Problems with Nei-jing translations

February 26, 2010

Hi Doug, Z'ev, Thomas, Steven....

I'm reading both Henry Lu's and Nguyen Van Nghi's translations of the Ling

shu

and am frustrated in the inconsistency in both. Henry Lu is a scholar, but

his translation of Qi into " energy " ,

for instance is stifling. I wish he would actually just keep the pinyin

terms intact for major terminology, instead of translating them without

reference. The Nguyen Van Nghi translation lists both, but retains the

mistake of translating Qi into " energy " .

For instance, Ling shu 8th issue: according to Nguyen Van Nghi:

" Huang di asks Qi-bo: Every act of needling should be based on the Shen

(mind), the Xue (blood), the Mai (vessels),

the Ying (nutritive energy), the Qi (energy), and the Jingshen (mental

quintessence), which are stored in the five organs.

When debauchery cuts them off from an organ, the Jing declines, the Hun and

the Po (vegetative and sensitive souls) waft away; the Zhi and the Lu

(intelligence and pre-occupation) are lacking... "

What this shows me is 1. it would be sublime to be able to have clarity in

the terminology for the translations, as even the English words in

translation seem vague and open-ended.... for instance... " vegetative and

sensitive souls " for Hun and Po.

2. I need to put the hours into reading the characters themselves. If we

get the source text material wrong from the start from unclear translations

then all of our interpretations are going to be acutely off-base.

3. We need to read the commentaries from Wang Bing, Ma Yuan Tai (Ma shi),

Zhang An Yin (Zhang shi), Zhang Jing yue (Zhang Jie Bin) and others in order

to really understand the way that the Great Nei jing scholars of the past

understood the text. If we haven't read the commentaries and don't know

exactly if the text means " Shen " , " Hun " or " Ling " when it writes " Spirit " ,

how can we call ourselves an expert in the Nei jing?

The problem with Wu Jing-Nuan's translation of the Ling shu is that there

are barely and foot-notes or references or commentaries.

This is the saving grace for Henry Lu and Nguyen Van Nghi's translations.

K

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 6:20 PM, wrote:

>

> It's only when I started teaching the Fundamentals class did I really start

> digging into Chinese. I don't say I read but I am forever looking up words

> for meaning. Some times meaning comes from translation, some comes from

> sociology, some comes from history. Last year hearing Elizabeth Rochat

> saying rather off-hand that " oh, we can't analyze this word because we are

> only analyzing the English, we have to look at the Chinese " , that got me

> going.

>

> Doug

>

> --- In

<%40>,

> wrote:

> >

> > Steve et al,

> >

> > I think it is important to face some truths. If you don't read the

> original

> > Chinese then people who do, are not likely to take what you say very

> > seriously. As someone who has spent the last few years working on my

> Chinese

> > and can get through most of the basic texts without too much difficulty,

> I

> > find reading most of the Classic texts quite challenging. After nearly 20

> > years of studying Chinese medicine, most of it through translations, I am

> > now beginning to see why people like Bob have been saying for years, " If

> you

> > really want to understand Chinese medicine, learn to read Chinese " it is

> > really that simple, there are very few translations that are going to get

> > you anywhere near what you get when you actually read the original

> Chinese,

> > sorry but that is the plain truth. The Mitchel, Wiseman, Feng translation

> of

> > the Shang Han Lun is the only translation of a Classic that comes to mind

> as

> > one of these exceptions.

> >

> > To be honest, I find what you say interesting, but knowing that you can't

> > read the original makes it difficult for me to take it too seriously. I

> am

> > sure you have worked very hard and perhaps have some good insight, but

> the

> > reason I started to seriously study Chinese language was exactly because

> > after teaching for a few years I came to the realization that anything

> > outside of my clinical experience was nothing more than what the students

> > could read in English and if I could read the original I would gain both

> a

> > vastly larger corpus of information, and likely a heck of a lot of

> insight.

> > Both have borne out to be true. And, I think if you ask anyone on this

> list

> > who has gone through a similar process I feel confident they would say

> their

> > experience is the same (or nearly so :-).

> >

> > This is not to say that one can not practice Chinese medicine without

> > Chinese language skill, but to be a scholar and, in my opinion, a

> teacher,

> > you MUST be able to read the original, this is, IMHO, basic academic

> rigor.

> > I feel pretty confidant that if you went to any university and asked

> about

> > becoming a scholar in any tradition they would ALL say you MUST learn the

> > language of origin in order to pursue this endeavor.

> >

> > Although Bob is no longer with us on this forum, I will take this

> > opportunity to thank him for all he has contributed to this field. He has

> > been quite a lightning rod over the years, but all-in-all he has

> contributed

> > at least as much as anyone else has to the furthering of Chinese medicine

> in

> > the West. May you find true happiness!

> >

> > In Good Health,

> > Thomas

> >

> > cell:

> > Beijing, China

> > Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> > Practitioners Guide "

> >

February 27, 2010

K,

I missed your post, below, before I posted mine. I completely agree... just

because someone uses the word " spirit " one cannot blindly assume, because

that is their personal bias, that they are referring to Spirit with a big S.

-Jason