shen nong ben cao con't

[Guest guest]

Thank you for posting mr. Fruehauf's letter here, Lonny.

 

Although as a linguist I cannot completely agree with Heiner's translation of

the SNBCJ sentence (where is 'achieve'? in the Chinese text? where is

'mandate'? - '[mandate of] heaven' would, I think, be a correcter way of putting

it) I think he is very right in pointing to 'yingtian' ('corresponding to

heaven') in connection to understanding 'ming'. That is one of the main reasons

why I posted the commentary from the Xinxiu bencao (which explains why the text

says 'yingtian') last month, and it is why I questioned whether we should read

'yi' in the meaning of (merely) 'and'.

Interesting to see is that Heiner chooses to translate 'yi' as 'to' ('in order

to'). As explained before, my personal preference is 'and therefore'.

 

Together with Unschuld's comments on 'mandate of heaven' (tianming) and its

meaning / context in the Suwen (*), I think we are getting close to what is so

often asked for on this list: 'academic rigour'.

 

Is Heiner's personal collection of sources concerning this issue available for

the public?

 

Best Wishes,

 

N. Herman

 

(*) I could summarize these comments (in the Epilogue of Unschuld's first book

on the Suwen) with: 'a Confucian concept used in a Legalist way that

Confucianists would not completely to and Daoists would not find

pleasure in' - but reading U's text is of course better ;-).

 

 

>

> From Heiner Freuhauf.

>

> I am attaching my personal collection of classical sources covering the era

between 500 BC and 250 AD, which provide a comprehensive synthesis of the usage

of ming at the time when the Shen Nong bencao came into being:

>

" zhu yangming yi yingtian, " which I would translate as: " [these herbs]

nourish/cultivate ming to achieve responsiveness to the mandate of Heaven.†No

matter how ming is translated here, the words yingtian make it clear that the

author of this text had a more expansive meaning of ming in mind than mere

physical benefit.

[Guest guest]

N. Herman,

 

 

 

1. I would also enjoy seeing Heiner’s personal collection of sources

concerning this issue if possible.

 

2. When talking about Unschuld's comments on " mandate of Heaven " (tianming)

from the Nei Jing we should be reminded that in his translation of the SNBCJ he

chooses not to use " mandate of Heaven " but simply " heaven " -- for whatever

reason... but tian ming DOES not appear in the SNBCJ. I think there is a wide

possibility of meanings for ‘tian’ here, but first and foremost it cannot be

denied that it is a classification of Heaven, wo(man), and earth. Beyond that is

anyone's guess.

 

3. However, this debate really comes down to ming. I have looked

periodically over the last month and have yet to find anything in Chinese that

remotely suggests the meaning of this ming in this passage as destiny. All

commentaries and sources I have found discuss this as prolonging (etc) one's

physical life. I am curious if you have changed your previous perspective (as

translating this is life) and have found anything else commentating on this?

 

 

 

Let's look at the whole paragraph. I will use Unschuld's translation:

 

“the upper class of drugs comprises 120 times. They are the rulers. They

control the maintenance of life and correspond to heaven. They do not have a

markedly medicinal effectiveness. The taking [of these drugs] in larger amounts

or over a long period of time is not harmful to man…â€

 

 

 

I think the rest of this first paragraph is very telling... " if one wishes to

take the material weight from the body, to supplement the influences

[circulating in the body], and to prolong the years of life without aging, he

should base [his efforts] on [drugs mentioned in] the upper [class of this]

classic.â€

 

 

 

As often is the case of Chinese they restate what they previously had said

(expanding on it) which many times can give clues into the previously unclear(?)

meaning. For example this " prolong the years of life without aging†(延年

yan nian) is such a straightforward term I would be surprised if anyone would

debate the meaning here (although word choice may be debatable). Quite simply,

the rest of the paragraph after the first line that we have been fixating on is

really giving further explanation and instructions on how to use these

medicinals. One has to ask, if the writer was thinking about something spiritual

or related to destiny why would the rest of the paragraph not mention this? Why

would the rest of the paragraph talk about very down-to-earth things such as

prolonging the years of life.

 

 

 

I think it is for this reason that commentaries on this text equate ming to

life. This is not to deny that ming in other philosophical texts has a deeper

meaning. But every usage must be judged on its own while keeping in mind on

other texts of its time. Not just blindly using any term choice they like.

 

 

 

4. Finally, Heiner makes a few odd statements which I would love to see

some references for: For example, he states that at the writing SNBCJ "

‘life’ and ‘longevity’ was inseparable from the original meaning of

meaning ‘(heavenly) command’. I am not going to at claim to understand the

intricacies of ming, however according to Schuessler (probably the most

respected etymologist for Chinese in English) these were differentiated at this

time.

 

 

 

For fun he also states that the original meaning was " to order, command: order,

decree†this was in the Shang Dynasty evidenced by Oracle bone inscriptions

using the character ling （令）. To quote: “in the Oracle bone and bronze

inscription era (except late WZHOU bronze inscription) only the graph

令（ling） ‘order ‘occurs, while the received texts write ming (命),

i.e. ling with a kou ‘mouth’ added to indicate that ling is a phonetic or

semantic lone. Because ming is the ordinary word for ‘to order’, and because

the break between ling (early inscriptions) and ming (later texts) is quite

abrupt, ling must have stood for ming and all Shang and Western Zou

inscriptions.

 

 

 

Consequently, I find it odd that whenever Heiner gives a definition he inserts

“(heavenly) " before the definition. Where is this from? For example linguists

and etymologists (and dictionaries) such as Schuessler simply relay the

definition as " to order, command†not " (heavenly) command†–or-

" (heavenly) human nature, " instead of the standard " human nature " - why the

insertion? This is also true in Chinese dictionaries.

 

 

 

In regard to xingming - I'm having trouble following his reasoning that†1,800

years ago ming made an inseparable pair with the term xing (xingming),

" (heavenly) human nature,†– clearly ming was used without xing. I Really

don't get the point here...

 

 

 

Furthermore although Heiner states that ming is equal to xingming at the time of

SNBCJ has the definition of “heavenly mandate of exercising heavenly virtues

in the concrete form of a physical body/lifetime; " –

 

a) where is this definition from?

 

b) if this is so, why does the SNBCJ use ming when discussing superior

medicinals and xingming (human nature) when discussing middle -class medicinals.

Clearly these are two separate ideas in this text.

 

 

 

5. Heiner mentioned that " Yangsheng lun " (Treatise on Nourishing Life uses

the first sentence of the SNBCJ as an example that illustrates the sages’

more expansive, ‘destiny’ oriented approach to medicine, in contrast to a

more material approach by the commoner.†- I could not find this in my copy.

Did anyone else? This would be very interesting...

 

 

 

6. Although, Heiner seems certain about some broader meaning of ming

because, he says “yingtian make it clear that the author of this text had a

more expansive meaning of ming in mind than mere physical benefit.†I wish it

was this cut and dry, but clearly it is not. If it were, would we find all of

these commentaries written by physicians throughout the centuries (whose

classical Chinese by the way is much better than any of ours) seeing it this way

and explaining it? As mentioned above, commentaries (classical and modern) I

consulted simply equate it to “life†not some spiritual destiny or

whatever.. Clearly, many (if not most) people disagree with Heiner's stance.

 

 

 

7. Ming as prolonging *physical* life does fit in with many daoists view of

the goal of taking (such) medicinals.

 

 

 

8. However, I do completely agree with Heiner’s point about using

" proper sinological procedure†etc., which has been my whole point all

along. One cannot even assume they understand the nuances of such a term in

classical Chinese without consulting numerous other classical texts using

Chinese languange. This is quite simply why I choose to rely on commentators

that have done this work for me. I personally will never claim to understand

these intricacies. However, these commentators and authors of these classical

dictionaries have spent their lifetime deciphering these issues, unfortunately

when it comes to medicine almost all of this is in Chinese. However, no doubt

that ming is a very interesting and complex character and this discussion has

definitely allowed me to look deeper into this character.

Comments?

-Jason

On Behalf Of Nicolaas Herman

Friday, April 02, 2010 5:44 PM

Re: shen nong ben cao con't

Thank you for posting mr. Fruehauf's letter here, Lonny.

Although as a linguist I cannot completely agree with Heiner's translation of

the SNBCJ sentence (where is 'achieve'? in the Chinese text? where is 'mandate'?

- '[mandate of] heaven' would, I think, be a correcter way of putting it) I

think he is very right in pointing to 'yingtian' ('corresponding to heaven') in

connection to understanding 'ming'. That is one of the main reasons why I posted

the commentary from the Xinxiu bencao (which explains why the text says

'yingtian') last month, and it is why I questioned whether we should read 'yi'

in the meaning of (merely) 'and'.

Interesting to see is that Heiner chooses to translate 'yi' as 'to' ('in order

to'). As explained before, my personal preference is 'and therefore'.

Together with Unschuld's comments on 'mandate of heaven' (tianming) and its

meaning / context in the Suwen (*), I think we are getting close to what is so

often asked for on this list: 'academic rigour'.

Is Heiner's personal collection of sources concerning this issue available for

the public?

Best Wishes,

N. Herman

(*) I could summarize these comments (in the Epilogue of Unschuld's first book

on the Suwen) with: 'a Confucian concept used in a Legalist way that

Confucianists would not completely to and Daoists would not find

pleasure in' - but reading U's text is of course better ;-).

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=201013/grpspId=1705060815/msgId=4820\

3/stime=1270252059/nc1=4025291/nc2=3848642/nc3=5191952>

[Guest guest]

Lonny...All,

 

For the record, it was, in fact, I who said that, and I stick to the statement.

The very reason I came to China was so that I could engage in exactly these

types of discussions, by which I mean that I believed then, and still believe

now that without the skills to read the original Chinese one is unable to fully

engage in the medicine, especially when it comes to teaching and writing.

 

I am not saying that there aren't many excellent practitioners and teachers, and

even writers out there who don't read Chinese, but I strongly believe that those

who do bring a lot more to the table, what they do with it is up to them, but at

least they have the tools.

 

And, quite frankly Lonny, I have to agree with Jason concerning your last post,

and many before. For someone who claims to be a particular type of

person/practitioner you appear to be extremely emotionally involved in what you

do and seem to struggle to separate academic rigor and debate from your personal

feelings. Granted this is difficult, and as someone who has written a book that

has been criticized by some, I can understand that. However, I would like to

believe that I can sit at my computer and have written discussion with people

and " just stick to the facts, " so to speak, without insulting people and

misquoting them and in some cases putting words " in their mouth " as you have.

 

Finally, you have stated that this one Korean doctor believed something that you

also believe, can you offer up some other sources? I am, honestly, quite

interested and would like to file them for reading when I have time.

 

Hope I didn't hurt your feelings, but hey...it's 1:40am and I have to get up at

5:45am and I just feel the urge to press the send key without editing myself :-)

 

In Good Health,

Thomas

 

, " " wrote:

>

> Lonny,

>

>

>

> I'm sorry that you find it rude when someone asks for sources and examples

(e.g. case studies). People can say anything, and without some academic rigor

and sourcing we can easily end up with a bunch of westerners with many times

" un-educated " opinions. This is not directed at anyone particular.

>

>

>

> For the record, not only is the quote about reading the " original Chinese "

(below from your last post) taken out of context, I didn’t even say it. I am

pretty sure it was Thomas. However, you make it sound like this stance is that,

no one can have an opinion about anything if they can't read Chinese. This is

far from the point.

>

>

>

> I will not speak for Thomas, but my only beef is if you are going to discuss

the intricacies of Classical Chinese and the translations and cannot read

Chinese, then yes I personally will not take you seriously. If you are going to

disagree with the centuries of commentaries, then yes I think you should have a

pretty good source to present.

>

>

>

> Finally, no one has ever denied that classical Chinese cannot be interpreted

many ways. In addition, I for one have never suggested one should have a

one-to-one system of translation. I merely ask if one is going to have an

opinion that one substantiate it †" or say it is just “one’s beliefâ€.

Your portrayal of people who do not find " SPIRIT†in all the classical texts,

as reading these texts like a computer manual (with fixed meanings) or through

the eyes of scientific materialism is really just showing ignorance on the

perspectives in Chinese history. Again how can we even have a conversation about

how to read classical texts (let alone Chinese) when you can't even read them?

>

>

>

> To be clear, I co-authored a paper specifically discussing why one should not

use fixed meanings for translation. Toward a Working Methodology for Translating

 

<Chinese Medicine/wp-content/uploads/Pract_articles/Translating\

%20TCM%20Lantern.pdf> :

>

> Chinese Medicine/practitioners/articles/

>

>

>

> But excepting multiple meanings and possibilities does not mean one can still

just insert any meaning they like. There are still rules.

>

>

>

> I second someone's previous observation that you tend to polarize positions

making them seem ridiculous. This is what you have done here in your post. For

example, saying that I have found nothing of importance regarding Spirit in

Chinese history and culture is so far from my point in my previous posts and

something that I have never said.

>

>

>

> I have found it completely impossible to have a discussion on this topic with

you because you won't address anything directly. Hence, why you may sense some

rudeness when I keep asking for some source (which I have found lacking) etc.

For this I apologize, but at this point I have no intention of trying to work

this out.

>

>

>

> So besides all of this, I am happy to agree to disagree…

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

>

On Behalf Of Lonny

>

>

>

>

>

> I find the statement,  " " .......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†to be baseless. I have excellent working

relationships with many fluent readers of Classical Chinese. This oft repeated

statement here at CHA (to the point of superstitious incantation) should read

only, " My friends and I wont take anyone seriously whose reading of Classical

Chinese doesn't agree with ours " .

 

[Guest guest]

Herman and others,

 

 

 

I wanted to get your thoughts on some ideas I have about using texts from a

similar time period to understand the definition of a specific term.

 

 

 

Let’s use ming as an example., I think there are some key factors we must

consider in defining the meaning on ming in a medical context. There is no

question that ming has a multitude of meanings in non-medical texts ranging from

quite profound to very down to earth. The question is whether these different

meanings are inseparable or differentiated at the time when the SNBCJ was

written. Since Schuessler was only one source I decided to look further...

 

 

 

An illustrative essay is by Zong-qi Cai on Tao Qian and the “multiple

vistas†of ming. He begins by examining the earliest discussions of ming in

Chinese discourse: Duke Wen’s famed “understanding of ming†in the

zuozhuan. Consequently he explores four *distinctive* meanings of ming; 1.

Demands that Heaven puts on one, 2. one’s actual life span, 3. one’s destiny

in life, or 4. the natural course that one should follow.

 

 

 

This alone demonstrates there were very early on, in literary works, distinct

usages of the word (ming), hence we cannot assume that ming can be read anyway

one wishes (with multiple levels) as has been suggested on this group. Quite

simply different circumstances require a different reading and is (as most

Chinese) context dependent. From this perspective it is incorrect to suggest

that one can read the same ’ming’ as ‘destiny’ and ‘life-span’

simply because both definitions or " possible " at that time.

 

 

 

Actually Charles Chace is doing extensive research right now on the eight extras

meridians in relation to Daoist internal alchemy. I talked to him today about

this issue and he showed me an example of something he is translating. A single

author would use ming in a very physical sense and then in the next section is

in a larger sense. Consequently, he translates each instance of ming

differently to grasp the meaning of that passage. Although this is the text from

the 1800s the methodology of sorting out the proper meaning for the context is

as Zong-qi Cai states essential.

 

 

 

Therefore when reviewing a medical text how useful are philosophical, literary,

or even religious texts of the same time period. If we can safely say that a

term had distinct usages then, in my opinion, other non-medical texts are only

as useful as showing the full range of *possible* meanings, unless there is some

specific reference. That is, merely finding a philosophical text that use a

capital letter “Mâ€ing really shows nothing when evaluating another text,

albeit literary, medical, religious, or even another philosophical text. Because

quite simple we can find other texts (and passages) that use the small letter

“mâ€ing. Hence, each text must be evaluated on its own.

 

 

 

On a side note, the SNBCJ was a Daoist text. Many Daoists were fixated on living

long (physically) so they could accomplish their “goalsâ€. Hence internal

alchemy was largely based on this goal. To quote Unschuld: “looking back once

more to what we assumed to be the original usage of the term ben cao, we

remember that the ben cao experts were practitioners who based their efforts for

a " long life without aging " on experiments with mostly herbal drugs. It is in

the circles of these men that we must look for the authors of the shen nong ben

jing. Their experiments were not primarily aimed at the actual medicinal value

of these drugs, but rather at their ability to strengthen the body and protect

it, over long periods of time, from health problems of all kinds.†Sounds

pretty down-to-earth to me…

 

 

 

Thoughts…?

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Nicolaas Herman

Friday, April 02, 2010 5:44 PM

 

Re: shen nong ben cao con't

 

 

 

 

 

 

Thank you for posting mr. Fruehauf's letter here, Lonny.

 

Although as a linguist I cannot completely agree with Heiner's translation of

the SNBCJ sentence (where is 'achieve'? in the Chinese text? where is 'mandate'?

- '[mandate of] heaven' would, I think, be a correcter way of putting it) I

think he is very right in pointing to 'yingtian' ('corresponding to heaven') in

connection to understanding 'ming'. That is one of the main reasons why I posted

the commentary from the Xinxiu bencao (which explains why the text says

'yingtian') last month, and it is why I questioned whether we should read 'yi'

in the meaning of (merely) 'and'.

Interesting to see is that Heiner chooses to translate 'yi' as 'to' ('in order

to'). As explained before, my personal preference is 'and therefore'.

 

Together with Unschuld's comments on 'mandate of heaven' (tianming) and its

meaning / context in the Suwen (*), I think we are getting close to what is so

often asked for on this list: 'academic rigour'.

 

Is Heiner's personal collection of sources concerning this issue available for

the public?

 

Best Wishes,

 

N. Herman

 

(*) I could summarize these comments (in the Epilogue of Unschuld's first book

on the Suwen) with: 'a Confucian concept used in a Legalist way that

Confucianists would not completely to and Daoists would not find

pleasure in' - but reading U's text is of course better ;-).

 

>

> From Heiner Freuhauf.

>

> I am attaching my personal collection of classical sources covering the era

between 500 BC and 250 AD, which provide a comprehensive synthesis of the usage

of ming at the time when the Shen Nong bencao came into being:

>

" zhu yangming yi yingtian, " which I would translate as: " [these herbs]

nourish/cultivate ming to achieve responsiveness to the mandate of

Heaven.†No matter how ming is translated here, the words yingtian make it

clear that the author of this text had a more expansive meaning of ming in mind

than mere physical benefit.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

Whereas a large part of what you write concerns the content of Heiner Fruehauf's

letter to Lonny, you have addressed your mail to me. As I find the discussion

interesting, I have interspersed your comments with my comments.

 

<<2. When talking about Unschuld's comments on " mandate of Heaven " (tianming)

from the Nei Jing we should be reminded that in his translation of the SNBCJ he

chooses not to use " mandate of Heaven " but simply " heaven " -- for whatever

reason... >>

 

The reason, obviously, is that the character for heaven in that line is not

followed my ming4. We have noted that before. The relevance of his comments on

the notion of `mandate of heaven' for the discussion we are having about the

meaning of the first line in the SNBCJ, however, is obvious too in view of the

context in which it appears in the Suwen.

 

<<I think there is a wide possibility of meanings for `tian' here, but first and

foremost it cannot be denied that it is a classification of Heaven, wo(man), and

earth. Beyond that is anyone's guess.>>

 

What meanings for `tian' do you have in mind and what do YOU think

`corresponding to heaven' means? And what about the comment on the phrase

`corresponding to heaven' in the Xinxiu bencao that I have quoted earlier in

this discussion and referred to later?

 

<<3. However, this debate really comes down to ming. I have looked

periodically over the last month and have yet to find anything in Chinese that

remotely suggests the meaning of this ming in this passage as destiny. All

commentaries and sources I have found discuss this as prolonging (etc) one's

physical life. I am curious if you have changed your previous perspective (as

translating this is life) and have found anything else commentating on this?>>

 

I did not try to suggest that I have changed the way I would translate `ming4'.

Our discussion and the research involved did, though, open my eyes (wider) to

the layers of meaning of this word. I guess it's one of the ways thinking about

`life' can be stimulating. I don't see why we should read ming4 as `physical

life' and am surprised that you now introduce this. It begins to feel like we

need to formulate what the meaning of `life' is ;-).

Can you tell us where you have found in Chinese commentaries that we should

interpret `ming4' as `physical life'?

Let me, in the meantime, try to explain how I approach this issue. There are

two Chinese terms that are (normally, mostly) translated as `nourishing life':

yang3ming4 and yang3sheng1. I can simply say that these terms are synonymous

(like some commentators do – if they comment at all on `yang3ming4') but I can

also ask: Why did the authors of the SNBCJ chose to use `ming4' instead of

`sheng1', and is it possible that that choice of character tells us something

about what their perspective was? (It's not about MY perspective which might be

coloured by my background, worldview etc.). In trying to be objective I can

only acknowledge that `ming4' most certainly has different connotations than

`sheng1'. When Fruehauf argues that the meaning of ming4 – `life' - during the

second century was inseparable from the original meaning, `(heavenly) command',

I think that he has a point we cannot and /or should not ignore. And when you

in turn define ming4 as `physical life' (indicating that this is something

different than `life') new questions arise...

In an earlier post I have quoted the sinologist Rouzer who shows that the

meanings `command' and `fate; lifespan' are related by noting `what heaven

commands for you is your fate and your lifespan'. You reacted by -more or less-

stating that these meanings did not apply for medical texts but I hope you have

adjusted that, in my opinion unnecessarily limiting, viewpoint.

 

<<Let's look at the whole paragraph. I will use Unschuld's translation:>>

 

" the upper class of drugs comprises 120 times. They are the rulers. They

control the maintenance of life and correspond to heaven. They do not have a

markedly medicinal effectiveness. The taking [of these drugs] in larger amounts

or over a long period of time is not harmful to man… "

 

<<I think the rest of this first paragraph is very telling... " if one wishes to

take the material weight from the body, to supplement the influences

[circulating in the body], and to prolong the years of life without aging, he

should base [his efforts] on [drugs mentioned in] the upper [class of

this]classic. "

As often is the case of Chinese they restate what they previously had

said(expanding on it) which many times can give clues into the previously

unclear(?) meaning.>>

 

Isn't that true for many other texts as well (other than Chinese I mean)?

 

<<For example this " prolong the years of life without aging "

( & #24310; & #24180;yan nian) is such a straightforward term I would be surprised

if anyone would debate the meaning here (although word choice may be debatable).

Quite simply, the rest of the paragraph after the first line that we have been

fixating on is really giving further explanation and instructions on how to use

these medicinals. One has to ask, if the writer was thinking about something

spiritual or related to destiny why would the rest of the paragraph not mention

this? Why would the rest of the paragraph talk about very down-to-earth things

such as prolonging the years of life.>>

 

Do you really think `taking the material weight from the body' is something

`down-to-earth' as well? Does not the SNBCJ talk about this class of drugs as

used to become weightless and immortal?

 

<<I think it is for this reason that commentaries on this text equate ming to

life. This is not to deny that ming in other philosophical texts has a deeper

meaning. >>

 

The meaning of `life' is less deep? Than what?

 

<<But every usage must be judged on its own while keeping in mind on

other texts of its time. Not just blindly using any term choice they like>>

 

<<4. Finally, Heiner makes a few odd statements which I would love to see some

references for: For example, he states that at the writing SNBCJ "

`life' and `longevity' was inseparable from the original meaning of

meaning `(heavenly) command'. I am not going to at claim to understand the

intricacies of ming, however according to Schuessler (probably the most

respected etymologist for Chinese in English) these were differentiated at this

time.>>

<<For fun he also states that the original meaning was " to order, command:

order, decree " this was in the Shang Dynasty evidenced by Oracle bone

inscriptions using the character ling & #65288; & #20196; & #65289;. To quote: " in

the Oracle bone and bronze inscription era (except late WZHOU bronze

inscription) only the graph & #20196; & #65288;ling & #65289; `order `occurs, while

the received texts write ming ( & #21629;),i.e. ling with a kou `mouth' added to

indicate that ling is a phonetic or semantic lone. Because ming is the ordinary

word for `to order', and because the break between ling (early inscriptions) and

ming (later texts) is quite abrupt, ling must have stood for ming and all Shang

and Western Zou inscriptions.>>

 

And what, do you think, has the meaning `to order, command' to do with life?

Wieger (another etymologist – and respected too, although that is not too

telling because we don't have a lot of them ;->) notes that ming4 is `an order

–ling- given orally (the addition of kou3 – `mouth') and says: `In the

philosophical language, ming4 means the decree by which heaven calls men to life

and determines their fate' (and, explaining the pictograph) `... mouth of heaven

dictating to a man his destiny between heaven and earth.'

For more fun: The most important commentaries on a famous song in the Shijing

(`Book of Poetry'. the oldest Chinese `songbook' containing verses colllected in

roughly the period of 1000 - 700 BCE) say that `ming4' means `dao4' (Dao / the

way / the Way) in the phrase `tian1 zhi1 ming4' – the ming4 of heaven – which

appears in one of the songs.

 

<<Consequently, I find it odd that whenever Heiner gives a definition he inserts

" (heavenly) " before the definition. Where is this from? For example linguists

and etymologists (and dictionaries) such as Schuessler simply relay the

definition as " to order, command " not " (heavenly) command " –or-

" (heavenly) human nature, " instead of the standard " human nature " - why the

insertion? This is also true in Chinese dictionaries.>>

 

See my remark above, about Rouzer's note, and the explanation of Wieger (if you

have his text, ling4 and ming4 are discussed in Lesson 14.I).

 

<<In regard to xingming - I'm having trouble following his reasoning that " 1,800

years ago ming made an inseparable pair with the term xing (xingming),

" (heavenly) human nature, " – clearly ming was used without xing. I Really don't

get the point here...>>

 

I guess you'll have to ask him to elaborate.

 

<<Furthermore although Heiner states that ming is equal to xingming at the time

of SNBCJ has the definition of " heavenly mandate of exercising heavenly virtues

in the concrete form of a physical body/lifetime; " –

a) where is this definition from?

b) if this is so, why does the SNBCJ use ming when discussing superior

medicinals and xingming (human nature) when discussing middle -class medicinals.

Clearly these are two separate ideas in this text.>>

 

`yang3 xing4' is what the text says about the middle class. For the rest, I am

not sure what you mean.

 

<<5. Heiner mentioned that " Yangsheng lun " (Treatise on Nourishing Life uses

the first sentence of the SNBCJ as an example that illustrates the sages’ more

expansive, `destiny' oriented approach to medicine, in contrast to a more

material approach by the commoner. " - I could not find this in my copy.

Did anyone else? This would be very interesting...>>

 

I've scanned the text and can see where the SNBCJ is quoted but do not know what

Heiner is referring to. Again, you'll have to ask him. There seem to be two

different editions of the text, maybe that's why we cannot find it...

 

<<6. Although, Heiner seems certain about some broader meaning of ming

because, he says " yingtian make it clear that the author of this text had a more

expansive meaning of ming in mind than mere physical benefit. " I wish it was

this cut and dry, but clearly it is not. If it were, would we find all of these

commentaries written by physicians throughout the centuries (whose classical

Chinese by the way is much better than any of ours) seeing it this way and

explaining it?>>

 

What commentaries are you reading? The only thing I can relate to what you are

saying is that (at least some) Chinese annotators say that yang3ming4 =

yang3sheng1. I've quoted the Xinxiu bencao which explains why the text says

`yingtian' – `corresponding to heaven'. Doesn't that commentary (which is

repeated in many other editions up to modern ones) give us something to think

about? I thought it was an important find. (I've asked Thomas to ask his

teachers to comment on it.)

 

<< As mentioned above, commentaries (classical and modern) I consulted simply

equate it to " life " not some spiritual destiny or

whatever.. Clearly, many (if not most) people disagree with Heiner's stance.>>

 

Yes, you have said that over and over again (without mentioning one verifiable

source by the way, but I know what you are talking about). However, didn't

/doesn't the whole discussion give you at least some hints to think in another

direction? It did for me...

 

<<7. Ming as prolonging *physical* life does fit in with many daoists view of

the goal of taking (such) medicinals.>>

 

Well, if you think flying and attaining immortality are best defined as

attributes of physical life, it probably does ;-).

 

<<8. However, I do completely agree with Heiner's point about using

" proper sinological procedure " etc., which has been my whole point all

along.>>

Well, I'm not so sure about your way of following such procedures any more. If

you say that you are aware that `ming in other philosophical texts has a deeper

meaning', and you say that you are aware of the interwovenness of Chinese

medicine and philosophy, why wouldn't you give some more room to interpretations

of the meaning of ming4 in medical texts?

<< One cannot even assume they understand the nuances of such a term in

classical Chinese without consulting numerous other classical texts using

Chinese languange. This is quite simply why I choose to rely on commentators

that have done this work for me.>>

Just a remark: There are many things in Chinese texts that commentators do not

explain because they don't think their readers need it.

<< I personally will never claim to understand these intricacies. However, these

commentators and authors of these classical dictionaries have spent their

lifetime deciphering these issues, unfortunately when it comes to medicine

almost all of this is in Chinese.>>

Yes, and written with Chinese readers in mind (this is not to say that they are

not helpful).

<<However, no doubt that ming is a very interesting and complex character and

this discussion has definitely allowed me to look deeper into this character.>>

Hence I find it disappointing that you now define ming4 as meaning `physical

life' in the line we've been talking about.

N. Herman

p.s. Just saw your other mail - will read it tomorrow...

[Guest guest]

Herman,

 

 

 

See below insertions¡­

 

 

[Herman] Whereas a large part of what you write concerns the content of

Heiner Fruehauf's letter to Lonny, you have addressed your mail to me. As I

find the discussion interesting, I have interspersed your comments with my

comments.

 

[Jason] Yes since Heiner is not on the group, I did address the email to

you. There are quite a few astute people on this group and on this issue I

thought you might have some insightful thoughts as usual. Thanks for

responding¡­ BTW how do prefer to be addressed, I have defaulted to [Herman]

due to you not often using your first name, sorry if this is incorrect?

 

[Herman] I did not try to suggest that I have changed the way I would

translate `ming4'. Our discussion and the research involved did, though,

open my eyes (wider) to the layers of meaning of this word. I guess it's one

of the ways thinking about `life' can be stimulating.

 

[Jason] I did not mean to suggest this, I was just asking an honest question

to see if your mind had changed. So at this point I guess we both agree at

this point ¡°life¡± is the best translation¡­ Yes I agree our research has

also opened my eyes¡­

 

[Herman] I don't see why we should read ming4 as `physical life' and am

surprised that you now introduce this. It begins to feel like we need to

formulate what the meaning of `life' is ;-).

 

[Jason] Actually, I still prefer just ¡°life¡± here, but as you see I wanted

to explore the possibilities of this ming meaning ¡°physical life¡±.

Although maybe not best, it is not unreasonable, especially because of the

ming¡¯s potential meaning of life-span and its relationship to prolonging

life. I do think some of the previous commentators (source below) support

this when they talk about organ function etc.. But I am not attached to this

idea, and actually think " physical life " is limiting. I am wondering what

other aspects of life do you think should be included here?

 

[Herman] Can you tell us where you have found in Chinese commentaries that

we should interpret `ming4' as `physical life'?

 

[Jason] really at the moment, this is just an extrapolation of when they

define ming as ¡°life-span¡± etc. -- to me this is physical -- see below for

more details...

 

 

[Herman] Let me, in the meantime, try to explain how I approach this issue.

There are two Chinese terms that are (normally, mostly) translated as

`nourishing life': yang3ming4 and yang3sheng1. I can simply say that these

terms are synonymous (like some commentators do ¨C if they comment at all on

`yang3ming4') but I can also ask: Why did the authors of the SNBCJ chose to

use `ming4' instead of `sheng1', and is it possible that that choice of

character tells us something about what their perspective was? (It's not

about MY perspective which might be coloured by my background, worldview

etc.). In trying to be objective I can only acknowledge that `ming4' most

certainly has different connotations than `sheng1'.

 

When Fruehauf argues that the meaning of ming4 ¨C `life' - during the second

century was inseparable from the original meaning, `(heavenly) command', I

think that he has a point we cannot and /or should not ignore.

 

[Jason] I agree if his statement is true he would have a BIG point. But as

you will see from my follow-up previous email that from my reading,

linguistics specializing in ming have shown that there are distinct meaning

by the time of the SNBCJ. So this is the key factor that we should unravel

if major philosophical texts etc are to have a primary influence in how we

define ming in medical texts. Do you have some information that supports

Heiner¡¯s viewpoint?

 

[Herman] In an earlier post I have quoted the sinologist Rouzer who shows

that the meanings `command' and `fate; lifespan' are related by noting `what

heaven commands for you is your fate and your lifespan'. You reacted by

-more or less- stating that these meanings did not apply for medical texts

but I hope you have adjusted that, in my opinion unnecessarily limiting,

viewpoint.

 

[Jason]. For the full details please see my exclamation in the previous

e-mail. But quite simply, I think any text may or may not have a direct

impact. But currently, I do not think that ¡°other¡± usages are guaranteed

to apply to medical texts. IMO, many medical texts go out of their way to

strip this stuff out, and just focus on treatments.

 

 

[Herman] Do you really think `taking the material weight from the body' is

something `down-to-earth' as well? Does not the SNBCJ talk about this class

of drugs as used to become weightless and immortal?

 

[Jason] No you are right it is? How do you think this applies to one¡¯s

Life, ming? Does SNBCJ actually say immortal? I thought It just said

¡°prolong one's life. " There is some debate on what this weightless means

but I have no desire to delve into this¡­ but nonetheless, whatever these

mean there is a obvious goal of extending one's life. Unschuld discusses

this as taking medicinals for a long period of time to keep oneself healthy

(disease-free) and hopefully live very long.

 

 

[Herman] And what, do you think, has the meaning `to order, command' to do

with life? Wieger (another etymologist ¨C and respected too, although that

is not too telling because we don't have a lot of them ;->) notes that ming4

is `an order ¨Cling- given orally (the addition of kou3 ¨C `mouth') and

says: `In the philosophical language, ming4 means the decree by which heaven

calls men to life and determines their fate' (and, explaining the

pictograph) `... mouth of heaven dictating to a man his destiny between

heaven and earth.'

 

[Jason] Exactly, in philosophical language! AS soon as you attach a

[Heavenly] before the definition you are forcing that meaning into other

usages. Therefore something that might not have this meaning will be missed.

As Cai stated (previous e-mail) ming is often used as simply ¡°life-span¡±

with no deeper meaning. Although of course this definition came from ling as

associated with oracle bones and divination, at a certain point though it

breaks away and takes on a new meaning (separate from the original). So I

don¡¯t agree we should insert this [heaven] into the core definition, as

dictionaries etc also do not. Although one needs to be aware of this, and

maybe that is your point, then I agree¡­

 

 

[Herman] What commentaries are you reading? The only thing I can relate to

what you are saying is that (at least some) Chinese annotators say that

yang3ming4 = yang3sheng1. I've quoted the Xinxiu bencao which explains why

the text says `yingtian' ¨C `corresponding to heaven'. Doesn't that

commentary (which is repeated in many other editions up to modern ones) give

us something to think about? I thought it was an important find. (I've asked

Thomas to ask his teachers to comment on it.)

 

¡­Yes, you have said that over and over again (without mentioning one

verifiable source by the way, but I know what you are talking about).

However, didn't /doesn't the whole discussion give you at least some hints

to think in another direction? It did for me...

 

[Jason] No doubt I have thought about this in many different ways. I am not

sure what you mean by verifiable source. I presented some English source

(Unschuld) as well as Chinese translations of material that I feel applies.

In one of the emails I presented commentary on yang ming that states, ¡°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.¡±

 

It is true that I did not source this at the time, no one actually asked.

Honestly right now I do not have the time to hunt down where the specific

source I translated this from. I did a quick internet search and you can

read such perspectives specifically discussing this line from the SNBCJ at:

 

http://zy.51ttyy.com/zycs/wenhua/200906/98110.shtml

 

http://www.panganshi.com/News_View.asp?NewsID=16

 

But at the time I looked at quite a few sources and could not find anything

related to destiny and few along the above lines of relating to yang sheng,

which is clearly not destiny. And most referring to heally living. ¨C maybe

physical life is not the best translation, but it an important component.

 

Here is a quote from my note file, (unknown source), but interesting: ÑøÃüµÄ

¸ÅÄî ÑøÃü£¬¾ÍÊÇ×ÔȻƽºâµÄÑøÉú±£½¡¹ÛÄî

 

Have you found any commentary specifically on ¡®yang ming¡¯ that gives it a

larger meaning than this material?

 

 

<<7. Ming as prolonging *physical* life does fit in with many daoists view

of the goal of taking (such) medicinals.>>

 

[Herman] Well, if you think flying and attaining immortality are best

defined as attributes of physical life, it probably does ;-).

 

[Jason] I do not mean to suggest that prolonging physical life is the only

goal of Daoists. It is only one aspect that they discuss, but important one

for many sects. There is obviously some quite bizarre goals to some of their

practices like connecting with their fetus etc. But many when they talk

about immortality are talking about physical life extension. Do you

disagree?

 

I think that should cover it, thanks so far for your input, as stated, I am

not attached to any of this and find this group really just a sounding board

for these ideas. But these are my current thoughts...

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thomas,

 

I understand the limitations of this format for discourse but I assure you

that you are reading an emotionality into my writing where there is none (I

guess this points out once again the limitations in ascribing meanings to the

written word). It is fair enough that a scholar's work should be subjected to

scrutiny and I have never avoided criticism. Simply, there is a pretense of

superiority here among those from a certain school of thought who speak

disrespectfully and with a condescending tone to anyone with a differing point

of view. So far I have seen this lack of dignity extended to Peter Eckman, JR

Worsely, Jeffrey Yuen, and myself and the list goes on and on.

 

I respect the contributions of scholars of the Chinese language to the field

of discourse. I also recognize that there is disagreement between them regarding

major points such as the one under discussion. So far, the discourse here has

pointed to the limitation of linguistics as a single line of development in

arriving at a meaningful understanding of the medicine.

 

The discussion of ming4 has highlighted the very important distinction

between mere reading and actual comprehension. Jason has written a paper on the

importance of understanding the multiple levels of meaning of characters and yet

refuses to make the simple connection between life, span of life, commands,

orders, fate, destiny, the designation of " heaven " (which he trivializes), and

cinnabar as the first herb mentioned in the SNBC.

 

In reading Chinese it's not the number of characters one knows but the

number of connections one can make between characters that's most important.

Similarly, it's not how many functions of points or herbs one knows but the

number of connections one can make between things that's of primary importance.

Simply, despite all the linguistic math that's been going on here for several

months few have been willing to put two plus two together to yield four.

 

 

The fact is that Jason and others are using a Cartesian, reductionist, and

deductive methodology to analyze the language that makes no sense in the context

of, and has limited applicabitlity to, the medical science we are discussing.

Chinese medicine is a science of recognizing the diagnosis and interpreting the

findings in that context. (The patient IS wood constitutionally, therefore the

finding of heat means xyz " ). " The fact, is that Spirit contextualizes

everything, therefore the implications are......... " The entire level of

analysis being applied is bass ackwards and has little to do with cognitive

approach of the medicine as a whole which is primarily inductive and not

deductive.

 

SO far, Jason has not evidenced that slightest understanding of the

Chinese discourse of ming4 in any of it's breadth or depth so there is little

confidence that he would be able to meaningfully translate it. If he cannot make

the simplest correlation between " life " , " life span " , and " destiny " , it is no

surprise that he has searched for discussions of ming4 in a deeper context and

not found them.

 

I am all for scholarly rigor but such rigor must be demonstrated across all

levels and expressions of development. Most importantly is the capacity to

discuss such concepts as the relationship between life, destiny, enlightenment,

healing, and medicine, on the ground where the rubber meets the road and from

one's own experience in life and in the clinic.

 

What we are discussing is Spirit/spirit and Jason " isn't interested in being

drawn into a philosophical discussion that has no resolution " (paraphrasing).

Ironically, the nature of Spirit/spirit has no resolution. Why? Because Spirit

and our understanding of it is evolving and the debate has been going on for

over two thousand years. But that doesn't mean that the discussion isn't worth

having. Personally, I can't think of a more compelling conversation than the

place of medicine in facilitating the human relationship to God/Shen. The

recognition of the fundamental importance of this relationship as the very

ground for discourse is merely the meeting point for moving forward together. It

is out of that recognition that humility and respect are born for what we all

bring to the table.

 

Using linguistics to avoid having to discuss that which is obviously so points

only to the failure of the method and highlights that technical ability in no

way guarantees an open mind, comprehension, or a significant contribution to

taking things forward.

 

I studied Chinese for 15 years, love the language, and have a great respect for

those who have given their lives to it. Still, it's only one line of development

and, obviously, has it's limitations.

 

Regards, Lonny Jarrett

[Guest guest]

For the record I have yet to commit to any translation of ming in the

passage we are discussing. I have only reported what others, that are much

smarter than me, have said, and the way they have translated it. Quite

simply, what I have found through reading the literature (not from my own

ideas) is people across the board translate this as " life " . The many

references / sources to this can be found in the early emails on the topic.

Please don't confuse my reporting of commentary and the many other

translations with something that I myself am " creating. "

 

 

 

More importantly, Lonny, if you could refrain from trying to summarize my

stance, talk about my methods, or anything else related to me, it would be

much appreciated. Even after just bringing up this issue (even in your last

email) your ability to clearly read and understand the core thoughts of my

position, present them accurately, and hence make a rationale counter

argument is highly questionable.

 

 

 

This is precisely why I have no desire to get into some " philosophical

discussion " with Lonny. He seems to not only misrepresent one's position,

but will twist the words, polarize the position, and then lead the

conversation into some convoluted vortex. He also employs all sorts of

diversion tactics such as responding to a direct question with nothing more

than a list of other questions.

 

 

 

For some this is fun, but for me this is a waste of time. I understand this

is Lonny's style, and that is fine, but beyond this, the ongoing misquoting

and misrepresenting of other's ideas and emails is just not tolerable and in

need of some serious shi chang pu. Granted everyone makes a mistake and

misreads something here and there, but this has been an ongoing theme that I

have noticed for quite some time. Consequently, I have lost all faith in

being able to have a sensible conversation with Lonny and do not want to

have to correct every single email that Lonny writes. Please leave me out of

your discussions. And for the record most of his representations of my

stances below are just incorrect.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Lonny

Monday, April 05, 2010 8:32 AM

 

Re: shen nong ben cao con't

 

 

 

 

 

Thomas,

 

I understand the limitations of this format for discourse but I assure you

that you are reading an emotionality into my writing where there is none (I

guess this points out once again the limitations in ascribing meanings to

the written word). It is fair enough that a scholar's work should be

subjected to scrutiny and I have never avoided criticism. Simply, there is a

pretense of superiority here among those from a certain school of thought

who speak disrespectfully and with a condescending tone to anyone with a

differing point of view. So far I have seen this lack of dignity extended to

Peter Eckman, JR Worsely, Jeffrey Yuen, and myself and the list goes on and

on.

 

I respect the contributions of scholars of the Chinese language to the field

of discourse. I also recognize that there is disagreement between them

regarding major points such as the one under discussion. So far, the

discourse here has pointed to the limitation of linguistics as a single line

of development in arriving at a meaningful understanding of the medicine.

 

The discussion of ming4 has highlighted the very important distinction

between mere reading and actual comprehension. Jason has written a paper on

the importance of understanding the multiple levels of meaning of characters

and yet refuses to make the simple connection between life, span of life,

commands, orders, fate, destiny, the designation of " heaven " (which he

trivializes), and cinnabar as the first herb mentioned in the SNBC.

 

In reading Chinese it's not the number of characters one knows but the

number of connections one can make between characters that's most important.

Similarly, it's not how many functions of points or herbs one knows but the

number of connections one can make between things that's of primary

importance. Simply, despite all the linguistic math that's been going on

here for several months few have been willing to put two plus two together

to yield four.

 

The fact is that Jason and others are using a Cartesian, reductionist, and

deductive methodology to analyze the language that makes no sense in the

context of, and has limited applicabitlity to, the medical science we are

discussing. Chinese medicine is a science of recognizing the diagnosis and

interpreting the findings in that context. (The patient IS wood

constitutionally, therefore the finding of heat means xyz " ). " The fact, is

that Spirit contextualizes everything, therefore the implications

are......... " The entire level of analysis being applied is bass ackwards

and has little to do with cognitive approach of the medicine as a whole

which is primarily inductive and not deductive.

 

SO far, Jason has not evidenced that slightest understanding of the Chinese

discourse of ming4 in any of it's breadth or depth so there is little

confidence that he would be able to meaningfully translate it. If he cannot

make the simplest correlation between " life " , " life span " , and " destiny " , it

is no surprise that he has searched for discussions of ming4 in a deeper

context and not found them.

 

I am all for scholarly rigor but such rigor must be demonstrated across all

levels and expressions of development. Most importantly is the capacity to

discuss such concepts as the relationship between life, destiny,

enlightenment, healing, and medicine, on the ground where the rubber meets

the road and from one's own experience in life and in the clinic.

 

What we are discussing is Spirit/spirit and Jason " isn't interested in being

drawn into a philosophical discussion that has no resolution "

(paraphrasing). Ironically, the nature of Spirit/spirit has no resolution.

Why? Because Spirit and our understanding of it is evolving and the debate

has been going on for over two thousand years. But that doesn't mean that

the discussion isn't worth having. Personally, I can't think of a more

compelling conversation than the place of medicine in facilitating the human

relationship to God/Shen. The recognition of the fundamental importance of

this relationship as the very ground for discourse is merely the meeting

point for moving forward together. It is out of that recognition that

humility and respect are born for what we all bring to the table.

 

Using linguistics to avoid having to discuss that which is obviously so

points only to the failure of the method and highlights that technical

ability in no way guarantees an open mind, comprehension, or a significant

contribution to taking things forward.

 

I studied Chinese for 15 years, love the language, and have a great respect

for those who have given their lives to it. Still, it's only one line of

development and, obviously, has it's limitations.

 

Regards, Lonny Jarrett

 

 

 

 

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release 04/05/10

00:32:00

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

More importantly, Lonny, if you could refrain from trying to summarize my

stance, talk about my methods, or anything else related to me, it would be much

appreciated.

 

Lonny: Jason, the record stands. From my perspective it shows that you have

failed to respond to me, or Herman for that matter, on any significant basis and

have rather had a dialog with yourself changing positions and contradicting

yourself constantly. If there has not been a serious discussion here I will

suggest that has been no fault of my own.

 

The basis of discussion has been Bob's assertion that Shen, large " S " plays no

significant role is CM. While you have taken a position in this regard, you have

not demonstrated that you might know the relationship between shen and Shen or,

in fact, what the attributes of Shen, large " S " are. From my perspective you

have used your knowledge of the Chinese language to avoid having a real

discussion based on the merits.

 

 

You have on the one hand, asserted that ming4 in the SNBC means only " life " and

on the other that you recognize the importance of taking fine shades of meaning

into account when reading the literature. My questions to you have pointed to

the very large context that forms the basis of translating the line in question

and you have failed to meaningfully respond to, or demonstrate interest in any

point made.

 

For example, you have trivialized the designation of " ming " as corresponding to

" heaven " and refused to discuss the significance of cinnabar as the first herb

in the SNBC and how that contextualizes understanding the meaning of the first

sentence.

 

What this comes down to is basic respect for scholars with different methods and

points of view and an actual interest in finding out what one doesn't already

know. Instead you have taken a fixed stance in relationship to the position that

Spirit/Shen does not contextualize the medicine and, from my perspective, the

untenability of this position shows throughout the content of your posts.

 

It is a flawed approach to rely solely on grammatical analysis outside of an

embodied understanding of, and discussion regarding, the broader philosophical

and cultural issues involved. We can each point to people with much greater

competencies with the language than our own who agree with our perspectives. The

issue is only " what stage of development are reflected in the value systems

being applied to the question at hand? " . I believe the data indicates that the

position that you and others share reflects the imposition of an " orange meme, "

scientific materialistic outlook on the medicine and that's why, when you read

the texts, you fail to find a significant presence of Shen, Large " S " in the

history of the medicine.

 

The perspective you bring has it's strengths and weaknesses and it's only the

pretense of it's inherent superiority to all other schools of thought, along

with the general denigration of anyone with a differing perspective, that I take

exception to. I also take exception to the oft expressed notion here that all

who do understand CM in the context of Shen, Large " S " are imposing a value

system on CM that isn't innate within it.

 

Again, I think we postmodern humans barely know what the spiritual context of

medicine is and that there is a lot of fluff surrounding it, both in those who

deny it's proper place and in many who claim they are " doing it " . But it's still

the most significant conversation that those of us willing to step up to the

plate can have because only through a mature understanding of such a foundation

will we arrive at the shared values that can advance the medicine at this point

in history.

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

 

<<Let’s use ming as an example., I think there are some key factors we must

consider in defining the meaning on ming in a medical context. There is no

question that ming has a multitude of meanings in non-medical texts ranging from

quite profound to very down to earth. The question is whether these different

meanings are inseparable or differentiated at the time when the SNBCJ was

written.>>

 

NHO: Can't they be inseparable AND differentiated?

 

<<An illustrative essay is by Zong-qi Cai on Tao Qian and the “multiple

vistas†of ming.>>

 

Tao Qian! Peach Blossoms! I often think of that piece of writing when I work

in the gardens and do not have to hear the world raging. You remind me of

wonderful days translating poetry and being in awe of all those great thinkers

of the past.

As I understand that most readers on this list are from the US of A: How famous

is Tao Qian amongst Americans?

 

<< He begins by examining the earliest discussions of ming in

Chinese discourse: Duke Wen’s famed “understanding of ming†in the

zuozhuan. Consequently he explores four *distinctive* meanings of ming; 1.

Demands that Heaven puts on one, 2. one’s actual life span, 3. one’s destiny

in life, or 4. the natural course that one should follow.

 

This alone demonstrates there were very early on, in literary works, distinct

usages of the word (ming), hence we cannot assume that ming can be read anyway

one wishes (with multiple levels) as has been suggested on this group.>>

 

NHO:

`Demands' is new for me and `should' too. Are you aware that Chinese writers

when they use words like this can very well want their readers to think of their

`distinctive' meanings? Haven't we seen that in the first sentence of the SNBCJ

`nourishing ming4' is somehow connected to `corresponding to heaven' (however

you want to read the character yi3 that combines the two phrases)? Isn't that

interesting enough for you to explore?

 

I asked you several questions in my earlier mail and you have left them

unanswered. Three times now, I have referred to what in the major Tang dynasty

materia medica Xinxiu bencao is written about `corresponding to heaven'. I do

not understand why you don't think my questions and that citation are of

interest in our exploration of the meaning of the sentence. In the thread about

the meaning of shen2 in the Neijing the same kind of thing happened and I felt

that that discussion was stifled by the last mail you wrote in response. I am

happy to spend a lot of time in looking up quotes, exploring the literature,

think about your arguments etc. but the `follow-up' often shows that you are not

really looking at things with an open mind. Or at least, you give the

impression that you prefer to ignore things I bring up that do not `fit in your

street'.

 

For instance, I've shown that in the line from the Lingshu that Bensky and

Clavey quote in their article, shen2 cannot mean `the attention of the

physician' – and I've spent quite some time to formulate that answer. Your

response suggested that you think I am not doing my homework. Come on! (I tell

you this because I find it a pity that you ended that discussion in that weird

way – I formulated several other questions there that you left unanswered too –

just saying that you did not `see the beef' and that I could `go against the

grain' if I liked too...).

 

<<Quite simply different circumstances require a different reading and is (as

most Chinese) context dependent. From this perspective it is incorrect to

suggest that one can read the same ’ming’ as ‘destiny’ and

‘life-span’ simply because both definitions or " possible " at that time.>>

 

Yes, context dependent. Exactly. See above. The more I think about it, the

more I think the context is not merely `growing old'.

 

<<Actually Charles Chace is doing extensive research right now on the eight

extras meridians in relation to Daoist internal alchemy. I talked to him today

about this issue and he showed me an example of something he is translating. A

single author would use ming in a very physical sense and then in the next

section is in a larger sense. Consequently, he translates each instance of ming

differently to grasp the meaning of that passage. Although this is the text from

the 1800s the methodology of sorting out the proper meaning for the context is

as Zong-qi Cai states essential.>>

 

Yes, context is crucial - especially for this kind of words. It is very

different from the bulk of Chinese medical terminology (which most of the time

is pretty straightforward - fortunate enough for our patients ;->). However,

you haven't told us much about what Zhongqi Cai actually says in this respect.

Apparently, he discusses different usages of ming4 in the writings of Tao Qian?

Would be interesting to hear more about that - I couldn't find the article

online. (The articles I found were on wangfangdata and I would love to buy some

but I've never succeeded to go through the steps necessary to do that as their

machines refuse postal codes etc..)

 

<<Therefore when reviewing a medical text how useful are philosophical,

literary, or even religious texts of the same time period. If we can safely say

that a term had distinct usages then, in my opinion, other non-medical texts are

only as useful as showing the full range of *possible* meanings, unless there is

some specific reference. That is, merely finding a philosophical text that use a

capital letter “Mâ€ing really shows nothing when evaluating another text,

albeit literary, medical, religious, or even another philosophical text. Because

quite simple we can find other texts (and passages) that use the small letter

“mâ€ing.>>

 

What can I say? Well, I just repeat: `There is a lot of philosophy in Chinese

medical texts.'

 

<<Hence, each text must be evaluated on its own.>>

 

Yes and no. I thought you agreed that the context of culture, time period,

whatever, was relevant? I find your reasoning a bit confusing.

 

<<On a side note, the SNBCJ was a Daoist text. Many Daoists were fixated on

living long (physically) so they could accomplish their “goalsâ€. Hence

internal alchemy was largely based on this goal. To quote Unschuld: “looking

back once more to what we assumed to be the original usage of the term ben cao,

we remember that the ben cao experts were practitioners who based their efforts

for a " long life without aging " on experiments with mostly herbal drugs. It is

in

the circles of these men that we must look for the authors of the shen nong ben

jing. Their experiments were not primarily aimed at the actual medicinal value

of these drugs, but rather at their ability to strengthen the body and protect

it, over long periods of time, from health problems of all kinds.†Sounds

pretty down-to-earth to me… >>

 

When you say that they strove to live long in order to be able to accomplish

`their goals' maybe you can tell us what you understand these goals were?

 

NHO

[Guest guest]

(see below)

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Nicolaas Herman

 

 

 

 

 

[Herman] NHO: Can't they be inseparable AND differentiated?

 

Not sure, but the point of Cai is that in these early texts they

were using ming in a distinct fashion requiring separate definitions for each

usage. This is just the position of a linguist who specializes in understanding

ming. I'm sure there are other ideas out there, I would love to see counter

arguments from some other linguists... can anyone point me in a good place that

I can read about why this term (ming) should be inseparable and not

differentiated in the Han? (FTR Herman, that is my 3rd request). He he…

 

 

[Herman]

I asked you several questions in my earlier mail and you have left them

unanswered. Three times now, I have referred to what in the major Tang dynasty

materia medica Xinxiu bencao is written about `corresponding to heaven'. I do

not understand why you don't think my questions and that citation are of

interest in our exploration of the meaning of the sentence. In the thread about

the meaning of shen2 in the Neijing the same kind of thing happened and I felt

that that discussion was stifled by the last mail you wrote in response. I am

happy to spend a lot of time in looking up quotes, exploring the literature,

think about your arguments etc. but the `follow-up' often shows that you are not

really looking at things with an open mind. Or at least, you give the impression

that you prefer to ignore things I bring up that do not `fit in your street'.

 

please don't assume that because I do not respond specifically

to one of your ideas that I am dismissing it or am not thoroughly considering it

with an open mind. Honestly, there is only so much time in the day to devote to

these conversations and I have chosen to respond to the most pertinent points.

Therefore, if I do not have anything intelligent to say then I may just gloss it

and file it away for further pondering. So yes this xinxiu bencao quote is

interesting but I have nothing more to say than that. Please note there are many

points and sources (that I have presented) that I think are valuable that have

gotten no response. However, jiu shi zhe yang zi.

 

In the end, I trust myself far less than professional linguists and

commentators. Therefore I am not personally trying to come up with some answer

but more interested in what people much smarter than me have thought. For

example, specific commentary by famous doctors or linguists discussing ming is

more valuable than what I personally believe. I also weigh your ideas (Herman),

Heiner’s, and even Lonny’s ideas into the mix. To me, every source and the

clarity of the argument has a certain value. But I am mostly interested in what

the experts have said on this issue more than trying to figure this out myself.

This is why I like to focus on sources. When we see 5 people translate something

the same way, then this possibly means something. When we see commentaries

agreeing then this possibly means something. I'm not going to the suggest that

such consistencies represent absolute truth, but going against the grain is

going to require a very strong argument to overthrow the status quo. When we

find reputable sources and commentaries disagreeing then I am much more inclined

to allow for simultaneous, multiple, and even contradictory interpretations.

This is why a survey of past doctors/commentators and linguists (at least in my

opinion) mean so much.

 

 

[Herman] For instance, I've shown that in the line from the Lingshu that Bensky

and Clavey quote in their article, shen2 cannot mean `the attention of the

physician' – and I've spent quite some time to formulate that answer. Your

response suggested that you think I am not doing my homework.

 

I assume you're referring to Chace not Clavey. However, I guess

on this point I haven't seen enough compelling evidence to investigate this

further. From your response, I gathered you haven't yet read their article and

saw no major points that discounted their stance. I respect that you do not

agree with Bensky and Chace but again, I have nothing more to really say and

this is not a topic at this moment (due to time) of that much interest. But at

this point, the rationale and sources they present make the most sense to me.

Hence, I am happy to agree to disagree -- and this does not mean I am not

considering your thoughts. I considered everything you write very carefully, I

just might not happen to agree with everything you say, as you don't agree with

everything I say. This is nothing personal… but we both write verbosely and my

time is unfortunately quite limited these days, it is not that I don't value our

dialogues.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Lonny,

 

 

 

Once again you misrepresent aspects of my position, however I do find it

humorous that you say that I not only have a " fixed stance " but also that I

change my positions and constantly am contradicting myself.. Hmmm. Well

quite simply I am not attached to any one position, and have no issues about

changing my positions (being wrong) as I gather more information. I also

have no problem holding contradictory views in my head in certain

circumstances. Sorry if all of this bothers you.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Lonny

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Lonny,

Stepping aside for a moment from academic scholarship and translation, perhaps

you could define for us, with your own thoughts, what you mean by the,

" spiritual context of medicine " , and why having a conversation about it is the

only way to " advance the medicine at this point in history. "

CheersTrevor

--- On Tue, 4/6/10, Lonny <revolution wrote:

 

Lonny <revolution

Re: shen nong ben cao con't

 

Received: Tuesday, April 6, 2010, 10:37 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

More importantly, Lonny, if you could refrain from trying to summarize my

stance, talk about my methods, or anything else related to me, it would be much

appreciated.

 

 

 

Lonny: Jason, the record stands. From my perspective it shows that you have

failed to respond to me, or Herman for that matter, on any significant basis and

have rather had a dialog with yourself changing positions and contradicting

yourself constantly. If there has not been a serious discussion here I will

suggest that has been no fault of my own.

 

 

 

The basis of discussion has been Bob's assertion that Shen, large " S " plays no

significant role is CM. While you have taken a position in this regard, you have

not demonstrated that you might know the relationship between shen and Shen or,

in fact, what the attributes of Shen, large " S " are. From my perspective you

have used your knowledge of the Chinese language to avoid having a real

discussion based on the merits.

 

 

 

You have on the one hand, asserted that ming4 in the SNBC means only " life " and

on the other that you recognize the importance of taking fine shades of meaning

into account when reading the literature. My questions to you have pointed to

the very large context that forms the basis of translating the line in question

and you have failed to meaningfully respond to, or demonstrate interest in any

point made.

 

 

 

For example, you have trivialized the designation of " ming " as corresponding to

" heaven " and refused to discuss the significance of cinnabar as the first herb

in the SNBC and how that contextualizes understanding the meaning of the first

sentence.

 

 

 

What this comes down to is basic respect for scholars with different methods and

points of view and an actual interest in finding out what one doesn't already

know. Instead you have taken a fixed stance in relationship to the position that

Spirit/Shen does not contextualize the medicine and, from my perspective, the

untenability of this position shows throughout the content of your posts.

 

 

 

It is a flawed approach to rely solely on grammatical analysis outside of an

embodied understanding of, and discussion regarding, the broader philosophical

and cultural issues involved. We can each point to people with much greater

competencies with the language than our own who agree with our perspectives. The

issue is only " what stage of development are reflected in the value systems

being applied to the question at hand? " . I believe the data indicates that the

position that you and others share reflects the imposition of an " orange meme, "

scientific materialistic outlook on the medicine and that's why, when you read

the texts, you fail to find a significant presence of Shen, Large " S " in the

history of the medicine.

 

 

 

The perspective you bring has it's strengths and weaknesses and it's only the

pretense of it's inherent superiority to all other schools of thought, along

with the general denigration of anyone with a differing perspective, that I take

exception to. I also take exception to the oft expressed notion here that all

who do understand CM in the context of Shen, Large " S " are imposing a value

system on CM that isn't innate within it.

 

 

 

Again, I think we postmodern humans barely know what the spiritual context of

medicine is and that there is a lot of fluff surrounding it, both in those who

deny it's proper place and in many who claim they are " doing it " . But it's still

the most significant conversation that those of us willing to step up to the

plate can have because only through a mature understanding of such a foundation

will we arrive at the shared values that can advance the medicine at this point

in history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________

Looking for the perfect gift? Give the gift of Flickr!

 

http://www.flickr.com/gift/

 

 

[Guest guest]

Herman et al,

 

 

 

I have a couple of minutes so I decided to take us back to the original

issue a clarify a key question / request Herman had. Here is a summary of

my sources from the past e-mails since for some reason Herman felt there was

no " verifiable source¡±. I am not sure what that means but here we go... The

below (previous) link is correct, it equates nourishing ming to taking care

of one's body and it specifically goes on to describe looking after the

normal function of individual organs structure.

 

 

http://zy.51ttyy.com/zycs/wenhua/200906/98110.shtml

 

 

 

 

 

Here is another from an actual shen nong ben cao jing with commentary: ÉñÅ©

±¾²Ý¾­(¾«×°)(ÖÐÒ½¾­µäµ¼¶Á´ÔÊé) (Íõ×ÓÊÙ) whose commentary states ¡°ÑøÃü£ºÑø

Éú£¬ÕâÀïÖ¸ÊʺÏÑøÉú¡± ¨C equating yang ming to yang sheng, which is

translated as ¡°life or health cultivation¡±.

 

 

 

Actually if you do a internet search one finds quite a few discussions on

the topic, Here is another:

 

 

 

http://ch.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/721800-%E7%A5%9E%E5%86%9C%E6%9C%AC%E8

%8D%89%E7%BB%8F-%E5%AF%B9%E9%A3%9F%E5%85%BB%E5%92%8C%E9%A3%9F%E7%96%97%E7%9A

%84%E8%B4%A1%E7%8C%AE/

 

 

 

ÒÔÉÏÆ·¡°Ö÷ÑøÃüÒÔÓ¦Ì족Ìáʾ ÉÏÆ·Ò©´ó¶à¿É×÷Ϊ±£½¡ÑøÉú¡¢ÑÓÄêÒæÊÙÖ®Óà - quite

simply this is equating these upper-class medicinals with longevity , health

protection, and life/health cultivation.

 

 

 

Unschuld translated yang ming it two locations, one as ¡°nourishing life¡±

in another location as " maintenance of life. "

 

Yang ShouZhou, Eric Brand, a PhD linguist I asked, as well as one of the

most knowledgeable PhD Chinese medicine practitioners in the West who also

has a Masters in classical Chinese, and a native speaking linguist from Bei

Jing who happens to be my Chinese teacher (who by the way has been teaching

language for about 45+ years), all equate ming=life and many (if not all)

are adamant about it not meaning destiny.

 

 

 

Again, this is nothing to do with my opinion or belief. This has nothing to

do with dissecting grammar. It is a macropoint of view collected from

various educated people. Many times looking at the big picture is

instructive.

 

 

 

In summary, some of these sources are better than others, but nonetheless

this is roughly 10 sources from people who have thought about this issue on

varying levels that state ming = life. 11 if we count Herman, I of course

don¡¯t count.

 

 

 

To reiterate, to date, I have yet to find any direct source that states than

ming should be translated at ¡°destiny in this specific instance. Honestly,

I am not opposed to this idea, and it would be happy to change my mind if

enough evidence came down the pipe, therefore it would be helpful to see

some actual sources. I am sure there is plenty that I have not read or found

via searches.

 

 

 

However, the only remote reference to translating ming as Destiny was an

unofficial e-mail from Heiner who said it was possible but unfortunately he

did not supply any sources and left many unanswered questions with his

thinking process. I would love to see more from Heiner's sources that was

mentioned in the e-mail.

 

 

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

[ of On Behalf Of

 

 

 

[Jason] No doubt I have thought about this in many different ways. I am not

sure what you mean by verifiable source. I presented some English source

(Unschuld) as well as Chinese translations of material that I feel applies.

In one of the emails I presented commentary on yang ming That states, ¡°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.¡±

 

It is true that I did not source this at the time, no one actually asked.

Honestly right now I do not have the time to hunt down where the specific

source I translated this from. I did a quick internet search and you can

read such perspectives specifically discussing this line from the SNBCJ at:

 

http://zy.51ttyy.com/zycs/wenhua/200906/98110.shtml

 

http://www.panganshi.com/News_View.asp?NewsID=16

 

But at the time I looked at quite a few sources and could not find anything

related to destiny and few along the above lines of relating to yang sheng,

which is clearly not destiny. And most referring to heally living. ¨C maybe

physical life is not the best translation, but it an important component.

 

Here is a quote from my note file, (unknown source), but interesting: ÑøÃüµÄ

¸ÅÄî ÑøÃü£¬¾ÍÊÇ×ÔȻƽºâµÄÑøÉú±£½¡¹ÛÄî

 

Have you found any commentary specifically on ¡®yang ming¡¯ that gives it a

larger meaning than this material?

 

<<7. Ming as prolonging *physical* life does fit in with many daoists view

of the goal of taking (such) medicinals.>>

 

[Herman] Well, if you think flying and attaining immortality are best

defined as attributes of physical life, it probably does ;-).

 

[Jason] I do not mean to suggest that prolonging physical life is the only

goal of Daoists. It is only one aspect that they discuss, but important one

for many sects. There is obviously some quite bizarre goals to some of their

practices like connecting with their fetus etc. But many when they talk

about immortality are talking about physical life extension. Do you

disagree?

 

I think that should cover it, thanks so far for your input, as stated, I am

not attached to any of this and find this group really just a sounding board

for these ideas. But these are my current thoughts...

 

-

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

 

 

1. Herman loves the number 11

2. Herman doesn't give much about titles but happens to hold a degree in

sinology that is regarded a bit higher than what is commonly called a 'Masters'.

He cannot use the PhD title as he didn't have the financial means to accept an

invitation of Paul Unschuld for doing a PhD in Berlin. Further, he never heard

of a Masters in classical Chinese before mr. mentioned it but, as one of

his students asked about it, has found out that there is a university in

Zuerich, Switzerland, that offers a program to obtain it. His student would

like to know where such a title can be obtained in the US of A.

3. Herman, let's call him 'Farmer Oving' notes that several of mr. 's

sources do not have a name and hence proposes to call them Wu Ming (Without

Name) followed by a number (Wu Ming 1, 2, 3).

4. Farmer Oving knows of numerous Wu Ming and You Ming sources who equate

yangming with yangsheng, or, correcter, explain yangming with yangsheng.

5. Farmer Oving loves to explore the meaning of words and wonders about the

difference between ming4 and sheng1. In that respect he wonders what the degree

of Down-To-Earthness is of ming4 in comparison to that of sheng1, and if there

could be a reason for one author to use ming4 and the other to use sheng1.

6. Farmer Oving notes that a commentary in the Xinxiu bencao tries to explain

why the medicinals of the upper class are said to correspond to heaven.

7. Heiner Fruehauf has a name (and a title) so it is unclear why his written

utterance should be regarded as 'unofficial'- (apparently) as opposed to other

sources mentioned by mr. whom we have called Wu Ming.

8. Through the 'unofficial' email from mr. Fruehauf we know more about his

thought process than we know of the thought processes going on in the minds of

the Wu Ming and some of the other You Ming sources.

9. Farmer Oving notes that mr. in his mails about this subject has

repeatedly mentioned commentaries from numerous famous scholars through the ages

whose names mysteriously do not appear on his list of 11 he was so kind to share

with us today.

10. Farmer Oving further notes that mr. told us yesterday that he does

not have enough time to talk about the things he brings up in various emails,

nor to answer some of the questions raised. He kindly asks mr. to take

all the time in the world for answering such queries as nobody is a hurry as

long as we do our best to prolong our lifes and nothing will happen to prevend

us from attaining that goal.

11. (Ha!) Farmer Oving has a lot of farm (and other) work to do and will

continue to think about life while doing it.

 

NHO

 

 

, " " wrote:

>

> Herman et al,

>

>

>

> I have a couple of minutes so I decided to take us back to the original

> issue a clarify a key question / request Herman had. Here is a summary of

> my sources from the past e-mails since for some reason Herman felt there was

> no " verifiable source¡±. I am not sure what that means but here we go... The

> below (previous) link is correct, it equates nourishing ming to taking care

> of one's body and it specifically goes on to describe looking after the

> normal function of individual organs structure.

>

>

> http://zy.51ttyy.com/zycs/wenhua/200906/98110.shtml

>

>

>

>

>

> Here is another from an actual shen nong ben cao jing with commentary: ÉñÅ©

> ±¾²Ý¾­(¾«×°)(ÖÐÒ½¾­µäµ¼¶Á´ÔÊé) (Íõ×ÓÊÙ) whose commentary states ¡°ÑøÃü£ºÑø

> Éú£¬ÕâÀïÖ¸ÊʺÏÑøÉú¡± ¨C equating yang ming to yang sheng, which is

> translated as ¡°life or health cultivation¡±.

>

>

>

> Actually if you do a internet search one finds quite a few discussions on

> the topic, Here is another:

>

>

>

> http://ch.shvoong.com/law-and-politics/721800-%E7%A5%9E%E5%86%9C%E6%9C%AC%E8

> %8D%89%E7%BB%8F-%E5%AF%B9%E9%A3%9F%E5%85%BB%E5%92%8C%E9%A3%9F%E7%96%97%E7%9A

> %84%E8%B4%A1%E7%8C%AE/

>

>

>

> ÒÔÉÏÆ·¡°Ö÷ÑøÃüÒÔÓ¦Ì족Ìáʾ ÉÏÆ·Ò©´ó¶à¿É×÷Ϊ±£½¡ÑøÉú¡¢ÑÓÄêÒæÊÙÖ®Óà - quite

> simply this is equating these upper-class medicinals with longevity , health

> protection, and life/health cultivation.

>

>

>

> Unschuld translated yang ming it two locations, one as ¡°nourishing life¡±

> in another location as " maintenance of life. "

>

> Yang ShouZhou, Eric Brand, a PhD linguist I asked, as well as one of the

> most knowledgeable PhD Chinese medicine practitioners in the West who also

> has a Masters in classical Chinese, and a native speaking linguist from Bei

> Jing who happens to be my Chinese teacher (who by the way has been teaching

> language for about 45+ years), all equate ming=life and many (if not all)

> are adamant about it not meaning destiny.

>

>

>

> Again, this is nothing to do with my opinion or belief. This has nothing to

> do with dissecting grammar. It is a macropoint of view collected from

> various educated people. Many times looking at the big picture is

> instructive.

>

>

>

> In summary, some of these sources are better than others, but nonetheless

> this is roughly 10 sources from people who have thought about this issue on

> varying levels that state ming = life. 11 if we count Herman, I of course

> don¡¯t count.

>

>

>

> To reiterate, to date, I have yet to find any direct source that states than

> ming should be translated at ¡°destiny in this specific instance. Honestly,

> I am not opposed to this idea, and it would be happy to change my mind if

> enough evidence came down the pipe, therefore it would be helpful to see

> some actual sources. I am sure there is plenty that I have not read or found

> via searches.

>

>

>

> However, the only remote reference to translating ming as Destiny was an

> unofficial e-mail from Heiner who said it was possible but unfortunately he

> did not supply any sources and left many unanswered questions with his

> thinking process. I would love to see more from Heiner's sources that was

> mentioned in the e-mail.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Folks,

I've been watching this conversation for weeks without any actual free time

to contribute much, but I have just a few thoughts to share.

 

No matter what our level of scholarship, we are all basically creatures of

'point of view'. Some view things more physically, some more

poetically/artistically, some more metaphysically, and it colors how we

interpret Chinese medicine to be. As Volker Scheid notes about Sun Si-miao's

description of the 大醫 da yi/great physician, " only someone capable of

viewing a problem from a number of perspectives is able to grasp the processes

of transformation that animate the universe " . So a physician of Chinese

medicine must be learned enough, experienced enough to view each patient from

the appropriate perspective.

 

Heiner is right, there are a number of approaches one can take to the

classical Chinese medical literature, all one has to do is see how many

currents/schools grew out of just the Su Wen throughout Chinese medical history.

The richness of the Chinese medical would appear to be inexhaustible. We have

varying skill levels in translation, practice, experience, and mastery of

theory, but I think we also need some humility, especially those of us who do

have some Chinese language or translation skills (I put my own skills at a lower

level. I am basically an interpreter of what others have translated, although I

have enough Chinese skills to access original source texts).

 

Despite the combativeness over the issue of 命ming, I think that Lonny has a

right to express his view from where he stands, without being belittled for it.

I am also very supportive of those who have developed their Chinese language and

translation skills. It takes a lot of devotion and sacrifice to move to China

and study for an American like Thomas. It takes an extreme amount of effort to

do what Jason does, i.e. have a full clinical practice, teach, and continue to

study and translate Chinese medical texts. I admire these efforts, as I find it

so difficult to have time to continue my language and medical studies on top of

practice, teaching and family life. It can be exhausting in one's later 50's,

even with yoga, qing dan diet and other yang sheng practices.

 

But my greatest admiration goes for the farmer/scholars such as Herman and

Sabine Wilms. . . because they are living the medicine, 'on the land', as well

as delving deeply into the medical texts for us with little financial reward.

 

To sum up, hey guys, let's get together and stop the non-productive aspects

of debate, and walk this journey together. We're all trying hard to figure out

this immense, difficult medical tradition the best we can. .

 

 

 

 

On Apr 7, 2010, at 8:22 AM, Nicolaas Herman wrote:

 

> Jason,

>

> 1. Herman loves the number 11

> 2. Herman doesn't give much about titles but happens to hold a degree in

sinology that is regarded a bit higher than what is commonly called a 'Masters'.

He cannot use the PhD title as he didn't have the financial means to accept an

invitation of Paul Unschuld for doing a PhD in Berlin. Further, he never heard

of a Masters in classical Chinese before mr. mentioned it but, as one of

his students asked about it, has found out that there is a university in

Zuerich, Switzerland, that offers a program to obtain it. His student would like

to know where such a title can be obtained in the US of A.

> 3. Herman, let's call him 'Farmer Oving' notes that several of mr. 's

sources do not have a name and hence proposes to call them Wu Ming (Without

Name) followed by a number (Wu Ming 1, 2, 3).

> 4. Farmer Oving knows of numerous Wu Ming and You Ming sources who equate

yangming with yangsheng, or, correcter, explain yangming with yangsheng.

> 5. Farmer Oving loves to explore the meaning of words and wonders about the

difference between ming4 and sheng1. In that respect he wonders what the degree

of Down-To-Earthness is of ming4 in comparison to that of sheng1, and if there

could be a reason for one author to use ming4 and the other to use sheng1.

> 6. Farmer Oving notes that a commentary in the Xinxiu bencao tries to explain

why the medicinals of the upper class are said to correspond to heaven.

> 7. Heiner Fruehauf has a name (and a title) so it is unclear why his written

utterance should be regarded as 'unofficial'- (apparently) as opposed to other

sources mentioned by mr. whom we have called Wu Ming.

> 8. Through the 'unofficial' email from mr. Fruehauf we know more about his

thought process than we know of the thought processes going on in the minds of

the Wu Ming and some of the other You Ming sources.

> 9. Farmer Oving notes that mr. in his mails about this subject has

repeatedly mentioned commentaries from numerous famous scholars through the ages

whose names mysteriously do not appear on his list of 11 he was so kind to share

with us today.

> 10. Farmer Oving further notes that mr. told us yesterday that he does

not have enough time to talk about the things he brings up in various emails,

nor to answer some of the questions raised. He kindly asks mr. to take

all the time in the world for answering such queries as nobody is a hurry as

long as we do our best to prolong our lifes and nothing will happen to prevend

us from attaining that goal.

> 11. (Ha!) Farmer Oving has a lot of farm (and other) work to do and will

continue to think about life while doing it.

>

> NHO

>

> , " "

wrote:

> >

> >

>

>

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Amen, Z'ev!

 

 

--- On Thu, 4/8/10, <zrosenbe wrote:

 

<zrosenbe

Re: Re: shen nong ben cao con't

 

Received: Thursday, April 8, 2010, 12:50 AM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Folks,

 

I've been watching this conversation for weeks without any actual free time

to contribute much, but I have just a few thoughts to share.

 

 

 

No matter what our level of scholarship, we are all basically creatures of

'point of view'. Some view things more physically, some more

poetically/artistic ally, some more metaphysically, and it colors how we

interpret Chinese medicine to be. As Volker Scheid notes about Sun Si-miao's

description of the 大醫 da yi/great physician, " only someone capable of

viewing a problem from a number of perspectives is able to grasp the processes

of transformation that animate the universe " . So a physician of Chinese

medicine must be learned enough, experienced enough to view each patient from

the appropriate perspective.

 

 

 

Heiner is right, there are a number of approaches one can take to the classical

Chinese medical literature, all one has to do is see how many currents/schools

grew out of just the Su Wen throughout Chinese medical history. The richness of

the Chinese medical would appear to be inexhaustible. We have varying skill

levels in translation, practice, experience, and mastery of theory, but I think

we also need some humility, especially those of us who do have some Chinese

language or translation skills (I put my own skills at a lower level. I am

basically an interpreter of what others have translated, although I have enough

Chinese skills to access original source texts).

 

 

 

Despite the combativeness over the issue of 命ming, I think that Lonny has a

right to express his view from where he stands, without being belittled for it.

I am also very supportive of those who have developed their Chinese language and

translation skills. It takes a lot of devotion and sacrifice to move to China

and study for an American like Thomas. It takes an extreme amount of effort to

do what Jason does, i.e. have a full clinical practice, teach, and continue to

study and translate Chinese medical texts. I admire these efforts, as I find it

so difficult to have time to continue my language and medical studies on top of

practice, teaching and family life. It can be exhausting in one's later 50's,

even with yoga, qing dan diet and other yang sheng practices.

 

 

 

But my greatest admiration goes for the farmer/scholars such as Herman and

Sabine Wilms. . . because they are living the medicine, 'on the land', as well

as delving deeply into the medical texts for us with little financial reward.

 

 

 

To sum up, hey guys, let's get together and stop the non-productive aspects of

debate, and walk this journey together. We're all trying hard to figure out

this immense, difficult medical tradition the best we can. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

________________

Get a sneak peak at messages with a handy reading pane with All new Mail:

http://ca.promos./newmail/overview2/

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

I agree wholeheartedly with much of what you have written. For me the point

is that we have to be able to hold a very big context that includes all levels

of expression from " destiny " through " life span " when reading the text in

question. We have, potentially, a huge perspective on history that the authors

of the classics did not have and there is a lot we have to transcend and embrace

to arrive at a living expression of the medicine that is relevant to address the

needs of humanity today.

What I have always objected to on this forum is the constant disrespect and

hostility displayed to anyone who doesn't read Chinese or interpret it in a

certain way or, to any tradition that differs from this one school of thought. I

agree that there is a lot we could all learn from each other for the sake of the

betterment of ourselves and the medicine and that this takes both humility,

respect, and interest.

I also know that evolution takes creative friction and that it's part of the

process to struggle when inquiring toward the discernment of what is real ad

true. But that struggle has to take place in an atmosphere of respect where each

parties potential contribution is valued and not marginalized a priori. It might

help to acknowledge that on the one hand we strive toward wanting to learn the

truth and, on the other hand, to know that to the degree that CM is ever " real "

it is alive and evolving and that we are chasing a moving target. The " real

medicine " emerges between us and is never any better than the quality and

integrity of our own discourse.

 

Regards, Lonny

[Guest guest]

Trevor: Stepping aside for a moment from academic scholarship and translation,

perhaps you could define for us, with your own thoughts, what you mean by

the, " spiritual context of medicine " , and why having a conversation about it is

the only way to " advance the medicine at this point in history. "

 

Lonny: That's a great question Trevor. This whole conversation began when I made

the distinction that the term " psychospiritual " is an oxymoron and that the

psychological and spiritual realms are two parallel streams of development that

never meet and have nothing to do with each other. I delineated the difference

between them and, interestingly, Bob Flaws applauded this ( " Excellent! " ). This

may well be the only thing we've ever agreed on so it appears to be significant.

 

If we consider that Chinese medicine is a holistic medicine of

body/mind/spirit then we need to make a few distinctions. In this case " mind "

refers to shen, small " s " , and Spirit to Shen, large " S " . Otherwise, the

designation is redundant. (there is certainly a bit to be looked into here).

 

From my perspective, the " spiritual practice of medicine " recognizes a hierarchy

in these relationships where Spirit is held to be Higher and to be primary. In

other words, everything isn't equal. We can see that the " blue meme "

consciousness/value system that created CM had a very deep hierarchical

understanding of medicine, creation, and humanities place in it. They put heaven

and destiny at the top of that hierarchy. So, for postmodern individuals who

have largely lost the capacity to recognize hierarchy, the restoration of this

capacity is essential for the emergence of understanding regarding what the

spiritual practice of medicine might be.

 

It is my consideration that the " spiritual practice of medicine " holds Spirit,

or what Bob referred to as " Buddha mind, " as the absolute standard of reference

against which all clinical data is compared. The expectation is that, over the

course of treatment the patient will evidence progression along all assessable

lines of development and that the most significant of these will always be the

evolution of their consciousness (Spirit) as evidenced in the increased

integrity of their choices/behavior. In other words, Spirit is recognized as

being primary and higher-it is recognized as the force that's optimally driving

the whole process.

 

Basically, we are looking for a sustained shift of identity from shen, small " s "

to Shen, large " S " . I see CM as a science of integrity and I expect patients to

move from a relatively divided state to an increasingly less divided state as

treatment progresses. Hence, at a certain stage of development, the " psycho " in

the oxymoron " psycho-spiritual " becomes irrelevant. This is what I would call

just " growing up " and becoming an evolutionarily mature adult. In integral

medicine, the state and stage of the integrity of the practitioner is always

absolutely implicated.

 

I couldn't put it better than Hur Jun:

 

" You must bring the heart on the right path, so that it can be filled and

sustained by a universal sense of truth. You must get it to a place where it can

safely abandon all doubting and worrying and obsessing in senselessly looping

patterns, where it can let go of any anxiety provoking imbalances, and where it

is willing to surrender all " me, me, me " and all " this is his/her fault! " Try

and awaken the heart to acknowledge and regret all the wrong that one has done,

to lay down all selfish attachments, and to transform one's small and

self-centered world for the glorious universe wherein we are all one, and

wherein there is nothing to do but praise its existence. "

 

As for why this is so important I will suggest that the choices made by human

beings have become the most significant force of natural selection on the planet

and that, generally, our moral/spiritual development lags very far behind our

technological and intellectual achievements. I can see little purpose to mere

physical improvement or, to helping the most educated and fortunate people who

have ever lived merely feel more comfortable, when our entire species is

threatened with extinction. To me, as an ultimate goal of medicine, these goals

just perpetuates materialism and narcissism.

 

 

My evidence is that CM is perhaps the most potent medical system on earth for

effecting shifts in consciousness and is therefore potentially a significant

vehicle for the changes that must occur if we are to survive. Given the nature

of the challenges we face, I can't think of anymore important contribution that

the medicine could make. What all this might mean practically is a big

discussion and the focus of the current book I'm writing.

 

All this said, the " spiritual practice of medicine " whatever it may be,

transcends the pluralistic " you have your truth, and I have my truth, and nobody

knows THE truth " . Instead, we go forward in an inquiry grounded in the shared

recognition that " Spirit is higher " and then, through respectful inquiry, find

out what that means together.

 

Warm regards, Lonny

[Guest guest]

Trevor: why having a conversation about it is the only way to " advance the

medicine at this point in history. "

 

Lonny: I realized I didn't answer this part of your question. We have to make

the distinction between lateral development and vertical development. Lateral

development means you know more and more technically and intellectually about

what you are doing but that the context in which you hold what you learn remains

static. Vertical development means that the vantage point of your perspective

evolves, becomes higher, and recontextualizes all that you already know. It

means your VALUES change. As I said, our technical and intellectual level of

development has far outpaced our ethical stage of development. There can only be

vertical movement when Spirit is recognized as being higher. CM is exploding

technically and intellectually but, arguably, the main body of " standard

professional Chinese medicine " hasn't moved an inch vertically in 100 years.

This has everything to do with the materialism in which TCM was formulated and

the pluralism that was prevalent in the West when it arrived here.

So, given our life conditions and the state of the medicine at the

present time it is my consideration that having a discussion of what it means to

" put Spirit first " is the most significant conversation we could have. In this

regard we can derive inspiration from the past, but have a very new context to

let in before such an inquiry could yield the most useful results. Regards,

Lonny

[Guest guest]

Well stated, Zev.

 

- Bill

 

 

 

, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Folks,

> I've been watching this conversation for weeks without any actual free time

to contribute much, but I have just a few thoughts to share.

>

> No matter what our level of scholarship, we are all basically creatures of

'point of view'. Some view things more physically, some more

poetically/artistically, some more metaphysically, and it colors how we

interpret Chinese medicine to be. As Volker Scheid notes about Sun Si-miao's

description of the 大醫 da yi/great physician, " only someone capable of

viewing a problem from a number of perspectives is able to grasp the processes

of transformation that animate the universe " . So a physician of Chinese

medicine must be learned enough, experienced enough to view each patient from

the appropriate perspective.

>

> Heiner is right, there are a number of approaches one can take to the

classical Chinese medical literature, all one has to do is see how many

currents/schools grew out of just the Su Wen throughout Chinese medical history.

The richness of the Chinese medical would appear to be inexhaustible. We have

varying skill levels in translation, practice, experience, and mastery of

theory, but I think we also need some humility, especially those of us who do

have some Chinese language or translation skills (I put my own skills at a lower

level. I am basically an interpreter of what others have translated, although I

have enough Chinese skills to access original source texts).

>

> Despite the combativeness over the issue of å`½ming, I think that Lonny has

a right to express his view from where he stands, without being belittled for

it. I am also very supportive of those who have developed their Chinese

language and translation skills. It takes a lot of devotion and sacrifice to

move to China and study for an American like Thomas. It takes an extreme amount

of effort to do what Jason does, i.e. have a full clinical practice, teach, and

continue to study and translate Chinese medical texts. I admire these efforts,

as I find it so difficult to have time to continue my language and medical

studies on top of practice, teaching and family life. It can be exhausting in

one's later 50's, even with yoga, qing dan diet and other yang sheng practices.

>

> But my greatest admiration goes for the farmer/scholars such as Herman and

Sabine Wilms. . . because they are living the medicine, 'on the land', as well

as delving deeply into the medical texts for us with little financial reward.

>

> To sum up, hey guys, let's get together and stop the non-productive aspects

of debate, and walk this journey together. We're all trying hard to figure out

this immense, difficult medical tradition the best we can. .

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Z’ev and group,

 

 

 

Thanks for your post, and the underserved complement. I think everyone can agree

that all should have a voice and we should respect each other's opinions. We

could all do this better, thanks for bringing this up.

 

 

 

First, to clarify if there was in confusion, there is no question that there is

a philosophical influence to Chinese medicine. Consequently, Daoist’s ideas of

immortality and various supernatural powers do appear in some Chinese medicine

texts. Actually, there is still one tribe left in the world who practices Daoist

internal alchemy and regularly consumes substances such a zhu sha. There is also

no question that there is some current of shamanism and a spiritual oriented

medicine that has existed since the beginning. I think these are facts and

something that I agree with.

 

 

 

However merely presenting one's opinion is much different than making statements

that essentially are trying to invalidate the bulk Chinese medicine (in favor of

one’s position). For example, instead of suggesting that it is useful to view

CM through a large Shen, this debate was started off by suggesting that anyone

who is NOT treating through Shen (as the reference point) can never aspire to

anything but *symptomatic results*. As well as, one *cannot understand* the

medicine without this Spirit/Shen perspective. As well as numerous comments

about the “communists†and “materialists†suppressing this or that. (All

from previous posts by Lonnie). Actually it was stated at one point that if one

uses acupuncture and herbs (or just modern TCM) then one is practicing an

inferior medicine and not obtaining “real healing.â€And somehow all of this

comes from reading texts from an “inner tradition†(whatever that means).

 

 

 

Although these are opinions, they are just unfounded and I find they are simply

insulting to the many doctors both past and present that practice Chinese

Medicine in the “normal†way, that is not putting this Shen as a focal

point.

 

 

 

Is there any surprise there has been such a backlash to this perspective?

 

 

 

Yet it should be noted that not only that such a Shen/ Spirit perspective is in

the minority (LJ: 3/1/10), but also there are many instances where shen is *not*

talking about a spiritual perspective (LJ: 3/4/10).†How can anyone disagree

with these rational statements? Actually this is all that Bob, myself, and

others have said from the beginning. That a large percentage of uses of shen

have nothing to do with big Spirit but are down to earth references such as

“psychological processes within a human being.â€

 

 

 

Actually one of our most famous doctors, Zhu Dan-Xi, (格致余論) gives us an

example of how he uses shen : He states,

“血氣者，身之神也，神既衰ä¹ï¼Œé‚ªå› è€Œå…¥ï¼Œç†æˆ–有之，若å¤\

«è¡€æ°£å…©è™§ï¼Œç—°å®¢ä¸­ç„¦ï¼Œå¦¨ç¤™å‡é™ä¸å¾—é‹ç”¨ï¼Œä»¥è‡´å二官å„失å\

…¶è·ï¼Œè¦–è½è¨€å‹•çš†æœ‰è™›å¦„，以邪治之，其人必死å哉†-- there

actually are no shortage of mainstream texts that use shen in a non-Spiritual

way.

 

 

 

This has nothing to do with reading the text on multiple levels, this is clearly

not Big Spirit. However, I have found it odd that much of this debate has been

centered around reading Chinese characters on multiple levels. It has also been

clearly stated that the “meaning of characters is context sensitive " and shen

is not always meant as being big Spirit (LJ: 3/4/10). I am just curious how one

is supposed to be able to differentiate these instances if one cannot read

Chinese?

 

 

 

Unfortunately, language is the way that we communicate. Chinese language is the

way that these past doctors are communicating to us. Nonetheless, I think we all

can agree that a good percentage of our texts, as Lonny acknowledges, are not

referring to the big Spirit when they use the word shen. And I ate knowledge

that this also that sometimes shen is used to refer to something bigger, e.g.

BIG Spirit. As noted, there many ways that this word is used... If we ended

things here I think we would all agree... however...

 

 

 

Even though these authors (e.g. ZDX) are not thinking “big Spirit†Lonny

states, “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.†Huuuh? NO! they are not and you actually

acknowledged this, and you can use Zhu Dan-Xi above as evidence. Many times it

is something basic like a psychological processe (LN: 3/4/10)!

 

 

 

Furthermore, when Eric gave his opinion on shen in relation to the tongue etc.

(which happened to counter Lonny’s argument), Lonny snapped back saying " your

opinion just isn't good enough " (LJ: 3/4/10). Does Lonny respect people’s

opinion who disagree with him?

 

 

 

Lonny further states, he does not see the value in considering that " every

perspective has something to offer " . and that “Evolution is a messy

business†(LJ: 3/5/10).

 

 

 

Here the problem comes out. He does not respect people that disagree with him.

He has a position, and an industry built around it, and hence has something to

prove, he stated, he is getting back to “creating the future of the

medicine.†Implying that he has the golden truth and others are just going to

be left behind… uuggg... I personally think the future of the medicine exists

and actually learning what doctors have done for centuries before us (and now in

China) and how to apply this theory to modern-day diseases, but that is just

me...

 

 

 

Lonny firmly believes that the majority view is just incorrect… Ok, that is

one opinion… but I find it a little disconcerting when he suggests that

everyone else is wrong. For example he quotes one single paragraph by Mr. Hur

Jun that is supposed to be a “complete, total, and utter reputation that

medicine is in any way separate from the enlightenment teachings. (LJ:

3/4/10)†This paragraph essentially is trying to invalidate everyone that

believes that Chinese medicine is not all about the big Spirit. Actually, many

people asked for further elaboration and examples from Hur Jun, but nothing has

been produced. Actually I have yet to see one example of what this actually

means in clinical practice. Nonetheless, a large percentage of very famous

doctors do not mention anything about enlightenment teachings, diagnosing the

tongue through embodied consciousness or its ability for the patient to transmit

this " One Light†(LN: 3/2/10) or even Big Spirit.

 

 

 

I know I have been a bit disrespectful at various points along this discussion,

and I apologize about that. I have tried to respect someone's choice and opinion

but such a one-sided hard-nosed perspective is in my opinion is not beneficial

for our profession. I feel that it does not respect others who disagree and

tries to claim superiority over a certain way of thinking. When one states you

cannot understand the medicine unless we adopt this point of view or one only

can get symptomatic relief unless one takes this point of view, this is

absurd... and consequently, I have heard many 5E practitioners repeat these same

phrases trying to market their niche style, putting down TCM. I wonder where

they learned this from?

 

 

 

Such a stance simply tries to invalidate the majority of the doctors, both

modern and classical, that do not agree with this Shen/Spirit perspective. This

has been my issue all along. I could care less if Lonnie or anyone else enjoys

such aspects and favors viewing material through this lens. It is not that Bob,

Eric, myself, and others are necessarily opposed to the large Spirit, it is the

insistence that this is the only way possible to get results or to “reallyâ€

view the medicine (or understand the medicine) that we object to, when clearly

many famous and VERY clinically effective doctors do not share such perspective.

 

 

 

Somehow, Lonnie, admitting that this Spirit/Shen / treating through the Heart

interpretation is a minority viewpoint (LJ: 3/1/10) in the same breath states

that all texts must be viewed through this lens (LJ: 3/4/10). makes little sense

to me. If throughout history such a perspective was the minority then why would

the people in the majority be writing about it?

 

 

 

So yes Z’ev, there are many currents, but there is no need to claim

superiority and try to invalidate the others. Lonny *should* express his

“opinionâ€! But when it steps on others, people will (and should) question

it. Personally, I have always valued looking at things through Spirit etc. and

have never suggested that one should not do this. However, there is a large

current in Chinese medicine that does not think this way and it should also be

respected, because it is quite powerful on its own and is essentially why all of

us are studying and practicing CM today.

 

 

 

Warm Regards,

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Wednesday, April 07, 2010 6:50 PM

 

Re: Re: shen nong ben cao con't

 

 

 

 

 

Folks,

I've been watching this conversation for weeks without any actual free time to

contribute much, but I have just a few thoughts to share.

 

No matter what our level of scholarship, we are all basically creatures of

'point of view'. Some view things more physically, some more

poetically/artistically, some more metaphysically, and it colors how we

interpret Chinese medicine to be. As Volker Scheid notes about Sun Si-miao's

description of the 大醫 da yi/great physician, " only someone capable of

viewing a problem from a number of perspectives is able to grasp the processes

of transformation that animate the universe " . So a physician of Chinese medicine

must be learned enough, experienced enough to view each patient from the

appropriate perspective.

 

Heiner is right, there are a number of approaches one can take to the classical

Chinese medical literature, all one has to do is see how many currents/schools

grew out of just the Su Wen throughout Chinese medical history. The richness of

the Chinese medical would appear to be inexhaustible. We have varying skill

levels in translation, practice, experience, and mastery of theory, but I think

we also need some humility, especially those of us who do have some Chinese

language or translation skills (I put my own skills at a lower level. I am

basically an interpreter of what others have translated, although I have enough

Chinese skills to access original source texts).

 

Despite the combativeness over the issue of 命ming, I think that Lonny has a

right to express his view from where he stands, without being belittled for it.

I am also very supportive of those who have developed their Chinese language and

translation skills. It takes a lot of devotion and sacrifice to move to China

and study for an American like Thomas. It takes an extreme amount of effort to

do what Jason does, i.e. have a full clinical practice, teach, and continue to

study and translate Chinese medical texts. I admire these efforts, as I find it

so difficult to have time to continue my language and medical studies on top of

practice, teaching and family life. It can be exhausting in one's later 50's,

even with yoga, qing dan diet and other yang sheng practices.

 

But my greatest admiration goes for the farmer/scholars such as Herman and

Sabine Wilms. . . because they are living the medicine, 'on the land', as well

as delving deeply into the medical texts for us with little financial reward.

 

To sum up, hey guys, let's get together and stop the non-productive aspects of

debate, and walk this journey together. We're all trying hard to figure out this

immense, difficult medical tradition the best we can. .

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Herman,

 

 

 

Thanks for the bizarre email. .I am well aware I did not provide the names

of 3 out of the 11 sources. I was merely documenting a wide range of sources

that have influenced me. Actually as far as I can see there is no shortage

of these sources equating ming with health and life cultivation (yang

sheng), as you have also noted.

 

 

 

For the record, I had quite extensive conversations with these 3 people

about this topic. I also have never claimed that these 3 people are

" official " in contrast to " unofficial " or any better or worse than let's say

Heiner. But at this point it seems silly to worry about presenting every

detail of my investigation because a) you and I already essentially agree,

b) Lonny could care less and will never change his mind anyway, c) there are

ample sources (besides what I have presented) that support the same line of

thinking, and d) the time spent is just not worth further clogging up an

Chinese herb discussion group.

 

 

 

Quite simply, this is not a thesis paper and if the point was very debatable

or there was an overwhelming evidence to the contrary, then I would

definitely make an extra effort to document every single step. Although this

simply is not the case in this situation. I quite simply just wanted to show

that varying sources agree. Do you disagree?

 

 

 

Consequently the point still stands, until someone comes up with some

sources that contradicts what I (and you) have found, I have no reason to

believe otherwise, I will ask for the 4th time to anyone listening, is there

some commentary (modern or classical) that states (yang) ming in the SNBCJ

has the meaning of destiny? Heiner is the most promising so far, however

without further information from him, his email is not that helpful, at

least to me. I really would like to see solid evidence that ming was not

differentiated in the Han dynasty (which seems to the crux of his and

Lonny's argument).

 

 

 

As far as " time " , Mr. Herman, it is true that I only have time to talk about

what I want to. Obviously by your post you feel a bit put off if I don't

respond to every single issue. Sorry for that. But this is far from, as you

say, not having time to talk about the " things I bring up. "

 

 

 

Generally speaking, if there is a good post with a compelling issue I will

respond. But many times you (or others) just present another point of view,

and it is just that. With no resolution or reason to argue, I may choose

just to focus my energies on more pertinent topics. I have no problem with

two logical arguments (even if they are contradictory) existing in the same

space. Sometimes people just disagree and that is that. As far as Bensky and

Chace's " shen " article. Your comment just was to that challenging to their

position, so I really see no need to defend them. If you disagree then

great, we have 2 points of view that exist.

 

 

 

Furthermore, you seem to keep bringing up this yi3, as if I don't want to

talk about it. However I have presented my point of view (many emails ago)

and, as I originally stated, I disagree with your stance, (and you with

mine). I am by no means ignoring the issue, because I already commented very

specifically on how I felt. Why keep beating a dead horse? However, if there

is something pressing, that I may have overlooked, please feel free to

e-mail me privately, but clogging up the CHA with every single item of this

debate seems a bit overboard at this point in time.

 

 

 

Furthermore, many times I may present a thought and it is meant only as

that, meaning do what you want with the information. For example, I

presented a handful of sources surrounding this issue. I'm not looking to

debate them nor looking for any type of acknowledgement. Quite simply they

are what they are, and as I said, some are better (more official as you say)

than others, but all hold some truth and meaning - you may not care about an

unnamed specialist in classical Chinese who also has a PhD in Chinese

medicine, but someone else might. I personally had one of the best

discussions with this person and he has been very influential in my thinking

on this issue. But what it does show is that many people from varying lines

of thinking, translators, clinicians, linguistics do have a similar opinion.

But it is just *false* to say that I have NEVER presented any verifiable

sources. To say such a thing, is just a disrespectful and incorrect since

from the very first messages I presented translations as well as English

sources discussing the issue. At this point, it should be clear to anyone,

that this specific point of view exists from multiple angles and it has

nothing to do with my personal belief or something I am making up. That is

my only point...

 

 

 

Honestly the amount of issues that I bring up and decide *not* to " comment

on " are much less than the average person who engages in conversation on

this forum(from watching this group for over 10 years now). I am just

copping to the reality of my time constraints when I say I might not respond

to something, but implying that I just won't comment on my own topics is a

distortion of reality. And the only reason I'm actually writing this out is

because I know you, Mr. Herman, take this sinology very seriously and don't

want you for a minute to think that I am blowing it off. In a nutshell, this

is how I approach this group. Sorry for any hard feelings.

 

 

 

On a side note, if you teach an medium to advanced classical Chinese

translation class I would love to consider taking it. I think I could learn

quite a bit and would be interested in hearing more about your classes.

Please contact me off-list if you like.

 

 

 

To answer one of your ongoing questions though: I do *not* think the

difference between (yang) sheng and (yang) ming is relevant for this text

(or actually most texts). We would have to see the author use both of these

terms in two separate instances and compare them. But I see no place that

yang sheng is used in the SNBCJ.

 

 

 

Commenting on the absence of something is getting into some very deep water

and would require some serious scholarship by someone who specializes in han

dynasty Chinese. There really are too many variables to come up with a valid

conclusion without a thesis of sorts. Therefore the fact that the SNBCJ did

not use 'yang sheng' means very little to me. But in general I think it is

an interesting question, but clearly the Chinese commentary that I presented

equates 'yang ming' to 'yang sheng' (at least in the SNBCJ). For the record,

I personally see no way to relate 'yang sheng' to destiny.

 

 

 

But the only reason I am commenting on this sheng vs. ming is because for

some reason farmer Oving is making a big deal about not addressing every

single issue of what he feels relevant. But this is an example of something

that makes little sense for me to comment on personally. And again, it has

nothing personal to do with farmer Oving. He thinks it is important, but I

do not. He may respond back with the reason why he feels it is important and

that is great. I take that and will file it in my brain, but the fact that I

don't respond further probably just means that our opinions differ and I'm

okay with that. If there is something presented that is mind blowing then I

may change my mind and I may comment on it. I hope people on this group,

including Herman, are okay with my approach.

 

 

 

I probably will sign off for a bit, because I've used quite a bit of time

recently with these posts. This is nothing personal but have to start

getting some work done...

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Nicolaas Herman

Wednesday, April 07, 2010 9:22 AM

 

Re: shen nong ben cao con't

 

 

 

 

 

Jason,

 

1. Herman loves the number 11

2. Herman doesn't give much about titles but happens to hold a degree in

sinology that is regarded a bit higher than what is commonly called a

'Masters'. He cannot use the PhD title as he didn't have the financial means

to accept an invitation of Paul Unschuld for doing a PhD in Berlin. Further,

he never heard of a Masters in classical Chinese before mr.

mentioned it but, as one of his students asked about it, has found out that

there is a university in Zuerich, Switzerland, that offers a program to

obtain it. His student would like to know where such a title can be obtained

in the US of A.

3. Herman, let's call him 'Farmer Oving' notes that several of mr. 's

sources do not have a name and hence proposes to call them Wu Ming (Without

Name) followed by a number (Wu Ming 1, 2, 3).

4. Farmer Oving knows of numerous Wu Ming and You Ming sources who equate

yangming with yangsheng, or, correcter, explain yangming with yangsheng.

5. Farmer Oving loves to explore the meaning of words and wonders about the

difference between ming4 and sheng1. In that respect he wonders what the

degree of Down-To-Earthness is of ming4 in comparison to that of sheng1, and

if there could be a reason for one author to use ming4 and the other to use

sheng1.

6. Farmer Oving notes that a commentary in the Xinxiu bencao tries to

explain why the medicinals of the upper class are said to correspond to

heaven.

7. Heiner Fruehauf has a name (and a title) so it is unclear why his written

utterance should be regarded as 'unofficial'- (apparently) as opposed to

other sources mentioned by mr. whom we have called Wu Ming.

8. Through the 'unofficial' email from mr. Fruehauf we know more about his

thought process than we know of the thought processes going on in the minds

of the Wu Ming and some of the other You Ming sources.

9. Farmer Oving notes that mr. in his mails about this subject has

repeatedly mentioned commentaries from numerous famous scholars through the

ages whose names mysteriously do not appear on his list of 11 he was so kind

to share with us today.

10. Farmer Oving further notes that mr. told us yesterday that he

does not have enough time to talk about the things he brings up in various

emails, nor to answer some of the questions raised. He kindly asks mr.

to take all the time in the world for answering such queries as

nobody is a hurry as long as we do our best to prolong our lifes and nothing

will happen to prevend us from attaining that goal.

11. (Ha!) Farmer Oving has a lot of farm (and other) work to do and will

continue to think about life while doing it.

 

NHO

 

 

 

 

_

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

b) Lonny could care less and will never change his mind anyway,

 

Lonny: Actually Jason, this is far from true. But once you ignore or trivialize

evidence as simple as the correspondence of ming to heaven, the designation of

" upper/highest " (shang), or the implications of cinnabar as the first herb

listed there simply isn't anywhere to go. And this in the context of your

already stated position that Shen/Spirit has no significant presence in the

medicine when it is clear to many very thoughtful and learned scholars that it

indeed does.

 

I appreciate that you've talked to three people extensively who agree with you.

It might be more fruitful to talk to several who disagree with you.

 

Warmly, Lonny Jarrett

[Guest guest]

The interpretation of text reminds me of biblical and torah study

where a word/line can be interpreted in multi-layered, multi-dimensional,

multi-angled ways,

such as Genesis 1:1 ... " In the beginning God created the heavens and the

earth " (NIV)

or " In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth " (King James

version)

or " When God began to create heaven and earth " (Jewish Publication

Society)

all of these say something slightly differently based on the translation and

interpretation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genesis_1:1

 

Who or what is " God " , in what order was creation ordered, was God the

architect, the designer and/or the carpenter, the observor and the

observed, is there more than one heaven? Is it " in beginning or in the

beginning " ? etc.

 

The mirror to this verse is John 1:1... In the beginning was the Word, and

the Word was with God and the Word was God

http://bible.cc/john/1-1.htm

 

So many ways to translate and interpret something that is difficult to

grasp...

Same thing for our bibles, the Nei jing, Nan jing, Shen nong ben cao jing

ie.. Ming (destiny, life etc.)

 

If it has taken thousands of years to debate over a line in the bible/torah,

this discussion about " ming " might go on for a long long time....

 

Of course, that's great and maybe the way it's supposed to be.

The answer is not half as interesting as the questioning process

K

 

 

--

 

 

""

 

 

www.tcmreview.com