions) of people that exist representing a contrary view to his are simply wrong because the Chinese government has (somehow) suppressed the real truth (not only in China, but all neighboring countries such as Taiwan, Korea, and Japan). His opinion is beyond scholarship and intellectual debate because any source that is contrary to his, is of course influenced by the current 'political factors'. He also is free to believe that all of Chinese medicine's knowledge of healing and all clinical problems revolve around 'the degree a person is, or is not, in touch (tong shen ming) with the pure light of heaven' and their destiny. (Even though this concept is absent from 99. 9% of texts -- both modern and classical). He of course has the ability to fix people's destiny with his knowledge and abilities. (Does Lonny actually practice Chinese medicine?) Even when there is overwhelming evidence that a classical author is only talking about the small 's'pirit (which I thought wasn't possible) this man is allowed to believe that they are really talking about Shen with a large " S " because quite simply Shen with a large " S " is implicated as the gold standard of reference, pure motive, and perfect functioning [faulty logic based on personal assumption]. Finally, this person is able to completely understand the cultural influences of the past and present, without ever actually lived in the culture, while repeatedly making incorrect assumptions/statements about the culture and disrespecting them in multiple instances without retribution. Maybe I can buy a ticket to this island? At this point I really have nothing more to say. I have presented specific passages from the NeiJing with commentary supporting mainstream Chinese Medicine's point of view, and demonstrating that ALL classical Chinese medical texts and language are NOT coming from a place of capital " S " pirit, specifically when using the term shen (spirit). Nothing so far has remotely come close to refuting this. I personally have no attachment either way to what we uncover, but I can only present (and believe in) that which we have. Merely claiming conspiracy is simply not enough for me to switch my belief. I am certainly open to any specific commentary on such passages that have a contrary point of view. Until then, enjoy your fantasy. -Jason Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Ho Jun's work is fantastic - a synopsis of Chinese medicine through the ages. The classic book was written in Classical Chinese and makes use of a lot of Shang Han Lun and Jin Gui Yao Lue. On Thu, Mar 4, 2010 at 1:18 PM, Lonny <revolution wrote: > Most likely the word spirit here is referring to a sense of > animation, the same intangible thing that we associate with the tongue, the > eyes, or, as Al pointed out, that quality that makes a fresh fish look fresh > and an old fish look lusterless. > > Lonny: You know Eric, " most likely " according to your opinion just isn't > good enough. The texts can be read at many different levels from the mundane > to the sublime. I take exception to the notion that such an inner tradition > of reading the classics isn't valid or that it has no significant historical > basis. In pointing out Mr. Flaw's letter I wasn't suggesting that the > Chinese communists had doctored all the original texts, just his and those > for popular consumption. > > I'm not recommending that we all become Daoists. Frankly, I couldn't > relate to the general level of myth, superstition, and animism it wold take > to relate the texts on the terms of the greater culture in which they were > written. For example, I'd have a hard time believing that the " primordial > spirits of root destiny " live in the Big Dipper. However, I will insist on > the validity of the recognition that Spirit/destiny is highest and that this > is recognized in the structure of the language and the texts. > > It is this recognition that we all must seriously grapple with, to the > degree we are interested, within whatever context we recognize as being > " spiritual. " What does it mean for us nearly wholly materialistically > conditioned postmodern Westerners to put Spirit first? The serious and > wholehearted contemplation of this is medicine enough for most of us. > > I reject the notion that I am superimposing anything on the medicine and > will suggest that the postmodern structure evident here is the failure of > some to recognize hierarchy as it is obviously consistently present > throughout the language and the medicine. Regards, Lonny > > > > --- > > Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including a > practitioner's directory and a moderated discussion forum. > > > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 I've never claimed that every instance in which the character shen is used in classical literature has a spiritual connotation. I have merely refuted your suggestion that none of them do. The Chinese discourse on the meaning of Tian ming is vast and, the Shen nong ben cao begins by assigning the highest type of medicine to ming (destiny) and to heaven. This sentiment is repeated throughout the medicine and in spiritual, alchemical, and philosophical texts. The quotations from Hur Jun and the Jia yi jing (quoting Ling Shu), are two examples that you have been unable, or unwilling to address. Further, the phrase tong shen ming as it appears throughout many texts points to the importance of shen as spirit. You have failed to address my assertion that the medicine can't be considered outside the context of culture or that the texts can be read at many levels of meaning from the mundane to the subtle. I agree, that the meaning of characters is context sensitive and that often shen is used to refer to the psychological processes within a human being. But it is not always used that way and, in fact in very significant instances it is used to refer to shen as spirit. And those instances are all the opening needed to allow for illumination within the context of the medicine. Maybe your ranting and insults intimidate some people but I, and many others, could hardly care less. As to the beliefs of the masses and the weight that carries, Ge Hong considered them " walking corpses " . May everyone transcend " standard accepted professional TCM " . Regards, Lonny Jarrett Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 4, 2010 Great Trevor. You can trust Bob and Jason and Eric's interpretation of " standard accepted professional TCM " . I'll continue to trust Claude Larre, Elisabeth, Heiner, Dang Zhn Yi, and others. Again, this isn't a question of who reads Chinese and who doesn't. People of great capacity disagree with the position taken by your translators. In other words, there is plenty of room for sufficient doubt regarding the assertion that, " Shen " with a large " S " is not a significant part of the medicine. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 I asked Bob Flaws and he doesn't recall this. Lonny: I'm not surprised. Nonetheless, at the time when I first published my reading of the Ben Cao, and Bob expressed interest in the possibility of publishing my text in the works, Nourishing Destiny, he did send an email stating that his copy had apparently been altered. Eric, have you ever read the vast Chinese discourse on Tian ming? Do you find any significance in noting that the Ben Cao assigns this first, highest category, to ming and heaven? Given that the discussion of Tian ming (heaven's mandate=destiny) formed a most significant part of philosophical discourse in Chinese history, and certainly during the ages that the foundational texts were written, can you attribute ANY significance to the pairing of the character ming, shang (upper), and tian (heaven)? Are you aware in your own experience, or at least intellectually, with any significant relationship between " life " and " destiny " ? Is the most significant measure of a life the length of duration of the body? What is, in fact, the deepest measure of a life? TO what degree is a person actually living? Is the fact that a heart is beating sufficient or is their some higher (shang) standard for assessing the quality of a life? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 (see below) On Behalf Of trevor erikson Lonny, I am sorry to say this, but the more you try to claim your position as being an authority of Classically written Chinese medicine, the weaker your ground looks. It does not take a genius to understand that the only people who could possibly come close to having such a grasp is someone who can read the root text, for which it seems you cannot. In order to be a scholar, in Chinese medicine, does honestly involve the ability to read the original, along with all it's commentary, from many sources. If you are just relying on someone else to translate for you, you are even more vulnerable to the comment you declared about being " not immune to cultural conditioning and political and personal biases " . At least when one can read the original, can read the commentary, can look up various others authors interpretation of the same piece, they are able to gain a wider perspective, with less bias, compared to relying on only one or two third party persons translation (that may not even include the commentary). Trevor, you are correct. As much as I love Larre’s inspirational books they are just not an academic caliber inquiry into the meaning of these classical texts. Larre was a Jesuit priest who translates, not based on commentary, but with his own personal agenda. Many of his books are just conversations between himself and Rochat. Many of his points of view are nowhere to be found in Chinese, (similar to many five element ideas). Chinese medicine has always been built on a foundation of the past. People develop ideas, these ideas are challenged, this is documented and the next round begins. To suddenly skip all the past commentaries and create your own may be acceptable with some, but is somewhat a disrespect to the Chinese tradition. In some of his books, such as Rooted in Spirit, Larre does present supplementary " commentary " such as from LaoZi and the likes, as well as his own personal commentary. Actually, unless I'm missing something, no specific commentaries on the Nei Jing passages he examines. -- at least there are no citations/bibliography. This makes for a very inspirational and pleasant read. However it is far from an academic approach into deciphering what these texts and characters actually mean. Compare this to a text like the Shang Han Lun in English or any number of commentaries on the Nei Jing in Chinese. The depth of discussion about individual characters as well as passages is immense and something just completely lacking from Larre’s text. Again, don't get me wrong, they are approaching this topic from completely different angles. But one should not confuse one approach with the other. His agenda is clear and that is fine. Note that for example, Rooted in spirit, is translated from French into English, another hit against it. This is not to say that one cannot have different interpretations of the same passage. This has been the Chinese way for a long time. However, as Westerners I think we need to be careful about how we approach such interpretations because inherently we lack certain resources. Because of our previous haphazard approach to such topics, many Chinese doctors have a problem taking Westerners seriously. I hope we can see our errors and help correct this for the future. As has been mentioned by many on this forum, the tradition in CHina was to write the original in one colour ink, then commentary and additions in another colour. This tradition predates the communist era by almost two thousand years. IF one can actually read Chinese, it seems pretty clear that they could see the common thread of thought written in the commentary about the original piece. This is much different than one westerner looking at the original and suddenly declaring they understand it better than the 2000 year old conversation which has been taking place over it. I think it is an insult to blame Jason for not being a good scholar, when in many posts on this topic he has asked for original Chinese characters from which the people on this list can interpret. You have provided nothing. Jason has actually, several times, listed passages with translations from various authors, so as to gain a wider perspective. You have not done anything similar. [Jason] Thanks for noticing, it is something that Lonny seems to overlook… - Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 I am sorry to say this, but the more you try to claim your position as being an authority of Classically written Chinese medicine, the weaker your ground looks. Lonny: This is why I never suggest that I'm an authority on the Chinese language. Nonetheless, I'm sorry to have to inform you that the white horse is, in fact, white. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 , " Lonny " <revolution wrote: > Eric, have you ever read the vast Chinese discourse on Tian ming? Do you find any significance in noting that the Ben Cao assigns this first, highest category, to ming and heaven? I understand the basics of the mandate of heaven (tian ming), but mostly this concept is used politically, to talk about a ruling Emperor. If peace on earth prevails, the Emperor is said to be acting in accordance with the natural order and the subjects are happy. If lots of earthquakes, natural disasters, and signs of chaos start being a big issue, the Emperor has lots his mandate and the subjects revolt. I don't really know much about this concept in any other context, this is the only thing I really know about it. As for the Shen Nong Ben Cao (SNBC), I don't know that the political concept of the mandate of heaven for rulers has anything to do with it. I'm no scholar, but I wouldn't interpret the SNBC as having anything to do with the mandate of heaven. SNBC was heavily influenced by Taoism and mandate of heaven is a very Confucian idea. When the SNBC talks about nourishing life (ming), it is generally reflective of the Taoist quest for extending life and pursuing immortality. In the SNBC, the terms ming and tian don't appear as a compound term, so the meaning is not the same as the compound term tianming, mandate of heaven. Classical Chinese tends to use compound terms far less than modern Chinese, so the meaning often centers more around single characters than compounds when compared with modern Chinese. For example, the Neijing says " xin zhu xue mai, " which could be translated as either " the heart governs the blood AND vessels " or " the heart governs the blood vessels. " In modern Chinese, the latter meaning would be more likely, in classical Chinese, the former meaning is more likely. The SNBC opens up with this passage: & #19978; & #33647; & #19968; & #30334; & #20108; & #21313; & #31181; & #65292; & #20026; & #21531;\ & #65292; & #20027; & #20859; & #21629; & #20197; & #24212; & #22825; & #65292; & #26080; & #27602;\ & #12290; & #22810; & #26381; & #12289; & #20037; & #26381; & #19981; & #20260; & #20154; & #12290;\ & #27442; & #36731; & #36523; & #30410; & #27668; & #65292; & #19981; & #32769; & #24310; & #24180;\ & #32773; & #65292; & #26412; & #19978; & #32463; This basically translates as: " Superior (upper/shang) medicinals number 120, these are sovereigns [note: the same term sovereign is used later in formula theory to denote the " chief herb " in a formula, its original use in SNBC is different- it is used in the context of superior, middle, and inferior medicinals]. [These items] govern nourishing life and correspond to heaven, they are not toxic. Copious and extended consumption does not damage the person. These items [should be used if one] desires to lighten the body and boost qi, not age and extend life. " SNCB tends to talk about upper (superior), middle, and lower (inferior) in the same way that Chinese philosophy talks about heaven, man, and earth. I would hesitate to tie that into the Western concept of heaven. I see little reason to link the term " life " (ming) to " destiny " and the passage that contains the quote apparently has nothing to do with the mandate of heaven or destiny and everything to do with nourishing life. > Are you aware in your own experience, or at least intellectually, with any significant relationship between " life " and " destiny " ? Sure, I think about stuff like that. I have all manners of philosophical and spiritual perspectives on the world, but they are my own personal conclusions and they have nothing to do with quotes from the Neijing. I have plenty of Western and Eastern philosophy going through my head but I don't look to Chinese medicine to contain all the answers. Chinese medicine is Chinese medicine, the rest of life has all manners of outlets for things beyond Chinese medicine. I just like to keep my own perspectives and bias from interfering with my understanding of CM, I like to try to understand CM on its own terms. Ideally I try to understand CM as it is, and I don't try to make it become something it is not just to satisfy my own personal philosophical inclinations. Eric Is the most significant measure of a life the length of duration of the body? What is, in fact, the deepest measure of a life? TO what degree is a person actually living? Is the fact that a heart is beating sufficient or is their some higher (shang) standard for assessing the quality of a life? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 Correcting these e-mail misinterpretations is turning into a full-time job. However I am sure I have my fair share of misinterpreting other people's e-mails and welcome any clarification for positions that I have are portrayed incorrectly. Therefore, to clarify, I don't think anyone has ever claimed that shen has never been used to represent capital " S " pirit. I actually made this clear on 2/28/10. My point has only been there are instances where Chinese medicine uses the term shen in a very materialistic way (e.g. the body's correct qi ) instead of a new age " spiritual " usage that is often attributed to it by many Western writers. I have a provided such examples and have asked for any countering commentaries. None yet have been submitted. However, I it was Lonnie that said that ALL (beginning to end, top to bottom, inside and out) language and texts are written with spirit with a capital " S " as a reference point. This is just unsubstantiated in any Chinese text that I have ever seen. Again I welcome any countering or supporting commentary -- I would even be surprised if Larre, or Lonny's other " sources " says this. But, to date, not yet have been presented. But maybe we can agree on something. 1) Shen has a wide variety of meanings. 2) Some translators in the West interpret this term with a capital " S " (spirit) much more frequently than Chinese's written record (through their commentaries), for better or worse. 3) Furthermore, there are instances of shen without spiritual connotations and there are some instances of shen with spiritual connotations. 4) However, the majority of usages, at least according to mainstream Chinese medicine thought (through commentaries) demonstrates that shen with spiritual connotations is rather limited in number compared to other usages (e.g. emotional etc.) I'm just curious if this is common ground that everyone agrees on? But I guess the real question is what is a " spiritual connotation " and how does our perceptions of this meaning differ from classical Chinese writers. The problem is, to dive into this question we would need serious Chinese language skills, and probably more than I have the ability or time to devote to it. Therefore, I leave this open question for others to chew on. -Jason On Behalf Of Lonny Thursday, March 04, 2010 6:40 PM Re: Ming=destiny? I've never claimed that every instance in which the character shen is used in classical literature has a spiritual connotation. I have merely refuted your suggestion that none of them do. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 I agree with Eric this opening text is merely talking about nourishing life / longevity etc. For example, I found some nice commentary on the matter explaining what these terms actually mean that is " nourishing life (yang ming) and nourishing the temperament (yang xing) emphasize the function of these Chinese medicinals to take care of one's body†it specifically goes on and describes looking after the normal function of individual organs structure. I'm sorry to disappoint the crowd, but I could not find anything about the spiritual, heavenly or related to destiny apects. Therefore, I am curious if these ideas that Lonny has mentioned, such as the shen nong ben cao beginning its text with the concept of *destiny* or about the mandate of heaven (tian ming) is his own idea or is there some commentary that explains it in this manner? Actually, I cannot really understand how this passage could even relate to destiny, based on the follow-up to passages of medium class of medicinals (ä¸è¯) & lower-class medicinals (下è¯). Please someone help me out… But maybe hua shi just has the ability nourish someone’s destiny. Wow I actually did this 3 times today. This is a great tangible example to explore with some academic rigor. If someone is convinced that the Chinese stripped out the spirit from this passage by altering all the commentaries (at least the ones I could find) than it would be worthwhile to present commentary that presents altering views so we can better understand the discrepancies. If no additional commentary can be found then we only can assume that what is written is correct. But I get to the sense that this is an instance of not really knowing Chinese, and seeing a few characters, and making some assumptions. But I could be wrong -- -Jason On Behalf Of smilinglotus Friday, March 05, 2010 5:13 PM Re: Ming=destiny? <%40> , " Lonny " <revolution wrote: > Eric, have you ever read the vast Chinese discourse on Tian ming? Do you find any significance in noting that the Ben Cao assigns this first, highest category, to ming and heaven? I understand the basics of the mandate of heaven (tian ming), but mostly this concept is used politically, to talk about a ruling Emperor. If peace on earth prevails, the Emperor is said to be acting in accordance with the natural order and the subjects are happy. If lots of earthquakes, natural disasters, and signs of chaos start being a big issue, the Emperor has lots his mandate and the subjects revolt. I don't really know much about this concept in any other context, this is the only thing I really know about it. As for the Shen Nong Ben Cao (SNBC), I don't know that the political concept of the mandate of heaven for rulers has anything to do with it. I'm no scholar, but I wouldn't interpret the SNBC as having anything to do with the mandate of heaven. SNBC was heavily influenced by Taoism and mandate of heaven is a very Confucian idea. When the SNBC talks about nourishing life (ming), it is generally reflective of the Taoist quest for extending life and pursuing immortality. In the SNBC, the terms ming and tian don't appear as a compound term, so the meaning is not the same as the compound term tianming, mandate of heaven. Classical Chinese tends to use compound terms far less than modern Chinese, so the meaning often centers more around single characters than compounds when compared with modern Chinese. For example, the Neijing says " xin zhu xue mai, " which could be translated as either " the heart governs the blood AND vessels " or " the heart governs the blood vessels. " In modern Chinese, the latter meaning would be more likely, in classical Chinese, the former meaning is more likely. The SNBC opens up with this passage: & #19978; & #33647; & #19968; & #30334; & #20108; & #21313; & #31181; & #65292; & #20026; & #21531;\ & #65292; & #20027; & #20859; & #21629; & #20197; & #24212; & #22825; & #65292; & #26080; & #27602;\ & #12290; & #22810; & #26381; & #12289; & #20037; & #26381; & #19981; & #20260; & #20154; & #12290;\ & #27442; & #36731; & #36523; & #30410; & #27668; & #65292; & #19981; & #32769; & #24310; & #24180;\ & #32773; & #65292; & #26412; & #19978; & #32463; This basically translates as: " Superior (upper/shang) medicinals number 120, these are sovereigns [note: the same term sovereign is used later in formula theory to denote the " chief herb " in a formula, its original use in SNBC is different- it is used in the context of superior, middle, and inferior medicinals]. [These items] govern nourishing life and correspond to heaven, they are not toxic. Copious and extended consumption does not damage the person. These items [should be used if one] desires to lighten the body and boost qi, not age and extend life. " SNCB tends to talk about upper (superior), middle, and lower (inferior) in the same way that Chinese philosophy talks about heaven, man, and earth. I would hesitate to tie that into the Western concept of heaven. I see little reason to link the term " life " (ming) to " destiny " and the passage that contains the quote apparently has nothing to do with the mandate of heaven or destiny and everything to do with nourishing life. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 Jason, Why is Cinnabar, the most important herb in Chinese inner and outer alchemy the first herb listed in the highest category of herbs that correspond to heaven? What is the significance of cinnibar in Chinese culture at the time the text was written? What does Ge Hong say about it having quoted the opening stanza of the the SNBC in his Nei Pien? What does he mean when he says " These words come from the highest sages and are lost on the masses most of who go through life like walking corpses? " What does it mean when the text tells us the cinnabar " makes the body light? " What does it mean when the Daoists use cinnabar as a metaphor for ego and mercury for flexible consciousness? What is the relationship between flexible consciousness, Shen with a large " S " , and destiny? What is the relevance of the symbolism of applying fire to metal to transform cinnabar into mercury? What is the relevance of mercury to conception and the trigram for water? What is the significance that the first herb in the SNBC, in the category corresponding to heaven " calms the spirit " ? What are the inner and outer uses of cinnabar in inner and outer alchemy? Thanks, Lonny Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted March 5, 2010 However, I it was Lonnie that said that ALL (beginning to end, top to bottom, inside and out) language and texts are written with spirit with a capital " S " as a reference point. Lonny: Well this medium has it's limitations so let me clarify. Bob made the point that there was no substantial basis for Shen, Large " S " , in the medicine. I disagreed. I made the point that there are certainly enough significant examples where Shen does refer to Spirit Large " S " . Let me make a distinction. Of course there are many times in the literature when the character shen, small " s " is used to denote the psychological and/or cognitive processes of the individual. No question, absolutely. When I say that Shen, large " S " contextualizes the medicine, " beginning to end, top to bottom, inside and out " that is because, from the point of view of the absolute, Shen/Consciousness/Spirit contextualize everything. Now I am talking from a synthesis of a very wide range of writing including the Daoist cannon, Confucian texts, alchemical texts, vitality texts, personal experience, and statements such as those made by Hur Jun. It's a perspective fully supportable from a wide range of traditions, scientific perspectives, and experiences. It's an integral view that recognizes the primacy of Consciousness/Spirit. I also meant that every time shen, small " s " , is mentioned, the reference point for reality is Shen " large " S " . This has everything to do with the Top down/ bottom up distinction I originally made that Bob applauded. In other words, our own cognitive and psychological processes " s " are always diagnosed relative to Shen, large " S " . It is Shen, Spirit, Consciousness that is the reference point. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
