Library

Traditional culture does not lack experiments; Professor Yang Zhenning's view on this issue is only half correct. Indeed, within Chinese culture, we do not see a type of experimental research like that in modern science. Regarding medicine, a series of experiments utilizing substances external to the human body (such as white rabbits, white mice, or other animals) indeed did not exist in traditional Chinese medicine. However, it is an undeniable fact that within traditional culture, there exists a subtle and profound "internal verification experiment" (Neizheng Shiyan, internal verification experiment). It is precisely the combination of this internal verification experiment and rational thinking that gave rise to traditional culture and constructed the theoretical framework of Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM).

When discussing internal verification experiments, this issue is indeed difficult to explain clearly. Why? Because the internal verification experiment conducted by anyone possessing this ability is not like a white mouse placed before us, visible and tangible; it is entirely a capability realized through personal cultivation. Once a medical practitioner possesses this ability, they can freely conduct various experiments distinct from those performed externally on the organism. Therefore, this issue is hard to discuss, yet it cannot be ignored. If we claim that traditional culture avoids this issue, then we must understand traditional culture according to the logic above. This leads to two possibilities: either, TCM is an empirical medicine lacking a theoretical structure; or, the theories of TCM are results derived solely from thinking. Everyone can ponder this: is a theory derived solely from thinking worthy of our complete acceptance? Everyone can also consider: for many theories and facts in TCM, is relying solely on thinking sufficient? For instance, can you deduce things like meridians (Jingluo, channels and collaterals) and acupoints (Xuewei, acupuncture points) merely through thinking? On what basis could you deduce through thinking that a specific acupoint should be named Fengchi (GB20) or Fengfu (GV16)? On what basis could you deduce through thinking that the Shaoyang Meridian (Hand-Shaoyang Sanjiao Meridian and Foot-Shaoyang Gallbladder Meridian) follows one pathway, while the Taiyang Meridian (Hand-Taiyang Small Intestine Meridian and Foot-Taiyang Bladder Meridian) follows another? I believe that no matter how intelligent you are, these things cannot be deduced through thinking alone. If you don't believe me, try to deduce one yourself. Obviously, without the participation of internal verification experiments and very subtle experiments, it is impossible. Therefore, we have every reason to believe that in traditional culture, especially in a discipline like TCM, its theoretical construction process involved both thinking and experimentation. The assertion that traditional culture lacks experiments is untenable. We have reasons to distinguish between internal verification experiments and modern external verification experiments, but absolutely no reason to deny the existence of internal verification experiments. This issue should not be vague. Therefore, rational thinking and subtle experiments form the foundation of tradition, and the theories built upon this foundation are fully credible.

The question is why many people today do not believe that traditional culture contains experiments. Because it is difficult for us to imagine what an internal verification experiment is. For example, regarding meridians, Li Shizhen once said: "Regarding the tunnels of the meridians, unless one practices inner vision and introspection, it is difficult to speak of them properly." What is inner vision and introspection (Neishi Fanguan)? Inner vision and introspection are typical forms of internal verification experiments. Possessing this internal verification ability makes meridians and acupoints visible things. However, they cannot be seen in existing scientific experiments, and even with the most advanced technological means, they remain difficult to detect. In such cases, one might completely disbelieve their existence, which is where the difficulty lies. To conduct the aforementioned internal verification experiments, the subject needs to possess certain qualities and abilities. Under circumstances where we ourselves do not possess the conditions and abilities for such internal verification experiments, do you have such intuition? Science also requires intuition. Albert Einstein was largely a believer in intuition. Without intuition, scientific research loses a leg. I think among us, perhaps some possess this kind of internal verification ability, perhaps none do. But do you believe in it? This is a very important aspect of learning TCM. Someone asked me, what conditions are needed to learn TCM? I think it is precisely this condition: when you cannot achieve it yourself, do you believe in the existence of such a phenomenon?

What exactly is the situation with internal verification experiments? A sentence by Liang Qichao states it well: "A clear mind is Heavenly Principle." This is also a quote cited by Professor Yang Zhenning in his lecture. A "clear mind" is not ordinary mental clarity; attaining such a clear mind is very difficult. Essentially, a clear mind represents a state where one has already possessed the capacity for internal verification experiments. With a clear mind, one can practice inner vision and introspection, making the tunnels of the meridians clear at a glance. One can then perform operations of internal verification experiments. Why is this called an internal verification experiment? Because it is not conducted outside the human body.

As everyone knows, Zhang Zhongjing mentioned a book in the preface of *Shanghan Lun* (*Treatise on Cold Pathogenic Diseases*), titled *Tailu Yaolu* (*Record of Fetal Breath and Materia Medica*). In the past, it was believed that since there is a *Luxin Jing* (*Classic of Cranium and Fontanelle*) dealing with pediatric diseases, and now using the character "Tai" (Fetal), *Tailu Yaolu* naturally should be a book about pediatric medication. Translated into modern language, it might be called *Complete Book of Pediatric Medication*. However, if we look at history, would there have been a book exclusively about pediatric medication before the Eastern Han Dynasty? *Shennong Bencao Jing* (*Divine Farmer's Materia Medica*) only classified herbs into Upper, Middle, and Lower categories, not distinguishing Internal Medicine, Surgery, Gynecology, or Pediatrics. Even in the Ming Dynasty's *Bencao Gangmu* (*Compendium of Materia Medica*), classification was based on Wood, Grass, Stone, Beast sections, etc. Therefore, with this common sense, one should not interpret *Tailu Yaolu* in this manner. So, what kind of book is *Tailu Yaolu* really? "Tai" here does not refer to a fetus, but to Taixi (Fetal Breathing), a special breathing state returning to the fetal period. Once a person enters the state of Taixi, the state of a clear mind naturally arises, the conditions for internal verification are met, and an internal verification laboratory can be established. At this time, your perception of drugs is real and substantial. After taking the medicine, you clearly know its aroma, which meridian it enters first, which later, and what effects occur in these areas. Everything is clear and explicit. Therefore, when ancients spoke of drug aromas and drug tropism (Guijing, meridian affinity), it was not all deduced through thinking, but truly tested. Thus, *Tailu Yaolu* is a record of the process of drug operation and effect within the body, created under conditions where internal verification experiments were possible. Therefore, the construction of traditional culture, especially TCM theory, was produced entirely through the combination of rational thinking and internal verification experiments. Hence, the view that there is only thinking without experimentation is unacceptable. What can be accepted is that TCM indeed lacks external verification experiments like those in modern science.

(4) Application of Theory

After the generation of TCM theory, how is it applied? The application of theory involves a technical issue. In the field of modern science, we can divide it into three major blocks: basic disciplines, technical disciplines, and applied disciplines. What is a technical discipline? It is a bridge and intermediary between basic theory and application. Why are science and technology often mentioned together in modern science? Because the mutual influence between the two is too great; sometimes science determines technology, and sometimes technology determines science. For example, in the study of material structure, theory is indispensable, but to make breakthroughs, high-speed, high-energy colliders are also necessary. Thus, science and technology complement each other. However, in traditional culture, there is a very strange phenomenon: between theory and application, there is a lack of technology in the modern sense. There is no intermediary or bridge between theory and application. Looking at modern medicine, there is a massive technical intermediary between theory and application. The entire modern sciences of physics, chemistry, and biology serve this intermediary function, making the application of medical theories very convenient. Nowadays, doctors rarely use inspection, palpation, percussion, and auscultation to diagnose diseases, replacing them with this massive technical intermediary—a series of physical and chemical detection methods. And TCM? We lack such a technical intermediary. The application of theory and the realization of theoretical value all depend on our own intuitive understanding and grasp, which brings great difficulties. Therefore, when discussing the differences between traditional culture and modern science, I think the greatest difference lies here. In modern science, there is a technical intermediary between theory and application to help realize the value of theory, whereas in traditional culture, especially TCM, there is completely no such intermediary. The application of theory relies solely on the subject's direct grasp. How much can the subject grasp? In modern science, the technical process can be created by scientific elites, and once the technology is created, it can be mass-reproduced, a process that can be carried out by ordinary technical workers. Qian Xuesen working on the atomic bomb did not need to build the atomic bomb himself; computer experts inventing computers did not need to build them one by one; technology helps them complete this process. Therefore, modern technology is very convenient; it helps us turn even the deepest theories into reality. Thus, in front of modern science, elites are replicable. However, in the traditional domain, there is no such convenience. No matter how good a theory is, if you cannot grasp it, it equals zero. Just as if we were given Relativity Theory today, what could we accomplish? Everyone can ponder this: if Relativity Theory is placed before you, what can you produce? I find it hard to imagine the answer. If you cannot produce anything, can you say that Relativity Theory is too backward or that Einstein was terrible? Therefore, TCM faces such a problem: its backwardness lies in this specific link. It is not that its theory is truly backward. Historically, many elites have successfully used this theory to create "atomic bombs" and "computers." Therefore, we should have a clear head and carefully reflect on the issues above. After thinking clearly, we will discover where the problem lies: is it in the theoretical link, or in other links? Through the discussions above, can everyone establish the following understanding: the current issue with TCM is not that the theory has problems, nor that the theory lags behind clinical practice; in fact, it is completely not so. Once you enter TCM theory, you will feel it and benefit from it; how could one say it lags? Now, if we reach a consensus: the problem with TCM does not lie in the theory. Since it does not lie in the theory, why does the current situation exist? We need to find the cause within ourselves. How is our comprehension of TCM theory? Have we truly grasped the clinical application of TCM theory?

I remember in 1987, my master treated a patient with hemopneumothorax. After one week of Western medicine conservative treatment, the condition did not improve; the patient still suffered from persistent high fever, dyspnea, and left lung compression of 2/3. Under these circumstances, Western medicine had only resorted to surgical treatment. However, the patient and family were unwilling to give up hope for conservative treatment, so they turned to my master. After diagnosis, my master considered this Yangming Disease (Yangming Bing, disease caused by pathogen affecting the Yangming channel), resulting from the failure of Yangming Qi to descend. As long as the descent of Yangming Qi was restored, the problem of hemopneumothorax could be resolved. He prescribed Yuzhu (Polygonatum Odoratum Rhizome) 120g, Chenpi (Citri Reticulatae Pericarpium) 120g, Baizhi (Angelicae Dahuricae Radix) 120g, and Dazao (Jujubae Fructus) 120g, totaling four herbs. After taking the medicine, the patient experienced severe diarrhea, and subjective symptoms rapidly relieved. By the fourth day, body temperature returned to normal. After one week of treatment, the blood and gas were completely absorbed, and the left lung recovered. What is the relationship between hemopneumothorax and Yangming? It appears this is entirely a matter of comprehension and application skill, not a problem with the theory itself. This classic theory can not only solve problems of the 20th century but also those of the 21st century.

II. Inheritance of Learning

Next, we will discuss the inheritance of learning, specifically the inheritance of TCM. Using the word "inheritance" here can be considered relatively classical. What does a discipline rely on to be passed down? It relies on this inheritance. Therefore, the inheritance of learning is an important issue. We will discuss this in two parts below.

1. The Model of Modern TCM Education