Wen Re Lun interpretations

November 2, 2004

Jason,

I checked with Feng Ye (since I am not well-versed in Wen Bing but he

is) to investigate the use of these terms (which you confirmed as

being the correct source terms by referencing characters and English

via the CD dic):

tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 , outthrust wind to allow clearing of internal

heat, and

shen4 shi1 yu2 re4 xia4 , percolate dampness through the heat;

heat-releasing dampness percolation

He explained the meaning of terms in their context to me, which appear

in Ye Tian-Shi's Wai Gan Wen Re Lun very early on in the text. If we

are on the same page, he starts by discussing differences b/t Shang

Han theory and Wen Bing theory, and goes on to discuss ways to avoid

binding of warm heat with wind and dampness, referencing the use of

meds such as bo he and niu bang zi as well as lu gen and hua shi.

However, after reviewing both the original text as well as an

interpretation by one of Beijing's top Wen Bing scholars (zhao shao

qin, if my pinyin rendering is correct), he has concluded that there

is nothing inaccurate at all with Wiseman's translations in this

context. It appears that it is referencing dampness percolation to

allow the release of heat, as well as outthrusting of wind to allow

clearing of internal heat. This is done to prevent binding of the

evils and resulting complications. Feng Ye has concluded that the

translation by Nigel is accurate in this context, and has made two points:

1) Because it is classical Chinese, it is very difficult from the

perspective of grammar for even an educated Chinese person to

interpret. He says that such works in their classical form must first

be clearly understood, and then translated (thus the fact that

classical works are often rendered into modern Chinese first). He

says that earlier time periods would have presented multiple

interpretations of classical works without a consensus on the correct

meaning, whereas a modern work by a respected mainland publisher like

ren min wei sheng will present different interpretations, along with

the modern consensus opinion. So his first point was that errors in

understanding are most likely due to the difficulty in grammar.

2) He has made the point that it is not truly correct to argue that

the term itself is wrong. The term is clear, it is a simple

conjugation of multiple common terms with clear meanings. So the

interpretation and presentation, rather than the terms, is what has

the potential to be done incorrectly. I think you were not making the

point that the term was wrong or mistranslated, but rather that it was

wrong in this context. Feng Ye feels it is correct in this context.

So at this point, it seems appropriate to suggest the translation that

your team proposes and an explanation of why the above translation is

incorrect in this context.

Best,

Eric Brand

November 2, 2004

>

> smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

>

> tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 , outthrust wind to allow clearing of internal

> heat, and

[Jason]

Obviously things are debatable, and others (out there) disagree with Feng

Ye.

Disclaimer : With this below response I am not saying that Wiseman's

'life-work' is wrong, or lackin in effort in any way (and never have).

For people who do not know Chinese, I am sorry, I will try to make it clear

for everyone.

A) Wiseman's translation contains the word 'internal' yet there is no

character for internal (nei4) in the above. Wai4 = external. He does not

even mention 'external' in his translation.

B) To say one is clearing internal heat is reading into the paragraph. It

is more correct to keep it close to the Chinese (which Eric, you are always

talking about) and say that one should 'exteriorize heat.' (re4 wai4). Or

something along those lines. Because...

C) The paragraph previous is talking about an exterior condition and herbs

suggested are bo he and niu bang zi. It further says, " [When a pathogen

is] in the exterior one should first use acrid, cool, and light

prescriptions. " I ask you, what does this have to do with clearing internal

heat? Where is the character that represents 'internal'? Wiseman's term,

in this situation, seems to read into the situation.

Just because Feng Ye sides with this means little. One can debate

anything, CM has been debated for 1000+ years... It is common for Chinese

to Save face or protect there homies by siding with them. People all over

the world can be stubborn. But the fact remains that people think that the

above term is not the best fit for the wenrelun and the meaning is not true

to the text. But more importantly all this is moot because Wiseman has

already confirmed my statements and admits that there are holes in the PD,

and things are not going to fit all the time. That is all I am saying.

This is NOT a degrading statement, as it has been represented in past

emails!!! I am not putting him down in anyway!!!

Furthermore, If you agree with this example or not, does not change

the reality of what I and Wiseman have stated since the beginning. Your

constant badgering (for examples of the obvious) is IMO arguing for only the

sake of arguing, because either way nothing has changed.

** But more important is this: You may have a different view of what is

going on here in the Wenrelun. Hey that is fine... But, our view is just

not accurate if we use the Wiseman term. Therefore using a different term

translation gives us the meaning that 'we' understand to be true from this

text. CM is filled with multiple meanings and interpretations for the same

thing. Things are not black and white, people use terms differently, and

have different ideas on interpretation (in China and the West) etc. etc...

This requires one to be flexible in there approach, and that is all I am

arguing for, the opportunity to not use a term if I (or others) choose it

not to be appropriate or to misconstrue the meaning. I have presented the

perfect example.

>

> 2) He has made the point that it is not truly correct to argue that

> the term itself is wrong. The term is clear, it is a simple

> conjugation of multiple common terms with clear meanings. So the

> interpretation and presentation, rather than the terms, is what has

> the potential to be done incorrectly. I think you were not making the

> point that the term was wrong or mistranslated, but rather that it was

> wrong in this context.

[Jason]

I feel it is not 100% accurate in context and (possibly) wrong in

translation... I am actually puzzled where this 'internal' came from...? It

seems to really read into things... If one just translates the string on

terms as you say, the WT seems misses the wai4 (external) and insert

something to do with the interior. Am I missing something???

-

November 3, 2004

Let's have a look at this issue (tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 and shen4

shi1 yu2 re4 xia4). You are saying that Wiseman's term is not correct

because the English rendering inserts the fact that the heat that is

being out-thrusted to the outer body is internal heat. He is inserting

a word that is implied in the Chinese but not stated, inserted for

clarity. Wiseman has never endorsed a method of translation that is

anally literal, simply a method of translation that is accurate to the

Chinese concepts. Where is the heat residing, if not in the inner

body, to merit out-thrusting to the outer body by light, acrid, and

cool medicinals? Ye Tian-Shi is not referring to a process here that

causes evils in the exterior (biao) to exit the body (chu). He is

referring to a method of preventing binding of evils in the inner body.

You have chosen instead to translate this as exteriorize. Because

interior and inner body/internal/internally are close in English, and

outer body/externally and exterior are similarly close, it is easy for

translators to make the mistake of juxtaposing these two Chinese

terms. However, it is important for a sound translation method to

have a way of differentiating li and nei, as well as wai and biao.

These concepts are distinct terms in Chinese that are used in

different instances and have a different nuance. If you obscure their

distinction to the reader, the resulting text offers no way for the

reader to know which concept was being discussed in the source

literature. Accurate transmission of a classic like the wai gan wen

re lun is of great importance, but even in a modern text confusing li

and nei or biao and wai can lead to serious errors in meaning. I

learned this by making a similar mistake myself and watching Nigel

struggle to figure out how the distortion in meaning arose before we

pinpointed the incorrect substitution of nei and li in the English

translation.

If you agree that some readers, particularly those studying classical

material such as wen bing texts, would prefer to have a traceable

method of translation that preserves the original Chinese meaning for

the English reader, then how do you justify that exteriorize is a

better term to use to make the meaning more transparent and clear?

Here I am assuming that you agree that interior is a good translation

for li, and exterior is a good translation for biao. I am also

assuming that you understand that in Chinese wai and biao are distinct

terms, and li and nei are distinct terms (this concept appears to be

apparent based on the differences in their definitions and range of

use). Thus, if you translate wai as exteriorize, to the English

reader it seems you are saying that it is " biao-ized. " You have

argued that Nigel's term is not accurate because it inserts a word in

English that is implied but not explicitly stated; then you have

argued that your choice is more accurate despite the fact that it is

swapping one technical term for another term that has a different

nuance and meaning.

Obviously, if you edited the text closely you might realize the

inconsistency and make the simple correction to say that it outthrusts

externally instead of saying exteriorized. Maybe in an unpublished

term list, these terms are not differentiated or their translated

terms are juxtaposed, but using alternate terminologies that have no

publicly traceable source for your readers has the potential to cause

confusion rather than reduce confusion.

Because the English equivalents are obviously so close, we must be

mindful about the fact that the Chinese source words are more distinct

from each other than " exterior " and " externally " are. I suspect that

many translators don't differentiate these terms, just as they do not

differentiate things like enrich and boost (classifying all

supplementing methods by the single term of tonification). However,

while supplementing words are chosen by Chinese authors to present

variety in expression, differences in subtle nuance and to preserve

symmetry, words like wai and biao or nei and li truly have different

meanings (as do the different words linked together by spermatorrhea,

etc). I think that obscuring these differences in translation is a

disservice to the reader.

You argued that Nigel's term is not accurately chosen, but you have

still not explained why you think that Feng Ye's interpretation is not

correct based on the context. Maybe you don't need to elaborate your

explanation, because it is obvious at this point that people's

feelings about terminology are based more on opinions and politics

than anything else, but I would be personally interested as to your

conclusions on the paragraph being discussed. Maybe you would like to

offer a sample translation of this paragraph for us CHA readers? You

may consider the list readers to be too far below you academically to

justify the use of your time, but it seems like it would be an

enlightening example. If you would rather have Chinese characters

also, instead of just English, you could always put the Chinese up on

your website instead of the CHA.

As for whether Feng Ye is basing his interpretation on a way to save

Nigel's face in public, forget it. Feng Ye thinks that Nigel's term

is not wrong simply because it is an accurate translation of the

Chinese. Feng Ye thinks the potential for misinterpretation of these

two term clusters in this section of the wen re lun is a question of

classical grammar comprehension and understanding, not term accuracy.

Feng Ye would not vouch his own reputation on his interpretation of

meaning just to fudge something for Nigel's terms.

You say that: " But the fact remains that people think that the

> above term is not the best fit for the wenrelun and the meaning is

not true

> to the text. "

Then what is the meaning that is true to the text? If you think Feng

Ye's interpretation is wrong, kindly state why. You say the meaning is

miscontrued, but you have given no evidence (as usual). It is entirely

possible that both these terms that you are referencing were

translated by Nigel from the context of the wen re lun in the first place.

As for your request for a specific materia medica example to

demonstrate that materia medicas differentiate terms such as seminal

emission and seminal efflux, I can refer you to the zhong yao da ci

dian entry for huang bai, where it is indicated for the distinct

disease of seminal emission. " Drains kidney fire: Used to treat yin

vacuity fever with steaming bone night sweats, and seminal emission

due from kidney yin vacuity with exuberant kidney fire. For this

purpose, it can be combined with agents like rehmannia, anemarrhena,

and tortoise plastron, as in Great Yin Supplementation Pill (dà b & #468; y & #299;n

wán). "

Anyone is, of course, entitled to the opinion that seminal efflux and

seminal emission are not clinically distinct diseases that have no

bearing on materia medicas or CM theory. However, this opinion is, in

my mind, adequately refuted by mainstream TCM academic theory, which

is why these diseases, their subtypes, their variety of causes and

treatments, etc. are referenced in CM dictionaries. The differences

and their clinical relevance are clearly explained in the Wiseman PD.

Maybe we just need to recognize our differences in translation theory

and agree to disagree. We have certainly beaten this topic into the

ground by now.

Best,

Eric Brand

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

>

> >

> > smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> >

> > tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 , outthrust wind to allow clearing of internal

> > heat, and

>

> [Jason]

> Obviously things are debatable, and others (out there) disagree with

Feng

> Ye.

> Disclaimer : With this below response I am not saying that Wiseman's

> 'life-work' is wrong, or lackin in effort in any way (and never have).

>

> For people who do not know Chinese, I am sorry, I will try to make

it clear

> for everyone.

>

> A) Wiseman's translation contains the word 'internal' yet there is no

> character for internal (nei4) in the above. Wai4 = external. He

does not

> even mention 'external' in his translation.

> B) To say one is clearing internal heat is reading into the

paragraph. It

> is more correct to keep it close to the Chinese (which Eric, you are

always

> talking about) and say that one should 'exteriorize heat.' (re4

wai4). Or

> something along those lines. Because...

> C) The paragraph previous is talking about an exterior condition and

herbs

> suggested are bo he and niu bang zi. It further says, " [When a

pathogen

> is] in the exterior one should first use acrid, cool, and light

> prescriptions. " I ask you, what does this have to do with clearing

internal

> heat? Where is the character that represents 'internal'? Wiseman's

term,

> in this situation, seems to read into the situation.

>

> Just because Feng Ye sides with this means little. One can debate

> anything, CM has been debated for 1000+ years... It is common for

Chinese

> to Save face or protect there homies by siding with them. People

all over

> the world can be stubborn. But the fact remains that people think

that the

> above term is not the best fit for the wenrelun and the meaning is

not true

> to the text. But more importantly all this is moot because Wiseman has

> already confirmed my statements and admits that there are holes in

the PD,

> and things are not going to fit all the time. That is all I am saying.

> This is NOT a degrading statement, as it has been represented in past

> emails!!! I am not putting him down in anyway!!!

> Furthermore, If you agree with this example or not, does not change

> the reality of what I and Wiseman have stated since the beginning. Your

> constant badgering (for examples of the obvious) is IMO arguing for

only the

> sake of arguing, because either way nothing has changed.

>

> ** But more important is this: You may have a different view of what is

> going on here in the Wenrelun. Hey that is fine... But, our view is

just

> not accurate if we use the Wiseman term. Therefore using a different

term

> translation gives us the meaning that 'we' understand to be true

from this

> text. CM is filled with multiple meanings and interpretations for

the same

> thing. Things are not black and white, people use terms

differently, and

> have different ideas on interpretation (in China and the West) etc.

etc...

> This requires one to be flexible in there approach, and that is all I am

> arguing for, the opportunity to not use a term if I (or others)

choose it

> not to be appropriate or to misconstrue the meaning. I have

presented the

> perfect example.

>

> >

> > 2) He has made the point that it is not truly correct to argue that

> > the term itself is wrong. The term is clear, it is a simple

> > conjugation of multiple common terms with clear meanings. So the

> > interpretation and presentation, rather than the terms, is what has

> > the potential to be done incorrectly. I think you were not making the

> > point that the term was wrong or mistranslated, but rather that it was

> > wrong in this context.

> [Jason]

> I feel it is not 100% accurate in context and (possibly) wrong in

> translation... I am actually puzzled where this 'internal' came

from...? It

> seems to really read into things... If one just translates the string on

> terms as you say, the WT seems misses the wai4 (external) and insert

> something to do with the interior. Am I missing something???

>

> -

November 3, 2004

Eric,

My stance is the same. With the phrase at hand, the *previous* phrase in

the WRL, as I quoted, talks about the PATHOGEN being in the exterior (not

interior), it is said one adds bo he and niu banz zi for this. NEXT...

comes the term/ phrase in question. The context (WRL) says nothing about

'clearing internal heat' - Furthermore, the phrase has the character for

'external.' This does not even appear in his Wiseman's term translation.

Either way, Wiseman is confining the user (of the term) to an interpretation

that may or not be true, and is certainly not represented in the Chinese

characters. The Wiseman- phrase totally adds something that the Chinese

DOES NOT say. The WRL commentary, on the passage, also does not mention

anything about 'clearing internal heat.' The WT is not liked and that is

it.

Furthermore, it seems that one day you want everything to be as close to the

Chinese as possible, the next you are saying it is fine to insert more words

for clarity if needed (as Wiseman obviously did in his translation of the

above)... Very funny... If I am hearing things correctly, it is not alright

for Bensky to do this, because people want things to be as close as possible

to the Chinese, even if he by inserting extra words to make things

clearer....???(Note: Bensky has the original passage in front of him- i.e.

context) Yet it is ok for Wiseman to do this in a dictionary (without any

context to root the term)? Just a word/ phrase with no definition.

I think this proves my long standing point, that sometimes one must make

adaptations and add words from the Chinese to express the context of a

passage and give a clearer meaning, because Wiseman surely did this here,

and I would hate to hear you say it is alright for Wiseman to do it and not

anyone else...

So do we agree that one should have the freedom to insert words above and

beyond the Chinese to represent what one thinks presents more clarity from a

situation, correct? But in this case this inserting of words (and leaving

out of others) does not, IMO, represent the Chinese accurately...

Which way is it going to be?

-

November 3, 2004

Jason,

> A) Wiseman's translation contains the word 'internal' yet there is no

> character for internal (nei4) in the above.

You are harping on Nigel¡¯s translation of a term in an electronic term

database, it has nothing to do with the accuracy of the PD or the

integrity of his translation method. The fact that the term database has

the word ¡°internal¡± present in the phrase is to convey the accuracy of

the term. It is well established that da4 huang2 is not accurate if

rendered literally as great yellow (instead of rhubarb), or diarrhea if

rendered literally as discharge-drain. No one has ever advocated literal

translation except in classical works, the word internal is present in the

term you are contesting because it is indicating an important aspect of

the meaning of the phrase. If it appeared in a translation of a classical

text like the one we are discussing, it would not be inserted into the text

without denoting that it does not expressly appear in Chinese, the text

would use brackets to separate a term that is inferred, as in [internal]

heat. It is wrong to suggest that the wen bing text would be done

incorrectly by leaving out these brackets based on the fact that a

modern term database has the word internal inserted for clarity. For

that matter, the lack of brackets in the term database may well just a

typo, as it is very hard to proof a list of 30,000 terms to catch every typo

when the cd was just created and released in a beta version.

>>> Wai4 = external. He does not

> even mention 'external' in his translation.

As to his lack of inclusion of the word external, it is because the

phrase ¡®outer body,¡¯ a Wiseman term pegged to wai4, is more

appropriate in this context. Wai4 is translated differently at different

times to convey its meaning more accurately. The entire rational for

having pegged terms in the first place is to give readers the chance to

understand what terms the Chinese were using in the original text. Your

use of the word exterior for this denies the reader this opportunity,

as ¡°exterior¡± is pegged to a term that is not found in this phrase.

Granted, you may not feel the need to peg terms to the Chinese, in

which case the reader should make a big leap of faith before trusting

your interpretation, particularly since you don¡¯t have an adequate

background in Chinese to interpret classical works on your own.

> B) To say one is clearing internal heat is reading into the paragraph. It

> is more correct to keep it close to the Chinese (which Eric, you are

always

> talking about) and say that one should 'exteriorize heat.' (re4 wai4). Or

> something along those lines. Because...

> C) The paragraph previous is talking about an exterior condition and

herbs

> suggested are bo he and niu bang zi. It further says, " [When a

pathogen

> is] in the exterior one should first use acrid, cool, and light

> prescriptions. " I ask you, what does this have to do with clearing

internal

> heat?

In this paragraph, we are not using bo he and nui bang zi to eliminate

evils lodged in the exterior of the body, as you seem to be implying. We

are using them to prevent the binding of evils internally, that is why it is

referenced in conjunction with shen4 shi1 yu2 re4 xia4 (another term

that you have said is wrongly interpreted but have not given justification

for). Feng Ye has suggested that the reason you don¡¯t understand the

meaning is because you don¡¯t adequately understand the grammar and

expression style in classical Chinese. This is perfectly understandable,

since most Chinese native speakers are not capable of understanding

this paragraph accurately unless they have studied classical Chinese at

an advanced level. I don¡¯t personally have this skill, so I am

representing Feng Ye¡¯s opinion and the explanation that he gave me, I

can¡¯t judge the classical text myself to contest you personally.

You are making the claim that Feng Ye has the wrong interpretation, or

a contendable interpretation, despite that fact that Feng Ye¡¯s

interpretation is in synch with the interpretation of one of the most

famous Beijing scholars of wen bing in recent history. He believes that

you are misunderstanding the paragraph and thinks that your

misunderstanding is rooted in a poor knowledge of classical grammar

and expression style. Since you are not personally capable of

understanding the meaning of this paragraph based on your Chinese

knowledge (a fact that I know because I know your reading level), you

are obviously receiving guidance from others. You might consider giving

credit to your teachers who are tutoring you in this matter, because it

would enhance the quality of your argument, given that you are not

personally capable of understanding such an advanced work on your

own and if their conclusions are correct then they deserve some credit.

I presume that your tutors are adequately trained in classical Chinese as

well as Chinese medicine?

You continually imply that the academic skills of the CHA group members

are too low to justify the expenditure of your time to offer us your

translation of this paragraph. You have not offered us any insight into

why you think that shen4 shi1 yu2 re4 xia4 is a mistranslation, nor have

you taken the time to simply offer your translation and thus enlighten us

all on why your translation is more accurate.

The only point that you have made is that Wiseman¡¯s term database has

a pegged term that has an inferred meaning without [brackets].

Whether this is a typo or just something that is added for clarity based

on modern use, I am not sure, but you definitely would never see a

Paradigm classical work inserting inferred terms [without their

brackets].

As for Bensky, I have no problem with him adding his inferred or

interpreted words into a materia medica. It is a modern text and is not

presented as a translation, thus different rules apply. As I have said, I

trust his Chinese abilities and knowledge of CM enough to trust his

inferences. My only issue is the simplification of terms and concepts and

the lack of any traceable framework to reference the hundreds of

technical terms that are not featured in the glossary.

Sorry for the heavy artillery. I am just keen to see a little more

evidence and justification to support your points. I am upset that a

majority of the nation makes decisions based on opinions instead of

concrete evidence. I think we should be making our decisions based on

evidence, and that requires that you provide some info into why you

interpret this paragraph as you do. Chinese medicine has long honored

the fact that multiple interpretations of classical phrases exist. However,

they have reached a consensus on a number of points, and I am curious

as to why you deviate from the consensus view here. Perhaps you feel

that you understand the phrase better than your Chinese counterparts

do who spend their lives analysing such literature. You are entitled to

your opinion, of course, I simply ask that you justify why you have come

to the conclusion that the consensus opinion on this paragraph is

incorrect. We should represent multiple interpretations if multiple

interpretations can be made- but I think most people are interested in

first learning the opinion that is the consensus of Chinese scholars

before they branch into other ways of reading into the text.

As always, nothing personal.

Best,

Eric Brand

Let¡¯s have a look at this issue (tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 and shen4 shi1

yu2 re4 xia4). You are saying that Wiseman¡¯s term is not correct

because the English rendering inserts the fact that the heat that is being

out-thrusted to the outer body is internal heat. He is inserting a word

that is implied in the Chinese but not stated, inserted for clarity.

Wiseman has never endorsed a method of translation that is anally

literal, simply a method of translation that is accurate to the Chinese

concepts. Where is the heat residing, if not in the inner body, to merit

out-thrusting to the outer body by light, acrid, and cool medicinals? Ye

Tian-Shi is not referring to a process here that causes evils in the

exterior (biao) to exit the body (chu). He is referring to a method of

preventing binding of evils in the inner body.

You have chosen instead to translate this as exteriorize. Because

interior and inner body/internal/internally are close in English, and outer

body/externally and exterior are similarly close, it is easy for translators

to make the mistake of juxtaposing these two Chinese terms. However,

it is important for a sound translation method to have a way of

differentiating li and nei, as well as wai and biao. These concepts are

distinct terms in Chinese that are used in different instances and have a

different nuance. If you obscure their distinction to the reader, the

resulting text offers no way for the reader to know which concept was

being discussed in the source literature. Accurate transmission of a

classic like the wai gan wen re lun is of great importance, but even in a

modern text confusing li and nei or biao and wai can lead to serious

errors in meaning. I learned this by making a similar mistake myself

and watching Nigel struggle to figure out how the distortion in meaning

arose before we pinpointed the incorrect substitution of nei and li in the

English translation.

If you agree that some readers, particularly those studying classical

material such as wen bing texts, would prefer to have a traceable

method of translation that preserves the original Chinese meaning for

the English reader, then how do you justify that exteriorize is a better

term to use to make the meaning more transparent and clear? Here I

am assuming that you agree that interior is a good translation for li, and

exterior is a good translation for biao. I am also assuming that you

understand that in Chinese wai and biao are distinct terms, and li and

nei are distinct terms (this concept appears to be apparent based on the

differences in their definitions and range of use). Thus, if you translate

wai as exteriorize, to the English reader it seems you are saying that it

is ¡°biao-ized.¡± You have argued that Nigel¡¯s term is not accurate

because it inserts a word in English that is implied but not explicitly

stated; then you have argued that your choice is more accurate despite

the fact that it is swapping one technical term for another term that has

a different nuance and meaning.

Obviously, if you edited the text closely you might realize the

inconsistency and make the simple correction to say that it outthrusts

externally instead of saying exteriorized. Maybe in an unpublished term

list, these terms are not differentiated or their translated terms are

juxtaposed, but using alternate terminologies that have no publicly

traceable source for your readers has the potential to cause confusion

rather than reduce confusion.

Because the English equivalents are obviously so close, we must be

mindful about the fact that the Chinese source words are more distinct

from each other than ¡°exterior¡± and ¡°externally¡± are. I suspect that many

translators don¡¯t differentiate these terms, just as they do not

differentiate things like enrich and boost (classifying all supplementing

methods by the single term of tonification). However, while

supplementing words are chosen by Chinese authors to present variety

in expression, differences in subtle nuance and to preserve symmetry,

words like wai and biao or nei and li truly have different meanings (as

do the different words linked together by spermatorrhea, etc). I think

that obscuring these differences in translation is a disservice to the

reader.

You argued that Nigel¡¯s term is not accurately chosen, but you have still

not explained why you think that Feng Ye¡¯s interpretation is not correct

based on the context. Maybe you don¡¯t need to elaborate your

explanation, because it is obvious at this point that people¡¯s feelings

about terminology are based more on opinions and politics than anything

else, but I would be personally interested as to your conclusions on the

paragraph being discussed. Maybe you would like to offer a sample

translation of this paragraph for us CHA readers? You may consider the

list readers to be too far below you academically to justify the use of

your time, but it seems like it would be an enlightening example. If you

would rather have Chinese characters also, instead of just English, you

could always put the Chinese up on your website instead of the CHA.

As for whether Feng Ye is basing his interpretation on a way to save

Nigel¡¯s face in public, forget it. Feng Ye thinks that Nigel¡¯s term is not

wrong simply because it is an accurate translation of the Chinese. Feng

Ye thinks the potential for misinterpretation of these two term clusters in

this section of the wen re lun is a question of classical grammar

comprehension and understanding, not term accuracy. Feng Ye would

not vouch his own reputation on his interpretation of meaning just to

fudge something for Nigel¡¯s terms.

You say that: " But the fact remains that people think that the

> above term is not the best fit for the wenrelun and the meaning is not

true

> to the text. "

Then what is the meaning that is true to the text? If you think Feng Ye's

interpretation is wrong, kindly state why. You say the meaning is

miscontrued, but you have given no evidence (as usual). It is entirely

possible that both these terms that you are referencing were translated

by Nigel from the context of the wen re lun in the first place.

As for your request for a specific materia medica example to

demonstrate that materia medicas differentiate terms such as seminal

emission and seminal efflux, I can refer you to the zhong yao da ci dian

entry for huang bai, where it is indicated for the distinct disease of

seminal emission. ¡°Drains kidney fire: Used to treat yin vacuity fever

with steaming bone night sweats, and seminal emission due from kidney

yin vacuity with exuberant kidney fire. For this purpose, it can be

combined with agents like rehmannia, anemarrhena, and tortoise

plastron, as in Great Yin Supplementation Pill (d¨¤ b¨³ y¨©n w¨¢n).¡±

Anyone is, of course, entitled to the opinion that seminal efflux and

seminal emission are not clinically distinct diseases that have no bearing

on materia medicas or CM theory. However, this opinion is, in my mind,

adequately refuted by mainstream TCM academic theory, which is why

these diseases, their subtypes, their variety of causes and treatments,

etc. are referenced in CM dictionaries. The differences and their clinical

relevance are clearly explained in the Wiseman PD.

Maybe we just need to recognize our differences in translation theory

and agree to disagree. We have certainly beaten this topic into the

ground by now.

Best,

Eric Brand

, " "

<@c...> wrote:

>

> >

> > smilinglotus [smilinglotus]

> >

> > tou4 feng1 yu2 re4 wai4 , outthrust wind to allow clearing of internal

> > heat, and

>

> [Jason]

> Obviously things are debatable, and others (out there) disagree with

Feng

> Ye.

> Disclaimer : With this below response I am not saying that Wiseman's

> 'life-work' is wrong, or lackin in effort in any way (and never have).

>

> For people who do not know Chinese, I am sorry, I will try to make it

clear

> for everyone.

>

> A) Wiseman's translation contains the word 'internal' yet there is no

> character for internal (nei4) in the above. Wai4 = external. He does

not

> even mention 'external' in his translation.

> B) To say one is clearing internal heat is reading into the paragraph. It

> is more correct to keep it close to the Chinese (which Eric, you are

always

> talking about) and say that one should 'exteriorize heat.' (re4 wai4). Or

> something along those lines. Because...

> C) The paragraph previous is talking about an exterior condition and

herbs

> suggested are bo he and niu bang zi. It further says, " [When a

pathogen

> is] in the exterior one should first use acrid, cool, and light

> prescriptions. " I ask you, what does this have to do with clearing

internal

> heat? Where is the character that represents 'internal'? Wiseman's

term,

> in this situation, seems to read into the situation.

>

> Just because Feng Ye sides with this means little. One can

debate

> anything, CM has been debated for 1000+ years... It is common for

Chinese

> to Save face or protect there homies by siding with them. People all

over

> the world can be stubborn. But the fact remains that people think that

the

> above term is not the best fit for the wenrelun and the meaning is not

true

> to the text. But more importantly all this is moot because Wiseman

has

> already confirmed my statements and admits that there are holes in

the PD,

> and things are not going to fit all the time. That is all I am saying.

> This is NOT a degrading statement, as it has been represented in past

> emails!!! I am not putting him down in anyway!!!

> Furthermore, If you agree with this example or not, does not

change

> the reality of what I and Wiseman have stated since the beginning.

Your

> constant badgering (for examples of the obvious) is IMO arguing for

only the

> sake of arguing, because either way nothing has changed.

>

> ** But more important is this: You may have a different view of what

is

> going on here in the Wenrelun. Hey that is fine... But, our view is just

> not accurate if we use the Wiseman term. Therefore using a different

term

> translation gives us the meaning that 'we' understand to be true from

this

> text. CM is filled with multiple meanings and interpretations for the

same

> thing. Things are not black and white, people use terms differently,

and

> have different ideas on interpretation (in China and the West) etc.

etc...

> This requires one to be flexible in there approach, and that is all I am

> arguing for, the opportunity to not use a term if I (or others) choose it

> not to be appropriate or to misconstrue the meaning. I have

presented the

> perfect example.

>

> >

> > 2) He has made the point that it is not truly correct to argue that

> > the term itself is wrong. The term is clear, it is a simple

> > conjugation of multiple common terms with clear meanings. So the

> > interpretation and presentation, rather than the terms, is what has

> > the potential to be done incorrectly. I think you were not making the

> > point that the term was wrong or mistranslated, but rather that it

was

> > wrong in this context.

> [Jason]

> I feel it is not 100% accurate in context and (possibly) wrong in

> translation... I am actually puzzled where this 'internal' came from...?

It