Terminology and Etymology-specifically verbs

[Guest guest]

, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Steve,

> I will have to disagree with you on one major premise, although I

> understand the point you are making. Twenty years of teaching courses

> on Chinese medicine to a few thousand students is enough for me to

> claim on experience that the vast majority have misunderstood xie when

> translated as sedate, and that it has affected their very conception

> of how acupuncture works.

 

Without a doubt, there are many instances of terms that are difficult to

completely capture in translation. As a translator, it is much easier to

produce usable information if one uses a consistent and relatively comprehensive

system. Most of the stuff that we deal with is fairly straightforward,

particularly in modern literature. We don't need to reinvent the wheel with

every sentence. We just need to have familiarity with the technical vocabulary

in Chinese, and we need to use a system in English that preserves this technical

vocabulary with a parallel standard of specificity and consistency. Some terms

in Chinese are vague and should not be made to appear more specific in English,

other terms are quite specific in Chinese and shouldn't be obscured by vague

English.

 

Obviously, experience allows one to understand the core concepts of Chinese

medicine, regardless of what words are used. However, the wrong words can also

damage the accurate transmission of a Chinese medical concept. For example, I

have met many practitioners with decades of experience who still do not realize

that the translation of jin as " tendon " is completely erroneous. We have

endless books that use the word tendon, and endless experienced practitioners

that think they understand the concept but really have no clue about how muscles

and tendons are differentiated in Chinese medicine. This is not an " action

verb, " it is a basic noun that describes something straight out of core TCM 101

theory. It has great clinical relevance in terms of its diagnostic and

therapeutic implications, yet after decades of Western use of TCM, I would still

say that a majority of practitioners misunderstand the concept because the wrong

term is widely used in the literature.

 

The tissue types in Chinese medicine that are expressed as " jin " and " rou " are

different in scope than the Western concepts of muscles and tendons. Jin

encompasses a variety of ropy, contractile tissues that are responsible for

movement, strength, and flexibility. Ropy tissue that can be " plucked " in tui

na is jin tissue. Much of the jin tissue on the body would be classified as a

muscle belly in biomedicine, such as the upper traps or the SCM muscle. In

biomedicine, a tendon is a tissue type that connects muscle to bone. In TCM,

sinew (jin) tissue includes tendons, ligaments, and muscles.

 

In this particular example, we actually have a good word for this in English.

Sinew is very close in meaning to the Chinese concept of jin. Tendon is nowhere

near the concept. Yet we still have hundreds of teachers across the country

that tell new students that the liver governs the tendons. It is a gross

academic and clinical error, yet I'm sure that many people on the CHA list have

never thought twice about it, they just accept the liver-tendon link as a basic

statement of fact in TCM. I could care less whether someone prefers to say

deficiency vs vacuity as long as they understand the concept, but when people

have the concepts all wrong, we have a real problem that affects our patients.

 

Incidentally, I agree with Z'ev that sedation is a gross mistranslation of the

Chinese concept of xie. I once saw an entire room full of elite Chinese doctors

at a terminology conference in Beijing laugh out loud when they heard that

people translate xie as sedate.

 

Eric Brand

website: legendaryherbs.com

blog: http://bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/index.php

[Guest guest]

Eric, Z'ev and others,

 

I started this mess and I must clarify again what I have already said three

times:  I NEVER once contended that xie means sedate!  I don't know why Z'ev

(and now you)  keeps bringing that argument up because it is a non-starter. 

Rather, I started this conversation describing my observation clinically,  that

often patients of mine who present with exuberant livers in a state of

repletion, manifesting with wiry, strong pulses, intercostal tenderness, loud

voices and other signs or repletion, are, after treatment, calm, relaxed and out

of pain.  I described this observation as sedation (NOT XIE!) and brought

support to my choice of words the etymological root of the word sedate.   

 

PLEASE, don't look for an argument or find fault for something that I never

said, never implied and certainly don't agree to--that Xie means sedate.   The

only question that I did posit was to consider whether perhaps the term drain,

based upon ITS etymological root, is the most acurate choice as a translation

for Xie.  I don't want to beat a dead horse, so please refer back to my previous

posts if you need clarification.

 

Thank you for the information on the correct translation of Jin as sinew.  I

appreciate that clarification.  As you say, though, that is a clear

mistranslation.  But I still contend tthat the great majority of confusion as to

connotation occurs with verbs, to the best of my impression.

 

Respectfully,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

--- On Fri, 5/8/09, Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote:

 

 

Eric Brand <smilinglotus

Re: Terminology and Etymology-specifically verbs

 

Friday, May 8, 2009, 12:59 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

, <zrosenbe@.. .>

wrote:

>

> Steve,

> I will have to disagree with you on one major premise, although I

> understand the point you are making. Twenty years of teaching courses

> on Chinese medicine to a few thousand students is enough for me to

> claim on experience that the vast majority have misunderstood xie when

> translated as sedate, and that it has affected their very conception

> of how acupuncture works.

 

Without a doubt, there are many instances of terms that are difficult to

completely capture in translation. As a translator, it is much easier to produce

usable information if one uses a consistent and relatively comprehensive system.

Most of the stuff that we deal with is fairly straightforward, particularly in

modern literature. We don't need to reinvent the wheel with every sentence. We

just need to have familiarity with the technical vocabulary in Chinese, and we

need to use a system in English that preserves this technical vocabulary with a

parallel standard of specificity and consistency. Some terms in Chinese are

vague and should not be made to appear more specific in English, other terms are

quite specific in Chinese and shouldn't be obscured by vague English.

 

Obviously, experience allows one to understand the core concepts of Chinese

medicine, regardless of what words are used. However, the wrong words can also

damage the accurate transmission of a Chinese medical concept. For example, I

have met many practitioners with decades of experience who still do not realize

that the translation of jin as " tendon " is completely erroneous. We have endless

books that use the word tendon, and endless experienced practitioners that think

they understand the concept but really have no clue about how muscles and

tendons are differentiated in Chinese medicine. This is not an " action verb, " it

is a basic noun that describes something straight out of core TCM 101 theory. It

has great clinical relevance in terms of its diagnostic and therapeutic

implications, yet after decades of Western use of TCM, I would still say that a

majority of practitioners misunderstand the concept because the wrong term is

widely used in the

literature.

 

The tissue types in Chinese medicine that are expressed as " jin " and " rou " are

different in scope than the Western concepts of muscles and tendons. Jin

encompasses a variety of ropy, contractile tissues that are responsible for

movement, strength, and flexibility. Ropy tissue that can be " plucked " in tui na

is jin tissue. Much of the jin tissue on the body would be classified as a

muscle belly in biomedicine, such as the upper traps or the SCM muscle. In

biomedicine, a tendon is a tissue type that connects muscle to bone. In TCM,

sinew (jin) tissue includes tendons, ligaments, and muscles.

 

In this particular example, we actually have a good word for this in English.

Sinew is very close in meaning to the Chinese concept of jin. Tendon is nowhere

near the concept. Yet we still have hundreds of teachers across the country that

tell new students that the liver governs the tendons. It is a gross academic and

clinical error, yet I'm sure that many people on the CHA list have never thought

twice about it, they just accept the liver-tendon link as a basic statement of

fact in TCM. I could care less whether someone prefers to say deficiency vs

vacuity as long as they understand the concept, but when people have the

concepts all wrong, we have a real problem that affects our patients.

 

Incidentally, I agree with Z'ev that sedation is a gross mistranslation of the

Chinese concept of xie. I once saw an entire room full of elite Chinese doctors

at a terminology conference in Beijing laugh out loud when they heard that

people translate xie as sedate.

 

Eric Brand

website: legendaryherbs. com

blog: http://bluepoppy. com/blog/ blogs/index. php

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric and group,

 

 

 

This brings up an interesting subject that might be fun to explore¡Ä.

 

 

 

I think there are differing opinions as far as jin ¡Ê¶Ú¡Ëgoes. I well

understand Wiseman¡Çs argument from the PD that Eric clearly presented in

his previous email, however, I have though heard Chinese doctors say

otherwise. For example, muscles and muscle strength is rou (flesh), and jin

is actually the tendons and ligaments.

 

 

 

Now the Chinese could be suffering from some errors also, except for them,

translation cannot be blamed. Maybe the problem comes from the Chinese

dictionaries. For example, if one consults a Chinese Nei Jing dictionary or

a Chinese modern CM dictionary (at least the one I have here) the first

definition in both is quite simply: ¡Ètendon or ligament.¡É Actually

in none

of my (limited amount of) dictionaries, did I find any explanation that

resembles Wiseman¡Çs stance. I really have no opinion who is right or

wrong,

I just think it is a curious topic, and consequently, I could see how some

Chinese might also believe that jin is equal to tendon / ligament.

 

 

 

Wiseman makes the statement that ¡Èit is unlikely that the Chinese thought

of it (jin) exclusively as the tough white substance attached to the

bone.¡É

I do see his point, but I also see another side.

 

 

 

Let¡Çs go back to the NeiJing. For example, the Chinese at that time did

have enough dissection ability to notice different tissue, e.g. visually

seeing white tendon / ligament versus muscle. In my mind it is not

unreasonable that they differentiated these (e.g. muscle vs.

tendon/ligament). Consequently because these were classified into the 5

phases, they may have just attributed diseases to the ¡Æjin¡Ç that

make

little sense to us (now). Actually there are quite a few diseases in (such

as jin li - Sinew Scrofula) that use the word ¡Æjin¡Ç that have

little to do

with muscles, tendons, or ligaments, and really just have to do with the

relation to the Liver and 5 phases.

 

 

 

Even Painful obstruction of the Sinews (jin bi) from the suwen has joint

pain as well as hypertonicity of the ¡Æjin¡Ç as a primary symptoms.

If we

consider arthritis, pain in the joints, I could see how the Chinese saw this

as exclusively coming from the area around the joint which is surrounded by

tendons and ligaments, and hence the hypertonicity of the jin, is quite

simply just referring to this area.

 

 

 

Of course the NeiJing was written by many people and there may be other

instances that support Wiseman¡Çs contention, however there still is

strong

evidence that many Chinese do believe that ¡Æjin¡Ç is quite simply

tendons

and ligaments. Most hard to refute is the obvious dictionary entries. Of

course with all words in people sue them in different ways,

and one cannot be dogmatic and say that it is just this or that. Really all

this comes down to Dx and Tx, and a lot of the 5 phase disease from earlier

CM have been updated a bit and the point is a bit moot.

 

 

 

To be clear, I am NOT suggesting that tendon is a better translation than

¡Æsinew.¡Ç Honestly I have no real opinion at this point. I am just

pointing

out what these Chinese sources say, and maybe there is a misconception even

within the Chinese community. It seems as with most things in CM, especially

terminology, there is no definitive answer. There are people who believe

both sides of the issue. Honestly one side might be totally wrong, but more

likely is that people use the term differently, hence one must be flexible

in their understanding. Consequently, it is not unreasonable (to me) to use

¡Ætendon¡Ç for a translation in a specific instance and

¡Æsinew¡Ç in another

(of course with a footnote). But that is just me. I am still contemplating

this one¡Ä

 

 

 

Further thoughts?

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Friday, May 08, 2009 1:59 PM

 

Re: Terminology and Etymology-specifically verbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<%40> , <zrosenbe

> wrote:

>

> Steve,

> I will have to disagree with you on one major premise, although I

> understand the point you are making. Twenty years of teaching courses

> on Chinese medicine to a few thousand students is enough for me to

> claim on experience that the vast majority have misunderstood xie when

> translated as sedate, and that it has affected their very conception

> of how acupuncture works.

 

Without a doubt, there are many instances of terms that are difficult to

completely capture in translation. As a translator, it is much easier to

produce usable information if one uses a consistent and relatively

comprehensive system. Most of the stuff that we deal with is fairly

straightforward, particularly in modern literature. We don't need to

reinvent the wheel with every sentence. We just need to have familiarity

with the technical vocabulary in Chinese, and we need to use a system in

English that preserves this technical vocabulary with a parallel standard of

specificity and consistency. Some terms in Chinese are vague and should not

be made to appear more specific in English, other terms are quite specific

in Chinese and shouldn't be obscured by vague English.

 

Obviously, experience allows one to understand the core concepts of Chinese

medicine, regardless of what words are used. However, the wrong words can

also damage the accurate transmission of a Chinese medical concept. For

example, I have met many practitioners with decades of experience who still

do not realize that the translation of jin as " tendon " is completely

erroneous. We have endless books that use the word tendon, and endless

experienced practitioners that think they understand the concept but really

have no clue about how muscles and tendons are differentiated in Chinese

medicine. This is not an " action verb, " it is a basic noun that describes

something straight out of core TCM 101 theory. It has great clinical

relevance in terms of its diagnostic and therapeutic implications, yet after

decades of Western use of TCM, I would still say that a majority of

practitioners misunderstand the concept because the wrong term is widely

used in the literature.

 

The tissue types in Chinese medicine that are expressed as " jin " and " rou "

are different in scope than the Western concepts of muscles and tendons. Jin

encompasses a variety of ropy, contractile tissues that are responsible for

movement, strength, and flexibility. Ropy tissue that can be " plucked " in

tui na is jin tissue. Much of the jin tissue on the body would be classified

as a muscle belly in biomedicine, such as the upper traps or the SCM muscle.

In biomedicine, a tendon is a tissue type that connects muscle to bone. In

TCM, sinew (jin) tissue includes tendons, ligaments, and muscles.

 

In this particular example, we actually have a good word for this in

English. Sinew is very close in meaning to the Chinese concept of jin.

Tendon is nowhere near the concept. Yet we still have hundreds of teachers

across the country that tell new students that the liver governs the

tendons. It is a gross academic and clinical error, yet I'm sure that many

people on the CHA list have never thought twice about it, they just accept

the liver-tendon link as a basic statement of fact in TCM. I could care less

whether someone prefers to say deficiency vs vacuity as long as they

understand the concept, but when people have the concepts all wrong, we have

a real problem that affects our patients.

 

Incidentally, I agree with Z'ev that sedation is a gross mistranslation of

the Chinese concept of xie. I once saw an entire room full of elite Chinese

doctors at a terminology conference in Beijing laugh out loud when they

heard that people translate xie as sedate.

 

Eric Brand

website: legendaryherbs.com

blog: http://bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/index.php

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason

one of my teachers in china, the head of massage department and an

author on classical musculoskeletal disorders, claimed that Jin is any

tissue that is white and therefor included cartilage. I would have to

agree that is seems there are many opinions within chinese med.

 

 

 

400 29th St. Suite 419

Oakland Ca 94609

 

 

 

alonmarcus

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Eric, I agree with your full premise. You further make my case about the social

construction of medicine with this story:

 

" Incidentally, I agree with Z'ev that sedation is a gross mistranslation of the

Chinese concept of xie. I once saw an entire room full of elite Chinese doctors

at a terminology conference in Beijing laugh out loud when they heard that

people translate xie as sedate. "

 

Warmly,

 

Will

 

Web pages:

http://www.aoma.edu/

http://pulsediagnosis.com/

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

>

> Eric and group,

> I think there are differing opinions as far as jin ¡Ê¶Ú¡Ëgoes. I well

> understand Wiseman¡Çs argument from the PD that Eric clearly presented in

> his previous email, however, I have though heard Chinese doctors say

> otherwise. For example, muscles and muscle strength is rou (flesh), and jin

> is actually the tendons and ligaments.

 

Some very good points in this email, thanks for contributing.

 

To be clear, this issue of sinews vs tendons that I'm discussing isn't primarily

based on Nigel Wiseman's work, though Nigel and I are in agreement about the

meaning of the concept of " jin " in Chinese medicine, and I agree with his choice

of the word sinew in translation.

 

Nigel and his Practical Dictionary are not the only sources that I am basing

this perspective on, I've discussed it with terminology experts, tui na doctors,

and normal TCM doctors in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the US, it seems to be a

pretty widespread consensus. I first became aware of this issue years before I

met Nigel, before I even graduated from school. The herbalist that I apprenticed

with explained it to me when he was teaching me tui na moves, and I've continued

to investigate this specific term in dozens of conversations with real experts

in Asia over the course of many years.

 

Descriptions in Chinese TCM dictionaries often state that " jin " encompasses

connective tissue, ligaments, and tendons. In practical use, most of the ropy,

bandy tissue in the body falls under the category of jin. For example, take the

gracilis muscle on the inside of the leg. It basically defines the liver

channel, and even the Latin name gracilis reflects its grisly texture (gristle

is also referred to as " jin " when talking about meat). The gracilis muscle

would qualify as jin tissue to a tui na doctor, but it is classified as a muscle

in Western medicine.

 

By contrast, large muscles like the quadriceps, buttocks, etc. fall under the

category of " rou, " or " flesh. " Without a doubt, this fleshy muscle is

responsible for much of the body's strength and power, I'm not suggesting that

the sinew tissue is the prime source of strength. But sinew tissue in TCM is

associated with agility, strength, flexibility, and hypertonicity, and it does

overlap with some tissue that is classified as muscle tissue in biomedicine.

 

> Now the Chinese could be suffering from some errors also, except for them,

> translation cannot be blamed. Maybe the problem comes from the Chinese

> dictionaries.

 

I don't think there is much disagreement about this in the Chinese world. There

is no doubt that reading Chinese sources is one of the best ways to access

knowledge in our field, but questions like this are best accomplished by having

conversations with experts in spoken Chinese rather than just reading the

dictionary definition. Actually, most of the dictionaries just repeat similar,

brief entries that are relatively broad in scope. But if you ask doctors to

explain the concept, it is clear that they are all largely in agreement about

this issue. I've never met anyone that held a different opinion about what

" jin " means, and I've asked a lot of people about it, from terminology experts

to tui na experts. There is no doubt that tendons and ligaments are jin tissue,

but the scope of jin tissue goes beyond tendons and ligaments.

 

As Alon mentioned, the red vs. white difference in the appearance of the tissue

is closely related to whether it is rou or jin. In terms of food, rou is the

meat, jin is the tendons and gristle. Deer tendon soup or tendon soup in

general is basically just normal tendons, and they are called jin. But in terms

of the human body in TCM, jin does include some elements of the muscular system,

such as the SCM or upper traps.

 

Wind disorders can present with convulsions, which particularly cause

contraction of the sinews and are often associated with liver-wood. And we

often see patients present clinically with liver depression and tense, ropy

upper traps. The upper shoulders can feel either replete or ropy and vacuous,

but there is clear sinew tissue there and the region is closely connected to the

gallbladder (wood) channel.

 

 

> Let¡Çs go back to the NeiJing. For example, the Chinese at that time did

> have enough dissection ability to notice different tissue, e.g. visually

> seeing white tendon / ligament versus muscle.

 

Actually, the Nei Jing has specific references to advanced (primitive)

dissection, including the measurements and weights of human internal orders.

And remember that the slaughtering of animals was a common human experience

throughout much of history, so people actually had extensive experience looking

at the tendons, bones, and musculature of mammals. In talking about meat, rou

and jin are common everyday words.

 

Actually there are quite a few diseases in (such

> as jin li - Sinew Scrofula) that use the word ¡Æjin¡Ç that have little to do

> with muscles, tendons, or ligaments, and really just have to do with the

> relation to the Liver and 5 phases.

> Even Painful obstruction of the Sinews (jin bi) from the suwen has joint

> pain as well as hypertonicity of the ¡Æjin¡Ç as a primary symptoms. If we

> consider arthritis, pain in the joints, I could see how the Chinese saw this

> as exclusively coming from the area around the joint which is surrounded by

> tendons and ligaments, and hence the hypertonicity of the jin, is quite

> simply just referring to this area.

 

Interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. Good food for thought. I haven't

researched these ancient disease categories extensively, but I still think that

hypertonicity of the jin suggests something that is more akin to contraction and

tension of palpable bands of tissue rather than tendons and ligaments alone,

which have less variance in how they look and feel to the touch. But I'm no

expert on these old disease categories, so I lack a really valid perspective.

 

Honestly one side might be totally wrong, but more

> likely is that people use the term differently, hence one must be flexible

> in their understanding. Consequently, it is not unreasonable (to me) to use

> ¡Ætendon¡Ç for a translation in a specific instance and ¡Æsinew¡Ç in another

> (of course with a footnote). But that is just me. I am still contemplating

> this one¡Ä

 

Without a doubt, if you were translating material then you would invariably run

into a problem of whether an author is referring to a tendon or a wider meaning

of sinew in any given context. In modern medicine in Chinese, tendon is

expressed differently than in TCM, but if a given author is writing about some

tui na treatment, it may well be important to clarify whether he is talking

about tendons in a narrow sense or sinews in a broader sense.

 

The easiest thing is to ask the author to clarify this via spoken Chinese, the

answer will be readily apparent and one can just use the English word tendon or

the word sinew, depending on which is more appropriate in that context. But

since most of the stuff we translate was written by dead people, it is

impossible to ask for this clarification, and the overwhelming evidence suggests

that the broader use of sinew is the prevailing meaning historically. It would

seem presumptuous to assume that one could tell whether tendon or sinew is the

intended meaning in any given historical work, so it is better to use the

broader term sinew, which is far more likely to fit the author's meaning.

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

I see that Eric has talked to many people about this sinew (jin) issue, and

thank him for his perspective. However I have a hard time believing that

what he presents is simply the “widespread consensus.” IMO, presenting a

stance as such, creates a dichotomy between the ideas involved, and seems to

say one position is right and one is wrong. Please correct me if I am wrong

here…

 

 

 

Although ‘sinews’ is not a major interest of mine, for the record, I have

not just consulted source material (e.g. dictionaries and now the internet)

but also discussed this with a hand full of ‘experts’ in Asia and US, and

consequently I am quite clear that people have differing opinions on this

one.

 

 

 

Interestingly, just yesterday I had lunch with two very prominent palpation

and CM experts (Chinese medicine / Osteopathic style palp) and brought this

topic up. It was clear right away that they had thought about this for many

years, not only from a theoretical standpoint, but more importantly a

clinical diagnostic and treatment perspective. Interesting they had

differing opinions on what ‘jin’ is and how this pans out in the clinic. One

did agree with Eric’s point of view, the other did not. It was though quite

an interesting conversation, especially since they were talking about sinews

from a very tangible hands on perspective. I think with theory, herbs, acu,

tuina, and this type of palpation, I easily see how different people

envision the jin as a variety of possibilities.

 

 

 

In general though I favor the widest possible meaning for most terms,

including jin, hence allowing for multiple possibilities to choose from for

a given circumstance. Actually in this situation, Wiseman steps out of the

box and presents something that is not mainstream in the Chinese

dictionaries. I do agree with his and Eric’s general proposal. However I am

not ready to dismiss the other side.

 

 

 

For example, I do not take the concept of accepting wider possibilities to

mean that if someone holds a more narrow view, especially in relation to

specific clinical idea or historical text, that this latter person / idea is

incorrect. It is quite the opposite, actually. The wider scope should allow

for many different, sometimes seemingly conflicting, opinions to exist at

the same time. Usually when one dives deeper though, the conflicting issues

may relate to direct clinical perspectives, and hence not really conflicting

at all. But sometimes yes, they just disagree.

 

 

 

However I have a hard time just believing a blanket definition, and that

this is just what “everyone in the know” happens to believe, especially

without a clinical backdrop, and especially when we can easily find sources

that disagree. Actually it seems that many parts of the NeiJing are

specifically talking about the actually tendon / ligament as the

dictionaries suggest (see my next post) and others parts of the NeiJing are

more broad in meaning. Consequently, how can one be so certain their idea is

correct? Hence, quite simply, a wider meaning is NOT just the correct

meaning and the narrow meaning is incorrect. Just because we can find

instances with wide meaning does not discount narrow ones, no matter what

any ‘given group’ of people’s opinion may be.

 

 

 

Since as pointed out, the classical doctors that first wrote about this

topic are dead, and we are unable to ask them and must rely on written

record to decipher what they meant. This is no easy task. Even if modern

doctors (tuina or otherwise) believe one thing, this might not have been

what classical doctor’s believed. We actually see this phenomenon all the

time with terminology. We may have an ‘evolved’ meaning that previous

doctors did not use in the way we think, or the way our modern dictionaries

present it. Hence when analyzing a NeiJing phrase about ‘jin’ the best place

to gather information on the meaning is from a Neijing expert / NeiJing

Dictionary/ or NeiJing written commentary. If one is going to argue with

that, then one better bring some serious scholarly work to the table.

 

 

 

NeiJing’s understanding is essential because many of our ‘jin’ quotes and

understanding in modern texts / clinic come from there.

 

 

 

Maybe it is quite definitive for tuina doctors or other doctors that Eric’s

meaning is as he says. I have no reason not to believe them, but other

experts do say otherwise, period. Most that I have talked to keep a large

view but at times a narrow view. Some just have a narrow view (e..g only

white tendon, ligament and connective tissue – no muscle), whatever right…

 

 

 

As I have frequently said in the past in terminology debates, many times

dictionaries present limited perspectives. However, they usually do present

the consensus, or at least present something that a percentage of people

believe hence must be taken seriously. All that it takes is a % of people to

make a concept valid. One cannot just bully these people, claim truth, or

even majority rules. Are we now, supposed to ignore the written record in

favor of our conversations with our doctors in China? If they are in the US

are they less informed? If they speak in English are we not to believe them?

I am curious why someone would insist that their experience somehow trumps

others and the dictionaries and texts that we can read are just wrong?

 

 

 

To be clear, I agree 100% that ‘jin’ can and should be wider in scope and

the dictionary should present this. I also agree, as I have said for years,

commentary, personal conversation, classical texts etc. can present wider

meanings that are missed by dictionaries. Eric seems to find this idea at

least true in his search for the meaning about ‘jin.’ Given this example we

should also allow for the possibility that this probably happens more

frequently then we think with other ‘terms’ in CM, but that is another

conversation. Once one starts digging, who know what they will find…

 

 

 

Hence, one of the beautiful things about the internet is that we can compare

notes and findings. For example, one person has one experience, I might have

another, and others may find something completely different. We all have

valuable skills, and connections with different doctors and traditions. No

one person can have the sole truth, and I find it useful when we can be

comfortable with others differing experiences and viewpoints.

 

 

 

Howewver, when people present ‘the way it is’ or just the ‘consensus’ I

can’t help but write a response such as this. Actually, I find it a bit

disheartening. Statements such as “I don't think there is much disagreement

about this in the Chinese world.” are essentially belittling. Such a

statement makes it sound like the person somehow has the exclusive key to

the Chinese world and has found the truth, and other’s opinions are not

valid. I find this odd when people (like myself) have clearly presented

information to the contrary, but of course this was attempted to be

discounted (in the following sentence after the above quote) because I

actually quoted a written source. In fact, I think there is quite a bit of

disagreement, hence the debate! I would like to know how one can have

doctors, dictionaries and historical texts all presenting different

perspectives and there being no disagreement in the Chinese world. Quite

simple if there was no disagreement the texts and personal conversations

would be identical. Furthermore, someone has to write the texts!

 

 

 

But I treasure the contention this brings and the push to think about these

topics deeper. Maybe at this point I don’t completely feel clear on ‘jin’

but I hope over the next 20-50 years of questioning, I might come up with a

usable idea for my clinical approach. That is the value of such discussions.

Thanks!

 

 

 

To sum up, CM is a huge field with lots of opinions, how can anyone’s

opinion be the gold standard. I am no authority that is for sure…

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Eric Brand

Sunday, May 10, 2009 4:39 PM

 

Re: Terminology and Etymology-specifically verbs

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

<%40> , " "

wrote:

>

> Eric and group,

> I think there are differing opinions as far as jin ¡Ê¶Ú¡Ëgoes. I well

> understand Wiseman¡Çs argument from the PD that Eric clearly presented in

> his previous email, however, I have though heard Chinese doctors say

> otherwise. For example, muscles and muscle strength is rou (flesh), and

jin

> is actually the tendons and ligaments.

 

Some very good points in this email, thanks for contributing.

 

To be clear, this issue of sinews vs tendons that I'm discussing isn't

primarily based on Nigel Wiseman's work, though Nigel and I are in agreement

about the meaning of the concept of " jin " in Chinese medicine, and I agree

with his choice of the word sinew in translation.

 

Nigel and his Practical Dictionary are not the only sources that I am basing

this perspective on, I've discussed it with terminology experts, tui na

doctors, and normal TCM doctors in China, Hong Kong, Taiwan, and the US, it

seems to be a pretty widespread consensus. I first became aware of this

issue years before I met Nigel, before I even graduated from school. The

herbalist that I apprenticed with explained it to me when he was teaching me

tui na moves, and I've continued to investigate this specific term in dozens

of conversations with real experts in Asia over the course of many years.

 

Descriptions in Chinese TCM dictionaries often state that " jin " encompasses

connective tissue, ligaments, and tendons. In practical use, most of the

ropy, bandy tissue in the body falls under the category of jin. For example,

take the gracilis muscle on the inside of the leg. It basically defines the

liver channel, and even the Latin name gracilis reflects its grisly texture

(gristle is also referred to as " jin " when talking about meat). The gracilis

muscle would qualify as jin tissue to a tui na doctor, but it is classified

as a muscle in Western medicine.

 

By contrast, large muscles like the quadriceps, buttocks, etc. fall under

the category of " rou, " or " flesh. " Without a doubt, this fleshy muscle is

responsible for much of the body's strength and power, I'm not suggesting

that the sinew tissue is the prime source of strength. But sinew tissue in

TCM is associated with agility, strength, flexibility, and hypertonicity,

and it does overlap with some tissue that is classified as muscle tissue in

biomedicine.

 

> Now the Chinese could be suffering from some errors also, except for them,

> translation cannot be blamed. Maybe the problem comes from the Chinese

> dictionaries.

 

I don't think there is much disagreement about this in the Chinese world.

There is no doubt that reading Chinese sources is one of the best ways to

access knowledge in our field, but questions like this are best accomplished

by having conversations with experts in spoken Chinese rather than just

reading the dictionary definition. Actually, most of the dictionaries just

repeat similar, brief entries that are relatively broad in scope. But if you

ask doctors to explain the concept, it is clear that they are all largely in

agreement about this issue. I've never met anyone that held a different

opinion about what " jin " means, and I've asked a lot of people about it,

from terminology experts to tui na experts. There is no doubt that tendons

and ligaments are jin tissue, but the scope of jin tissue goes beyond

tendons and ligaments.

 

As Alon mentioned, the red vs. white difference in the appearance of the

tissue is closely related to whether it is rou or jin. In terms of food, rou

is the meat, jin is the tendons and gristle. Deer tendon soup or tendon soup

in general is basically just normal tendons, and they are called jin. But in

terms of the human body in TCM, jin does include some elements of the

muscular system, such as the SCM or upper traps.

 

Wind disorders can present with convulsions, which particularly cause

contraction of the sinews and are often associated with liver-wood. And we

often see patients present clinically with liver depression and tense, ropy

upper traps. The upper shoulders can feel either replete or ropy and

vacuous, but there is clear sinew tissue there and the region is closely

connected to the gallbladder (wood) channel.

 

> Let¡Çs go back to the NeiJing. For example, the Chinese at that time did

> have enough dissection ability to notice different tissue, e.g. visually

> seeing white tendon / ligament versus muscle.

 

Actually, the Nei Jing has specific references to advanced (primitive)

dissection, including the measurements and weights of human internal orders.

And remember that the slaughtering of animals was a common human experience

throughout much of history, so people actually had extensive experience

looking at the tendons, bones, and musculature of mammals. In talking about

meat, rou and jin are common everyday words.

 

Actually there are quite a few diseases in (such

> as jin li - Sinew Scrofula) that use the word ¡Æjin¡Ç that have little to

do

> with muscles, tendons, or ligaments, and really just have to do with the

> relation to the Liver and 5 phases.

> Even Painful obstruction of the Sinews (jin bi) from the suwen has joint

> pain as well as hypertonicity of the ¡Æjin¡Ç as a primary symptoms. If we

> consider arthritis, pain in the joints, I could see how the Chinese saw

this

> as exclusively coming from the area around the joint which is surrounded

by

> tendons and ligaments, and hence the hypertonicity of the jin, is quite

> simply just referring to this area.

 

Interesting stuff, thanks for sharing. Good food for thought. I haven't

researched these ancient disease categories extensively, but I still think

that hypertonicity of the jin suggests something that is more akin to

contraction and tension of palpable bands of tissue rather than tendons and

ligaments alone, which have less variance in how they look and feel to the

touch. But I'm no expert on these old disease categories, so I lack a really

valid perspective.

 

Honestly one side might be totally wrong, but more

> likely is that people use the term differently, hence one must be flexible

> in their understanding. Consequently, it is not unreasonable (to me) to

use

> ¡Ætendon¡Ç for a translation in a specific instance and ¡Æsinew¡Ç in

another

> (of course with a footnote). But that is just me. I am still contemplating

> this one¡Ä

 

Without a doubt, if you were translating material then you would invariably

run into a problem of whether an author is referring to a tendon or a wider

meaning of sinew in any given context. In modern medicine in Chinese, tendon

is expressed differently than in TCM, but if a given author is writing about

some tui na treatment, it may well be important to clarify whether he is

talking about tendons in a narrow sense or sinews in a broader sense.

 

The easiest thing is to ask the author to clarify this via spoken Chinese,

the answer will be readily apparent and one can just use the English word

tendon or the word sinew, depending on which is more appropriate in that

context. But since most of the stuff we translate was written by dead

people, it is impossible to ask for this clarification, and the overwhelming

evidence suggests that the broader use of sinew is the prevailing meaning

historically. It would seem presumptuous to assume that one could tell

whether tendon or sinew is the intended meaning in any given historical

work, so it is better to use the broader term sinew, which is far more

likely to fit the author's meaning.

 

Eric Brand

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you Jason, for sharing all the quotes. I certainly don't have a

comprehensive understanding of all things sinew-related, and I definitely am not

trying to suggest that the term has entirely consistent usage across different

sources. It is obvious that one encounters many meanings for this term when

reading widely, and certain uses are more suitable to certain translations than

others, with different historical sources offering greater or lesser insight

about the interpretation based on context.

 

Learning about the meaning of this word has been an interest of mine for a long

time, and I've had conversations with many doctors that I respect about it. So

far I am yet to meet one who didn't consider the ropy portions of muscles like

brachioradialis, SCM, upper traps, etc to be an aspect of jin tissue. I don't

doubt that I have more to learn about this topic and I'd love to revise my

opinions if they aren't based on an accurate understanding of the evidence.

 

I have only one position that I am presenting in whatever " debate " we are

having, and that position is: some of the ropy, bandy tissue in the body (such

as the SCM muscle or the gracilis muscle) is part of the tissue known as jin

(governed by the liver). I am suggesting nothing more nor nothing less that

this. Certainly the ligaments and tendons are a key aspect of jin tissue, they

are the main distinct thing that jin encompasses. But the jin tissue is wider

than just tendons and ligaments, and muscles and tendons in TCM are not divided

based on the exact same parameters as they are in biomedicine. That is all I'm

trying to say, I'm certainly not saying that this view is more valid than any

other.

 

The simplest test is for everyone to just ask the best doctors they know if

something like the SCM muscle is sinew (jin) or flesh (rou) tissue in TCM. I've

been trying to learn the answer to this question for a long time, I'd love to

learn a more definitive answer than I've encountered thus far on my quest.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

I think its clear that one may use Jin as tendons in one context and not in

others. If one wants to refer to tendon and ligaments it may be better than

using sinews. That is why i always prefer contextual writing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Eric, I'd like to contact you personally. Can you contact me? Or let me

know how I can reach you

 

Michael Tierra

 

www.planetherbs.com