Belief in the Yellow Emperor (after: Response to Geoffrey)

September 28, 2004

1) Anyone taking this one on might find interesting Unschuld's extensive

discussion of the HuangDi term in the recent SuWen book (1), Chapter II

" The Meaning of the Title Huang Di nei jing su wen. " (2)

A quotation therefrom which, to my mind, sums it up: " Huang Di is the most

prominent of the deities of shamanic cults transformed by the Zhou elite

'into historical exemplars for their own claims to wisdom and authority'. " (3)

Harper (4) characterizes the Yellow Thearch, who appears as a questioner in

MWD texts, as " a reflection of his role as a student of esoteric knowledge

in third to first century B.C. literature. " (4) He also discusses theories

of a " Yellow Thearch school " (5) in discussing whether or not bodies of

texts, including the primitive vessel theory mss in MWD, can be equated

with the concept of the early " schools " of thought in the emergence of Han

medicine.

2) As indicated by the quotation I chose above, I believe HuangDi is a

symbolic figure. In line with Matt Bauer's note of crisis in CM/TCM

education, I will mention (again in this forum) that I find embarrassing

and a liability to our profession the oft cited mythic belief that CM is

4000, 5000, 8000, 800,000 etc. years old. Reading Harper and Unschuld, and

noting the scores of other sources, east and west, that they cite, it's

reasonably well established that what we know as CM, was shaped in its

philosophical foundations in the late Warring States-early Han, and its

full theoretical form, as well as the modality of acupuncture, came into

existence only in the Han era. I.e. that CM, as a medicine in the modern

sense, is at the most, ca. 2300 yo, and acupuncture no more than 2100 yo.

And, it must be added, this in no way lessens its grandeur or enduring

relevance.

3) An interesting interpretation of the varying nature of HuangDi's role

and degree of knowledge across the SuWen (sometimes ignorant student,

sometimes sage master) is offered by Jeffery Yuen in his exegesis (6). His

theory is that the book shows a process of cultivation (7), that the

HuangDi exemplifies the progression of knowledge based on study reflected

in the " received " form of the text (8). E.g. it's in the final chapters

that the HuangDi, having achieved the cultivation represented by the whole

of the whole SuWen, achieves the role of master.

References:

1) Unschuld Paul U. Huang Di nei jing su wen - Nature, Knowledge, Imagery

in an Ancient Chinese Medical Text. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley, 2003.

2) ibid pp 8-14

3) ibid p 13, last paragraph. The imbedded quotation is from Mark Lewis, in

a book from 1990.

4) Harper Donald J. Early Chinese Medical Literature. Kegan Paul

International, London, 1998, p 29

5) ibid, pp 60-65

6) Given in a series of weekend lectures a couple of years ago, recorded on

video and audio in the library of the American University of Complementary

Medicine (LA), and used as the basis of a course on the SuWen.

7) A passage in the Conclusion to " The Eight Extraordinary Meridians " , by

C. Larre & E. Rochat d.l.V. expresses a tendency I find often in Jeffery

Yuen's interpretations. They she) write(s), in the context of acknowledging

other schools and theories of thought, " The eight extraordinary meridians

are important in Daoist meditation and visualization as they represent the

way by which the Chinese could retrieve, imagine and figure out the first

organization of life and the dynamism of the PROCESS [emphasis added] of

this organization from the first beginning and unity to the completely

achieved and well connected body that we now have. " Sure enough, looking

at the taped lecture by Jeffery on the 8-Extra (ConferenceRecording.com

Tapes CA99-009) that's what he does. Another example is the interpretation

of the sequence of the sinew channels, that I have cited recently here,

depicted as a progression in the archetypical stages of human

musculo-skeletal movement.

8) The " received " text of the SuWen, ca. 1055, essentially uses the

ordering according to Wang Bing (8th C), who expressed Daoist influences,

and claimed to have restored the SuWen to an original, meaningful

progression of its parts.

September 28, 2004

Thank you Chris for your excellent replies to my post. You bring up some

arguments that get right to the heart of the questions I seek to raise. You

mention for example, that Unschuld states that The Yellow Emperor was

" transformed by the Zhou elite

'into historical exemplars for their own claims to wisdom and authority'. My

question to Unschuld any anyone else who shares this view is " Why? " Why did the

Zhou elite chose to use a supposedly 3,000 year dead ancient leader as the

spokesman for their radically new medical system based on a radically new

worldview? I asked this of Unschuld at his last Pacific Symposium workshop and

he shrugged his shoulders and replied that " No one knows. " So I ask you or

anyone else to explain such a strange exercise. You stated you believe the

Yellow Emperor is a symbolic figure and that you are embarrassed by those in our

profession who support the " oft cited mythic belief that CM is

4000, 5000, 8000, 800,000 etc. years old. " You stated those who believe this are

a " liability " to the profession. Your opinion gets right to the heart of my

concerns. The vast majority of the greatest minds in China for at least the last

2,000 years also believed that " myth " . Are we to be embarrassed by these

thinkers also? I am not trying to ridicule you Chris - I am simply pointing out

that we have a huge problem in our understanding of the roots of our medical

system.

The fact is that this issue is far greater than a question about medicine. It

involves the very nature of Chinese culture. For more than 2,000 years, Chinese

scholars and commoners alike have believed Chinese culture to be 5,000 years

old. Today, there is a sharp split among archeologists over this question as

some stress there is no physical evidence to support the 5,000 year old claim

while other archeologists interpret finds as supporting this notion and the

Chinese government is today deeply invested in proving the " myth " true.

I disagree with anyone who thinks we have the story of the roots of CM pretty

well worked out. Until we can answer the question of whether or not there was

some sort of golden age thousands of years before the Han era that spawned the

essential roots of Chinese culture as a whole, I think it premature to slam the

door on the question of the roots of Chinese medicine.

As I see it, there are only three possible choices to the question of why the

Yellow Emperor was used as a spokesman for this medical system : Either (1)

virtually all Chinese of the Han era and most Chinese since have made the

granddaddy of all errors by believing in a childish myth that had no basis in

fact, or (2) those shifty Zhou elite pulled of the granddaddy of all con jobs in

that they knew the Yellow Emperor never existed but decided to lie about it, or

(3) there actually is something to all these stories nearly one fourth of the

world's population have believed for these past 2,000 plus years.

I would remind everyone that history has shown that some tall historic tales

believed to be myth by knowledgeable scholars have later been proven to have

some actual basis in fact. The saying that " A lack of proof is not proof of a

lack. " might just apply here. To my mind, the prospect that there was no golden

era in Chinese culture raises just as many difficult to answer questions as does

the idea that such an age existed. Until supporters of the myth hypothesis can

offer credible answers to these questions, I think we should hold our water and

not get ahead of ourselves. - Matt Bauer

-

Chinese Medicine

Tuesday, September 28, 2004 12:44 AM