Ming=destiny?

[Guest guest]

Just as the medical texts can be read on inner and outer levels so too can the

philosophical texts. Some people read Laozi as a political text, and some as a

spiritual text. True, the mandate of heaven was applied politically but the

inner dimensions entailed a deep discourse on the nature of choice, surrender,

and nonduality. Ultimately the recognition of heaven's purpose, Shen large " S " ,

through the application of will.

 

I highly recommend the writings of Dang Zhunyi on what may well have been the

most important philosophical conversation at the time the classics were written

and perhaps in Chinese history.

[Guest guest]

Lonny, Jason, Eric,

 

I wondered why Unschuld translates the two occurences of tian1ming4 in the Suwen

as 'mandate of heaven' in his dictionary whereas the Chinese commentaries I have

consulted explain it simply as meaning 'life' or 'natural life span' (context:

end of Suwen 3 and 74), and looked it up in his introduction to the Suwen where

I found some very interesting remarks on page 344. I thought of mentioning this

as it is relevant for the ongoing discussion.

 

Jason, I will (sooner or later) come back to your mail about the Neijing

dictionary and the list of definitions for shen2 and ming4 therein. Man, you've

got me studying!

 

N. Herman

 

 

, " Lonny " <revolution wrote:

>

> Just as the medical texts can be read on inner and outer levels so too can the

philosophical texts. Some people read Laozi as a political text, and some as a

spiritual text. True, the mandate of heaven was applied politically but the

inner dimensions entailed a deep discourse on the nature of choice, surrender,

and nonduality. Ultimately the recognition of heaven's purpose, Shen large " S " ,

through the application of will.

>

> I highly recommend the writings of Dang Zhunyi on what may well have been the

most important philosophical conversation at the time the classics were written

and perhaps in Chinese history.

>

[Guest guest]

Lonny, I can't help but feel that you are skirting the issue. All of these

questions are just red herrings.

 

 

 

I will ask again very clearly and directly. Please provide any evidence via

commentary that supports the idea that ming = destiny in the first opening

line of the shen nong ben cao jing. I have provided evidence from Chinese

commentary that states that ming=life. Actually just reading the text with

basic Chinese skills in my opinion also renders it as ¡°life¡±.

 

 

 

Since this is a perfect example for this larger topic I suggest we spend our

energy staying focused to unravel this.

 

 

 

For those that did not get the first characters from the first line, here

they are.

 

 

 

ÉÏÒ©Ò»°Ù¶þÊ®ÖÖΪ¾ý£¬Ö÷ÑøÃüÒÔÓ¦Ì죬ÎÞ¶¾£¬¶à·þ¾Ã·þ²»ÉËÈË£¬ÓûÇáÉíÒæÆø²»ÀÏÑÓ

ÄêÕߣ¬±¾¡¶ÉϾ­¡·¡£

 

 

 

ÖÐÒ©Ò»°Ù¶þÊ®ÖÖΪ³¼£¬Ö÷ÑøÐÔÒÔÓ¦ÈË£¬ÎÞ¶¾£¬Óж¾£¬Õå×ÃÆäÒË£¬Óû¶ô²¡²¹ÐéÙúÕߣ¬

±¾¡¶Öо­¡·¡£

 

 

 

ÏÂÒ©Ò»°Ù¶þÊ®ÖÖΪ¾ý£¬Ö÷Öβ¡ÒÔÓ¦µØ£¬¶à¶¾£¬²»¿É¾Ã·þ£¬Óû³ýº®ÈÈаÆø¡¢ÆÆ»ý¾Û¡¢

Óú¼²Õߣ¬±¾¡¶Ï¾­¡·¡£

 

 

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Lonny

Friday, March 05, 2010 8:47 PM

 

Re: Ming=destiny?

 

 

 

 

 

Jason,

 

Why is Cinnabar, the most important herb in Chinese inner and outer alchemy

the first herb listed in the highest category of herbs that correspond to

heaven?

 

What is the significance of cinnibar in Chinese culture at the time the text

was written?

 

What does Ge Hong say about it having quoted the opening stanza of the the

SNBC in his Nei Pien?

 

What does he mean when he says " These words come from the highest sages and

are lost on the masses most of who go through life like walking corpses? "

 

What does it mean when the text tells us the cinnabar " makes the body

light? "

 

What does it mean when the Daoists use cinnabar as a metaphor for ego and

mercury for flexible consciousness?

 

What is the relationship between flexible consciousness, Shen with a large

" S " , and destiny?

 

What is the relevance of the symbolism of applying fire to metal to

transform cinnabar into mercury?

 

What is the relevance of mercury to conception and the trigram for water?

 

What is the significance that the first herb in the SNBC, in the category

corresponding to heaven " calms the spirit " ?

 

What are the inner and outer uses of cinnabar in inner and outer alchemy?

 

Thanks, Lonny

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Herman,

 

 

 

I definitely want to hear more about tian ming, however, just to be clear

this phrase does not occur in the shen nong ben cao jing. The characters

tian and ming did occur separately in the same passage, Ö÷ÑøÃüÒÔÓ¦Ìì, and it

seems that Lonny has found some significance to this. I would like to hear

more about why there is significant here.

 

 

 

Mandate of heaven or heavily mandate is a typical translation for tian ming

(ÌìÃü). However, we have to really understand what this means from a Chinese

perspective. It would be interesting to ask Unschuld his opinion. Maybe he

has a special dictionary that discusses this.

 

 

 

Glad you are studying, it definitely is an interesting topic.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of aowenherman

Friday, March 05, 2010 11:35 PM

 

Re: Ming=destiny?

 

 

 

 

 

Lonny, Jason, Eric,

 

I wondered why Unschuld translates the two occurences of tian1ming4 in the

Suwen as 'mandate of heaven' in his dictionary whereas the Chinese

commentaries I have consulted explain it simply as meaning 'life' or

'natural life span' (context: end of Suwen 3 and 74), and looked it up in

his introduction to the Suwen where I found some very interesting remarks on

page 344. I thought of mentioning this as it is relevant for the ongoing

discussion.

 

Jason, I will (sooner or later) come back to your mail about the Neijing

dictionary and the list of definitions for shen2 and ming4 therein. Man,

you've got me studying!

 

N. Herman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Lonny: When I say that Shen, large " S " contextualizes the medicine,

" beginning to end, top to bottom, inside and out " that is because, from the

point of view of the absolute, Shen/Consciousness/Spirit contextualize

everything. Now I am talking from a synthesis of a very wide range of

writing including the Daoist cannon, Confucian texts, alchemical texts,

vitality texts, personal experience, and statements such as those made by

Hur Jun. It's a perspective fully supportable from a wide range of

traditions, scientific perspectives, and experiences. It's an integral view

that recognizes the primacy of Consciousness/Spirit.

 

 

 

Jason: okay, I get it now. This is your opinion that you have acquired

through all your studies, that is fine. But I think it is safe to say that

there are plenty of Chinese medical texts (actually the large majority) that

has nothing to do with Shen, large " S " contextualizing the medicine. So we

can respect that you choose to view all of these texts from your point of

view. However, this has little to do with Chinese medicine's (mainstream)

point of view. Although there may be other traditions (outside of Chinese

medicine) that hold this position, no one can argue with this (people can

believe whatever they want), but it still does not give any further validity

to interpreting Chinese medicine texts accurately.

 

 

 

Some people see all unexplained phenomenon as coming from UFO¡Çs. Although

I

don't hold this point of view, I respect their opinion to believe this. But

if they are going to start interpreting every type of medical texts as being

references to UFO phenomenon then we have to ask for evidence.

 

 

 

Furthermore, citing a ¡ÈDaoist cannon or Confucian texts¡É, which by

the way

has not been done yet, does not in the least bit support the way medical

texts were written. If a Daoist cannon uses ming (Ì¿) in a specific (maybe

even divine) way does that mean that a medical text that also uses this term

has the same usage. Of course not. We know that such a term can be used in a

wide variety of ways. We must use the context of each text and commentaries

to decipher each usage. However, if there is some Daoist cannon that you

feel explains a medical text in this more spiritual or divine way then

please present this.

 

 

 

Quite simply, many Chinese medicine doctors were just concerned with saving

lives, and believe it or not treating the pattern. Many had no expectations

of providing some spiritual treatments/support. Actually, I would say that

is the majority of the cases. Otherwise we would find people writing about

it all the time. But as we see, we don't find such writings contained in

medical texts. We find a paragraph here and there. We find a word that we

try to build a bigger meaning out of.

 

 

 

Since philosophical texts openly wrote about these more broader ideas, it is

completely illogical to think that there was some government suppression

when it came to the medical texts written at the same time. Most texts just

do not contain any obvious affiliation with capital ¡ÈS¡Épirit. I

think that

is very clear.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Lonny

 

When I say that Shen, large " S " contextualizes the medicine, " beginning to

end, top to bottom, inside and out " that is because, from the point of view

of the absolute, Shen/Consciousness/Spirit contextualize everything. Now I

am talking from a synthesis of a very wide range of writing including the

Daoist cannon, Confucian texts, alchemical texts, vitality texts, personal

experience, and statements such as those made by Hur Jun. It's a perspective

fully supportable from a wide range of traditions, scientific perspectives,

and experiences. It's an integral view that recognizes the primacy of

Consciousness/Spirit.

 

I also meant that every time shen, small " s " , is mentioned, the reference

point for reality is Shen " large " S " . This has everything to do with the Top

down/ bottom up distinction I originally made that Bob applauded. In other

words, our own cognitive and psychological processes " s " are always

diagnosed relative to Shen, large " S " . It is Shen, Spirit, Consciousness

that is the reference point.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason, hi again,

 

Let's look at the phrase Lonny referred to:

 

Ö÷ÑøÃüÒÔÓ¦Ìì

 

Eric translated this as:

 

" [These items] govern nourishing life and correspond to heaven "

 

Yang Shouzhong's version (in the translation published by Blue Poppy):

 

" They mainly nourish life and correspond to heaven. "

 

(A modern Chinese commentary suggests reading Ö÷ as: 'are appropriate to').

 

What surprises me is that both translations have an 'and' while the text has the

character ÒÔ and that is left untranslated. I think that ÒÔ means 'by / by

means of / through' here, but it can also mean 'and therefore'.

 

So, in my opinion, the sentence is best translated as:

 

'[These medicinals] govern nourishing life by corresponding to heaven.'

 

In other words, what follows ÒÔ is an answer to the question: How do they

nourish life? -- By [virtue of] their correspondence to heaven.

 

If there is someone who believes we should read ÒÔ differently I would like to

hear about it. However, the 'and' in Eric's and Yang's translation is, in my

opinion, not satisfying at all.

 

Now about Ãü ming4. Lonny thinks that ming4 means 'destiny' in this context -

at least, that's what I gather from his mails. He uses 'destiny' for tian1ming4

as well but has not given a concrete reference, i.e., a citation from a Chinese

text, yet.

 

I do not agree and would never translate yang3ming4 as ¡®nourishing destiny'.

As Jason noted, Chinese commentators say that yang3ming4 is the same as

yang3sheng1, nourishing life, and ming4 just means life here. However, I am

willing to at least try to play the devil's advocate, in the hopes of learning

something from it.

 

After consulting several C-C dictionaries, I thought of looking at Rouzer¡¯s A

New Practical Primer of Literary Chinese, and his entry for ming4 is as follows:

 

1. To command; a command

2. Fate; life span

Note: What Heaven or the gods command for you is your fate. They also command

your life span.

 

From this you may understand why ming4 can mean both ¡®life¡¯ and ¡®fate,

destiny¡¯. Since the origin of the word is related to the concept of a certain

¡®higher power¡¯ that commands/ orders things related to human life (the length

of it, the course of it), Lonny does not just make things up when his thinking

takes that direction.

 

Ok, shoot!

 

Herman

 

 

, " " wrote:

>

> Herman,

>

>

>

> I definitely want to hear more about tian ming, however, just to be clear

> this phrase does not occur in the shen nong ben cao jing. The characters

> tian and ming did occur separately in the same passage, Ö÷ÑøÃüÒÔÓ¦Ìì, and it

> seems that Lonny has found some significance to this. I would like to hear

> more about why there is significant here.

>

>

>

> Mandate of heaven or heavily mandate is a typical translation for tian ming

> (ÌìÃü). However, we have to really understand what this means from a Chinese

> perspective. It would be interesting to ask Unschuld his opinion. Maybe he

> has a special dictionary that discusses this.

>

>

>

> Glad you are studying, it definitely is an interesting topic.

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

>

> On Behalf Of aowenherman

> Friday, March 05, 2010 11:35 PM

>

> Re: Ming=destiny?

>

>

>

>

>

> Lonny, Jason, Eric,

>

> I wondered why Unschuld translates the two occurences of tian1ming4 in the

> Suwen as 'mandate of heaven' in his dictionary whereas the Chinese

> commentaries I have consulted explain it simply as meaning 'life' or

> 'natural life span' (context: end of Suwen 3 and 74), and looked it up in

> his introduction to the Suwen where I found some very interesting remarks on

> page 344. I thought of mentioning this as it is relevant for the ongoing

> discussion.

>

> Jason, I will (sooner or later) come back to your mail about the Neijing

> dictionary and the list of definitions for shen2 and ming4 therein. Man,

> you've got me studying!

>

> N. Herman

 

[Guest guest]

Hello

Could anyone please give the Chinese characters for Dang Zhuyi

Thanks in advance

Gabe Fuentes

 

 

I highly recommend the writings of Dang Zhunyi on what may well have been the

most important philosophical conversation at the time the classics were written

and perhaps in Chinese history.

 

--- On Fri, 3/5/10, Lonny <revolution wrote:

 

 

Lonny <revolution

Re: Ming=destiny?

 

Friday, March 5, 2010, 10:23 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Just as the medical texts can be read on inner and outer levels so too can the

philosophical texts. Some people read Laozi as a political text, and some as a

spiritual text. True, the mandate of heaven was applied politically but the

inner dimensions entailed a deep discourse on the nature of choice, surrender,

and nonduality. Ultimately the recognition of heaven's purpose, Shen large " S " ,

through the application of will.

 

I highly recommend the writings of Dang Zhunyi on what may well have been the

most important philosophical conversation at the time the classics were written

and perhaps in Chinese history.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hello Herman

 

what encoding are you using for the Chinese characters.

Gabe Fuentes

 

 

--- On Sat, 3/6/10, aowenherman <aowenherman wrote:

 

 

aowenherman <aowenherman

Re: Ming=destiny?

 

Saturday, March 6, 2010, 8:45 PM

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason, hi again,

 

Let's look at the phrase Lonny referred to:

 

Ö÷ÑøÃüÒÔÓ¦Ìì

 

Eric translated this as:

 

" [These items] govern nourishing life and correspond to heaven "

 

Yang Shouzhong's version (in the translation published by Blue Poppy):

 

" They mainly nourish life and correspond to heaven. "

 

(A modern Chinese commentary suggests reading Ö÷ as: 'are appropriate to').

 

What surprises me is that both translations have an 'and' while the text has the

character ÒÔ and that is left untranslated. I think that ÒÔ means 'by / by

means of / through' here, but it can also mean 'and therefore'.

 

So, in my opinion, the sentence is best translated as:

 

'[These medicinals] govern nourishing life by corresponding to heaven.'

 

In other words, what follows ÒÔ is an answer to the question: How do they

nourish life? -- By [virtue of] their correspondence to heaven.

 

If there is someone who believes we should read ÒÔ differently I would like to

hear about it. However, the 'and' in Eric's and Yang's translation is, in my

opinion, not satisfying at all.

 

Now about Ãü ming4. Lonny thinks that ming4 means 'destiny' in this context -

at least, that's what I gather from his mails. He uses 'destiny' for tian1ming4

as well but has not given a concrete reference, i.e., a citation from a Chinese

text, yet.

 

I do not agree and would never translate yang3ming4 as ¡®nourishing destiny'.

As Jason noted, Chinese commentators say that yang3ming4 is the same as

yang3sheng1, nourishing life, and ming4 just means life here. However, I am

willing to at least try to play the devil's advocate, in the hopes of learning

something from it.

 

After consulting several C-C dictionaries, I thought of looking at Rouzer¡¯s A

New Practical Primer of Literary Chinese, and his entry for ming4 is as follows:

 

1. To command; a command

2. Fate; life span

Note: What Heaven or the gods command for you is your fate. They also command

your life span.

 

From this you may understand why ming4 can mean both ¡®life¡¯ and ¡®fate,

destiny¡¯. Since the origin of the word is related to the concept of a certain

¡®higher power¡¯ that commands/ orders things related to human life (the

length of it, the course of it), Lonny does not just make things up when his

thinking takes that direction.

 

Ok, shoot!

 

Herman

 

, " " <@.. .>

wrote:

>

> Herman,

>

>

>

> I definitely want to hear more about tian ming, however, just to be clear

> this phrase does not occur in the shen nong ben cao jing. The characters

> tian and ming did occur separately in the same passage,

Ö÷ÑøÃüÒÔÓ¦Ìì, and it

> seems that Lonny has found some significance to this. I would like to hear

> more about why there is significant here.

>

>

>

> Mandate of heaven or heavily mandate is a typical translation for tian ming

> (ÌìÃü). However, we have to really understand what this means from a

Chinese

> perspective. It would be interesting to ask Unschuld his opinion. Maybe he

> has a special dictionary that discusses this.

>

>

>

> Glad you are studying, it definitely is an interesting topic.

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

>

>

>

> [] On Behalf Of aowenherman

> Friday, March 05, 2010 11:35 PM

>

> Re: Ming=destiny?

>

>

>

>

>

> Lonny, Jason, Eric,

>

> I wondered why Unschuld translates the two occurences of tian1ming4 in the

> Suwen as 'mandate of heaven' in his dictionary whereas the Chinese

> commentaries I have consulted explain it simply as meaning 'life' or

> 'natural life span' (context: end of Suwen 3 and 74), and looked it up in

> his introduction to the Suwen where I found some very interesting remarks on

> page 344. I thought of mentioning this as it is relevant for the ongoing

> discussion.

>

> Jason, I will (sooner or later) come back to your mail about the Neijing

> dictionary and the list of definitions for shen2 and ming4 therein. Man,

> you've got me studying!

>

> N. Herman

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Herman,

 

 

 

Thanks for the post, this is the kind of discussion we need to have to help

understand these issues. Just to be clear, the only reason I feel Lonny is

making stuff up is because he doesn't provide any sources. Lonny's point of

view may be correct, but if we want to look at this with any type of rigor,

one must present evidence. I actually have no attachment either way.

However, I tend to trust commentators who have usually spent years thinking

about these issues and who have much better classical Chinese skills than

me.

 

 

 

But that should not stop us from investigating this ourselves with the

sources we have. You bring up an interesting point revolving around the

grammar of the passage. Essentially it has to do with ÒÔ (yi). As you know,

 

ÒÔ (yi) is one of the most frequently used characters in literary Chinese

and has a wide range of meanings. Context is everything. Generally speaking,

whenÒÔ (yi) is followed by a noun it is translated as by / by means of /

through/with e.g. (S *yi* N V. However in this situation it is followed

directly by a verb and hence it is probably best translated as ¡°so as to¡±,

or just ¡°and¡±.

 

 

 

If one looks at the whole line (and the following two) it is somewhat clear

that they are setting up a classification system.

 

1. The first category of herbs are Chiefs and correspond to heaven.

 

2. The second category of herbs are deputies and correspond to (wo)man.

 

3. The third category of herbs are assistants and envoys correspond to

Earth.

 

 

 

But let us just say that this was something along the lines of these herbs

worked *by* corresponding to heaven (heavily mandate). That would mean that

the two lines (sections ) that follow must follow suit. This would lead to

very strange understanding of herbs. For example these herbs treat disease

*by* corresponding to Earth *or* by virtue of corresponding to Earth " ¨C

although we might imagine that herbs work by corresponding to the heavenly

mandate or destiny, how does an herb ¡°treat disease¡± *by* corresponding to

Earth? it makes much more sense that herbs treat disease and corresponds to

the [category of] Earth. Since this three tier system is used in many

places, this makes the most sense to me.

 

 

 

But the nail in the coffin seems to be Unschuld (who has wicked classical

Chinese skills) who translates this passage as.

 

 

 

¡°the upper class of drugs comprises 120 kinds. They are the rulers. They

control the maintenance of life and correspond to heaven. "

 

 

 

Therefore, although Unschuld translates tian1ming4 in the Suwen as 'mandate

of heaven¡¯- clearly showing that he is not adverse to viewing things from a

more " spiritual / philosophical " perspective. He translates this ÑøÃü£¨yang

ming£© from the shen nong ben cao jing as ¡°nourishing life¡± in another

location, and here as " maintenance of life. " He also, in reference to the

shen nong jing, says that this book deals with medical problems such as the

" art of prolonging life. "

 

 

 

With all the English translations agreeing, and all of these translations

agreeing with commentary from Chinese sources, I really see no evidence that

this is untrue (meaning ming=life, not destiny.) Therefore, I do agree with

Eric¡¯s, Unschuld¡¯s and Yang Shouzhong¡¯s translation.

 

 

 

*As for ming*

 

 

 

I will address this in more detail my next post (which I wrote yesterday).

But really quick, I completely agree with Lonny that ming in many

situations, probably in the majority of instances in philosophical writings,

has a much bigger meaning than just life span. However, every instance must

be judged by itself and for some reason medical writing uses terms

differently than philosophical writing. Although I love Rouzer¡¯s A New

Practical Primer of Literary Chinese it definitely is not dealing with

medical examples. Of note, all dictionaries I consulted for ming have

separate entries for life span and fate.

 

 

 

Great conversation, do you Herman, or others, have other ideas?

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of aowenherman

Saturday, March 06, 2010 7:46 PM

 

Re: Ming=destiny?

 

 

 

 

 

Jason, hi again,

 

Let's look at the phrase Lonny referred to:

 

Ö÷ÑøÃüÒÔÓ¦Ìì

 

Eric translated this as:

 

" [These items] govern nourishing life and correspond to heaven "

 

Yang Shouzhong's version (in the translation published by Blue Poppy):

 

" They mainly nourish life and correspond to heaven. "

 

(A modern Chinese commentary suggests reading Ö÷ as: 'are appropriate to').

 

What surprises me is that both translations have an 'and' while the text has

the character ÒÔ and that is left untranslated. I think that ÒÔ means 'by /

by means of / through' here, but it can also mean 'and therefore'.

 

So, in my opinion, the sentence is best translated as:

 

'[These medicinals] govern nourishing life by corresponding to heaven.'

 

In other words, what follows ÒÔ is an answer to the question: How do they

nourish life? -- By [virtue of] their correspondence to heaven.

 

If there is someone who believes we should read ÒÔ differently I would like

to hear about it. However, the 'and' in Eric's and Yang's translation is, in

my opinion, not satisfying at all.

 

Now about Ãü ming4. Lonny thinks that ming4 means 'destiny' in this context

- at least, that's what I gather from his mails. He uses 'destiny' for

tian1ming4 as well but has not given a concrete reference, i.e., a citation

from a Chinese text, yet.

 

I do not agree and would never translate yang3ming4 as ¡®nourishing

destiny'. As Jason noted, Chinese commentators say that yang3ming4 is the

same as yang3sheng1, nourishing life, and ming4 just means life here.

However, I am willing to at least try to play the devil's advocate, in the

hopes of learning something from it.

 

After consulting several C-C dictionaries, I thought of looking at Rouzer¡¯s

A New Practical Primer of Literary Chinese, and his entry for ming4 is as

follows:

 

1. To command; a command

2. Fate; life span

Note: What Heaven or the gods command for you is your fate. They also

command your life span.

 

From this you may understand why ming4 can mean both ¡®life¡¯ and ¡®fate,

destiny¡¯. Since the origin of the word is related to the concept of a

certain ¡®higher power¡¯ that commands/ orders things related to human life

(the length of it, the course of it), Lonny does not just make things up

when his thinking takes that direction.

 

Ok, shoot!

 

Herman

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Tang Chun-I

[Guest guest]

Hi Gabe,

 

I normally have the encodings set to Unicode (UTF-8) but had to switch to other

encodings (like simplified Chinese GB 2312) to be able to read characters on

this listserv. Since the problems of last week I only use the laptop with XP on

it when I send mails with characters but apparently that was not the (only)

problem for others to see the correct characters. I am at a loss about solving

the problems of the characters once and for all.

 

Best,

 

Herman

 

, Gabriel Fuentes <fuentes120

wrote:

>

> Hello Herman

>

> what encoding are you using for the Chinese characters.

> Gabe Fuentes

>

>

> --- On Sat, 3/6/10, aowenherman <aowenherman wrote:

>

>

> aowenherman <aowenherman

> Re: Ming=destiny?

>

> Saturday, March 6, 2010, 8:45 PM

Jason, hi again,

>

> Let's look at the phrase Lonny referred to:

>

> Ö÷Ã`øÃüÃ'à " à " ¦Ìì

>

> Eric translated this as:

>

> " [These items] govern nourishing life and correspond to heaven "

>

> Yang Shouzhong's version (in the translation published by Blue Poppy):

>

> " They mainly nourish life and correspond to heaven. "

>

> (A modern Chinese commentary suggests reading Ö÷ as: 'are appropriate to').

>

> What surprises me is that both translations have an 'and' while the text has

the character Ã'Ã " and that is left untranslated. I think that Ã'Ã " means 'by /

by means of / through' here, but it can also mean 'and therefore'.

>

> So, in my opinion, the sentence is best translated as:

>

> '[These medicinals] govern nourishing life by corresponding to heaven.'

>

> In other words, what follows Ã'Ã " is an answer to the question: How do they

nourish life? -- By [virtue of] their correspondence to heaven.

>

> If there is someone who believes we should read Ã'Ã " differently I would like

to hear about it. However, the 'and' in Eric's and Yang's translation is, in my

opinion, not satisfying at all.

>

> Now about Ãü ming4. Lonny thinks that ming4 means 'destiny' in this context

- at least, that's what I gather from his mails. He uses 'destiny' for

tian1ming4 as well but has not given a concrete reference, i.e., a citation from

a Chinese text, yet.

>

> I do not agree and would never translate yang3ming4 as ¡®nourishing

destiny'. As Jason noted, Chinese commentators say that yang3ming4 is the same

as yang3sheng1, nourishing life, and ming4 just means life here. However, I am

willing to at least try to play the devil's advocate, in the hopes of learning

something from it.

>

> After consulting several C-C dictionaries, I thought of looking at Rouzer¡¯s

A New Practical Primer of Literary Chinese, and his entry for ming4 is as

follows:

>

> 1. To command; a command

> 2. Fate; life span

> Note: What Heaven or the gods command for you is your fate. They also command

your life span.

>

> From this you may understand why ming4 can mean both ¡®life¡¯ and

¡®fate, destiny¡¯. Since the origin of the word is related to the concept of

a certain ¡®higher power¡¯ that commands/ orders things related to human

life (the length of it, the course of it), Lonny does not just make things up

when his thinking takes that direction.

>

> Ok, shoot!

>

> Herman

>

> , " " <@ .>

wrote:

> >

> > Herman,

> >

> >

> >

> > I definitely want to hear more about tian ming, however, just to be clear

> > this phrase does not occur in the shen nong ben cao jing. The characters

> > tian and ming did occur separately in the same passage,

Ö÷Ã`øÃüÃ'à " à " ¦Ìì, and it

> > seems that Lonny has found some significance to this. I would like to hear

> > more about why there is significant here.

> >

> >

> >

> > Mandate of heaven or heavily mandate is a typical translation for tian ming

> > (ÌìÃü). However, we have to really understand what this means from a

Chinese

> > perspective. It would be interesting to ask Unschuld his opinion. Maybe he

> > has a special dictionary that discusses this.

> >

> >

> >

> > Glad you are studying, it definitely is an interesting topic.

> >

> >

> >

> > -Jason

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > [] On Behalf Of aowenherman

> > Friday, March 05, 2010 11:35 PM

> >

> > Re: Ming=destiny?

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > Lonny, Jason, Eric,

> >

> > I wondered why Unschuld translates the two occurences of tian1ming4 in the

> > Suwen as 'mandate of heaven' in his dictionary whereas the Chinese

> > commentaries I have consulted explain it simply as meaning 'life' or

> > 'natural life span' (context: end of Suwen 3 and 74), and looked it up in

> > his introduction to the Suwen where I found some very interesting remarks on

> > page 344. I thought of mentioning this as it is relevant for the ongoing

> > discussion.

> >

> > Jason, I will (sooner or later) come back to your mail about the Neijing

> > dictionary and the list of definitions for shen2 and ming4 therein. Man,

> > you've got me studying!

> >

> > N. Herman

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Jason,

I think what's interesting are the heaven herbs lines after the first line

of the Shen nong ben cao jing...

" They are non-toxic and taking them in large amounts and for a long time

will not harm people.

If one intends to make ones body light, boost the Qi, prevent aging and

prolong life,

one should base (ones efforts) on the superior class. " (pgs. ix, x Yang

Shou-Zhong's translation.. Blue Poppy)

 

Note: making ones body light means " the acquisition of such supernormal

abilities as the power to fly

or to walk a thousand li without becoming tired. Such references underscore

that it was principally

the Daoists who created the early materia medica literature. In that case,

they were not primarily

concerned with the treatment of disease but the achievement of " immortality "

and various extraordinary

powers through the ingestion of various " elixirs " " (pg. ix)

 

The middle grade herbs (earth) ministers " mainly nurture personality and

correspond to humanity "

Note: nurturing personality means " good for cultivation of various virtues

in human beings " (pg. x)

 

Since the Shen nong ben cao jing is a Daoist text, we could analyze this

text based on what was

deemed most important to them .... immortality and special powers

ie.. " supernatural vision as in seeing the

past or future or seeing events occurring at a distance " (pg. 2) Secondly,

cultivation of virtue was recognized,

(middle grade herbs), but was lower on the hierarchy than becoming an

immortal and having special powers.

So, what was seen as spiritual by these late Han dynasty is different from

what seen as spiritual by

Sun Si-Miao's time (with buddhist and confucian influence... engaged

compassion leading to enlightenment... etc.)

 

What did enlightenment mean to the late Han dynasty authors?

What does it mean to " nurture the essence-spirit (jing-shen) and to quiet

the ethereal and corporal souls "

(Dan sha - Cinnabar pg. 2)

 

K

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason, hi,

 

The gratitude is mutual, I love this kind of discussion too. There is a lot of

work to do here on our little farm these days, but I want to give some feedback

to your mail. Please forgive me for doing that by cutting into your writing

(your text is marked by <>), and also forgive me if my wording is a bit

clumsy.

 

<<if we want to look at this with any type of rigor, one must present

evidence.>>

 

Yes.

 

<<I actually have no attachment either way.>>

 

Me neither. I just love to solve language problems. And I love Chinese

medicine. Mostly, that is. Sometimes it just drives me crazy, all the lack of

clarity and multi-interpretable phrases.

 

<<However, I tend to trust commentators who have usually spent years thinking

about these issues and who have much better classical Chinese skills than

me.>>

 

Yes, I mostly rely on commentators (and dictionaries) too, but as you know,

commentators throughout history have said different things about the meaning of

numerous passages in classical texts. I always liked to read texts like

Zhuangzi, Daodejing with commentaries, especially when the commentators

disagree. " Commentator X says that this means a, b, c ...... He is so wrong! "

– you see this kind of discourse all the time and it can be very entertaining.

Even if commentators agree that the original text is wrong, this (mostly) does

not lead to altogether abandoning it. This is, I think, related to the way

knowledge has been built in (premodern) China: not by discarding the old and

replacing it with something new (like Western science does), but more/ primarily

by using the building blocks of the old to expand the structures.

 

As for modern commentaries on and modern versions of ancient medical texts, I

have learned to be very critical. When I consult bai2hua4 versions of such

texts (i.e., translated into modern vernacular Chinese), I sometimes feel like

being addressed as being totally ignorant / stupid – some `explanations' are

oversimplifying and, by doing so, cruelly altering the original meanings to such

an extent that my respect for the compilers rapidly diminishes.

Several modern Chinese commentators (and/or translators) sometimes seem to find

it necessary to explain things that hardly need explanation, and certainly no

explanation that explains what I call `away from the meaning'. I have to say

that I shouldn't be generalizing – my library contains many commentaries from

the PRC that were prepared in, roughly, the period from the sixties to the

nineties of last century and of course there are also many excellent books from

that period. It's just something that I wished to mention – don't always trust

what a Chinese commentary says. I will come back to this subject when I find

time to write about what your Neijing dictionary wants us to believe shen2

means.

 

<<But that should not stop us from investigating this ourselves with the

sources we have. You bring up an interesting point revolving around the

grammar of the passage. Essentially it has to do with & #20197; (yi). As you

know,

& #20197; (yi) is one of the most frequently used characters in literary Chinese

and has a wide range of meanings. Context is everything. Generally speaking,

when & #20197; (yi) is followed by a noun it is translated as by / by means of /

through/with e.g. (S *yi* N V. However in this situation it is followed

directly by a verb and hence it is probably best translated as " so as to " ,

or just " and " . >>

 

I've checked and I have to correct myself (in my previous post I said that yi3

was left untranslated) because, indeed, it is possible, in certain structures,

to translate it with `and'.

However, this function of yi3 as `pure' conjunction mostly only occurs when it

is placed before verbal adjectiva. Here are two examples, one from Guwen

guanzhi and one from Suwen:

 

(in simplified characters)

 

& #20854; & #36131; & #24049; & #20063; & #37325; & #20197; & #21608;

What he requires of himself is heavy and extensive.

(or: The requirements he demands of himself are heavy and extensive.)

 

& #37325; and & #21608; are the verbal adjectiva here, connected by & #20197; ,

`and'.

 

& #22826; & #38451; & #33033; & #33267; & #27946; & #22823; & #20197; & #38271;

... the greater yang2 pulse arrives surging large and long

 

Now, this usage of yi3 is not so common and in the line we are discussing it is

followed by a verb-object construction (ying1tian1 & #24212; & #22825;, correspond

to heaven). I've presented two other usages of yi3 that, in my opinion, are

both applicable. I don't know why the other translators have chosen to ignore

the more common meanings of yi3 here.

 

To go into more detail, yi3 as conjunction (it can also be a preposition and

even an adverb) can be explained as originating from yi3zhi1 & #20197; & #20043; in

which & #20043; refers to something that is mentioned before. Mostly the action

that follows indicates the purpose of the preceding action: in order to, so as

to, etc. It also occurs that what follows & #20197; indicates the degree of what

precedes: and therefore, thus, so ... that. In this usage, it can be alternated

with & #32780; er2. And then, more or less following from this usage, there is

the possibility of & #20197; as pure conjunctivum, and, mostly occurring before

verbal adjectiva.

See further below.

 

<<If one looks at the whole line (and the following two) it is somewhat clear

that they are setting up a classification system.

 

1. The first category of herbs are Chiefs and correspond to heaven.

 

2. The second category of herbs are deputies and correspond to (wo)man.

 

3. The third category of herbs are assistants and envoys correspond to

Earth.

 

But let us just say that this was something along the lines of these herbs

worked *by* corresponding to heaven (heavily mandate). That would mean that

the two lines (sections ) that follow must follow suit. This would lead to

very strange understanding of herbs. For example these herbs treat disease

*by* corresponding to Earth *or* by virtue of corresponding to Earth " –

although we might imagine that herbs work by corresponding to the heavenly

mandate or destiny >>

 

uhh, no mandate or destiny. `corresponding to heaven' is what the text says

 

<< , how does an herb " treat disease " *by* corresponding to

Earth? it makes much more sense that herbs treat disease and corresponds to

the [category of] Earth. Since this three tier system is used in many

places, this makes the most sense to me.>>

 

Here I cannot follow you. I don't have any difficulty with `medicinals that

treat disease by corresponding to earth' or with `medicinals that treat disease

and therefore correspond to earth'. If you can imagine that herbs work by

corresponding to <heaven> why can't you for the other two? Of course, it would

need explanation, like the first phrase, but I don't understand why it would

lead to a strange understanding of herbs.

 

I've looked at a commentary I have here, and it says (in a note about

`ying1tian1'):

 

Corresponding to heaven. The upper class of medicinals governs nourishing of

life and & #22825; & #36947; & #20161; & #32946;, therefore it is said [that they]

`correspond to heaven'.

 

I don't have time to figure out a good translation of

& #22825; & #36947; & #20161; & #32946;. Tian1 – dao4 – ren2 – yu4 : heaven – Dao/ the

way – benevolence – give birth to. Something like: `the way of heaven is giving

birth to benevolence? the way of heaven is benevolence and giving birth? I

hope someone can help here ...

 

On the web I saw that there are several other Shennong bencao commentaries that

explain `ying1tian1' this way:

 

& #19978; & #21697; & #33647; & #29992; & #20110; & #20859; & #21629;, & #32780; & #22825; & #36947\

; & #20161; & #32946;, & #25152; & #20197; & #31216; & #20570; " & #24212; & #22825; "

 

& #22825; & #36947; & #20161; & #32946; & #25925; & #20113; & #24212; & #22825;

 

The last comment is from the & #26032; & #20462; & #26412; & #33609;, Xin xiu ben cao,

a rather important bencao from the 7th century.

 

I think you will understand that I am getting more and more convinced that the

reading:

 

`These medicinals nourish life and therefore correspond to heaven / by

corresponding to heaven.'

 

is a valid one (at least as much as the other, with the neutral `and'). If you

insist on reading `and' you should, in my opinion, at least be aware of the

`loaded' meaning of it here (there is a connection, one follows from the other).

 

<<But the nail in the coffin seems to be Unschuld (who has wicked classical

Chinese skills) who translates this passage as.

 

" the upper class of drugs comprises 120 kinds. They are the rulers. They

control the maintenance of life and correspond to heaven. " >>

 

Well, I've looked into this, and if I'm right and therefore must be a rebelling

nail in/at Unschuld's coffin, so be it. (`to be a nail AT the coffin' is how

the expression is used in Dutch and it seems to mean something quite different

than the English expression. In Dutch it means something very annoying that

continues to bother you after your death.) Anyway, it is not the first time

that I am not satisfied with something translated by Unschuld. (I'm not always

happy with my own translations either)

 

<<Therefore, although Unschuld translates tian1ming4 in the Suwen as 'mandate

of heaven'- clearly showing that he is not adverse to viewing things from a

more " spiritual / philosophical " perspective.>>

 

Erm, we weren't talking about tian1ming4 here, let's keep it separate.

 

<<He translates this & #20859; & #21629; & #65288;yangming & #65289; from the shen nong

ben cao jing as " nourishing life " in another location, and here as " maintenance

of life. " He also, in reference to the

shen nong jing, says that this book deals with medical problems such as the

" art of prolonging life. " >>

 

He actually explains, in Medicine in China – A History of Pharmaceutics, that

the fact that these life-prolonging drugs are categorized as the Upper Class

shows that the therapeutic properties of drugs were regarded with only secondary

interest (by the compilers). The `art of prolonging life' was not seen as a

`medical problem'.

Thanks for making me pick up that book again – when I started studying Chinese

medicinals it was the first book I read. I wish I had the time to re-read it.

 

Addition: John asked about formula texts predating Zhang Ji, and when I looked

at the opening section of Fuxingjue zangfu yongyao fayao (my translation of

which you can find on cm-db.com), I came across the statement that says that

when you study the Dao and seek longevity (for which the upper class medicinals

are used), you first have to dispel illness, and that it is only after the five

viscera are harmonized that you can proceed to `refine the Way of Inner Vision'.

 

<<With all the English translations agreeing, and all of these translations

agreeing with commentary from Chinese sources, I really see no evidence that

this is untrue (meaning ming=life, not destiny.) Therefore, I do agree with

Eric's, Unschuld's and Yang Shouzhong's translation.>>

 

As said before, I also think ming4=life in this sentence. It's still the `and'

that is bothering me in those translations and I haven't encountered a

commentary that explains which meaning of yi3 we should follow, and why. If you

can quote a commentary (Chinese, English, French, German, and/or whatnot) that

explains it you will make me very happy. Or maybe I should just be happy with

the fact that it can be read in different ways...

 

*As for ming*

 

<<I will address this in more detail my next post (which I wrote yesterday).

But really quick, I completely agree with Lonny that ming in many

situations, probably in the majority of instances in philosophical writings,

has a much bigger meaning than just life span. However, every instance must

be judged by itself and for some reason medical writing uses terms

differently than philosophical writing. Although I love Rouzer's A New

Practical Primer of Literary Chinese it definitely is not dealing with

medical examples. Of note, all dictionaries I consulted for ming have

separate entries for life span and fate.>>

 

Yes, Rouzer is not the book you desperately need when you deal with medical

texts. However, since I use it it has sometimes helped me to find solutions.

In the case of ming4, his note makes clear that the meanings `command (of

heaven)' `life/ life span' and `fate' are closely related, and I think it is

good to be aware of that, even if it appears in medical texts.

 

<<Great conversation, do you Herman, or others, have other ideas?>>

 

I hope to be able to make some time the coming week to look more into shen2 and

ming4, and your other mail. It's rare that I get involved in this kind of

time-consuming discussions on a mailing list (I am talking a lot with students

about such issues of course), but I think the time is well spent and [therefore

???] it's a nice experience.

 

Herman

[Guest guest]

Tang Junyi (1909- 1978) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Junyi

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tang_Junyi> was one of the New

Confucians. New Confucians began as a reaction to what was seen as the

death of Confucianism and the popular embrace of western philosophy and

thought as well as the communist rejection of traditional Confucian

ideas. It has evolved along national and political lines, often

accepting and rejecting various parts of traditional Chinese thought and

metaphysics to create a strange brew of spiritual and political

authoritarianism, while at the same time lending itself to a pan-Asian

explanation of such phenomena as modern economic development.

 

From John Makeham's book New Confucianism: A Critical Examination:

 

" New Confucianism has emerged as a neo-conservative philosophical

movement, with religious overtones, which claims to be the legitimate

transmitter and representative of orthodox Confucian values. By the

early 1990s, a broad consensus had been reached by scholars in Taiwan,

Hong Kong, and China that New Confucianism was a movement that could be

traced to the early part of the twentieth century, that it boasted

distinct phases of internal development, a cohort of representative

thinkers, and clearly defined lineages of intellectual transmission.

Particularly noteworthy, in teh late 1980s and early 1990s, ist he high

critical regard in which New Confucianism had come to be held by a large

number of mainland Chinese scholars. For example, in 1987, Fang Keli

maintained that of all the schools of thought in modern China, New

Confucianism ranks second only to Marxism in terms of its creative

theoretical qualities, influence, and longevity. Two years later, Zheng

Jiadong described the New Confucian " school " as being the longest

developing an most influential conservative school of thought and

cultural movement in modern Chinese history. "

 

 

 

 

, " Lonny " <revolution

wrote:

>

> Tang Chun-I

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Lonny,

 

What do you particularly appreciate about Tang Junyi's writing? Also

wondering what you are referring to when you write " the most important

philosophical conversation at the time the classics were written and

perhaps in Chinese history. " ? Don't know which of Tang's writings about

what conversation or what classics or which time period you're referring

to. But am curious.

 

Thanks,

 

Charlie

 

 

> --- On Fri, 3/5/10, Lonny revolution wrote:

>

> Lonny revolution

> Re: Ming=destiny?

>

> Friday, March 5, 2010, 10:23 PM

>

> Just as the medical texts can be read on inner and outer levels so too

can the philosophical texts. Some people read Laozi as a political text,

and some as a spiritual text. True, the mandate of heaven was applied

politically but the inner dimensions entailed a deep discourse on the

nature of choice, surrender, and nonduality. Ultimately the recognition

of heaven's purpose, Shen large " S " , through the application of will.

>

> I highly recommend the writings of Dang Zhunyi on what may well have

been the most important philosophical conversation at the time the

classics were written and perhaps in Chinese history.

[Guest guest]

Hi Charlie,

 

I'm referring specifically to Tang's two beautiful essays:

 

T'ang, Chun-I. (1962, January). " The t'ien ming [heavenly ordinance]

in pre-Ch'in China—I. " Philosophy and Culture: East and West

11: 195–218.

 

––––––––. (1962, April). " The t'ien ming [heavenly ordinance] in pre-

Ch'in China—II. " Philosophy and Culture: East and West 12: 29–49.

 

A culture's notion of destiny and enlightenment figure prominently as two of

the most central philosophical issues that would define it's highest realization

and aspiration. How a culture answers the question " who am I? " , " Why am I

here? " , " How shall I live? " contextualizes all realms of endeavor from science,

economics, and the arts, straight through medicine. The discourse on ming is a

common thread that runs through philosophy, religion, alchemy, medicine,

cosmology. Understanding it, not just abstractly, but actually and in our own

experience, can allow us to understand the transmission of the teachings in a

very large and living context beyond the merely academic.

 

This discussion was so important historically that the communists felt compelled

to address it in the strongest of possible ways 2000 years later. Literally,

this is perhaps the most significant issue that determines the character of an

individual, a culture, a nation.

 

Warm regards, Lonny

[Guest guest]

Lonny,

 

Do you know how we can get access to these essays without going to the trouble

of searching for these two enormous tomes (edited by Charles A. Moore)? I've

searched the interlibrary systems of my library but don't think I can find them

that way. Even better, can you tell how we can find the original version of the

essays?

 

Thanks,

 

N. Herman

 

, " Lonny " <revolution wrote:

>

> Hi Charlie,

>

> I'm referring specifically to Tang's two beautiful essays:

>

> T'ang, Chun-I. (1962, January). " The t'ien ming [heavenly ordinance]

> in pre-Ch'in China—I. " Philosophy and Culture: East and West

> 11: 195–218.

>

> ––––––––. (1962, April). " The t'ien ming [heavenly ordinance] in pre-

> Ch'in China—II. " Philosophy and Culture: East and West 12: 29–49.

>

> A culture's notion of destiny and enlightenment figure prominently as two

of the most central philosophical issues that would define it's highest

realization and aspiration. How a culture answers the question " who am I? " , " Why

am I here? " , " How shall I live? " contextualizes all realms of endeavor from

science, economics, and the arts, straight through medicine. The discourse on

ming is a common thread that runs through philosophy, religion, alchemy,

medicine, cosmology. Understanding it, not just abstractly, but actually and in

our own experience, can allow us to understand the transmission of the teachings

in a very large and living context beyond the merely academic.

>

> This discussion was so important historically that the communists felt

compelled to address it in the strongest of possible ways 2000 years later.

Literally, this is perhaps the most significant issue that determines the

character of an individual, a culture, a nation.

>

> Warm regards, Lonny

>

[Guest guest]

Herman,

 

 

 

I spent years at the Harvard Yen Jing Library photocopying articles. Many of

these books hadn't been taken out, or even seem to have been looked at, in 50

years. I will look for these two, scan them, and email them to you. Send an

email to: Lonny

 

Regards, Lonny

[Guest guest]

Hi Lonny,

 

I what you appreciated about Tang Junyi since I have a hard time stomaching his

mixing of eastern and western ideas. Particularly his complicated " upgrading "

and appropriation of traditional metaphysics for the purposes of legitimizing

the New Confucian model. And for Chinese medicine it seems like a curious

shoulder to stand on when trying to gain insight into the classics.

 

The modern New Confucian movement originally grew as a reaction to the communist

rejection of Confucianism and the need to assimilate into or legitimize

traditional Chinese philosophy, religion, and culture in the context of western

learning and philosophy. Tang Junyi was focused on injecting morality into

metaphysics to argue for a Confucian framework of transcendence which melds

ethics and religion. His most famous work, Shengming cunzai yu xinling jingjie,

lays out a complicated but conveniently packaged Buddhist/Kantian derived model

for proving the superiority of Confucianism over Buddhism and Christianity.

 

This modern re-synthesis of ideas of destiny and enlightenment into and under

the framework of Confucianism *can* be used to make sense of Chinese culture.

But this is putting on a pair of German-philospher-designed-but-made-in-HK

glasses to look backwards through time. It's a RE-synthesis and redefining of

terms to load them with meanings that were not there in the original classics.

Tang's redefining of " ming " as used by the philosophical schools had a clear

purpose: to show the historical " proof " for his theories of a unified heart-mind

which lay at the basis of his new metaphysical model. But that doesn't make his

understanding of " ming " a legitimate or even useful way to look at the classics.

Rather, wearing Tang's modern New Confucian glasses is more likely to lead to

blurriness and wild goose chases through trying to link his " tianming - mandate

of heaven " with the " tian - heaven " and the " ming - life " of medical chinese.

 

Why do I say not legitimate or not useful? Because it is necessary to try and

understand the old books and their theories through the context of the social

and political climates they were written in. This is going from the past -->

forward to the present. In a clinical example, understanding the regional and

class influences on Jin-Yuan schools of thought allow us to better apply the

various txs and principles to our modern patients. In an academic example, the

technical terms for the administrative offices listed in Su wen Ch 8 allow us to

recognize that Ch 8 was a latter addition to the text, which in turn helps

explain the strong Confucian/Imperial framework. These are examples of delving

into the cultural framework of the past to gain an understanding that we can

apply in the present. On the other hand, going from a single modern point (such

as a modern definition of a character or phrase) backwards just pulls the

original concepts out of context and makes them subject to our own fanciful

interpretations. I saw another example of this somewhere during a discussion of

the relevance of the name of Su wen Ch 8 (Secret Treatise of the Spiritual

Orchid). Trying to start with a dictionary got the discussion swirling around

misinterpretations of the radicals in the orchid character and the various

possible associations of " lan " (including " a lady's boudoir " ). The derived

conjectures were neither legitimate nor useful.

 

However, going from our own modern idea backward to the classics *can* be very

useful when trying to legitimize a new dogma. This was the case with the

communist espousal of New Confucianism. You wrote " This discussion was so

important historically that the communists felt compelled to address it in the

strongest of possible ways 2000 years later. " I agree. New Confucianism breathed

new life into the ideas of Mandate of Heaven, Harmonious Society, helping to

legitimize the strict authoritarian style of government practiced by the

communists at the time. The bonus was that New Confucianism itself was

legitimized by its ties with the Neo-Confucianism of the Song and Ming of 900

years ago. At the same time it " proved " the superiority of Chinese thought,

culture, religion against the West. And its strong links to the philosophies of

Hegel and Kant allowed New Confucianism to tie in very well with Marxist

thought.

 

Charlie

 

, " Lonny " <revolution wrote:

>

> Hi Charlie,

>

> I'm referring specifically to Tang's two beautiful essays:

>

> T'ang, Chun-I. (1962, January). " The t'ien ming [heavenly ordinance]

> in pre-Ch'in China—I. " Philosophy and Culture: East and West

> 11: 195.

>

> ––––––––. (1962, April). " The t'ien ming [heavenly ordinance] in pre-

> Ch'in China—II. " Philosophy and Culture: East and West 12: 29

>

> A culture's notion of destiny and enlightenment figure prominently as two

of the most central philosophical issues that would define it's highest

realization and aspiration. How a culture answers the question " who am I? " , " Why

am I here? " , " How shall I live? " contextualizes all realms of endeavor from

science, economics, and the arts, straight through medicine. The discourse on

ming is a common thread that runs through philosophy, religion, alchemy,

medicine, cosmology. Understanding it, not just abstractly, but actually and in

our own experience, can allow us to understand the transmission of the teachings

in a very large and living context beyond the merely academic.

>

> This discussion was so important historically that the communists felt

compelled to address it in the strongest of possible ways 2000 years later.

Literally, this is perhaps the most significant issue that determines the

character of an individual, a culture, a nation.

>

> Warm regards, Lonny

>

[Guest guest]

Hi,

 

You can purchase the articles here

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1397023

 

http://www.jstor.org/pss/1397244

 

The original is available by searching online.

 

Charlie

 

, " aowenherman " <aowenherman

wrote:

>

>

> Lonny,

>

> Do you know how we can get access to these essays without going to the trouble

of searching for these two enormous tomes (edited by Charles A. Moore)? I've

searched the interlibrary systems of my library but don't think I can find them

that way. Even better, can you tell how we can find the original version of the

essays?

>

> Thanks,

>

> N. Herman

>

> , " Lonny " <revolution@> wrote:

> >

> > Hi Charlie,

> >

> > I'm referring specifically to Tang's two beautiful essays:

> >

> > T'ang, Chun-I. (1962, January). " The t'ien ming [heavenly ordinance]

> > in pre-Ch'in China—I. " Philosophy and Culture: East and West

> > 11: 195.

> >

> > ––––––––. (1962, April). " The t'ien ming [heavenly ordinance] in pre-

> > Ch'in China—II. " Philosophy and Culture: East and West 12: 29

> >

> > A culture's notion of destiny and enlightenment figure prominently as two

of the most central philosophical issues that would define it's highest

realization and aspiration. How a culture answers the question " who am I? " , " Why

am I here? " , " How shall I live? " contextualizes all realms of endeavor from

science, economics, and the arts, straight through medicine. The discourse on

ming is a common thread that runs through philosophy, religion, alchemy,

medicine, cosmology. Understanding it, not just abstractly, but actually and in

our own experience, can allow us to understand the transmission of the teachings

in a very large and living context beyond the merely academic.

> >

> > This discussion was so important historically that the communists felt

compelled to address it in the strongest of possible ways 2000 years later.

Literally, this is perhaps the most significant issue that determines the

character of an individual, a culture, a nation.

> >

> > Warm regards, Lonny

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Nice post..

 

 

 

Yes whatever lens you look through you can find evidence for your point of

view in the classics. If one is a Jesuit priest, then one will find the idea

of spirituality everywhere. If one hopes to gain any insight of how these

classical writers thought one must look at things through and unbiased lens.

In the end though, anyone who thinks they have any idea of what Han Dynasty

people were actually thinking is living in a complete fantasy. For even here

in the West we barely understand how modern Chinese think.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of charlie_thomson_lac

Thursday, March 11, 2010 10:15 AM

 

Re: Ming=destiny?

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Lonny,

 

I what you appreciated about Tang Junyi since I have a hard time stomaching

his mixing of eastern and western ideas. Particularly his complicated

" upgrading " and appropriation of traditional metaphysics for the purposes of

legitimizing the New Confucian model. And for Chinese medicine it seems like

a curious shoulder to stand on when trying to gain insight into the

classics.

 

The modern New Confucian movement originally grew as a reaction to the

communist rejection of Confucianism and the need to assimilate into or

legitimize traditional Chinese philosophy, religion, and culture in the

context of western learning and philosophy. Tang Junyi was focused on

injecting morality into metaphysics to argue for a Confucian framework of

transcendence which melds ethics and religion. His most famous work,

Shengming cunzai yu xinling jingjie, lays out a complicated but conveniently

packaged Buddhist/Kantian derived model for proving the superiority of

Confucianism over Buddhism and Christianity.

 

This modern re-synthesis of ideas of destiny and enlightenment into and

under the framework of Confucianism *can* be used to make sense of Chinese

culture. But this is putting on a pair of

German-philospher-designed-but-made-in-HK glasses to look backwards through

time. It's a RE-synthesis and redefining of terms to load them with meanings

that were not there in the original classics. Tang's redefining of " ming " as

used by the philosophical schools had a clear purpose: to show the

historical " proof " for his theories of a unified heart-mind which lay at the

basis of his new metaphysical model. But that doesn't make his understanding

of " ming " a legitimate or even useful way to look at the classics. Rather,

wearing Tang's modern New Confucian glasses is more likely to lead to

blurriness and wild goose chases through trying to link his " tianming -

mandate of heaven " with the " tian - heaven " and the " ming - life " of medical

chinese.

 

Why do I say not legitimate or not useful? Because it is necessary to try

and understand the old books and their theories through the context of the

social and political climates they were written in. This is going from the

past --> forward to the present. In a clinical example, understanding the

regional and class influences on Jin-Yuan schools of thought allow us to

better apply the various txs and principles to our modern patients. In an

academic example, the technical terms for the administrative offices listed

in Su wen Ch 8 allow us to recognize that Ch 8 was a latter addition to the

text, which in turn helps explain the strong Confucian/Imperial framework.

These are examples of delving into the cultural framework of the past to

gain an understanding that we can apply in the present. On the other hand,

going from a single modern point (such as a modern definition of a character

or phrase) backwards just pulls the original concepts out of context and

makes them subject to our own fanciful interpretations. I saw another

example of this somewhere during a discussion of the relevance of the name

of Su wen Ch 8 (Secret Treatise of the Spiritual Orchid). Trying to start

with a dictionary got the discussion swirling around misinterpretations of

the radicals in the orchid character and the various possible associations

of " lan " (including " a lady's boudoir " ). The derived conjectures were

neither legitimate nor useful.

 

However, going from our own modern idea backward to the classics *can* be

very useful when trying to legitimize a new dogma. This was the case with

the communist espousal of New Confucianism. You wrote " This discussion was

so important historically that the communists felt compelled to address it

in the strongest of possible ways 2000 years later. " I agree. New

Confucianism breathed new life into the ideas of Mandate of Heaven,

Harmonious Society, helping to legitimize the strict authoritarian style of

government practiced by the communists at the time. The bonus was that New

Confucianism itself was legitimized by its ties with the Neo-Confucianism of

the Song and Ming of 900 years ago. At the same time it " proved " the

superiority of Chinese thought, culture, religion against the West. And its

strong links to the philosophies of Hegel and Kant allowed New Confucianism

to tie in very well with Marxist thought.

 

Charlie

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Where is one to find an " unbiased lens " for studying Chinese medicine? I

submit that both modern and western biases are rife in modern Chinese

medicine. Some of us, who are interested in the philosophical considerations

from which the wonderfully rich clinical history of CM arose, have a lot of

work digging through those biases. Of course, we can't know what a Han

Dynasty person was thinking, but that doesn't absolve us from trying. That

is the quest to own classical and historical Chinese medicine; sometimes

communicating with others engaged in their own such quests can help each of

us find our way to deeper truths about the human condition.

 

Steve

 

On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 6:25 AM, <

> wrote:

 

>

>

> Nice post..

>

> Yes whatever lens you look through you can find evidence for your point of

> view in the classics. If one is a Jesuit priest, then one will find the

> idea

> of spirituality everywhere. If one hopes to gain any insight of how these

> classical writers thought one must look at things through and unbiased

> lens.

> In the end though, anyone who thinks they have any idea of what Han Dynasty

> people were actually thinking is living in a complete fantasy. For even

> here

> in the West we barely understand how modern Chinese think.

>

> -Jason

>

> <%40>

>

[ <%40>\

]

> On Behalf Of charlie_thomson_lac

> Thursday, March 11, 2010 10:15 AM

> <%40>

>

> Re: Ming=destiny?

>

> Hi Lonny,

>

> I what you appreciated about Tang Junyi since I have a hard time stomaching

> his mixing of eastern and western ideas. Particularly his complicated

> " upgrading " and appropriation of traditional metaphysics for the purposes

> of

> legitimizing the New Confucian model. And for Chinese medicine it seems

> like

> a curious shoulder to stand on when trying to gain insight into the

> classics.

>

> The modern New Confucian movement originally grew as a reaction to the

> communist rejection of Confucianism and the need to assimilate into or

> legitimize traditional Chinese philosophy, religion, and culture in the

> context of western learning and philosophy. Tang Junyi was focused on

> injecting morality into metaphysics to argue for a Confucian framework of

> transcendence which melds ethics and religion. His most famous work,

> Shengming cunzai yu xinling jingjie, lays out a complicated but

> conveniently

> packaged Buddhist/Kantian derived model for proving the superiority of

> Confucianism over Buddhism and Christianity.

>

> This modern re-synthesis of ideas of destiny and enlightenment into and

> under the framework of Confucianism *can* be used to make sense of Chinese

> culture. But this is putting on a pair of

> German-philospher-designed-but-made-in-HK glasses to look backwards through

> time. It's a RE-synthesis and redefining of terms to load them with

> meanings

> that were not there in the original classics. Tang's redefining of " ming "

> as

> used by the philosophical schools had a clear purpose: to show the

> historical " proof " for his theories of a unified heart-mind which lay at

> the

> basis of his new metaphysical model. But that doesn't make his

> understanding

> of " ming " a legitimate or even useful way to look at the classics. Rather,

> wearing Tang's modern New Confucian glasses is more likely to lead to

> blurriness and wild goose chases through trying to link his " tianming -

> mandate of heaven " with the " tian - heaven " and the " ming - life " of

> medical

> chinese.

>

> Why do I say not legitimate or not useful? Because it is necessary to try

> and understand the old books and their theories through the context of the

> social and political climates they were written in. This is going from the

> past --> forward to the present. In a clinical example, understanding the

> regional and class influences on Jin-Yuan schools of thought allow us to

> better apply the various txs and principles to our modern patients. In an

> academic example, the technical terms for the administrative offices listed

> in Su wen Ch 8 allow us to recognize that Ch 8 was a latter addition to the

> text, which in turn helps explain the strong Confucian/Imperial framework.

> These are examples of delving into the cultural framework of the past to

> gain an understanding that we can apply in the present. On the other hand,

> going from a single modern point (such as a modern definition of a

> character

> or phrase) backwards just pulls the original concepts out of context and

> makes them subject to our own fanciful interpretations. I saw another

> example of this somewhere during a discussion of the relevance of the name

> of Su wen Ch 8 (Secret Treatise of the Spiritual Orchid). Trying to start

> with a dictionary got the discussion swirling around misinterpretations of

> the radicals in the orchid character and the various possible associations

> of " lan " (including " a lady's boudoir " ). The derived conjectures were

> neither legitimate nor useful.

>

> However, going from our own modern idea backward to the classics *can* be

> very useful when trying to legitimize a new dogma. This was the case with

> the communist espousal of New Confucianism. You wrote " This discussion was

> so important historically that the communists felt compelled to address it

> in the strongest of possible ways 2000 years later. " I agree. New

> Confucianism breathed new life into the ideas of Mandate of Heaven,

> Harmonious Society, helping to legitimize the strict authoritarian style of

> government practiced by the communists at the time. The bonus was that New

> Confucianism itself was legitimized by its ties with the Neo-Confucianism

> of

> the Song and Ming of 900 years ago. At the same time it " proved " the

> superiority of Chinese thought, culture, religion against the West. And its

> strong links to the philosophies of Hegel and Kant allowed New Confucianism

> to tie in very well with Marxist thought.

>

> Charlie

>

>

[Guest guest]

Charlie: I what (sic) you appreciated about Tang Junyi since I have a hard time

stomaching his mixing of eastern and western ideas.

 

Lonny: I appreciate Tang because he collected a lot of resources together in one

place that I could follow up on. I also appreciate his synthesis that I consider

to be both beautiful and brilliant. I don't know anything about his politics.

The fact that Yukio Mishima was considered to be a fascist by some, doesn't mean

he wasn't one of the greatest authors of the last century. I'm reminded of those

critics who railed against Glen Gould for interpreting Bach and not " Playing the

music as Bach really intended it! " .

 

I find it interesting that you experience a visceral repulsion to

Tang's mixing of Eastern and Western thought. Nonetheless, It's clear that East

and West have been substantively mixing for at least 350 years. By now, the two

hemispheres are in synchronous communication, and Chinese medicine is a world

medicine having transcended, at least at its leading edge, its tribal,

ethnocentric, and nationalistic origins. That synthesis is now the ground that

some of us are standing on, and moving forward from. In fact, Descartes seems to

be far more influential in much of the ideology expressed here at CHA than any

philosophy to have ever emerged from Asia.

 

I'm a bit confused by your statements regarding the communist's appropriation of

ming as destiny for their own purposes since they went to enormous lengths to

deny it's existence and describe it only as a superstitious device used by

Confucians to enslave the masses. Of course this whole discourse is on the outer

use of the term ming/destiny and deliberately reflects a very low and

superficial understanding of what Tang is pointing to.

 

" But why would Confucians seek to link illness and divine destiny so

forcefully? Because the slave holders have been destined by fate to be

god's deputies among men. Thus when the Confucians determined

that the source of illness in the human body was " divine destiny, " and

when they required that man passively submit to such divine intervention,

their intention in reality was to illustrate that whether someone

was born rich or poor, of a high or low station, and so forth, was

always determined by destiny, and that consequently man must obey

divine dictates, seek to accept his destiny, and tolerate the repressive

rule of the slave holders. All this, however, was intended to facilitate

survival of the seriously threatened existence of slavery itself. "

(Official Party writing on ming: In Unschuld: History of Ideas)

 

 

TO have a " life " is to have a " destiny " . The point is to forge our destiny

through choices consciously made rather than to have it determined mechanically

by forces within and without that we are unaware of or do not understand.

 

I've enjoyed this conversation and appreciate the many responses I've received

from those of you behind the scenes. Now it's time to get back to writing my new

text. Again, thanks,

 

Warm regards to all, Lonny

[Guest guest]

In the end though, anyone who thinks they have any idea of what Han Dynasty

people were actually thinking is living in a complete fantasy.

 

 

Lonny: I agree with you absolutely. It would be impossible for anyone on this

list to embrace the level of myth and superstition they took for granted. That's

why, in the end, authentic experience and interest is where we can all meet and

move ahead together. We can all take absolute responsibility for what we are

doing, what we authentically have seen and know, and how we are thinking about

it right now.

[Guest guest]

I also enjoyed this post. But it raised some major questions for me:

 

Since modern human beings are never free from the flaw of 'interpretation', what

is then an appropriate interpretation? Is it one that is heart-felt?

Academically informed? Clinically informed? Who if anyone 'owns' an authentic

Chinese medicine?

 

We see a field that has various mixtures of biomedicine and (sometimes)

watered-down Chinese medicine, 'spiritual' approaches, 'classical' ones. .. .

how do we avoid one-sided bias when we make a hopefully informed stand on the

appropriate direction for our field?

 

Charles, I found your essay quite enlightening vis a vis the connection of

political expediency and philosophy. I've been aware of a rebirth of

Confucianism in mainland China, but from what you are saying, it is quite a

revisionist one, in harmony with communist views. ..very interesting indeed. .

 

 

On Mar 12, 2010, at 6:25 AM, wrote:

 

> Nice post..

>

> Yes whatever lens you look through you can find evidence for your point of

> view in the classics. If one is a Jesuit priest, then one will find the idea

> of spirituality everywhere. If one hopes to gain any insight of how these

> classical writers thought one must look at things through and unbiased lens.

> In the end though, anyone who thinks they have any idea of what Han Dynasty

> people were actually thinking is living in a complete fantasy. For even here

> in the West we barely understand how modern Chinese think.

>

> -Jason

>

>

> On Behalf Of charlie_thomson_lac

> Thursday, March 11, 2010 10:15 AM

>

> Re: Ming=destiny?

>

> Hi Lonny,

>

> I what you appreciated about Tang Junyi since I have a hard time stomaching

> his mixing of eastern and western ideas. Particularly his complicated

> " upgrading " and appropriation of traditional metaphysics for the purposes of

> legitimizing the New Confucian model. And for Chinese medicine it seems like

> a curious shoulder to stand on when trying to gain insight into the

> classics.

>

> The modern New Confucian movement originally grew as a reaction to the

> communist rejection of Confucianism and the need to assimilate into or

> legitimize traditional Chinese philosophy, religion, and culture in the

> context of western learning and philosophy. Tang Junyi was focused on

> injecting morality into metaphysics to argue for a Confucian framework of

> transcendence which melds ethics and religion. His most famous work,

> Shengming cunzai yu xinling jingjie, lays out a complicated but conveniently

> packaged Buddhist/Kantian derived model for proving the superiority of

> Confucianism over Buddhism and Christianity.

>

> This modern re-synthesis of ideas of destiny and enlightenment into and

> under the framework of Confucianism *can* be used to make sense of Chinese

> culture. But this is putting on a pair of

> German-philospher-designed-but-made-in-HK glasses to look backwards through

> time. It's a RE-synthesis and redefining of terms to load them with meanings

> that were not there in the original classics. Tang's redefining of " ming " as

> used by the philosophical schools had a clear purpose: to show the

> historical " proof " for his theories of a unified heart-mind which lay at the

> basis of his new metaphysical model. But that doesn't make his understanding

> of " ming " a legitimate or even useful way to look at the classics. Rather,

> wearing Tang's modern New Confucian glasses is more likely to lead to

> blurriness and wild goose chases through trying to link his " tianming -

> mandate of heaven " with the " tian - heaven " and the " ming - life " of medical

> chinese.

>

> Why do I say not legitimate or not useful? Because it is necessary to try

> and understand the old books and their theories through the context of the

> social and political climates they were written in. This is going from the

> past --> forward to the present. In a clinical example, understanding the

> regional and class influences on Jin-Yuan schools of thought allow us to

> better apply the various txs and principles to our modern patients. In an

> academic example, the technical terms for the administrative offices listed

> in Su wen Ch 8 allow us to recognize that Ch 8 was a latter addition to the

> text, which in turn helps explain the strong Confucian/Imperial framework.

> These are examples of delving into the cultural framework of the past to

> gain an understanding that we can apply in the present. On the other hand,

> going from a single modern point (such as a modern definition of a character

> or phrase) backwards just pulls the original concepts out of context and

> makes them subject to our own fanciful interpretations. I saw another

> example of this somewhere during a discussion of the relevance of the name

> of Su wen Ch 8 (Secret Treatise of the Spiritual Orchid). Trying to start

> with a dictionary got the discussion swirling around misinterpretations of

> the radicals in the orchid character and the various possible associations

> of " lan " (including " a lady's boudoir " ). The derived conjectures were

> neither legitimate nor useful.

>

> However, going from our own modern idea backward to the classics *can* be

> very useful when trying to legitimize a new dogma. This was the case with

> the communist espousal of New Confucianism. You wrote " This discussion was

> so important historically that the communists felt compelled to address it

> in the strongest of possible ways 2000 years later. " I agree. New

> Confucianism breathed new life into the ideas of Mandate of Heaven,

> Harmonious Society, helping to legitimize the strict authoritarian style of

> government practiced by the communists at the time. The bonus was that New

> Confucianism itself was legitimized by its ties with the Neo-Confucianism of

> the Song and Ming of 900 years ago. At the same time it " proved " the

> superiority of Chinese thought, culture, religion against the West. And its

> strong links to the philosophies of Hegel and Kant allowed New Confucianism

> to tie in very well with Marxist thought.

>

> Charlie

>

>