Library

Regarding the aforementioned issues, I would like to elaborate from another perspective. The relationship between theory and practical application, as well as between theory and clinical practice, is very clear. If we review the development of physics in the 20th century, this point becomes evident. By the end of the 19th century, classical physics had reached a degree of perfection imagined by people. One might have thought that this was the ultimate and most harmonious theory for explaining the world. However, once time entered the 20th century, this harmony was broken. With the establishment of Special Relativity in 1905, followed by General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, people's views on the macroscopic and microscopic worlds underwent fundamental changes. This shift in cognition led to earth-shaking changes in technological applications; from aerospace technology and atomic energy technology to microelectronics technology, and even all the changes we can feel today, none are unrelated to the establishment of new theories. Within the framework of classical physics, aerospace technology, atomic bombs, and modern communication technology were unimaginable. Looking back at the century just passed, we have truly felt the importance of theory; theory indeed constrains the application and development of technology. Can such feelings and experiences serve as the reason for our proposition that "Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) theory lags behind clinical practice"? I believe this reason should be twofold: precisely because we see the importance of theory—that it constrains the development of practice and technology—we should re-evaluate our current understanding and re-examine TCM theory. We must ask: How great is the inclusiveness of classic TCM theory? How great are its extensibility and前瞻性 (forward-looking nature)? Can it still provide guidance for today's clinical practice? We should not merely see it as a product from two thousand years ago. If this theory is indeed outdated and cannot adapt to modernity, then we should unhesitatingly break it and establish a "Relativity" within the TCM system. If this theory has not lagged behind at all, if this classic framework already possesses "Relativity" and "Quantum Mechanics," then why must we break it?

Currently, there is a strange and frightening phenomenon in the TCM community: the education regarding TCM classics is gradually weakening. Most TCM colleges and universities have now changed classic courses into electives; even old-established institutions in Chengdu and Nanjing, which originally placed great emphasis on classics, are no exception. Is this change a form of progress? It is highly questionable. Before we establish new theories, and before we have practically discovered flaws in traditional theories, the classics remain the core of TCM, the foundation of TCM, and compulsory courses for TCM. How can the core and foundation be made elective? Some say, isn't *Zhongji* (Basic Theory of Traditional Chinese Medicine) derived from *Huangdi Neijing* (The Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon)? Isn't *Neike* (Internal Medicine of TCM) derived from *Shanghan Lun* (Treatise on Cold Pathogenic Diseases) and *Jingui Yaolue* (Essential Prescriptions of the Golden Cabinet)? And aren't they more perfect than *Huangdi Neijing*, *Shanghan Lun*, and *Jingui Yaolue*? Why can't they replace the classics? To be honest, *Zhongji* and *Huangdi Neijing*, *Neike* and *Shanghan Lun* / *Jingui Yaolue* are fundamentally different things, with vast differences, so how can they be compared? I believe this issue will have an opportunity to be discussed in the future. It is like shelving classical mechanics before new mechanics have been established; what kind of situation is this? Everyone can ponder. Theory needs practice to verify and explain; this is universal, applicable to both Eastern and Western cultures. In modern science, due to the work of many outstanding scientists, the value of theory is obvious; for example, we can fully appreciate the charm of quantum theory through Fermi's work. However, for ordinary people, what role do quantum theory and relativity play? Therefore, evaluating theory is by no means a simple matter. In the history of TCM, there have been many people who successfully applied classic theories, such as Zhang Zhongjing and Bian Que. Bian Que became a divine physician capable of bringing the dead back to life by applying classic theories, while Zhang Zhongjing ultimately became the Sage of Medicine because he was proficient in classics. Can we see the value of classic theories from Bian Que, Zhang Zhongjing, and famous doctors of past dynasties, just as we appreciate modern physics from Fermi and many other scientists?

2. Professor Yang Zhenning's Understanding of Chinese Culture

On December 3, 1999, Professor Yang Zhenning, a renowned physicist and Nobel Prize laureate, was invited by the Chinese University of Hong Kong to deliver a lecture titled "Chinese Culture and Science" at New Asia College. In this lecture, Professor Yang devoted considerable space to elaborating on the characteristics of Chinese culture. As one of the greatest physicists of the 20th century recognized by the public, and possessing considerable attainments in traditional culture, his views on traditional culture should possess significant representativeness and influence. Professor Yang Zhenning's understanding of Chinese traditional culture can be summarized in the following aspects: First, traditional culture seeks "Li" (Principle/Reason), whereas modern science (including contemporary science) seeks natural laws. The "Li" sought by traditional culture is not natural law or natural rule, whereas modern science pursues natural laws. Such a distinction makes traditional culture and modern science clearly distinct. Since traditional culture seeks "Li" rather than natural laws, what exactly is this "Li"? Professor Yang explains that this "Li" is a kind of "spirit" or "realm." So, what does this "spirit" and "realm" refer to? Does science lack spirit and realm? Second, Professor Yang believes that traditional culture only employs the method of induction, lacking logical deduction (or syllogism). As everyone knows, conducting research within a scientific system requires two methods: induction and deduction. Induction involves summarizing many phenomena to obtain a cognition, a definition, or a theory, gathering many things into one point or one cognition. Although phenomena may appear different superficially, their essence is closely similar. Thus, induction is essentially a cognitive process moving from the outside inward. Logical deduction is another important method; this process is extremely rigorous, such as going from one to two, from two to three, where the sequence must be strictly maintained. Modern science possesses both induction and logical deduction, with logical deduction being its hallmark. Chinese culture has induction but lacks logical deduction, which further distinguishes tradition from modernity. Third, traditional culture lacks experiments and natural philosophy. In many contexts, many people consider TCM less a natural science and more a natural philosophy. However, in his lecture, Professor Yang used TCM as an example to argue that traditional culture lacks natural philosophy, which obviously contradicts the views of many others. In the field of modern science, experiments are crucial; without them, one can hardly make progress. Even departments reviewing science adhere to this. When I was pursuing my doctoral degree, there was an unwritten rule in the institution managing doctoral-level studies: except for literature-based PhDs, all others had to conduct experimental research. Thus, I obtained my PhD somewhat fortuitously, as I did not conduct experimental research, thanks to my supervisor. There are no experiments in the history of TCM; we do not see Huangdi asking Qibo, "How did you discover your theory of Yin and Yang? Was it discovered through mouse experiments?" Indeed, there are none. Therefore, the absence of experiments in the modern sense within TCM and other traditional sciences is consistent with reality. These are Professor Yang's general views on Chinese culture.

3. Construction of Traditional Theory

This section mainly discusses whether Professor Yang's aforementioned views are representative yet incorrect, and whether they truly express the connotation of traditional culture. Regarding this, I hold views different from those of Professor Yang Zhenning. Although traditional culture has many branch fields, TCM is the most representative. Below, taking TCM as an example, I will sequentially present my viewpoints and discuss them with Professor Yang Zhenning.

(1) What is Li?

First, the problem we need to understand is what "Li" is. Is the "Li" that traditional culture strives for merely a matter of spirit and realm, or does it include both? We can investigate this question from a philological perspective first. *Shuowen Jiezi* states: "Li refers to working on jade." Working on jade means carving jade. After jade stones are mined, through our polishing and fine carving, they take the shape we require, becoming artworks. Therefore, the original meaning of "Li" refers to this process. In the eyes of the ancients, among all materials, what is the densest substance? It is jade. Why does jade appear clear and delicate? Because the texture of jade is very fine and moist. As everyone knows, there is a historical story of Cook Ding carving an ox. When Cook Ding carved the ox, he saw no whole ox. Why? Because he was very familiar with the grain of the ox; he knew the direction of every muscle clearly. By following this direction and grain to carve the ox, it was both fast and effortless on the knife. Therefore, the "Li" of jade is naturally denser than that of the ox. Thus, working on jade requires double the care and a clearer understanding of this "Li"; following this "Li" to polish and carve allows us to create the artworks we desire. If we carve against this "Li," the jade will be damaged. This is the original meaning of "Li." Extended, it means that you must proceed in this way to succeed, whereas proceeding otherwise will fail. Why? Because "Li" plays a role here. Think about it: isn't such a "Li" a natural law? Natural laws and rules cannot be violated; violating them leads to failure. As the saying goes: "With principle/reason, one can travel everywhere; without it, one cannot move a step." This is the significance of "Li." You must follow it for the path to be open; this is "Li." Whether it is human principle, heavenly principle, or natural principle, it is the same. Natural principle means we must coexist with nature by following this principle to succeed; human principle concerns how we get along with others. Therefore, "Li" is not merely a matter of spirit and realm. "Li" is a very tangible thing, visible and palpable. Proceeding this way works; proceeding that way hits a wall. Spirit, however, is sometimes void and elusive, difficult to grasp. We say that in TCM, the importance of this "Li," this law, and this rule is even more prominent. What is this "Li," law, and rule? It is Yin-Yang and the Four Seasons! Therefore, in *Suwen: Siqi Tiaoshen Dalun* (Great Treatise on Regulating Spirit According to the Four Qi of Suwen), it says: "Yin-Yang and the Four Seasons are the beginning and end of all things, the root of life and death. Violating them brings disaster; following them prevents severe diseases. This is called attaining the Dao." Why use the term "attaining the Dao" here? This is an interesting question. The term "attaining the Dao" was used frequently by the ancients; attaining the Dao allows one to ascend to heaven. If one can ascend to heaven, what cannot be done? Why does one attain the Dao? Because one understands this "Li" and follows it. Of course, one attains the Dao and enters a smooth path. Why can modern spaceships ascend to heaven? Is it not because we have clarified the "Li" of relativity? Therefore, this "Li," this Dao, and this principle are meaningful terms; they were so in ancient times, and they are so today.

(2) The Combination of Induction and Deduction

Is the construction of traditional culture based solely on induction? On this point, I also disagree. *Suwen: Shanggu Tianzhen Lun* (Treatise on the Heavenly Truth of Antiquity in Suwen) explicitly states: "In ancient times, those who understood the Dao modeled themselves on Yin and Yang and harmonized themselves with Shu-Shu (techniques and numbers)." Here, "those who understood the Dao" refers to those who attained the Dao. Those who attain the Dao must certainly be those who understand the "Li." The "Li" here includes two aspects: one is Yin-Yang, and the other is Shu-Shu. Thus, there are two questions. Yin-Yang represents induction. *Suwen: Yinyang Yingxiang Dalun* (Great Treatise on Yin-Yang Correspondence to Phenomena in Suwen) states: "Yin and Yang are the Dao of Heaven and Earth, the netting of all things, the parents of change, the origin of life and death, and the residence of spiritual brilliance." Here, all things in Heaven and Earth, and all changes, life, and death, are attributed to Yin and Yang. Therefore, from the perspective of induction, there is no more perfect inductive method in the world than Yin-Yang. Then, what about Shu-Shu? Shu-Shu obviously expresses the aspect of deduction, which is logically equivalent to the traditional sense of logic. Discussing deduction and logic necessitates connecting with mathematics. Therefore, Professor Yang believes that mathematics did not emerge in ancient China; it was only after the introduction of Western learning in the 16th and 17th centuries that seeds of mathematics appeared. True mathematics only emerged in the 20th century, marked by the opening of mathematics courses at Tsinghua and Peking Universities in the early 20th century. So, does Chinese culture have mathematics? The answer is affirmative; Shu-Shu is the study concerning mathematics. In the *General Catalogue of the Complete Library of the Four Treasuries*, discussing the definition of Shu-Shu, there is the following text: "When things are born, they have forms; when forms exist, they have numbers. Multiplication, division, deduction, and elaboration, striving to investigate the source of creation, constitute 'Numbers'." Of course, this is not a mathematical logic system in the modern sense, but it undoubtedly belongs to the part of deduction. Therefore, to become one who understands the Dao, and to truly master this traditional scholarship, one must grasp both Yin-Yang and be clear on Shu-Shu. Consequently, traditional culture is a combination of induction and deduction; neither can be omitted.

(3) Rational Thinking and Internal Verification Experiments