Guest guest Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 I'm going to throw against the wall and see what sticks... One of my students mentioned that one of her teachers said that the Nan Jing should be disregarded. I seem to have heard this before but can't remember where. Any of you scholars can enlighten me about this? Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Doug, If you read Kim Taylor's book " Medicine of Revolution: in Early Communist China " she speaks about this trend in mainland China. She writes that " only in the 20th century was the Nei Jing regarded as the ultimate classical text " , and that " the significance of the Nan Jing was greatly downplayed " during this time as well. It is a complex question as to why the Nan Jing become perhaps the foundational text of Japanese schools of acupuncture/moxabustion, and not in China, during the mid-twentieth century. Perhaps it is the use of five phase theory, perhaps the centuries of commentaries that obscured the text, but in my opinion acupuncture/moxa suffered as a discipline in China from its omission. Perhaps this teacher was trained in China during the mid-twentieth century? I think the Nan Jing bias has largely been alleviated since that time, multiple mainland editions abound, and scholars discuss the text and seminars are held. I don't think the Nan Jing is disregarded in China as a major classic at this point, nor do I think it should as an individual in the West. On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:24 PM, wrote: > I'm going to throw against the wall and see what sticks... One of my students mentioned that one of her teachers said that the Nan Jing should be disregarded. I seem to have heard this before but can't remember where. Any of you scholars can enlighten me about this? > Doug > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 Z'ev et. al., It's hard to fathom that anyone could contend that Neijing was the dominant influence in Chinese acupuncture during the mid-twentieth century. What does Kim taylor know about the clinical practice of acupuncture? Perhaps the authors of the modern clinical doctrine paid lip-service to Neijing in an attempt to justify their conceptual framework based on zangfu syndromes. Modern acupuncture theory dramatically under-emphasizes the channel systems -- a bias that dates from the Song Dynasty a thousand years ago, and instead relies on an overly simple version of the primary channels. I'll grant that the Japanese focus on Nanjing has allowed their doctors over the centuries to develop approaches to acupuncture and moxa far beyond modern TCM acupuncture, and that the Chinese do well now if they work more with that text's teachings. Yet, if we want to explore the vast conceptual framework of acupuncture, Neijing offers us the most profound inspiration. The channel systems, as introduced especially in the first sixteen chapters of Lingshu, provide extremely rich theories of psychology, physiology, pathogenesis, and clinical acupuncture. We (western acupuncturists) have access to Nanjing style acupuncture through both Japanese traditions and followers of prof. Worseley, but few have developed knowledge of how to practice our art based on the channel systems. During the next year I'll be teaching a four weekend series of seminars in San Diego, the SF Bay Area, and Albuquerque as a practical introduction to that style of acupuncture. I hope my efforts will help our profession move toward filling this great void. Steve CCMforHealing.com On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM, <zrosenbe wrote: > Doug, > If you read Kim Taylor's book " Medicine of Revolution: > in Early Communist China " she speaks about this trend in mainland China. She > writes that " only in the 20th century was the Nei Jing regarded as the > ultimate classical text " , and that " the significance of the Nan Jing was > greatly downplayed " during this time as well. It is a complex question as > to why the Nan Jing become perhaps the foundational text of Japanese schools > of acupuncture/moxabustion, and not in China, during the mid-twentieth > century. Perhaps it is the use of five phase theory, perhaps the centuries > of commentaries that obscured the text, but in my opinion acupuncture/moxa > suffered as a discipline in China from its omission. > > Perhaps this teacher was trained in China during the mid-twentieth > century? I think the Nan Jing bias has largely been alleviated since that > time, multiple mainland editions abound, and scholars discuss the text and > seminars are held. I don't think the Nan Jing is disregarded in China as a > major classic at this point, nor do I think it should as an individual in > the West. > > > On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:24 PM, wrote: > > > I'm going to throw against the wall and see what sticks... One of my > students mentioned that one of her teachers said that the Nan Jing should be > disregarded. I seem to have heard this before but can't remember where. Any > of you scholars can enlighten me about this? > > Doug > > > > > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 29, 2010 Report Share Posted January 29, 2010 I see the Nanjing as more of the software manual for acupuncture (5 phasic operational systems) while the Suwen/ Lingshu is a hardware guide of the basic foundational procedures of acupuncture. Why did the Japanese focus on the Nan jing? K On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 1:39 PM, <zrosenbe wrote: > Doug, > If you read Kim Taylor's book " Medicine of Revolution: > in Early Communist China " she speaks about this trend in mainland China. She > writes that " only in the 20th century was the Nei Jing regarded as the > ultimate classical text " , and that " the significance of the Nan Jing was > greatly downplayed " during this time as well. It is a complex question as > to why the Nan Jing become perhaps the foundational text of Japanese schools > of acupuncture/moxabustion, and not in China, during the mid-twentieth > century. Perhaps it is the use of five phase theory, perhaps the centuries > of commentaries that obscured the text, but in my opinion acupuncture/moxa > suffered as a discipline in China from its omission. > > Perhaps this teacher was trained in China during the mid-twentieth > century? I think the Nan Jing bias has largely been alleviated since that > time, multiple mainland editions abound, and scholars discuss the text and > seminars are held. I don't think the Nan Jing is disregarded in China as a > major classic at this point, nor do I think it should as an individual in > the West. > > > On Jan 29, 2010, at 1:24 PM, wrote: > > > I'm going to throw against the wall and see what sticks... One of my > students mentioned that one of her teachers said that the Nan Jing should be > disregarded. I seem to have heard this before but can't remember where. Any > of you scholars can enlighten me about this? > > Doug > > > > > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 John, I don't understand your distinction between software and hardware. Nanjing and Neijing provide different doctrines -- different " operational systems " and some differences in basic theory, such as their differences on the progressions of pathology. On topics where the classic traditions agree, Nanjing is generally simpler. For instance, both recognize the accumulation and suspension of unresolved pathogenic process. Yet, Neijing has two entire systems of channels (longitudinal luo and channel divergences) to address that issue within post-natal energetics, while Nanjing focuses largely on the front-mu points. Timing was one factor. Much of the rich acupuncture theory of Neijing was suppressed a little more than a thousand years ago, and replaced by the theory structure we know today with the zangfu at the center. The primary channels enter and regulate them, and contain the points, so they became the conceptual framework for acupuncture. Since the bronze man statue was erected during the Song period, the empirical study of points has been emphasized over more philosophical considerations of the complex dynamics of the channels. That work eventually led (about 600 years later) to texts such as the Great Compendium of Yang Jizhou. All this focus on points, and their impacts on the zangfu through a simple model of the primary channels based on husband-wife (and " elemental " ) pairs, pushed the rest of the channel systems aside. Steve CCMforHealing.com On Fri, Jan 29, 2010 at 4:47 PM, <johnkokko wrote: > > > I see the Nanjing as more of the software manual for acupuncture (5 phasic > operational systems) > while the Suwen/ Lingshu is a hardware guide of the basic foundational > procedures of acupuncture. > > Why did the Japanese focus on the Nan jing? > > > K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Steven, the title of the Nan jing " Difficult Issues classic " comments on the nature of the substance of the text, as a continuum and development of what was written in the Su wen " Basic issues " and Ling shu " Divine axis " . Software can be downloaded, while Hardware must be installed. In this sense, the analogy points to the fundamental necessity of comprehending the content of the Nei jing (single points: mu, shu, source, luo, xi, channels: primary, luo, divergent, 8 extras and zang/fu) which are built into every human as hardware. In order to access these points, we have the operational system we call acupuncture 20.10, while the content of the Nan jing can be seen as a software system (5 phase shu points and Nan jing pulse interpretations). This analogy sets primacy of the Nei jing over the Nan jing in both understanding and application. I think that we're in agreement with this. You wrote, " Yet, if we want to explore the vast conceptual framework of acupuncture, Neijing offers us the most profound inspiration. The channel systems, as introduced especially in the first sixteen chapters of Lingshu, provide extremely rich theories of psychology, physiology, pathogenesis, and clinical acupuncture. " K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 John, While we may agree in a broad sense, I don't concede that Nanjing is " a continuum and development of what was written in the Su wen (Basic issues) and Ling shu (Divine axis). " While the two classic traditions overlap to some extent, and Nanjing can be understood as a clarification of certain issues (such as the sanjiao mechanism) that remained inscrutable after Suwen and Lingshu were recorded, they do not present the same doctrine. There are very real and profound differences. Would that our profession had educational standards that followed either your statement concerning " the fundamental necessity of comprehending the content of the Neijing, " or indeed, the " primacy of the Neijing over the Nanjing in both understanding and application! " Alas, there was a great deal of interesting material presented in Neijing that has been systematically eliminated from Chinese medical doctrine. I suggest that Neijing remains misunderstood and very poorly actualized in modern TCM doctrine. In relation to the specifics of your comment: - The front-mu and back-shu points were not discussed in Neijing; they were categories of Nanjing theory. - On the other hand, while the five phase associations of the " command points " were characteristic of Nanjing, the points themselves (as command points) were introduced the first time the primary channels were discussed in Lingshu (ch. 2). - While the zangfu were certainly introduced in Neijing, within that doctrine the channel systems were understood to be the primary conceptual framework for therapeutically interacting with patients. Our contemporary emphasis on the zangfu as the core concepts relative to theories of both physiology and pathophysiology is an artifact of the Song era modernization of Chinese medical theory. Among other things, this historical shift to prioritizing the zangfu and (only) the primary channels has allowed a certain confusion between channel and zang or fu, which allows modern practitioners to think we are treating a zangfu pattern when we are actually treating it indirectly via the primary channel. This idea that one can directly treat zangfu patterns impacts how practitioners choose points and design treatment strategies. In short, might it be a good idea to understand the theory and practice of acupuncture according to the five systems of channels as presented in Lingshu, before we decide that information isn't important? I suggest our current educational opportunities don't give us that choice. My four weekend series provides a practical introduction to the five systems of channels, and is intended to remedy that shortcoming. Steve CCMforHealing.com On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 8:37 AM, <johnkokko wrote: > > > Steven, the title of the Nan jing " Difficult Issues classic " comments on > the > nature of the substance of the text, > as a continuum and development of what was written in the Su wen " Basic > issues " and Ling shu " Divine axis " . > Software can be downloaded, while Hardware must be installed. In this > sense, the analogy points to the fundamental necessity of comprehending the > content of the Nei jing (single points: mu, shu, source, luo, xi, > channels: primary, luo, divergent, 8 extras and zang/fu) which are built > into every human as hardware. In order to access these points, we have the > operational system we call acupuncture 20.10, while the content of the Nan > jing can be seen as a software system (5 phase shu points and Nan jing > pulse > interpretations). This analogy sets primacy of the Nei jing over the Nan > jing in both understanding and application. I think that we're in agreement > with this. You wrote, " Yet, if we want to explore the vast > > conceptual framework of acupuncture, Neijing offers us the most profound > inspiration. The channel systems, as introduced especially in the first > sixteen chapters of Lingshu, provide extremely rich theories of psychology, > physiology, pathogenesis, and clinical acupuncture. " > > K > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Steve, I'm glad that you're going out there teaching the Nei jing as there are very few people doing this. The other person that I know who is teaching acupuncture according to the Nei Jing is Ed Neal www.neijingacupuncture.com Maybe you guys are in correspondence already. I see from your bio that you studied with J. Yuen. Isn't his emphasis on the secondary channels: divergent, luo and extraordinary? Who else have you studied the classics from? and which translation do you use or recommend? K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Steven, Methinks that the Nei Jing vs. Nan Jing 'controversy' is a bit contrived in the political arenas of colleges and committees that decide what should be a classic and what should not. I agree that the source materials are in the Su Wen and Ling Shu, and should be studied (and practiced) in greater depth than they have been in recent times. I also know that there are controversies over revisions of ideas sourced in the Nei Jing literature developed in the Nan Jing. Paul Unschuld's opinion is that the Nan Jing created a coherent diagnostic and treatment system out of the more heterogenous materials in the Nei Jing. Whatever one's position on the subject, one cannot deny that Nan Jing was considered to be a medical classic in China for many centuries, despite some contrary opinions from physicians such as Xu Da-chun. On Jan 29, 2010, at 3:29 PM, Steven Alpern wrote: > Z'ev et. al., > > It's hard to fathom that anyone could contend that Neijing was the dominant > influence in Chinese acupuncture during the mid-twentieth century. What does > Kim taylor know about the clinical practice of acupuncture? Perhaps the > authors of the modern clinical doctrine paid lip-service to Neijing in an > attempt to justify their conceptual framework based on zangfu syndromes. > Modern acupuncture theory dramatically under-emphasizes the channel systems > -- a bias that dates from the Song Dynasty a thousand years ago, and instead > relies on an overly simple version of the primary channels. Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 My opinion? The Japanese were always attracted to simple, clear systematic approaches, and were great refiners of received traditions. Just as the Shang Han Lun became the basis of the clear, concise approach of Kanpo herbal medicine, so the Nan Jing became the basis of Japanese acupuncture systems. On Jan 29, 2010, at 4:47 PM, wrote: > I see the Nanjing as more of the software manual for acupuncture (5 phasic > operational systems) > while the Suwen/ Lingshu is a hardware guide of the basic foundational > procedures of acupuncture. > > Why did the Japanese focus on the Nan jing? > > K Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 30, 2010 Report Share Posted January 30, 2010 Z'ev, that makes sense. The Japanese lost contact with the Chinese developments in the medicine after the Song dynasty, because of the Yuan (Mongol invasions)... I'm wondering if the Nan jing was predominant at that time?, brought over to Japan, like the style of dress and customs of the Song dynasty which was retained for many centuries later in Japan. The Nan jing has many less characters and is more organized in its approach with possibly one author. So, I can see why that would be attractive to the Japanese who were interested in simplicity and efficacy.... like other aspects of their culture... zen minimalism. I've wondered if this characteristic of the Japanese is because of their environment, a cultural reaction to living on over-crowded islands with minimal resources? Also, having many different systems or views creates in-fighting, which doesn't bode well for a culture that requires harmony to co-exist... In China, there's room for 108 different views. In Japan, maybe not... On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 6:35 PM, <zrosenbe wrote: > > > My opinion? > > The Japanese were always attracted to simple, clear systematic approaches, > and were great refiners of received traditions. Just as the Shang Han Lun > became the basis of the clear, concise approach of Kanpo herbal medicine, so > the Nan Jing became the basis of Japanese acupuncture systems. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Z'ev and John, While I agree with Unschuld that Nanjing is more systematic than Neijing, what is the cost of that systemization? Though I accept Nanjing as a classic text, which provides important teachings -- especially in the context of the dominant modern clinical doctrine, I think we can learn something from Xu Dachun's position. We don't have to be strident to recognize that the fixed progressions of pathology (according to the control cycle for zang pathologies and by the generation cycle for the fu) elucidated in Nanjing are limited. They can be useful in many cases, and they are too narrow for others. I think Xu Dachun was trying to exort physicians to look more deeply into the responsive and INDIVIDUAL nature of the embodied spirit, and for that purpose Neijing is unparalleled. I agree with Z'ev that the more straight-forward nature of Nanjing appealed to the Japanese. Certainly, one criticism of Neijing could be that students of that classic MIGHT become lost in the tangle of philosophical considerations -- how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Yet, our study of Neijing can be vibrant and inspiring, especially if we keep an eye on the practical implications of its ideas. That's one reason I'm aiming to offer a practical introduction to Neijing through focus on the channel systems. John -- thanks for mentioning Ed Neal. Z'ev mentioned him to me a few months ago, and I've been so busy I haven't taken time to connect. Yet, I looked at the syllabus for his series, and note that mine will be quite different from his. Also, there is some evidence that Nanjing ideas, and specifically the theory of five phases, was quite popular around the time the Japanese received CM. For instance, Li Dongyuan relied on many five phase arguments in his Piweilun. You asked about my studies: I suspect many will agree that we still don't have particularly good translations of Neijing. From my studies, those two texts appear particularly difficult to translate, because many choices of wording would include a certain degree of interpretation. I use two old translations of Neijing -- Henry Lu and Chamfort, and also Wu Jingnuan's translation of Lingshu. I recognize that many don't consider these particularly trustworthy versions for careful scholarship, and I don't believe that Neijing is structured for scholarship -- even for those who are very well-versed in classical Chinese. I suggest that Neijing is focused on stimulating a thinking process, rather than canonizing a doctrine. Historically, learning that thinking process has been stimulated through years of direct contact with one who already see and thinks that way. I believe that Jeffrey has received that transmission, and that assessment is NOT based at all on his biography. Indeed, had I known that he was a temple channel as a child before I started avidly following his teaching, that fact would have discouraged my interest rather than enhancing his credibility. Alas, my studies with Jeffrey have stimulated me to widen my horizons concerning what is real. I've read that some are skeptical of Jeffrey's credentials, and that seems to me irrelavent. The real question is: Can I be stimulated to learn a more incisive and clinically effective way of practicing Chinese medicine? For me, there has been no question of the value of Jeffrey's teachings, since I first encountered him nearly sixteen years ago. Yet, Jeffrey doesn't make it easy; his circuitous way of talking makes his teachings hard to follow. He billows through Chinese medicine ideas, rather than " breaking them down " for ready access by linear thinking. I'd say he challenges his students to engage their own thinking processes, rather than clearly explaining his own thinking process. Listening to Jeffrey and reading transcripts of his seminars, which are currently the only writings available on those teachings, is like reading James Joyce rather than John Grisham. I'm working to make some of those key ideas more clear and accessible in my growing body of short essays and the long outlines I've prepared as handouts for my various seminars. Some might consider that a pointless, futile, or even misguided effort, but it is my current focus and most participants in my seminars during the past two years have found them valuable and encouraged that project. I've been to a few classes by other teachers during the past 15 years, and have not been terribly impressed. I have not yet communicated with Ed Neal, and look forward to doing so. Jeffrey does concentrate on the so-called " secondary " vessels, which are in NO WAY less important than the " primary " channels -- they are a cornerstone of the Neijing's conceptual framework, especially Lingshu which has often historically been called Zhenjing (Acupuncture Classic). When Unschuld characterizes Neijing as " heterogeneous, " he's noting that there are A LOT of ideas presented in Neijing -- because the nature and functions of the embodied spirit are subtle and complex, and many of them are contrary to each other. Neijing reminds us that theories have a very different role in CM than in modern science; they are descriptive rather than prescriptive. Neijing is confusing and inscrutable if one tries to lead with a coherent theory that is a conceptual model of phenomena; I suggest Neijing begins to come clear when we keep the myriad theories of CM in the backround, and only bring one of them forward in one's thinking in response to our perception of phenomena. Steve CCMforHealing.com On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 7:16 PM, <johnkokko wrote: > > > Z'ev, that makes sense. The Japanese lost contact with the Chinese > developments in the medicine after the Song dynasty, because of the Yuan > (Mongol invasions)... I'm wondering if the Nan jing was predominant at that > time?, brought over to Japan, like the style of dress and customs of the > Song dynasty which was retained for many centuries later in Japan. The Nan > jing has many less characters and is more organized in its approach with > possibly one author. So, I can see why that would be attractive to the > Japanese who were interested in simplicity and efficacy.... like other > aspects of their culture... zen minimalism. I've wondered if this > characteristic of the Japanese is because of their environment, a cultural > reaction to living on over-crowded islands with minimal resources? Also, > having many different systems or views creates in-fighting, which doesn't > bode well for a culture that requires harmony to co-exist... In China, > there's room for 108 different views. In Japan, maybe not... > > > On Sat, Jan 30, 2010 at 6:35 PM, <zrosenbe<zrosenbe%40san.rr.com>> > wrote: > > > > > > > My opinion? > > > > The Japanese were always attracted to simple, clear systematic > approaches, > > and were great refiners of received traditions. Just as the Shang Han Lun > > became the basis of the clear, concise approach of Kanpo herbal medicine, > so > > the Nan Jing became the basis of Japanese acupuncture systems. > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 I downloaded an e-book Neijing version from Attilio's site in England (for about $30 I think). It is by Richard Bertschinger, who did that good looking Golden Needle volume a few years ago. I'm in no way qualified to evaluate it academically but it reads well and is very clear in its concise commentary. He writes in the introduction " I have followed the model taken by Li Zhongzi in 1642, including the bulk of material from his Neijing Zhiyao or Key to the Neijing. This work was influential even during the reformulation of Chinese medicine in post-revolutionary China. " Doug Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 I've also downloaded this book ( " The Single Idea in the Mind of the Yellow Emperor " ), and have been enjoying it, even though it is a highly simplified compilation akin to an outline. What has been useful for me is being able to simultaneously translate the text on my own and compare with Richard's, and I find some key differences in what I come up with at times. There is nothing, however, on the channels per se in this book, it focuses more on pulse diagnosis, seasons, pathology, and se/complexion. I would still highly recommend this text. . On Jan 31, 2010, at 1:30 PM, wrote: > I downloaded an e-book Neijing version from Attilio's site in England (for about $30 I think). It is by Richard Bertschinger, who did that good looking Golden Needle volume a few years ago. I'm in no way qualified to evaluate it academically but it reads well and is very clear in its concise commentary. He writes in the introduction " I have followed the model taken by Li Zhongzi in 1642, including the bulk of material from his Neijing Zhiyao or Key to the Neijing. This work was influential even during the reformulation of Chinese medicine in post-revolutionary China. " > > Doug > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Steven, The way I learned Nan Jing through the inspiration of Michael Broffman is as a collection of core principles of Chinese medicine, as he says, " The 81 chapters of the Nan Jing are a commentary that offers the tools for deconstructing the theory so that each of us can independently confirm that the theory of Chinese medicine that we have accepted correlates with our clinical experience. " I've spent the last year or two concentrating on studies in Shang Han Lun and Jin Gui Yao Lue, and am now moving on to more studies in Su Wen and Ling Shu. While I admire those who concentrate on one classical stream, I see no problem in studying the Han dynasty streams of SHL and Nan Jing alongside the more ancient Su Wen theories at the core of Chinese medicine, or later schools of thought such as the si da jia/four great physicians of the Jin/Yuan dynasty. Really for me the crux of the argument is that the Nan Jing and Nei Jing texts are very different in how they are organized, and in their scope and style. Almost apples and oranges, in some way. On Jan 31, 2010, at 7:55 AM, Steven Alpern wrote: > Z'ev and John, > > While I agree with Unschuld that Nanjing is more systematic than Neijing, > what is the cost of that systemization? Though I accept Nanjing as a classic > text, which provides important teachings -- especially in the context of the > dominant modern clinical doctrine, I think we can learn something from Xu > Dachun's position. We don't have to be strident to recognize that the fixed > progressions of pathology (according to the control cycle for zang > pathologies and by the generation cycle for the fu) elucidated in Nanjing > are limited. They can be useful in many cases, and they are too narrow for > others. I think Xu Dachun was trying to exort physicians to look more deeply > into the responsive and INDIVIDUAL nature of the embodied spirit, and for > that purpose Neijing is unparalleled. > > I agree with Z'ev that the more straight-forward nature of Nanjing appealed > to the Japanese. Certainly, one criticism of Neijing could be that students > of that classic MIGHT become lost in the tangle of philosophical > considerations -- how many angels can dance on the head of a pin? Yet, our > study of Neijing can be vibrant and inspiring, especially if we keep an eye > on the practical implications of its ideas. That's one reason I'm aiming to > offer a practical introduction to Neijing through focus on the channel > systems. > > John -- thanks for Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Steven, I think you've made an important point about Jeffrey Yuen. I have some background in the classics, so I can pinpoint necessary references for Jeffrey's journeys in his lectures, but to get anything out of his teaching requires a lot of study and homework, and he doesn't seem to provide the references himself. It is one think to encourage a student's own thinking process, another to provide the tools to do so. So your teaching on a wider scale is a very welcome development. On Jan 31, 2010, at 7:55 AM, Steven Alpern wrote: > I believe that Jeffrey has received that transmission, and that assessment > is NOT based at all on his biography. Indeed, had I known that he was a > temple channel as a child before I started avidly following his teaching, > that fact would have discouraged my interest rather than enhancing his > credibility. Alas, my studies with Jeffrey have stimulated me to widen my > horizons concerning what is real. I've read that some are skeptical of > Jeffrey's credentials, and that seems to me irrelavent. The real question > is: Can I be stimulated to learn a more incisive and clinically effective > way of practicing Chinese medicine? For me, there has been no question of > the value of Jeffrey's teachings, since I first encountered him nearly > sixteen years ago. > > Yet, Jeffrey doesn't make it easy; his circuitous way of talking makes his > teachings hard to follow. He billows through Chinese medicine ideas, rather > than " breaking them down " for ready access by linear thinking. I'd say he > challenges his students to engage their own thinking processes, rather than > clearly explaining his own thinking process. Listening to Jeffrey and > reading transcripts of his seminars, which are currently the only writings > available on those teachings, is like reading James Joyce rather than John > Grisham. I'm working to make some of those key ideas more clear and > accessible in my growing body of short essays and the long outlines I've > prepared as handouts for my various seminars. Some might consider that a > pointless, futile, or even misguided effort, but it is my current focus and > most participants in my seminars during the past two years have found them > valuable and encouraged that project. Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Steven, Z'ev, I think what is missing is translation of the commentaries on the Nei jing. Henry Lu has some of the commentaries in his footnotes of his new edition www.tcmcollege.com I use the Lingshu translation and commentaries through Nguyen Van Nghi with Tang dynasty scholar-physicians Ma Yuan Tai and Zhang An Yin's commentaries www.jungtao.edu We need Zhang Jing Yue's " Lei jing " in translation. K > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Thank you, Z'ev. I hope to enrich our profession, by helping interested participants begin to work with the teachings of Neijing. The channel systems are a wonderful access point, as they have both profound practical and philosophical implications. I agree with your statement sharing Michael Brofmann's inspiration to work profoundly with Chinese medicine: > The way I learned Nan Jing through the inspiration of Michael Broffman is as a collection > of core principles of Chinese medicine, as he says, " The 81 chapters of the Nan Jing are > a commentary that offers the tools for deconstructing the theory so that each of us can > independently confirm that the theory of Chinese medicine that we have accepted correlates with our clinical experience. " I think we just have to remember that CM is not homogeneous. There are lots of theories, including many different ones introduced within Neijing. One of my favorite topics concerning Neijing and Nanjing is finding theory that they share, and where they differ. I consider ideas they share as core/central aspects of classical Chinese medicine, theory that differs between them helps us distinguish between these two important classic traditions and provides reasons for each of us to develop stylistic preferences. While I'm particularly interested in Neijing, I've studied Nanjing and various historical traditions (like SHL and the four masters of the Jin-Yuan period) and a few Imperial specialties. I believe in the value of our cultivating some relationship with a range of CM approaches; that allows us the greatest opportunity to find an incisive treatment strategy for any individual patient, regardless of the specifics of his or her struggles. Both Nanjing and Neijing highlight the accumulation of incipient pathogenic factors as a central theme. They both present the being's strategy to displace unresolved (external and internal) pathogenic factors into physical humors and store them. As these unresolved pathogenic factors accumulate they transform and progress in various ways that each classic delineates. While each classic discusses the specifics of this process in its own ways, they both include the basic process. Yet, these core topics are rarely mentioned in the modern clinical doctrine, which focuses on classifying manifest distress rather than sorting out the dynamics of how it develops in each individual. One of the key differences between these classic traditions relates to each of their biases toward excesses or deficiencies. Neijing teaches that one release excesses (accumulating " behind " from blocks, like reservoirs) first, then once the embodied spirit's intrinsic qi can flow freely, tonify any deficiencies that persist. Nanjing teaches exactly the opposite -- to tonify deficiencies (caused by lack of flow into the deficient area) first, then after that is done, clear any excesses that persist. This difference has profound implications, and the fact that they can both be true (at the same time) speaks volumes about the nature of Chinese medicine. In the end, I agree with your characterization -- these two traditions are like apples and oranges. Add in a few berries, grapes, kiwi and melon slices (historical traditions and specialties) to make a nice fruit salad... and a good way to study Chinese medicine. We don't all have to use the same ingredients, and I believe the variety deepens our relationship with Chinese medicine, and more importantly allows us to individuate treatments more incisively. Steve Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 John, I have both texts, and they are just above useless for my purposes. The terminology is poor (Van Nghi's is from Chinese to French, then to English), no Chinese characters, and you have to trust the translator without much glossary in either case. Van Nghi's texts at least have nice charts. But it's a lot of work to go to the Chinese text, retranslate, and compare. I guess we'll just have to wait for Unschuld's Su Wen, which may come out this year. . On Jan 31, 2010, at 4:54 PM, wrote: > Steven, Z'ev, > I think what is missing is translation of the commentaries on the Nei jing. > Henry Lu has some of the commentaries in his footnotes of his new edition > www.tcmcollege.com > I use the Lingshu translation and commentaries through Nguyen Van Nghi with > Tang dynasty scholar-physicians Ma Yuan Tai and Zhang An Yin's commentaries > www.jungtao.edu > > We need Zhang Jing Yue's " Lei jing " in translation. > > K > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Z'ev, I do know that the Van Nghi translation is from the Chinese to French to English, but the commentaries are what is worth the purchase. Without the commentary, we would skim over material like reading a novel and in a few lines, a whole system of thought might be addressed. In the translation, there is also commentary by Van Nghi who was a clinician who used the Nei jing daily in his practice. Although Unschuld is a sinologist beyond compare, he is not a clinician, so I wonder if you think anything would be lost from his translation...? We need more people who are passionate about the classics, so that book sales go up and then there would be more money for translations. Can you imagine that after 35 years of having acupuncture licensed in this country, we still don't have a translation of the Zhen jiu da cheng by Yang Ji Zhou or the Jing yue quan shu by Zhang Jing Yue ? K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 31, 2010 Report Share Posted January 31, 2010 Steven, that is interesting about the comparison between the Nei jing and Nan jing concerning excesses and deficiencies. The Chinese in TCM say take out the excess first, then tonify. Most of the Japanese schools that I've come across, say the opposite. So, this must be a reflection of the influence of the respective texts on each culture. We are lucky that we have the " jings " , the classics that we can analyze and learn from, much like holy texts, the bible, the torah, the koran, the vedas, the sutras. What constitutes a text to be called a " jing " ? and why 108 issues in the Su wen (Nei jing), Zhen jiu jing and Nan jing? K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 John, Z'ev, et. al., Yes, most Japanese schools are based on Nanjing, so as you note they tonify first. While on the surface modern TCM follows Neijing in clearing excesses first, there is also a substantial difference. Many more conditions are classified as " deficiencies " in modern TCM, because it doesn't recognize the suspension and storage of unresolved pathogenic factors. I've written about how this phenomena presents clinically several times. See for instance, my short essay from three years ago " Is this Deficiency or Excess<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Deficiency-or-Exc\ ess.pdf> " or a somewhat more extensive one from early last year " The Myth of Deficiency<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Myth-of-Defic\ iency.pdf> .. " This is an interesting question -- What constitutes a " jing? " I'd say, John, that your list of comparisons is apt. Indeed, when the sutras were translated into Chinese, they used that same character " jing " in translating their titles. I personally wonder about the Jiayijing. While I consider it a very useful text, it is much more of a compilation textbook, with some of Huang Fumi's own ideas (commentaries) mixed in. I would not call it a " jing, " though both texts of Neijing and Nanjing definitely are " jing, " even though Nanjing is somewhat more straight-forward. 108 chapters/difficulties? All my editions of all these classics have 81. There are also 81 " chapters " in Dao De Jing (there's that same character again!) The Chinese use a lot of numerology; I've been taught that the reason for that number among all these classics is that 81 is nine squared, which I'd suggest we interpret as " nine to an extreme " in non-mathematical language. Of course, nine itself refers to yang in the extreme (transforming into yin). Relative to our embodied spirits, of course, yang is mental while yin is physical. So, my interpretation is that these classics derive from extreme mental focus (beyond " normal " consciousness), which invites, and perhaps we might even say requires, that one be still (yin) and meditate on them to begin unlocking their mysteries. As you say, there may be an entire doctrine " packed " into a few characters, or frequently in Neijing, the sequence information is presented. That compression of wisdom into a text, often beyond what seems to be written superficially, is what constitutes a " classic " to me. One must sit and " unpack " a classic, just as with important religious texts like the Bible, Torah, Koran, Vedas, or Sutras. The usual scholarship is not enough; it only begins the process. I'd say that each of us is invited to work with the classics of Chinese medicine, especially in clinical practice, to begin unpacking what they mean to us. What do they say about the nature of life in health and disease? Oh, and Z'ev, because you commented on my description of learning with Jeffrey Yuen, I think this is a large part of why he teaches as he does. We each have to learn to unpack it for ourselves -- to own it for ourselves. I find that learning from Jeffrey is very much like learning from Neijing itself, though he speaks beautiful English. One must work with the ideas he presents, rather than simply retaining a body of information or even grasping a thinking process (as in math or science classes). In many of his classes, he does little to explain the conceptual context, significance, and practical application of many things he presents; he also has this " pesky " way of switching information sometimes when he's in the flow of consciousness (recall my earlier comparison with James Joyce, who is famous for writing sentences that were several pages long!). As students, we must learn to " sort out " what Jeffrey says, just as we must " sort out " the origins of our patient's suffering. He often billows through CM ideas to demonstrate the range of relationships, rather than carefully defining and delineating individual ideas for easy grasping by our linear thinking. The nature of a patient's underlying pathogenic factors, the course of their progression, and the direction of the individual's reaction to those challenges is not emblazoned on their foreheads when they come to see us. I believe we enhance our practice of Chinese medicine when we sort these issues out -- especially by separating the embodied spirit's intrinsic reaction/response from the original pathogenic factors, among the various clinical symptoms and signs that appear or manifest. I engage Chinese medicine as an inquiry, as a way of thinking, rather than as a body of information. Certainly, I agree that we must be aware of much information, but I also believe one can easily become lost in the information and lose the wisdom of its organizing principles (and might I say its spirit). Steve CCMforHealing.com On Sun, Jan 31, 2010 at 10:28 PM, <johnkokko wrote: > > > Steven, that is interesting about the comparison between the Nei jing and > Nan jing > concerning excesses and deficiencies. The Chinese in TCM say take out the > excess first, then tonify. > Most of the Japanese schools that I've come across, say the opposite. So, > this must be a reflection > of the influence of the respective texts on each culture. > > We are lucky that we have the " jings " , the classics that we can analyze and > learn from, > much like holy texts, the bible, the torah, the koran, the vedas, the > sutras. > > What constitutes a text to be called a " jing " ? > and why 108 issues in the Su wen (Nei jing), Zhen jiu jing and Nan jing? > > K > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 I agree, we need more translations of the classics. The Zhen jiu da cheng is in the pipeline, Database ( http://cm-db.com ) is publishing it, and it is available for pre-order now. Blue Poppy put out a small section of it about twenty years ago. . While Paul Unschuld is not a clinician, his methodology of translation and commentary is far superior to anything else in English, with the exception of the Wiseman/Mitchell/Ye translation of the Shang Han Lun and Sabine Wilm's translation of the Bei ji qian jin yao fang/Prescriptions worth a Thousand in Gold. Again, in all these texts, terms are explained, concepts extensively footnoted, and the Chinese is alongside the translation. With the Shang Han Lun, you also get expert clinical commentary by Feng Ye, one of the great practitioners in Taiwan who has basically memorized the Shang Han Lun. On Jan 31, 2010, at 10:18 PM, wrote: > Z'ev, I do know that the Van Nghi translation is from the Chinese to French > to English, > but the commentaries are what is worth the purchase. Without the > commentary, we would skim over material like reading a novel and in a few > lines, a whole system of thought might be addressed. > In the translation, there is also commentary by Van Nghi who was a clinician > who used the Nei jing daily in his practice. > > Although Unschuld is a sinologist beyond compare, he is not a clinician, so > I wonder if you think anything would be lost from his translation...? > > We need more people who are passionate about the classics, so that book > sales go up and then there would be more money for translations. Can you > imagine that after 35 years of having acupuncture licensed in this country, > we still don't have a translation of the Zhen jiu da cheng by Yang Ji Zhou > or the Jing yue quan shu by Zhang Jing Yue ? > > K > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 Any comments on the Nguyen (Vietnamese/ to French/ to English) version of the Ling Shu published by the Jung Tao School? I haven't been on this e-group long; maybe this has been discussed in the past. Is it recommended? RS On Mon, Feb 1, 2010 at 10:42 AM, <zrosenbe wrote: > I agree, we need more translations of the classics. The Zhen jiu da cheng > is in the pipeline, Database ( http://cm-db.com ) is > publishing it, and it is available for pre-order now. Blue Poppy put out a > small section of it about twenty years ago. . > > While Paul Unschuld is not a clinician, his methodology of translation and > commentary is far superior to anything else in English, with the exception > of the Wiseman/Mitchell/Ye translation of the Shang Han Lun and Sabine > Wilm's translation of the Bei ji qian jin yao fang/Prescriptions worth a > Thousand in Gold. Again, in all these texts, terms are explained, concepts > extensively footnoted, and the Chinese is alongside the translation. With > the Shang Han Lun, you also get expert clinical commentary by Feng Ye, one > of the great practitioners in Taiwan who has basically memorized the Shang > Han Lun. > > > On Jan 31, 2010, at 10:18 PM, wrote: > > > Z'ev, I do know that the Van Nghi translation is from the Chinese to > French > > to English, > > but the commentaries are what is worth the purchase. Without the > > commentary, we would skim over material like reading a novel and in a few > > lines, a whole system of thought might be addressed. > > In the translation, there is also commentary by Van Nghi who was a > clinician > > who used the Nei jing daily in his practice. > > > > Although Unschuld is a sinologist beyond compare, he is not a clinician, > so > > I wonder if you think anything would be lost from his translation...? > > > > We need more people who are passionate about the classics, so that book > > sales go up and then there would be more money for translations. Can you > > imagine that after 35 years of having acupuncture licensed in this > country, > > we still don't have a translation of the Zhen jiu da cheng by Yang Ji > Zhou > > or the Jing yue quan shu by Zhang Jing Yue ? > > > > K > > > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 1, 2010 Report Share Posted February 1, 2010 John, and All, You wrote: > > We need Zhang Jing Yue's " Lei jing " in translation. > and: >Can you imagine that after 35 years of having acupuncture licensed in this country, we still don't have a translation of the Zhen jiu da cheng by Yang Ji Zhou or the Jing yue quan shu by Zhang Jing Yue ? There are people like me who are ready to pick up these projects. There is work being done on the Zhen jiu da cheng right now and part of it appeared on cm-db.com. If our field provided funding for translations of such important texts I would start the work today. Nicolaas Herman Oving (currently working on an annotated translation of Xue zheng lun) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.