shen nong ben cao con't

April 2, 2010

Thank you for posting mr. Fruehauf's letter here, Lonny.

Although as a linguist I cannot completely agree with Heiner's translation of

the SNBCJ sentence (where is 'achieve'? in the Chinese text? where is

'mandate'? - '[mandate of] heaven' would, I think, be a correcter way of putting

it) I think he is very right in pointing to 'yingtian' ('corresponding to

heaven') in connection to understanding 'ming'. That is one of the main reasons

why I posted the commentary from the Xinxiu bencao (which explains why the text

says 'yingtian') last month, and it is why I questioned whether we should read

'yi' in the meaning of (merely) 'and'.

Interesting to see is that Heiner chooses to translate 'yi' as 'to' ('in order

to'). As explained before, my personal preference is 'and therefore'.

Together with Unschuld's comments on 'mandate of heaven' (tianming) and its

meaning / context in the Suwen (*), I think we are getting close to what is so

often asked for on this list: 'academic rigour'.

Is Heiner's personal collection of sources concerning this issue available for

the public?

Best Wishes,

N. Herman

(*) I could summarize these comments (in the Epilogue of Unschuld's first book

on the Suwen) with: 'a Confucian concept used in a Legalist way that

Confucianists would not completely to and Daoists would not find

pleasure in' - but reading U's text is of course better ;-).

>

> From Heiner Freuhauf.

>

> I am attaching my personal collection of classical sources covering the era

between 500 BC and 250 AD, which provide a comprehensive synthesis of the usage

of ming at the time when the Shen Nong bencao came into being:

>

" zhu yangming yi yingtian, " which I would translate as: " [these herbs]

nourish/cultivate ming to achieve responsiveness to the mandate of Heaven.â€ No

matter how ming is translated here, the words yingtian make it clear that the

author of this text had a more expansive meaning of ming in mind than mere

physical benefit.

April 2, 2010

N. Herman,

1. I would also enjoy seeing Heinerâ€™s personal collection of sources

concerning this issue if possible.

2. When talking about Unschuld's comments on " mandate of Heaven " (tianming)

from the Nei Jing we should be reminded that in his translation of the SNBCJ he

chooses not to use " mandate of Heaven " but simply " heaven " -- for whatever

reason... but tian ming DOES not appear in the SNBCJ. I think there is a wide

possibility of meanings for â€˜tianâ€™ here, but first and foremost it cannot be

denied that it is a classification of Heaven, wo(man), and earth. Beyond that is

anyone's guess.

3. However, this debate really comes down to ming. I have looked

periodically over the last month and have yet to find anything in Chinese that

remotely suggests the meaning of this ming in this passage as destiny. All

commentaries and sources I have found discuss this as prolonging (etc) one's

physical life. I am curious if you have changed your previous perspective (as

translating this is life) and have found anything else commentating on this?

Let's look at the whole paragraph. I will use Unschuld's translation:

â€œthe upper class of drugs comprises 120 times. They are the rulers. They

control the maintenance of life and correspond to heaven. They do not have a

markedly medicinal effectiveness. The taking [of these drugs] in larger amounts

or over a long period of time is not harmful to manâ€¦â€

I think the rest of this first paragraph is very telling... " if one wishes to

take the material weight from the body, to supplement the influences

[circulating in the body], and to prolong the years of life without aging, he

should base [his efforts] on [drugs mentioned in] the upper [class of this]

classic.â€

As often is the case of Chinese they restate what they previously had said

(expanding on it) which many times can give clues into the previously unclear(?)

meaning. For example this " prolong the years of life without agingâ€ (å»¶å¹´

yan nian) is such a straightforward term I would be surprised if anyone would

debate the meaning here (although word choice may be debatable). Quite simply,

the rest of the paragraph after the first line that we have been fixating on is

really giving further explanation and instructions on how to use these

medicinals. One has to ask, if the writer was thinking about something spiritual

or related to destiny why would the rest of the paragraph not mention this? Why

would the rest of the paragraph talk about very down-to-earth things such as

prolonging the years of life.

I think it is for this reason that commentaries on this text equate ming to

life. This is not to deny that ming in other philosophical texts has a deeper

meaning. But every usage must be judged on its own while keeping in mind on

other texts of its time. Not just blindly using any term choice they like.

4. Finally, Heiner makes a few odd statements which I would love to see

some references for: For example, he states that at the writing SNBCJ "

â€˜lifeâ€™ and â€˜longevityâ€™ was inseparable from the original meaning of

meaning â€˜(heavenly) commandâ€™. I am not going to at claim to understand the

intricacies of ming, however according to Schuessler (probably the most

respected etymologist for Chinese in English) these were differentiated at this

time.

For fun he also states that the original meaning was " to order, command: order,

decreeâ€ this was in the Shang Dynasty evidenced by Oracle bone inscriptions

using the character ling ï¼ˆä»¤ï¼‰. To quote: â€œin the Oracle bone and bronze

inscription era (except late WZHOU bronze inscription) only the graph

ä»¤ï¼ˆlingï¼‰ â€˜order â€˜occurs, while the received texts write ming (å‘½),

i.e. ling with a kou â€˜mouthâ€™ added to indicate that ling is a phonetic or

semantic lone. Because ming is the ordinary word for â€˜to orderâ€™, and because

the break between ling (early inscriptions) and ming (later texts) is quite

abrupt, ling must have stood for ming and all Shang and Western Zou

inscriptions.

Consequently, I find it odd that whenever Heiner gives a definition he inserts

â€œ(heavenly) " before the definition. Where is this from? For example linguists

and etymologists (and dictionaries) such as Schuessler simply relay the

definition as " to order, commandâ€ not " (heavenly) commandâ€ â€“or-

" (heavenly) human nature, " instead of the standard " human nature " - why the

insertion? This is also true in Chinese dictionaries.

In regard to xingming - I'm having trouble following his reasoning thatâ€ 1,800

years ago ming made an inseparable pair with the term xing (xingming),

" (heavenly) human nature,â€ â€“ clearly ming was used without xing. I Really

don't get the point here...

Furthermore although Heiner states that ming is equal to xingming at the time of

SNBCJ has the definition of â€œheavenly mandate of exercising heavenly virtues

in the concrete form of a physical body/lifetime; " â€“

a) where is this definition from?

b) if this is so, why does the SNBCJ use ming when discussing superior

medicinals and xingming (human nature) when discussing middle -class medicinals.

Clearly these are two separate ideas in this text.

5. Heiner mentioned that " Yangsheng lun " (Treatise on Nourishing Life uses

the first sentence of the SNBCJ as an example that illustrates the sagesÃ¢â‚¬â„¢

more expansive, â€˜destinyâ€™ oriented approach to medicine, in contrast to a

more material approach by the commoner.â€ - I could not find this in my copy.

Did anyone else? This would be very interesting...

6. Although, Heiner seems certain about some broader meaning of ming

because, he says â€œyingtian make it clear that the author of this text had a

more expansive meaning of ming in mind than mere physical benefit.â€ I wish it

was this cut and dry, but clearly it is not. If it were, would we find all of

these commentaries written by physicians throughout the centuries (whose

classical Chinese by the way is much better than any of ours) seeing it this way

and explaining it? As mentioned above, commentaries (classical and modern) I

consulted simply equate it to â€œlifeâ€ not some spiritual destiny or

whatever.. Clearly, many (if not most) people disagree with Heiner's stance.

7. Ming as prolonging *physical* life does fit in with many daoists view of

the goal of taking (such) medicinals.

8. However, I do completely agree with Heinerâ€™s point about using

" proper sinological procedureâ€ etc., which has been my whole point all

along. One cannot even assume they understand the nuances of such a term in

classical Chinese without consulting numerous other classical texts using

Chinese languange. This is quite simply why I choose to rely on commentators

that have done this work for me. I personally will never claim to understand

these intricacies. However, these commentators and authors of these classical

dictionaries have spent their lifetime deciphering these issues, unfortunately

when it comes to medicine almost all of this is in Chinese. However, no doubt

that ming is a very interesting and complex character and this discussion has

definitely allowed me to look deeper into this character.

Comments?

-Jason

On Behalf Of Nicolaas Herman

Friday, April 02, 2010 5:44 PM

Re: shen nong ben cao con't

Thank you for posting mr. Fruehauf's letter here, Lonny.

Although as a linguist I cannot completely agree with Heiner's translation of

the SNBCJ sentence (where is 'achieve'? in the Chinese text? where is 'mandate'?

- '[mandate of] heaven' would, I think, be a correcter way of putting it) I

think he is very right in pointing to 'yingtian' ('corresponding to heaven') in

connection to understanding 'ming'. That is one of the main reasons why I posted

the commentary from the Xinxiu bencao (which explains why the text says

'yingtian') last month, and it is why I questioned whether we should read 'yi'

in the meaning of (merely) 'and'.

Interesting to see is that Heiner chooses to translate 'yi' as 'to' ('in order

to'). As explained before, my personal preference is 'and therefore'.

Together with Unschuld's comments on 'mandate of heaven' (tianming) and its

meaning / context in the Suwen (*), I think we are getting close to what is so

often asked for on this list: 'academic rigour'.

Is Heiner's personal collection of sources concerning this issue available for

the public?

Best Wishes,

N. Herman

(*) I could summarize these comments (in the Epilogue of Unschuld's first book

on the Suwen) with: 'a Confucian concept used in a Legalist way that

Confucianists would not completely to and Daoists would not find

pleasure in' - but reading U's text is of course better ;-).

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=201013/grpspId=1705060815/msgId=4820\

3/stime=1270252059/nc1=4025291/nc2=3848642/nc3=5191952>

April 3, 2010

Lonny...All,

For the record, it was, in fact, I who said that, and I stick to the statement.

The very reason I came to China was so that I could engage in exactly these

types of discussions, by which I mean that I believed then, and still believe

now that without the skills to read the original Chinese one is unable to fully

engage in the medicine, especially when it comes to teaching and writing.

I am not saying that there aren't many excellent practitioners and teachers, and

even writers out there who don't read Chinese, but I strongly believe that those

who do bring a lot more to the table, what they do with it is up to them, but at

least they have the tools.

And, quite frankly Lonny, I have to agree with Jason concerning your last post,

and many before. For someone who claims to be a particular type of

person/practitioner you appear to be extremely emotionally involved in what you

do and seem to struggle to separate academic rigor and debate from your personal

feelings. Granted this is difficult, and as someone who has written a book that

has been criticized by some, I can understand that. However, I would like to

believe that I can sit at my computer and have written discussion with people

and " just stick to the facts, " so to speak, without insulting people and

misquoting them and in some cases putting words " in their mouth " as you have.

Finally, you have stated that this one Korean doctor believed something that you

also believe, can you offer up some other sources? I am, honestly, quite

interested and would like to file them for reading when I have time.

Hope I didn't hurt your feelings, but hey...it's 1:40am and I have to get up at

5:45am and I just feel the urge to press the send key without editing myself :-)

In Good Health,

Thomas

, " " wrote:

>

> Lonny,

>

> I'm sorry that you find it rude when someone asks for sources and examples

(e.g. case studies). People can say anything, and without some academic rigor

and sourcing we can easily end up with a bunch of westerners with many times

" un-educated " opinions. This is not directed at anyone particular.

>

> For the record, not only is the quote about reading the " original Chinese "

(below from your last post) taken out of context, I didnâ€™t even say it. I am

pretty sure it was Thomas. However, you make it sound like this stance is that,

no one can have an opinion about anything if they can't read Chinese. This is

far from the point.

>

> I will not speak for Thomas, but my only beef is if you are going to discuss

the intricacies of Classical Chinese and the translations and cannot read

Chinese, then yes I personally will not take you seriously. If you are going to

disagree with the centuries of commentaries, then yes I think you should have a

pretty good source to present.

>

> Finally, no one has ever denied that classical Chinese cannot be interpreted

many ways. In addition, I for one have never suggested one should have a

one-to-one system of translation. I merely ask if one is going to have an

opinion that one substantiate it â€ " or say it is just â€œoneâ€™s beliefâ€.

Your portrayal of people who do not find " SPIRITâ€ in all the classical texts,

as reading these texts like a computer manual (with fixed meanings) or through

the eyes of scientific materialism is really just showing ignorance on the

perspectives in Chinese history. Again how can we even have a conversation about

how to read classical texts (let alone Chinese) when you can't even read them?

>

> To be clear, I co-authored a paper specifically discussing why one should not

use fixed meanings for translation. Toward a Working Methodology for Translating

<Chinese Medicine/wp-content/uploads/Pract_articles/Translating\

%20TCM%20Lantern.pdf> :

>

> Chinese Medicine/practitioners/articles/

>

> But excepting multiple meanings and possibilities does not mean one can still

just insert any meaning they like. There are still rules.

>

> I second someone's previous observation that you tend to polarize positions

making them seem ridiculous. This is what you have done here in your post. For

example, saying that I have found nothing of importance regarding Spirit in

Chinese history and culture is so far from my point in my previous posts and

something that I have never said.

>

> I have found it completely impossible to have a discussion on this topic with

you because you won't address anything directly. Hence, why you may sense some

rudeness when I keep asking for some source (which I have found lacking) etc.

For this I apologize, but at this point I have no intention of trying to work

this out.

>

> So besides all of this, I am happy to agree to disagreeâ€¦

>

> -Jason

>

On Behalf Of Lonny

>

> I find the statement, Ã¢â‚¬Å " " .......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 seriouslyÃ¢â‚¬Â to be baseless. I have excellent working

relationships with many fluent readers of Classical Chinese. This oft repeated

statement here at CHA (to the point of superstitious incantation) should read

only, " My friends and I wont take anyone seriously whose reading of Classical

Chinese doesn't agree with ours " .

April 3, 2010

Herman and others,

I wanted to get your thoughts on some ideas I have about using texts from a

similar time period to understand the definition of a specific term.

Letâ€™s use ming as an example., I think there are some key factors we must

consider in defining the meaning on ming in a medical context. There is no

question that ming has a multitude of meanings in non-medical texts ranging from

quite profound to very down to earth. The question is whether these different

meanings are inseparable or differentiated at the time when the SNBCJ was

written. Since Schuessler was only one source I decided to look further...

An illustrative essay is by Zong-qi Cai on Tao Qian and the â€œmultiple

vistasâ€ of ming. He begins by examining the earliest discussions of ming in

Chinese discourse: Duke Wenâ€™s famed â€œunderstanding of mingâ€ in the

zuozhuan. Consequently he explores four *distinctive* meanings of ming; 1.

Demands that Heaven puts on one, 2. oneâ€™s actual life span, 3. oneâ€™s destiny

in life, or 4. the natural course that one should follow.

This alone demonstrates there were very early on, in literary works, distinct

usages of the word (ming), hence we cannot assume that ming can be read anyway

one wishes (with multiple levels) as has been suggested on this group. Quite

simply different circumstances require a different reading and is (as most

Chinese) context dependent. From this perspective it is incorrect to suggest

that one can read the same â€™mingâ€™ as â€˜destinyâ€™ and â€˜life-spanâ€™

simply because both definitions or " possible " at that time.

Actually Charles Chace is doing extensive research right now on the eight extras

meridians in relation to Daoist internal alchemy. I talked to him today about

this issue and he showed me an example of something he is translating. A single

author would use ming in a very physical sense and then in the next section is

in a larger sense. Consequently, he translates each instance of ming

differently to grasp the meaning of that passage. Although this is the text from

the 1800s the methodology of sorting out the proper meaning for the context is

as Zong-qi Cai states essential.

Therefore when reviewing a medical text how useful are philosophical, literary,

or even religious texts of the same time period. If we can safely say that a

term had distinct usages then, in my opinion, other non-medical texts are only

as useful as showing the full range of *possible* meanings, unless there is some

specific reference. That is, merely finding a philosophical text that use a

capital letter â€œMâ€ing really shows nothing when evaluating another text,

albeit literary, medical, religious, or even another philosophical text. Because

quite simple we can find other texts (and passages) that use the small letter

â€œmâ€ing. Hence, each text must be evaluated on its own.

On a side note, the SNBCJ was a Daoist text. Many Daoists were fixated on living

long (physically) so they could accomplish their â€œgoalsâ€. Hence internal

alchemy was largely based on this goal. To quote Unschuld: â€œlooking back once

more to what we assumed to be the original usage of the term ben cao, we

remember that the ben cao experts were practitioners who based their efforts for

a " long life without aging " on experiments with mostly herbal drugs. It is in

the circles of these men that we must look for the authors of the shen nong ben

jing. Their experiments were not primarily aimed at the actual medicinal value

of these drugs, but rather at their ability to strengthen the body and protect

it, over long periods of time, from health problems of all kinds.â€ Sounds

pretty down-to-earth to meâ€¦

Thoughtsâ€¦?

-Jason

On Behalf Of Nicolaas Herman

Friday, April 02, 2010 5:44 PM

Re: shen nong ben cao con't

Thank you for posting mr. Fruehauf's letter here, Lonny.

Although as a linguist I cannot completely agree with Heiner's translation of

the SNBCJ sentence (where is 'achieve'? in the Chinese text? where is 'mandate'?

- '[mandate of] heaven' would, I think, be a correcter way of putting it) I

think he is very right in pointing to 'yingtian' ('corresponding to heaven') in

connection to understanding 'ming'. That is one of the main reasons why I posted

the commentary from the Xinxiu bencao (which explains why the text says

'yingtian') last month, and it is why I questioned whether we should read 'yi'

in the meaning of (merely) 'and'.

Interesting to see is that Heiner chooses to translate 'yi' as 'to' ('in order

to'). As explained before, my personal preference is 'and therefore'.

Together with Unschuld's comments on 'mandate of heaven' (tianming) and its

meaning / context in the Suwen (*), I think we are getting close to what is so

often asked for on this list: 'academic rigour'.

Is Heiner's personal collection of sources concerning this issue available for

the public?

Best Wishes,

N. Herman

(*) I could summarize these comments (in the Epilogue of Unschuld's first book

on the Suwen) with: 'a Confucian concept used in a Legalist way that

Confucianists would not completely to and Daoists would not find

pleasure in' - but reading U's text is of course better ;-).

>

> From Heiner Freuhauf.

>

> I am attaching my personal collection of classical sources covering the era

between 500 BC and 250 AD, which provide a comprehensive synthesis of the usage

of ming at the time when the Shen Nong bencao came into being:

>

" zhu yangming yi yingtian, " which I would translate as: " [these herbs]

nourish/cultivate ming to achieve responsiveness to the mandate of

Heaven.Ã¢â‚¬Â No matter how ming is translated here, the words yingtian make it

clear that the author of this text had a more expansive meaning of ming in mind

than mere physical benefit.

April 4, 2010

Jason,

Whereas a large part of what you write concerns the content of Heiner Fruehauf's

letter to Lonny, you have addressed your mail to me. As I find the discussion

interesting, I have interspersed your comments with my comments.

<<2. When talking about Unschuld's comments on " mandate of Heaven " (tianming)

from the Nei Jing we should be reminded that in his translation of the SNBCJ he

chooses not to use " mandate of Heaven " but simply " heaven " -- for whatever

reason... >>

The reason, obviously, is that the character for heaven in that line is not

followed my ming4. We have noted that before. The relevance of his comments on

the notion of `mandate of heaven' for the discussion we are having about the

meaning of the first line in the SNBCJ, however, is obvious too in view of the

context in which it appears in the Suwen.

<<I think there is a wide possibility of meanings for `tian' here, but first and

foremost it cannot be denied that it is a classification of Heaven, wo(man), and

earth. Beyond that is anyone's guess.>>

What meanings for `tian' do you have in mind and what do YOU think

`corresponding to heaven' means? And what about the comment on the phrase

`corresponding to heaven' in the Xinxiu bencao that I have quoted earlier in

this discussion and referred to later?

<<3. However, this debate really comes down to ming. I have looked

periodically over the last month and have yet to find anything in Chinese that

remotely suggests the meaning of this ming in this passage as destiny. All

commentaries and sources I have found discuss this as prolonging (etc) one's

physical life. I am curious if you have changed your previous perspective (as

translating this is life) and have found anything else commentating on this?>>

I did not try to suggest that I have changed the way I would translate `ming4'.

Our discussion and the research involved did, though, open my eyes (wider) to

the layers of meaning of this word. I guess it's one of the ways thinking about

`life' can be stimulating. I don't see why we should read ming4 as `physical

life' and am surprised that you now introduce this. It begins to feel like we

need to formulate what the meaning of `life' is ;-).

Can you tell us where you have found in Chinese commentaries that we should

interpret `ming4' as `physical life'?

Let me, in the meantime, try to explain how I approach this issue. There are

two Chinese terms that are (normally, mostly) translated as `nourishing life':

yang3ming4 and yang3sheng1. I can simply say that these terms are synonymous

(like some commentators do – if they comment at all on `yang3ming4') but I can

also ask: Why did the authors of the SNBCJ chose to use `ming4' instead of

`sheng1', and is it possible that that choice of character tells us something

about what their perspective was? (It's not about MY perspective which might be

coloured by my background, worldview etc.). In trying to be objective I can

only acknowledge that `ming4' most certainly has different connotations than

`sheng1'. When Fruehauf argues that the meaning of ming4 – `life' - during the

second century was inseparable from the original meaning, `(heavenly) command',

I think that he has a point we cannot and /or should not ignore. And when you

in turn define ming4 as `physical life' (indicating that this is something

different than `life') new questions arise...

In an earlier post I have quoted the sinologist Rouzer who shows that the

meanings `command' and `fate; lifespan' are related by noting `what heaven

commands for you is your fate and your lifespan'. You reacted by -more or less-

stating that these meanings did not apply for medical texts but I hope you have

adjusted that, in my opinion unnecessarily limiting, viewpoint.

<<Let's look at the whole paragraph. I will use Unschuld's translation:>>

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

control the maintenance of life and correspond to heaven. They do not have a

markedly medicinal effectiveness. The taking [of these drugs] in larger amounts

or over a long period of time is not harmful to man… "

<<I think the rest of this first paragraph is very telling... " if one wishes to

take the material weight from the body, to supplement the influences

[circulating in the body], and to prolong the years of life without aging, he

should base [his efforts] on [drugs mentioned in] the upper [class of

this]classic. "

As often is the case of Chinese they restate what they previously had

said(expanding on it) which many times can give clues into the previously

unclear(?) meaning.>>

Isn't that true for many other texts as well (other than Chinese I mean)?

<<For example this " prolong the years of life without aging "

( & #24310; & #24180;yan nian) is such a straightforward term I would be surprised

if anyone would debate the meaning here (although word choice may be debatable).

Quite simply, the rest of the paragraph after the first line that we have been

fixating on is really giving further explanation and instructions on how to use

these medicinals. One has to ask, if the writer was thinking about something

spiritual or related to destiny why would the rest of the paragraph not mention

this? Why would the rest of the paragraph talk about very down-to-earth things

such as prolonging the years of life.>>

Do you really think `taking the material weight from the body' is something

`down-to-earth' as well? Does not the SNBCJ talk about this class of drugs as

used to become weightless and immortal?

<<I think it is for this reason that commentaries on this text equate ming to

life. This is not to deny that ming in other philosophical texts has a deeper

meaning. >>

The meaning of `life' is less deep? Than what?

<<But every usage must be judged on its own while keeping in mind on

other texts of its time. Not just blindly using any term choice they like>>

<<4. Finally, Heiner makes a few odd statements which I would love to see some

references for: For example, he states that at the writing SNBCJ "

`life' and `longevity' was inseparable from the original meaning of

meaning `(heavenly) command'. I am not going to at claim to understand the

intricacies of ming, however according to Schuessler (probably the most

respected etymologist for Chinese in English) these were differentiated at this

time.>>

<<For fun he also states that the original meaning was " to order, command:

order, decree " this was in the Shang Dynasty evidenced by Oracle bone

inscriptions using the character ling & #65288; & #20196; & #65289;. To quote: " in

the Oracle bone and bronze inscription era (except late WZHOU bronze

inscription) only the graph & #20196; & #65288;ling & #65289; `order `occurs, while

the received texts write ming ( & #21629;),i.e. ling with a kou `mouth' added to

indicate that ling is a phonetic or semantic lone. Because ming is the ordinary

word for `to order', and because the break between ling (early inscriptions) and

ming (later texts) is quite abrupt, ling must have stood for ming and all Shang

and Western Zou inscriptions.>>

And what, do you think, has the meaning `to order, command' to do with life?

Wieger (another etymologist – and respected too, although that is not too

telling because we don't have a lot of them ;->) notes that ming4 is `an order

–ling- given orally (the addition of kou3 – `mouth') and says: `In the

philosophical language, ming4 means the decree by which heaven calls men to life

and determines their fate' (and, explaining the pictograph) `... mouth of heaven

dictating to a man his destiny between heaven and earth.'

For more fun: The most important commentaries on a famous song in the Shijing

(`Book of Poetry'. the oldest Chinese `songbook' containing verses colllected in

roughly the period of 1000 - 700 BCE) say that `ming4' means `dao4' (Dao / the

way / the Way) in the phrase `tian1 zhi1 ming4' – the ming4 of heaven – which

appears in one of the songs.

<<Consequently, I find it odd that whenever Heiner gives a definition he inserts

" (heavenly) " before the definition. Where is this from? For example linguists

and etymologists (and dictionaries) such as Schuessler simply relay the

definition as " to order, command " not " (heavenly) command " –or-

" (heavenly) human nature, " instead of the standard " human nature " - why the

insertion? This is also true in Chinese dictionaries.>>

See my remark above, about Rouzer's note, and the explanation of Wieger (if you

have his text, ling4 and ming4 are discussed in Lesson 14.I).

<<In regard to xingming - I'm having trouble following his reasoning that " 1,800

years ago ming made an inseparable pair with the term xing (xingming),

" (heavenly) human nature, " – clearly ming was used without xing. I Really don't

get the point here...>>

I guess you'll have to ask him to elaborate.

<<Furthermore although Heiner states that ming is equal to xingming at the time

of SNBCJ has the definition of " heavenly mandate of exercising heavenly virtues

in the concrete form of a physical body/lifetime; " –

a) where is this definition from?

b) if this is so, why does the SNBCJ use ming when discussing superior

medicinals and xingming (human nature) when discussing middle -class medicinals.

Clearly these are two separate ideas in this text.>>

`yang3 xing4' is what the text says about the middle class. For the rest, I am

not sure what you mean.

<<5. Heiner mentioned that " Yangsheng lun " (Treatise on Nourishing Life uses

the first sentence of the SNBCJ as an example that illustrates the sagesâ€™ more

expansive, `destiny' oriented approach to medicine, in contrast to a more

material approach by the commoner. " - I could not find this in my copy.

Did anyone else? This would be very interesting...>>

I've scanned the text and can see where the SNBCJ is quoted but do not know what

Heiner is referring to. Again, you'll have to ask him. There seem to be two

different editions of the text, maybe that's why we cannot find it...

<<6. Although, Heiner seems certain about some broader meaning of ming

because, he says " yingtian make it clear that the author of this text had a more

expansive meaning of ming in mind than mere physical benefit. " I wish it was

this cut and dry, but clearly it is not. If it were, would we find all of these

commentaries written by physicians throughout the centuries (whose classical

Chinese by the way is much better than any of ours) seeing it this way and

explaining it?>>

What commentaries are you reading? The only thing I can relate to what you are

saying is that (at least some) Chinese annotators say that yang3ming4 =

yang3sheng1. I've quoted the Xinxiu bencao which explains why the text says

`yingtian' – `corresponding to heaven'. Doesn't that commentary (which is

repeated in many other editions up to modern ones) give us something to think

about? I thought it was an important find. (I've asked Thomas to ask his

teachers to comment on it.)

<< As mentioned above, commentaries (classical and modern) I consulted simply

equate it to " life " not some spiritual destiny or

whatever.. Clearly, many (if not most) people disagree with Heiner's stance.>>

Yes, you have said that over and over again (without mentioning one verifiable

source by the way, but I know what you are talking about). However, didn't

/doesn't the whole discussion give you at least some hints to think in another

direction? It did for me...

<<7. Ming as prolonging *physical* life does fit in with many daoists view of

the goal of taking (such) medicinals.>>

Well, if you think flying and attaining immortality are best defined as

attributes of physical life, it probably does ;-).

<<8. However, I do completely agree with Heiner's point about using

" proper sinological procedure " etc., which has been my whole point all

along.>>

Well, I'm not so sure about your way of following such procedures any more. If

you say that you are aware that `ming in other philosophical texts has a deeper

meaning', and you say that you are aware of the interwovenness of Chinese

medicine and philosophy, why wouldn't you give some more room to interpretations

of the meaning of ming4 in medical texts?

<< One cannot even assume they understand the nuances of such a term in

classical Chinese without consulting numerous other classical texts using

Chinese languange. This is quite simply why I choose to rely on commentators

that have done this work for me.>>

Just a remark: There are many things in Chinese texts that commentators do not

explain because they don't think their readers need it.

<< I personally will never claim to understand these intricacies. However, these

commentators and authors of these classical dictionaries have spent their

lifetime deciphering these issues, unfortunately when it comes to medicine

almost all of this is in Chinese.>>

Yes, and written with Chinese readers in mind (this is not to say that they are

not helpful).

<<However, no doubt that ming is a very interesting and complex character and

this discussion has definitely allowed me to look deeper into this character.>>

Hence I find it disappointing that you now define ming4 as meaning `physical

life' in the line we've been talking about.

N. Herman

p.s. Just saw your other mail - will read it tomorrow...

April 4, 2010

Herman,

See below insertions¡

[Herman] Whereas a large part of what you write concerns the content of

Heiner Fruehauf's letter to Lonny, you have addressed your mail to me. As I

find the discussion interesting, I have interspersed your comments with my

comments.

[Jason] Yes since Heiner is not on the group, I did address the email to

you. There are quite a few astute people on this group and on this issue I

thought you might have some insightful thoughts as usual. Thanks for

responding¡ BTW how do prefer to be addressed, I have defaulted to [Herman]

due to you not often using your first name, sorry if this is incorrect?

[Herman] I did not try to suggest that I have changed the way I would

translate `ming4'. Our discussion and the research involved did, though,

open my eyes (wider) to the layers of meaning of this word. I guess it's one

of the ways thinking about `life' can be stimulating.

[Jason] I did not mean to suggest this, I was just asking an honest question

to see if your mind had changed. So at this point I guess we both agree at

this point ¡°life¡± is the best translation¡ Yes I agree our research has

also opened my eyes¡

[Herman] I don't see why we should read ming4 as `physical life' and am

surprised that you now introduce this. It begins to feel like we need to

formulate what the meaning of `life' is ;-).

[Jason] Actually, I still prefer just ¡°life¡± here, but as you see I wanted

to explore the possibilities of this ming meaning ¡°physical life¡±.

Although maybe not best, it is not unreasonable, especially because of the

ming¡¯s potential meaning of life-span and its relationship to prolonging

life. I do think some of the previous commentators (source below) support

this when they talk about organ function etc.. But I am not attached to this

idea, and actually think " physical life " is limiting. I am wondering what

other aspects of life do you think should be included here?

[Herman] Can you tell us where you have found in Chinese commentaries that

we should interpret `ming4' as `physical life'?

[Jason] really at the moment, this is just an extrapolation of when they

define ming as ¡°life-span¡± etc. -- to me this is physical -- see below for

more details...

[Herman] Let me, in the meantime, try to explain how I approach this issue.

There are two Chinese terms that are (normally, mostly) translated as

`nourishing life': yang3ming4 and yang3sheng1. I can simply say that these

terms are synonymous (like some commentators do ¨C if they comment at all on

`yang3ming4') but I can also ask: Why did the authors of the SNBCJ chose to

use `ming4' instead of `sheng1', and is it possible that that choice of

character tells us something about what their perspective was? (It's not

about MY perspective which might be coloured by my background, worldview

etc.). In trying to be objective I can only acknowledge that `ming4' most

certainly has different connotations than `sheng1'.

When Fruehauf argues that the meaning of ming4 ¨C `life' - during the second

century was inseparable from the original meaning, `(heavenly) command', I

think that he has a point we cannot and /or should not ignore.

[Jason] I agree if his statement is true he would have a BIG point. But as

you will see from my follow-up previous email that from my reading,

linguistics specializing in ming have shown that there are distinct meaning

by the time of the SNBCJ. So this is the key factor that we should unravel

if major philosophical texts etc are to have a primary influence in how we

define ming in medical texts. Do you have some information that supports

Heiner¡¯s viewpoint?

[Herman] In an earlier post I have quoted the sinologist Rouzer who shows

that the meanings `command' and `fate; lifespan' are related by noting `what

heaven commands for you is your fate and your lifespan'. You reacted by

-more or less- stating that these meanings did not apply for medical texts

but I hope you have adjusted that, in my opinion unnecessarily limiting,

viewpoint.

[Jason]. For the full details please see my exclamation in the previous

e-mail. But quite simply, I think any text may or may not have a direct

impact. But currently, I do not think that ¡°other¡± usages are guaranteed

to apply to medical texts. IMO, many medical texts go out of their way to

strip this stuff out, and just focus on treatments.

[Herman] Do you really think `taking the material weight from the body' is

something `down-to-earth' as well? Does not the SNBCJ talk about this class

of drugs as used to become weightless and immortal?

[Jason] No you are right it is? How do you think this applies to one¡¯s

Life, ming? Does SNBCJ actually say immortal? I thought It just said

¡°prolong one's life. " There is some debate on what this weightless means

but I have no desire to delve into this¡ but nonetheless, whatever these

mean there is a obvious goal of extending one's life. Unschuld discusses

this as taking medicinals for a long period of time to keep oneself healthy

(disease-free) and hopefully live very long.

[Herman] And what, do you think, has the meaning `to order, command' to do

with life? Wieger (another etymologist ¨C and respected too, although that

is not too telling because we don't have a lot of them ;->) notes that ming4

is `an order ¨Cling- given orally (the addition of kou3 ¨C `mouth') and

says: `In the philosophical language, ming4 means the decree by which heaven

calls men to life and determines their fate' (and, explaining the

pictograph) `... mouth of heaven dictating to a man his destiny between

heaven and earth.'

[Jason] Exactly, in philosophical language! AS soon as you attach a

[Heavenly] before the definition you are forcing that meaning into other

usages. Therefore something that might not have this meaning will be missed.

As Cai stated (previous e-mail) ming is often used as simply ¡°life-span¡±

with no deeper meaning. Although of course this definition came from ling as

associated with oracle bones and divination, at a certain point though it

breaks away and takes on a new meaning (separate from the original). So I

don¡¯t agree we should insert this [heaven] into the core definition, as

dictionaries etc also do not. Although one needs to be aware of this, and

maybe that is your point, then I agree¡

[Herman] What commentaries are you reading? The only thing I can relate to

what you are saying is that (at least some) Chinese annotators say that

yang3ming4 = yang3sheng1. I've quoted the Xinxiu bencao which explains why

the text says `yingtian' ¨C `corresponding to heaven'. Doesn't that

commentary (which is repeated in many other editions up to modern ones) give

us something to think about? I thought it was an important find. (I've asked

Thomas to ask his teachers to comment on it.)

¡Yes, you have said that over and over again (without mentioning one

verifiable source by the way, but I know what you are talking about).

However, didn't /doesn't the whole discussion give you at least some hints

to think in another direction? It did for me...

[Jason] No doubt I have thought about this in many different ways. I am not

sure what you mean by verifiable source. I presented some English source

(Unschuld) as well as Chinese translations of material that I feel applies.

In one of the emails I presented commentary on yang ming that states, ¡°For

example, I found some nice commentary on the matter explaining what these

terms actually mean that is " nourishing life (yang ming) and nourishing the

temperament (yang xing) emphasize the function of these Chinese medicinals

to take care of one's body¡± it specifically goes on and describes looking

after the normal function of individual organs structure.¡±

It is true that I did not source this at the time, no one actually asked.

Honestly right now I do not have the time to hunt down where the specific

source I translated this from. I did a quick internet search and you can

read such perspectives specifically discussing this line from the SNBCJ at:

http://zy.51ttyy.com/zycs/wenhua/200906/98110.shtml

http://www.panganshi.com/News_View.asp?NewsID=16

But at the time I looked at quite a few sources and could not find anything

related to destiny and few along the above lines of relating to yang sheng,

which is clearly not destiny. And most referring to heally living. ¨C maybe

physical life is not the best translation, but it an important component.

Here is a quote from my note file, (unknown source), but interesting: ÑøÃüµÄ

¸ÅÄî ÑøÃü£¬¾ÍÊÇ×ÔÈ»Æ½ºâµÄÑøÉú±£½¡¹ÛÄî

Have you found any commentary specifically on ¡®yang ming¡¯ that gives it a

larger meaning than this material?

<<7. Ming as prolonging *physical* life does fit in with many daoists view

of the goal of taking (such) medicinals.>>

[Herman] Well, if you think flying and attaining immortality are best

defined as attributes of physical life, it probably does ;-).

[Jason] I do not mean to suggest that prolonging physical life is the only

goal of Daoists. It is only one aspect that they discuss, but important one

for many sects. There is obviously some quite bizarre goals to some of their

practices like connecting with their fetus etc. But many when they talk

about immortality are talking about physical life extension. Do you

disagree?

I think that should cover it, thanks so far for your input, as stated, I am

not attached to any of this and find this group really just a sounding board

for these ideas. But these are my current thoughts...

-

April 5, 2010

Thomas,

I understand the limitations of this format for discourse but I assure you

that you are reading an emotionality into my writing where there is none (I

guess this points out once again the limitations in ascribing meanings to the

written word). It is fair enough that a scholar's work should be subjected to

scrutiny and I have never avoided criticism. Simply, there is a pretense of

superiority here among those from a certain school of thought who speak

disrespectfully and with a condescending tone to anyone with a differing point

of view. So far I have seen this lack of dignity extended to Peter Eckman, JR

Worsely, Jeffrey Yuen, and myself and the list goes on and on.

I respect the contributions of scholars of the Chinese language to the field

of discourse. I also recognize that there is disagreement between them regarding

major points such as the one under discussion. So far, the discourse here has

pointed to the limitation of linguistics as a single line of development in

arriving at a meaningful understanding of the medicine.

The discussion of ming4 has highlighted the very important distinction

between mere reading and actual comprehension. Jason has written a paper on the

importance of understanding the multiple levels of meaning of characters and yet

refuses to make the simple connection between life, span of life, commands,

orders, fate, destiny, the designation of " heaven " (which he trivializes), and

cinnabar as the first herb mentioned in the SNBC.

In reading Chinese it's not the number of characters one knows but the

number of connections one can make between characters that's most important.

Similarly, it's not how many functions of points or herbs one knows but the

number of connections one can make between things that's of primary importance.

Simply, despite all the linguistic math that's been going on here for several

months few have been willing to put two plus two together to yield four.

The fact is that Jason and others are using a Cartesian, reductionist, and

deductive methodology to analyze the language that makes no sense in the context

of, and has limited applicabitlity to, the medical science we are discussing.

Chinese medicine is a science of recognizing the diagnosis and interpreting the

findings in that context. (The patient IS wood constitutionally, therefore the

finding of heat means xyz " ). " The fact, is that Spirit contextualizes

everything, therefore the implications are......... " The entire level of

analysis being applied is bass ackwards and has little to do with cognitive

approach of the medicine as a whole which is primarily inductive and not

deductive.

SO far, Jason has not evidenced that slightest understanding of the

Chinese discourse of ming4 in any of it's breadth or depth so there is little

confidence that he would be able to meaningfully translate it. If he cannot make

the simplest correlation between " life " , " life span " , and " destiny " , it is no

surprise that he has searched for discussions of ming4 in a deeper context and

not found them.

I am all for scholarly rigor but such rigor must be demonstrated across all

levels and expressions of development. Most importantly is the capacity to

discuss such concepts as the relationship between life, destiny, enlightenment,

healing, and medicine, on the ground where the rubber meets the road and from

one's own experience in life and in the clinic.

What we are discussing is Spirit/spirit and Jason " isn't interested in being

drawn into a philosophical discussion that has no resolution " (paraphrasing).

Ironically, the nature of Spirit/spirit has no resolution. Why? Because Spirit

and our understanding of it is evolving and the debate has been going on for

over two thousand years. But that doesn't mean that the discussion isn't worth

having. Personally, I can't think of a more compelling conversation than the

place of medicine in facilitating the human relationship to God/Shen. The

recognition of the fundamental importance of this relationship as the very

ground for discourse is merely the meeting point for moving forward together. It

is out of that recognition that humility and respect are born for what we all

bring to the table.

Using linguistics to avoid having to discuss that which is obviously so points

only to the failure of the method and highlights that technical ability in no

way guarantees an open mind, comprehension, or a significant contribution to

taking things forward.

I studied Chinese for 15 years, love the language, and have a great respect for

those who have given their lives to it. Still, it's only one line of development

and, obviously, has it's limitations.

Regards, Lonny Jarrett

April 5, 2010

For the record I have yet to commit to any translation of ming in the

passage we are discussing. I have only reported what others, that are much

smarter than me, have said, and the way they have translated it. Quite

simply, what I have found through reading the literature (not from my own

ideas) is people across the board translate this as " life " . The many

references / sources to this can be found in the early emails on the topic.

Please don't confuse my reporting of commentary and the many other

translations with something that I myself am " creating. "

More importantly, Lonny, if you could refrain from trying to summarize my

stance, talk about my methods, or anything else related to me, it would be

much appreciated. Even after just bringing up this issue (even in your last

email) your ability to clearly read and understand the core thoughts of my

position, present them accurately, and hence make a rationale counter

argument is highly questionable.

This is precisely why I have no desire to get into some " philosophical

discussion " with Lonny. He seems to not only misrepresent one's position,

but will twist the words, polarize the position, and then lead the

conversation into some convoluted vortex. He also employs all sorts of

diversion tactics such as responding to a direct question with nothing more

than a list of other questions.

For some this is fun, but for me this is a waste of time. I understand this

is Lonny's style, and that is fine, but beyond this, the ongoing misquoting

and misrepresenting of other's ideas and emails is just not tolerable and in

need of some serious shi chang pu. Granted everyone makes a mistake and

misreads something here and there, but this has been an ongoing theme that I

have noticed for quite some time. Consequently, I have lost all faith in

being able to have a sensible conversation with Lonny and do not want to

have to correct every single email that Lonny writes. Please leave me out of

your discussions. And for the record most of his representations of my

stances below are just incorrect.

-Jason

On Behalf Of Lonny

Monday, April 05, 2010 8:32 AM

Re: shen nong ben cao con't

Thomas,

I understand the limitations of this format for discourse but I assure you

that you are reading an emotionality into my writing where there is none (I

guess this points out once again the limitations in ascribing meanings to

the written word). It is fair enough that a scholar's work should be

subjected to scrutiny and I have never avoided criticism. Simply, there is a

pretense of superiority here among those from a certain school of thought

who speak disrespectfully and with a condescending tone to anyone with a

differing point of view. So far I have seen this lack of dignity extended to

Peter Eckman, JR Worsely, Jeffrey Yuen, and myself and the list goes on and

on.

I respect the contributions of scholars of the Chinese language to the field

of discourse. I also recognize that there is disagreement between them

regarding major points such as the one under discussion. So far, the

discourse here has pointed to the limitation of linguistics as a single line

of development in arriving at a meaningful understanding of the medicine.

The discussion of ming4 has highlighted the very important distinction

between mere reading and actual comprehension. Jason has written a paper on

the importance of understanding the multiple levels of meaning of characters

and yet refuses to make the simple connection between life, span of life,

commands, orders, fate, destiny, the designation of " heaven " (which he

trivializes), and cinnabar as the first herb mentioned in the SNBC.

In reading Chinese it's not the number of characters one knows but the

number of connections one can make between characters that's most important.

Similarly, it's not how many functions of points or herbs one knows but the

number of connections one can make between things that's of primary

importance. Simply, despite all the linguistic math that's been going on

here for several months few have been willing to put two plus two together

to yield four.

The fact is that Jason and others are using a Cartesian, reductionist, and

deductive methodology to analyze the language that makes no sense in the

context of, and has limited applicabitlity to, the medical science we are

discussing. Chinese medicine is a science of recognizing the diagnosis and

interpreting the findings in that context. (The patient IS wood

constitutionally, therefore the finding of heat means xyz " ). " The fact, is

that Spirit contextualizes everything, therefore the implications

are......... " The entire level of analysis being applied is bass ackwards

and has little to do with cognitive approach of the medicine as a whole

which is primarily inductive and not deductive.

SO far, Jason has not evidenced that slightest understanding of the Chinese

discourse of ming4 in any of it's breadth or depth so there is little

confidence that he would be able to meaningfully translate it. If he cannot

make the simplest correlation between " life " , " life span " , and " destiny " , it

is no surprise that he has searched for discussions of ming4 in a deeper

context and not found them.

I am all for scholarly rigor but such rigor must be demonstrated across all

levels and expressions of development. Most importantly is the capacity to

discuss such concepts as the relationship between life, destiny,

enlightenment, healing, and medicine, on the ground where the rubber meets

the road and from one's own experience in life and in the clinic.

What we are discussing is Spirit/spirit and Jason " isn't interested in being

drawn into a philosophical discussion that has no resolution "

(paraphrasing). Ironically, the nature of Spirit/spirit has no resolution.

Why? Because Spirit and our understanding of it is evolving and the debate

has been going on for over two thousand years. But that doesn't mean that

the discussion isn't worth having. Personally, I can't think of a more

compelling conversation than the place of medicine in facilitating the human

relationship to God/Shen. The recognition of the fundamental importance of

this relationship as the very ground for discourse is merely the meeting

point for moving forward together. It is out of that recognition that

humility and respect are born for what we all bring to the table.

Using linguistics to avoid having to discuss that which is obviously so

points only to the failure of the method and highlights that technical

ability in no way guarantees an open mind, comprehension, or a significant

contribution to taking things forward.

I studied Chinese for 15 years, love the language, and have a great respect

for those who have given their lives to it. Still, it's only one line of

development and, obviously, has it's limitations.

Regards, Lonny Jarrett

Checked by AVG - www.avg.com

Version: 9.0.800 / Virus Database: 271.1.1/2792 - Release 04/05/10

00:32:00

April 6, 2010

More importantly, Lonny, if you could refrain from trying to summarize my

stance, talk about my methods, or anything else related to me, it would be much

appreciated.

Lonny: Jason, the record stands. From my perspective it shows that you have

failed to respond to me, or Herman for that matter, on any significant basis and

have rather had a dialog with yourself changing positions and contradicting

yourself constantly. If there has not been a serious discussion here I will

suggest that has been no fault of my own.

The basis of discussion has been Bob's assertion that Shen, large " S " plays no

significant role is CM. While you have taken a position in this regard, you have

not demonstrated that you might know the relationship between shen and Shen or,

in fact, what the attributes of Shen, large " S " are. From my perspective you

have used your knowledge of the Chinese language to avoid having a real

discussion based on the merits.

You have on the one hand, asserted that ming4 in the SNBC means only " life " and

on the other that you recognize the importance of taking fine shades of meaning

into account when reading the literature. My questions to you have pointed to

the very large context that forms the basis of translating the line in question

and you have failed to meaningfully respond to, or demonstrate interest in any

point made.

For example, you have trivialized the designation of " ming " as corresponding to

" heaven " and refused to discuss the significance of cinnabar as the first herb

in the SNBC and how that contextualizes understanding the meaning of the first

sentence.

What this comes down to is basic respect for scholars with different methods and

points of view and an actual interest in finding out what one doesn't already

know. Instead you have taken a fixed stance in relationship to the position that

Spirit/Shen does not contextualize the medicine and, from my perspective, the

untenability of this position shows throughout the content of your posts.

It is a flawed approach to rely solely on grammatical analysis outside of an

embodied understanding of, and discussion regarding, the broader philosophical

and cultural issues involved. We can each point to people with much greater

competencies with the language than our own who agree with our perspectives. The

issue is only " what stage of development are reflected in the value systems

being applied to the question at hand? " . I believe the data indicates that the

position that you and others share reflects the imposition of an " orange meme, "

scientific materialistic outlook on the medicine and that's why, when you read

the texts, you fail to find a significant presence of Shen, Large " S " in the

history of the medicine.

The perspective you bring has it's strengths and weaknesses and it's only the

pretense of it's inherent superiority to all other schools of thought, along

with the general denigration of anyone with a differing perspective, that I take

exception to. I also take exception to the oft expressed notion here that all

who do understand CM in the context of Shen, Large " S " are imposing a value

system on CM that isn't innate within it.

Again, I think we postmodern humans barely know what the spiritual context of

medicine is and that there is a lot of fluff surrounding it, both in those who

deny it's proper place and in many who claim they are " doing it " . But it's still

the most significant conversation that those of us willing to step up to the

plate can have because only through a mature understanding of such a foundation

will we arrive at the shared values that can advance the medicine at this point

in history.

April 6, 2010

Jason,

<<Letâ€™s use ming as an example., I think there are some key factors we must

consider in defining the meaning on ming in a medical context. There is no

question that ming has a multitude of meanings in non-medical texts ranging from

quite profound to very down to earth. The question is whether these different

meanings are inseparable or differentiated at the time when the SNBCJ was

written.>>

NHO: Can't they be inseparable AND differentiated?

<<An illustrative essay is by Zong-qi Cai on Tao Qian and the â€œmultiple

vistasâ€ of ming.>>

Tao Qian! Peach Blossoms! I often think of that piece of writing when I work

in the gardens and do not have to hear the world raging. You remind me of

wonderful days translating poetry and being in awe of all those great thinkers

of the past.

As I understand that most readers on this list are from the US of A: How famous

is Tao Qian amongst Americans?

<< He begins by examining the earliest discussions of ming in

Chinese discourse: Duke Wenâ€™s famed â€œunderstanding of mingâ€ in the

zuozhuan. Consequently he explores four *distinctive* meanings of ming; 1.

Demands that Heaven puts on one, 2. oneâ€™s actual life span, 3. oneâ€™s destiny

in life, or 4. the natural course that one should follow.

This alone demonstrates there were very early on, in literary works, distinct

usages of the word (ming), hence we cannot assume that ming can be read anyway

one wishes (with multiple levels) as has been suggested on this group.>>

NHO:

`Demands' is new for me and `should' too. Are you aware that Chinese writers

when they use words like this can very well want their readers to think of their

`distinctive' meanings? Haven't we seen that in the first sentence of the SNBCJ

`nourishing ming4' is somehow connected to `corresponding to heaven' (however

you want to read the character yi3 that combines the two phrases)? Isn't that

interesting enough for you to explore?

I asked you several questions in my earlier mail and you have left them

unanswered. Three times now, I have referred to what in the major Tang dynasty

materia medica Xinxiu bencao is written about `corresponding to heaven'. I do

not understand why you don't think my questions and that citation are of

interest in our exploration of the meaning of the sentence. In the thread about

the meaning of shen2 in the Neijing the same kind of thing happened and I felt

that that discussion was stifled by the last mail you wrote in response. I am

happy to spend a lot of time in looking up quotes, exploring the literature,

think about your arguments etc. but the `follow-up' often shows that you are not

really looking at things with an open mind. Or at least, you give the

impression that you prefer to ignore things I bring up that do not `fit in your

street'.

For instance, I've shown that in the line from the Lingshu that Bensky and

Clavey quote in their article, shen2 cannot mean `the attention of the

physician' – and I've spent quite some time to formulate that answer. Your

response suggested that you think I am not doing my homework. Come on! (I tell

you this because I find it a pity that you ended that discussion in that weird

way – I formulated several other questions there that you left unanswered too –

just saying that you did not `see the beef' and that I could `go against the

grain' if I liked too...).

<<Quite simply different circumstances require a different reading and is (as

most Chinese) context dependent. From this perspective it is incorrect to

suggest that one can read the same â€™mingâ€™ as â€˜destinyâ€™ and

â€˜life-spanâ€™ simply because both definitions or " possible " at that time.>>

Yes, context dependent. Exactly. See above. The more I think about it, the

more I think the context is not merely `growing old'.

<<Actually Charles Chace is doing extensive research right now on the eight

extras meridians in relation to Daoist internal alchemy. I talked to him today

about this issue and he showed me an example of something he is translating. A

single author would use ming in a very physical sense and then in the next

section is in a larger sense. Consequently, he translates each instance of ming

differently to grasp the meaning of that passage. Although this is the text from

the 1800s the methodology of sorting out the proper meaning for the context is

as Zong-qi Cai states essential.>>

Yes, context is crucial - especially for this kind of words. It is very

different from the bulk of Chinese medical terminology (which most of the time

is pretty straightforward - fortunate enough for our patients ;->). However,

you haven't told us much about what Zhongqi Cai actually says in this respect.

Apparently, he discusses different usages of ming4 in the writings of Tao Qian?

Would be interesting to hear more about that - I couldn't find the article

online. (The articles I found were on wangfangdata and I would love to buy some

but I've never succeeded to go through the steps necessary to do that as their

machines refuse postal codes etc..)

<<Therefore when reviewing a medical text how useful are philosophical,

literary, or even religious texts of the same time period. If we can safely say

that a term had distinct usages then, in my opinion, other non-medical texts are

only as useful as showing the full range of *possible* meanings, unless there is

some specific reference. That is, merely finding a philosophical text that use a

capital letter â€œMâ€ing really shows nothing when evaluating another text,

albeit literary, medical, religious, or even another philosophical text. Because

quite simple we can find other texts (and passages) that use the small letter

â€œmâ€ing.>>

What can I say? Well, I just repeat: `There is a lot of philosophy in Chinese

medical texts.'

<<Hence, each text must be evaluated on its own.>>

Yes and no. I thought you agreed that the context of culture, time period,

whatever, was relevant? I find your reasoning a bit confusing.

<<On a side note, the SNBCJ was a Daoist text. Many Daoists were fixated on

living long (physically) so they could accomplish their â€œgoalsâ€. Hence

internal alchemy was largely based on this goal. To quote Unschuld: â€œlooking

back once more to what we assumed to be the original usage of the term ben cao,

we remember that the ben cao experts were practitioners who based their efforts

for a " long life without aging " on experiments with mostly herbal drugs. It is

in

the circles of these men that we must look for the authors of the shen nong ben

jing. Their experiments were not primarily aimed at the actual medicinal value

of these drugs, but rather at their ability to strengthen the body and protect

it, over long periods of time, from health problems of all kinds.â€ Sounds

pretty down-to-earth to meâ€¦ >>

When you say that they strove to live long in order to be able to accomplish

`their goals' maybe you can tell us what you understand these goals were?

NHO

April 6, 2010

(see below)

-Jason

On Behalf Of Nicolaas Herman

[Herman] NHO: Can't they be inseparable AND differentiated?

Not sure, but the point of Cai is that in these early texts they

were using ming in a distinct fashion requiring separate definitions for each

usage. This is just the position of a linguist who specializes in understanding

ming. I'm sure there are other ideas out there, I would love to see counter

arguments from some other linguists... can anyone point me in a good place that

I can read about why this term (ming) should be inseparable and not

differentiated in the Han? (FTR Herman, that is my 3rd request). He heâ€¦

[Herman]