要说服大家把这个逐渐被放弃的东西，把这个已经改为选修的东西，重新重视起来，是不容易的。因为大家已经习惯了用现代科学的思路来思考问题，总认为是长江后浪推前浪，一代新人胜旧人。我们怎么会认可经典能够超越时空，超越时代，超越后世呢？这简直是难以置信的，但，又是在传统的许多领域中存在的事实。我们要消除上述这个认识过程的障碍，仍然还得从理论的构建谈起。前面我们讨论过，中医经典不是光凭一个理性思考构建的，还有一个内证过程，是两者完美结合的产物。正是这样一个完美的结合，构成了梁漱溟先生所称之为的——人类未来文化的早熟品。而且这个未来，这个早熟的跨度异常之大，以至于我们现在还无法完全地理解这个理论，比如说形而上的这个领域，现代科学的涉及就相当少，很多东西我们无法说明，于是都归之为迷信和伪科学。实际上，并不是这么回事，只是它已经超出了形而下这个器世界的层面，它的认识半径不完全局限在形而下这个器世界。所以，你完全地用器世界的眼光来看待它，就难以完全地发现它。而造成这样一个差异的原因，就在于它的这个实验不是常规的外证实验，它是内证实验。前面我向大家表述过，内证实验的问题不好谈，但是，这里是对内要真心探讨中医，这个问题不得不谈。这个实验不是靠买进多少设备、多少先进仪器构建起来的，不是一个有形的实验室摆在那儿，让你看得见摸得着。它完全是通过艰辛训练而构建起来的，是超越有形的东西。这就关系到一个潜能的问题。前些天翻阅《发现母亲》这部书，作者叫王东华，这部书收集的资料很丰富。其中一个章节专门谈到人的潜能问题，书中以植物为例，相同的种子，由于培养的条件不同，培养的过程不同，得出来的结果会相差很多。比如一棵西红柿，我们在农村呆过的人应该有经验，一棵西红柿能结出多少个果呢？在没看到这则资料以前，根据我以往的农村经验，我在想，一棵西红柿苗顶多可以结几十、上百个，如果再培育得好一些，充其量不过几百个吧，可一看到经过日本育种专家所培育的一棵西红柿，竟然长出一万三千多个果，不禁为之咂舌。当时这棵经特殊培养的西红柿在日本展出，引起了极大的轰动，创造了一项新的吉尼斯纪录。大家可以思考这个现象，这是什么呢？这就是潜力！同样一粒种子，由于栽培的方法不同，结果有这样大的差别。从植物种子所包含的巨大潜力，我们可以联想到，人的潜力有多大？大脑的潜力有多大？这个大是难以计量的。所以，从理性上我们完全可以推断这个内证实验的存在，经过特殊的“培育”过程，这个内证的条件是完全可以获得的。有了这个条件，就可以自在地进行建立经典所需的各种内证实验。内证实验加上理性思考，这个经典就建立起来了。但是，经典的理论形成以后，后世的人往往就只学习这个理论，而不去亲身感受这个内证实验过程，久而久之，由于没有有意识地培养这个内证能力，内证的条件逐步丧失，人们甚至不相信有内证实验的存在。但，在早期，像张仲景的那个时代是不会怀疑这样一个内证实验的。所以，张仲景在《伤寒论》的序言中以“余宿尚方术，请事斯语”来结尾。张仲景这里的方术，有很大一部分就是指的内证，这一点是有史可查的。我们可以查阅《汉书》、《后汉书》的方术列传，就可以知道，方术在很大的程度上是谈内证的术。时代越往后走，人们对这个内证术，这个内证实验过程就越来越模糊，宋明为什么会有理学产生呢？很显然，到了这个时候，对内证的认识已经很不清楚了，所以，只能在理上，在思辨上绕圈子。理学的产生究竟是不是由于内证的失传，这可以从宋明人对“格物致知”的理解来作出判断。“格物致知”在这里不准备作申说，但有几个基本的原则应该弄清楚。首先“知”不是通过学习或深入分析而得到的一般性知识。这个知是觉的意思，也就是前面讲的心明的状态。就是要靠这个心明，这个觉，才能进入内证的状态，才能进行内证实验。那么，这个心明怎么来？通过格物来，格物不是像宋明人说的穷究物理，格物是要远离物欲（颜习斋“格物”之“格”同“手格猛兽”之“格”意），这是一种精神境界，只有获得了这个境界，才有可能进入内证的状态。这个知就是智。儒、释、道都有。孔子说的“君子食无求饱，居无求安”，其实就是讲的这个境界。《大学》里讲：“知止而后有定，定而后能静，静而后能安，安而后能虑，虑而后能得。”大家想一想，这个止，这个定，这个静，这个安，如果不“格物”行不行？你不“食无求饱，居无求安”，成天的物欲横流，想着这个股票要涨了，那个股票要跌了，你能够止、定、静、安吗？不能的话，怎么能得？怎么致知？在道家那里，老子讲：“为学日益，为道日损，损之又损，以至于无为。”损什么呢？实际上就是损物、就是格物。而格物在佛教里，则显然指的是远离一切戏论。所以，格物在儒、释、道里都有所指，所指的层次虽然有差异，但大体的意义上是相近的，这个与宋明的认识显然是两码事。要获得内证的能力，格物是一个最基本的条件。这个条件不具备，或者弄错了，内证就无从谈起。宋明人将格物作细微地分析讲，作穷究讲，仅此一途，已见他们不明内证，已见他们没有实验了。所以，到现在我们就容易看清楚，为什么中医的有些问题我们不容易弄明白？为什么我们总是很难正视经典的价值？对中医的很多东西总是抱有怀疑，为什么呢？因为我们少了内证这只眼睛。这实际上是造成我们认识障碍的一个关键因素。因此，我们要想对中医，特别是对中医的经典，获得一个比较公正的认识，首先得从思想上扫清这个障碍。
3.三种文化
前面我们强调了理论认识的重要性，为什么要强调这个问题呢？因为现在与过去不同，过去许多名医走上学医的道路，并不先需要一个理性过程，他们是直接从感性开始的。感性这个东西很奇怪，力量很大，一旦感性的动力确定了，其他问题都好解决。古人大都是从这上面走上学医道路的。像张仲景一样，他是“感往昔之沦丧，伤夭横之莫救，乃勤求古训，博采众方”，而《针灸甲乙经》的作者皇甫谧以及其他医家都有类似的情况，都是从这样一种感性中获得动力，从而发奋学医的。但是，现在大家来分析一下自己，看看我们有没有这个动力？我看大家并没有这个动力，即便有，也是模糊的。大家看看自己是怎么到中医学院来的。高考分数达不到清华、北大，达不到重点线，甚至入不了一般高校，于是就上了中医学院。考分不争气，无可奈何，这就上了中医学院。有没有能上清华、北大的分数而来报中医学院的呢？我看没有！大家就是以这样一种心态来学中医的，一种良性的感性动力根本就没有，这个中医怎么能学好？我师父曾经多次跟我谈到，中医不是一般人所能学的东西，必须具有北大、清华这样的素质才有可能学好中医。现代科学需要高素质的人才，中医也是。而宋代的林亿、高保衡亦持如是观点。他们在《重广补注黄帝内经素问》序中言：“奈何以至精至微之道，传之以至下至浅之人，其不废绝，为已幸矣。”现在的情况就是这样，高素质的人对中医不屑一顾，低素质的人，压根儿又学不好中医，所以，其不废绝，为已幸矣！这种情况如果不从根本上改变，中医怎么继承？怎么发扬光大？高素质的人为什么瞧不起中医？这与环境的关系很大。现在大家身边所感受的都是现代文化的气息，都习惯了用一种文化视角去看待问题，去思考问题，所以，从感性的层面讲，很难产生对传统、对中医有利的动力。正因为如此，我们强调理性，要从理性的层面来分析，通过这个分析，帮助我们寻找传统的感觉，建立感性的动力。文化实际上是多元的，不局限在一种模式里，只是现在大家业已习惯了这么一种模式，就用这么一种模式的东西去看待一切，其实，这是局限的、片面的。大家现在已经习惯了的这种文化实际上就是现代科学文化，或简称科学文化。这种文化有它鲜明的特点，就是它的时代性很强，时代进步，它也进步，真可以用日新月异这句话来形容。大家可以感受一下自己身边的一切是不是这样？看看前十年跟这十年有什么差别？差别太大了。正因为我们很鲜明地感受到了这一切巨大的变化，所以，我们会很自然地认为一切文化都是如此，长江后浪推前浪，一代新人胜旧人。时代进步了，一切文化都在进步，新的文化总比旧的文化强，古老的东西落后于今天的文化，这是必然的。有了这个认识他们怎么会瞧得上中医？怎么会重视经典？我们说文化的多元性，就是说文化不仅仅局限在上述这样一个模式里。当然现代科学文化在迄今为止的这样一个阶段里，都让我们感受到它是随着时代的进步而进步的。是不是其他任何文化都有这个特性呢？比如艺术文化，是不是时代进步了，艺术这门文化也一定进步了呢？我们不用专门从事艺术研究，只要粗略地回顾一下中外的艺术历史，就可以确定根本不是这么一回事。以诗词为例，比如说唐诗，以唐诗这样一种格律体裁的诗，在唐朝这几百年里已占尽风光，是不是到了宋代，这样一种诗又有进步了，又有发展了？当然不是这样。古人知道，诗写到唐的份上，诗机已然让他们占尽，要想再超过唐诗，几乎不可能了。于是宋人学聪明了，他们不再在唐诗里绕圈子，而转往另一个方向，宋词也就这样形成了气候。同样，元曲也是类似的情况。这是诗词方面。那么，音乐呢？绘画呢？情况也差不多。在维也纳，每年元旦都要举行新年音乐会，音乐会演奏的都是什么曲目呢？几乎都是大小施特劳斯的作品。演奏这些曲目并不仅仅为了纪念，作品的水平摆在那儿。像贝多芬、柴可夫斯基，这样的顶级音乐家所代表的音乐水平，是不是过若干年、几十年、几百年就一定有发展，就一定会有超过这个水平的音乐出现呢？至少搞音乐的人都很清楚，到现在还没有出现这样的阶段。音乐也好，绘画也好，诗歌也好，在这些领域的文化，确实不像科学文化，存在线性发展的规律，它们往往是非线性的。一个高峰出现后，若干年、几百年，或许会出现另一个高峰，但，这个峰的峰值并不一定能超过前一个。一个是线性，一个是非线性。一个是直线向前发展，一个是曲线徘徊。很显然，这个文化的层面和模式都很不相同。除了上面两个层面的文化以外，还有一个特殊的文化，就是古代形成的一些文化，比如佛教文化。佛教文化诞生于公元前四百余年，由印度的悉达多太子释迦牟尼所创立。与其他文化，特别是与科学文化截然相反，释迦佛没有预言他所创立的这门学科会不断发展壮大，相反的，他以一种反常规的模式预言了他的学科的三个不同阶段，那就是正法时期，象法时期，末法时期。此处我们暂且不去从专业的角度分析，为什么这样一门特殊的学问会走这样一条不同寻常的路子？这个原因我们暂且不去讨论。我们只要清楚这个现象是确凿的就行了。另外，像道家的文化，儒家的文化，实际上，它也跟佛教的这个模式差不多，它也是创立以后就处于实质性的鼎盛阶段，然后逐渐走向衰落，乃至于到现在名存实亡。所以，文化是多元的，并不仅仅局限在一个模式里面。若都是以发展的眼光看问题，那也不一定符合事实。在上述这些文化层面里，中医究竟属于哪一个层面的东西，或者三个层面兼而有之，这一点需要我们开动脑筋去思考。我的意见，中医至少不是局限在科学文化这一个层面的东西。所以，光从这一个层面去看待它，研究它，就难免会出问题。对于中医，有些时候需要向前看，有些时候需要向后看。我常说，中医究竟属于什么样的文化，我们观察自身也许就会有答案。你可以观察，在你那里，中医究竟是一个么情况？是发展了，还是倒退了？你是高等学府的毕业生，甚至还是研究生、博士生，如果你的中医很棒，理论和实践都没有问题，对经典的理解无有障碍，那也许中医在你那里是发展的，是一种线性的模式。如果情况反过来，你的中医不怎么样，理论不怎么样，临床也解决不了问题，特别对于经典一窍不通，那中医在你那里就成问题，就倒退了，就是另外一种模式。所以，在这里要特别强调自知之明。另外一个重要的问题，就是对于经典的认识，对于经典的评价，那是要讲受用的，对经典没有觉受，那说出来的必定是空话。所以，我奉劝那些欲对经典发表意见的人，一定要三思而后言。否则你的底线在哪儿，人家一望便知。对于这个问题的认识，孔子在《系辞》中的话说得很好：“仁者见之谓之仁，智者见之谓之智，百姓日用而不知，故君子之道鲜矣。”经典的东西确实是仁者见仁，智者见智。当然，还有一句话，在这里不好说出来，不过，大家可以仔细去琢磨。仁者见之谓现在经典改选修了，为什么改选修呢？当然是它的重要性、必要性下降了，当然是在某些人眼里，经典的分不够了。
要说服大家重新重视这个逐渐被放弃、已经改为选修的学科，是不容易的。因为大家已经习惯了用现代科学的思路来思考问题，总认为长江后浪推前浪，一代新人胜旧人。我们怎么会认可经典能够超越时空，超越时代，超越后世呢？这简直是难以置信的，但，又是在传统的许多领域中存在的事实。我们要消除上述这个认识过程的障碍，仍然还得从理论的构建谈起。前面我们讨论过，中医经典不是光凭一个理性思考构建的，还有一个内证过程，是两者完美结合的产物。正是这样一个完美的结合，构成了梁漱溟先生所称之为的——人类未来文化的早熟品。而且这个未来，这个早熟的跨度异常之大，以至于我们现在还无法完全地理解这个理论，比如说形而上的这个领域，现代科学的涉及就相当少，很多东西我们无法说明，于是都归之为迷信和伪科学。实际上，并不是这么回事，只是它已经超出了形而下这个器世界的层面，它的认识半径不完全局限在形而下这个器世界。所以，你完全地用器世界的眼光来看待它，就难以完全地发现它。而造成这样一个差异的原因，就在于它的这个实验不是常规的外证实验，它是内证实验。前面我向大家表述过，内证实验的问题不好谈，但是，这里是对内要真心探讨中医，这个问题不得不谈。这个实验不是靠买进多少设备、多少先进仪器构建起来的，不是一个有形的实验室摆在那儿，让你看得见摸得着。它完全是通过艰辛训练而构建起来的，是超越有形的东西。这就关系到一个潜能的问题。前些天翻阅《发现母亲》这部书，作者叫王东华，这部书收集的资料很丰富。其中一个章节专门谈到人的潜能问题，书中以植物为例，相同的种子，由于培养的条件不同，培养的过程不同，得出来的结果会相差很多。比如一棵西红柿，我们在农村呆过的人应该有经验，一棵西红柿能结出多少个果呢？在没看到这则资料以前，根据我以往的农村经验，我在想，一棵西红柿苗顶多可以结几十、上百个，如果再培育得好一些，充其量不过几百个吧，可一看到经过日本育种专家所培育的一棵西红柿，竟然长出一万三千多个果，不禁为之咂舌。当时这棵经特殊培养的西红柿在日本展出，引起了极大的轰动，创造了一项新的吉尼斯纪录。大家可以思考这个现象，这是什么呢？这就是潜力！同样一粒种子，由于栽培的方法不同，结果有这样大的差别。从植物种子所包含的巨大潜力，我们可以联想到，人的潜力有多大？大脑的潜力有多大？这个大是难以计量的。所以，从理性上我们完全可以推断这个内证实验的存在，经过特殊的“培育”过程，这个内证的条件是完全可以获得的。有了这个条件，就可以自在地进行建立经典所需的各种内证实验。内证实验加上理性思考，这个经典就建立起来了。但是，经典的理论形成以后，后世的人往往就只学习这个理论，而不去亲身感受这个内证实验过程，久而久之，由于没有有意识地培养这个内证能力，内证的条件逐步丧失，人们甚至不相信有内证实验的存在。但，在早期，像张仲景的那个时代是不会怀疑这样一个内证实验的。所以，张仲景在《伤寒论》的序言中以“余宿尚方术，请事斯语”来结尾。张仲景这里的方术，有很大一部分就是指的内证，这一点是有史可查的。我们可以查阅《汉书》、《后汉书》的方术列传，就可以知道，方术在很大的程度上是谈内证的术。时代越往后走，人们对这个内证术，这个内证实验过程就越来越模糊，宋明为什么会有理学产生呢？很显然，到了这个时候，对内证的认识已经很不清楚了，所以，只能在理上，在思辨上绕圈子。理学的产生究竟是不是由于内证的失传，这可以从宋明人对“格物致知”的理解来作出判断。“格物致知”在这里不准备作申说，但有几个基本的原则应该弄清楚。首先“知”不是通过学习或深入分析而得到的一般性知识。这个知是觉的意思，也就是前面讲的心明的状态。就是要靠这个心明，这个觉，才能进入内证的状态，才能进行内证实验。那么，这个心明怎么来？通过格物来，格物不是像宋明人说的穷究物理，格物是要远离物欲（颜习斋“格物”之“格”同“手格猛兽”之“格”意），这是一种精神境界，只有获得了这个境界，才有可能进入内证的状态。这个知就是智。儒、释、道都有。孔子说的“君子食无求饱，居无求安”，其实就是讲的这个境界。《大学》里讲：“知止而后有定，定而后能静，静而后能安，安而后能虑，虑而后能得。”大家想一想，这个止，这个定，这个静，这个安，如果不“格物”行不行？你不“食无求饱，居无求安”，成天的物欲横流，想着这个股票要涨了，那个股票要跌了，你能够止、定、静、安吗？不能的话，怎么能得？怎么致知？在道家那里，老子讲：“为学日益，为道日损，损之又损，以至于无为。”损什么呢？实际上就是损物、就是格物。而格物在佛教里，则显然指的是远离一切戏论。所以，格物在儒、释、道里都有所指，所指的层次虽然有差异，但大体的意义上是相近的，这个与宋明的认识显然是两码事。要获得内证的能力，格物是一个最基本的条件。这个条件不具备，或者弄错了，内证就无从谈起。宋明人将格物作细微地分析讲，作穷究讲，仅此一途，已见他们不明内证，已见他们没有实验了。所以，到现在我们就容易看清楚，为什么中医的有些问题我们不容易弄明白？为什么我们总是很难正视经典的价值？对中医的很多东西总是抱有怀疑，为什么呢？因为我们少了内证这只眼睛。这实际上是造成我们认识障碍的一个关键因素。因此，我们要想对中医，特别是对中医的经典，获得一个比较公正的认识，首先得从思想上扫清这个障碍。
3.三种文化
前面我们强调了理论认识的重要性，为什么要强调这个问题呢？因为现在与过去不同，过去许多名医走上学医的道路，并不先需要一个理性过程，他们是直接从感性开始的。感性这个东西很奇怪，力量很大，一旦感性的动力确定了，其他问题都好解决。古人大都是从这上面走上学医道路的。像张仲景一样，他是“感往昔之沦丧，伤夭横之莫救，乃勤求古训，博采众方”，而《针灸甲乙经》的作者皇甫谧以及其他医家都有类似的情况，都是从这样一种感性中获得动力，从而发奋学医的。但是，现在大家来分析一下自己，看看我们有没有这个动力？我看大家并没有这个动力，即便有，也是模糊的。大家看看自己是怎么到中医学院来的。高考分数达不到清华、北大，达不到重点线，甚至入不了一般高校，于是就上了中医学院。考分不争气，无可奈何，这就上了中医学院。有没有能上清华、北大的分数而来报中医学院的呢？我看没有！大家就是以这样一种心态来学中医的，一种良性的感性动力根本就没有，这个中医怎么能学好？我师父曾经多次跟我谈到，中医不是一般人所能学的东西，必须具有北大、清华这样的素质才有可能学好中医。现代科学需要高素质的人才，中医也是。而宋代的林亿、高保衡亦持如是观点。他们在《重广补注黄帝内经素问》序中言：“奈何以至精至微之道，传之以至下至浅之人，其不废绝，为已幸矣。”现在的情况就是这样，高素质的人对中医不屑一顾，低素质的人，压根儿又学不好中医，所以，其不废绝，为已幸矣！这种情况如果不从根本上改变，中医怎么继承？怎么发扬光大？高素质的人为什么瞧不起中医？这与环境的关系很大。现在大家身边所感受的都是现代文化的气息，都习惯了用一种文化视角去看待问题，去思考问题，所以，从感性的层面讲，很难产生对传统、对中医有利的动力。正因为如此，我们强调理性，要从理性的层面来分析，通过这个分析，帮助我们寻找传统的感觉，建立感性的动力。文化实际上是多元的，不局限在一种模式里，只是现在大家业已习惯了这么一种模式，就用这么一种模式的东西去看待一切，其实，这是局限的、片面的。大家现在已经习惯了的这种文化实际上就是现代科学文化，或简称科学文化。这种文化有它鲜明的特点，就是它的时代性很强，时代进步，它也进步，真可以用日新月异这句话来形容。大家可以感受一下自己身边的一切是不是这样？看看前十年跟这十年有什么差别？差别太大了。正因为我们很鲜明地感受到了这一切巨大的变化，所以，我们会很自然地认为一切文化都是如此，长江后浪推前浪，一代新人胜旧人。时代进步了，一切文化都在进步，新的文化总比旧的文化强，古老的东西落后于今天的文化，这是必然的。有了这个认识他们怎么会瞧得上中医？怎么会重视经典？我们说文化的多元性，就是说文化不仅仅局限在上述这样一个模式里。当然现代科学文化在迄今为止的这样一个阶段里，都让我们感受到它是随着时代的进步而进步的。是不是其他任何文化都有这个特性呢？比如艺术文化，是不是时代进步了，艺术这门文化也一定进步了呢？我们不用专门从事艺术研究，只要粗略地回顾一下中外的艺术历史，就可以确定根本不是这么一回事。以诗词为例，比如说唐诗，以唐诗这样一种格律体裁的诗，在唐朝这几百年里已占尽风光，是不是到了宋代，这样一种诗又有进步了，又有发展了？当然不是这样。古人知道，诗写到唐的份上，诗机已然让他们占尽，要想再超过唐诗，几乎不可能了。于是宋人学聪明了，他们不再在唐诗里绕圈子，而转往另一个方向，宋词也就这样形成了气候。同样，元曲也是类似的情况。这是诗词方面。那么，音乐呢？绘画呢？情况也差不多。在维也纳，每年元旦都要举行新年音乐会，音乐会演奏的都是什么曲目呢？几乎都是大小施特劳斯的作品。演奏这些曲目并不仅仅为了纪念，作品的水平摆在那儿。像贝多芬、柴可夫斯基，这样的顶级音乐家所代表的音乐水平，是不是过若干年、几十年、几百年就一定有发展，就一定会有超过这个水平的音乐出现呢？至少搞音乐的人都很清楚，到现在还没有出现这样的阶段。音乐也好，绘画也好，诗歌也好，在这些领域的文化，确实不像科学文化，存在线性发展的规律，它们往往是非线性的。一个高峰出现后，若干年、几百年，或许会出现另一个高峰，但，这个峰的峰值并不一定能超过前一个。一个是线性，一个是非线性。一个是直线向前发展，一个是曲线徘徊。很显然，这个文化的层面和模式都很不相同。除了上面两个层面的文化以外，还有一个特殊的文化，就是古代形成的一些文化，比如佛教文化。佛教文化诞生于公元前四百余年，由印度的悉达多太子释迦牟尼所创立。与其他文化，特别是与科学文化截然相反，释迦佛没有预言他所创立的这门学科会不断发展壮大，相反的，他以一种反常规的模式预言了他的学科的三个不同阶段，那就是正法时期，象法时期，末法时期。此处我们暂且不去从专业的角度分析，为什么这样一门特殊的学问会走这样一条不同寻常的路子？这个原因我们暂且不去讨论。我们只要清楚这个现象是确凿的就行了。另外，像道家的文化，儒家的文化，实际上，它也跟佛教的这个模式差不多，它也是创立以后就处于实质性的鼎盛阶段，然后逐渐走向衰落，乃至于到现在名存实亡。所以，文化是多元的，并不仅仅局限在一个模式里面。若都是以发展的眼光看问题，那也不一定符合事实。在上述这些文化层面里，中医究竟属于哪一个层面的东西，或者三个层面兼而有之，这一点需要我们开动脑筋去思考。我的意见，中医至少不是局限在科学文化这一个层面的东西。所以，光从这一个层面去看待它，研究它，就难免会出问题。对于中医，有些时候需要向前看，有些时候需要向后看。我常说，中医究竟属于什么样的文化，我们观察自身也许就会有答案。你可以观察，在你那里，中医究竟是一个么情况？是发展了，还是倒退了？你是高等学府的毕业生，甚至还是研究生、博士生，如果你的中医很棒，理论和实践都没有问题，对经典的理解无有障碍，那也许中医在你那里是发展的，是一种线性的模式。如果情况反过来，你的中医不怎么样，理论不怎么样，临床也解决不了问题，特别对于经典一窍不通，那中医在你那里就成问题，就倒退了，就是另外一种模式。所以，在这里要特别强调自知之明。另外一个重要的问题，就是对于经典的认识，对于经典的评价，那是要讲受用的，对经典没有觉受，那说出来的必定是空话。所以，我奉劝那些欲对经典发表意见的人，一定要三思而后言。否则你的底线在哪儿，人家一望便知。对于这个问题的认识，孔子在《系辞》中的话说得很好：“仁者见之谓之仁，智者见之谓之智，百姓日用而不知，故君子之道鲜矣。”经典的东西确实是仁者见仁，智者见智。当然，还有一句话，在这里不好说出来，不过，大家可以仔细去琢磨。仁者见之谓现在经典改选修了，为什么改选修呢？当然是它的重要性、必要性下降了，当然是在某些人眼里，经典的分不够了。
It is not easy to persuade everyone to re-emphasize this discipline that is gradually being abandoned and has already been changed into an elective course. This is because people have become accustomed to thinking about problems using the mindset of modern science, always believing that "the new generation surpasses the old," just as waves behind drive on those before. How could we accept that classics can transcend time and space, eras, and later generations? This seems simply unbelievable, yet it is a fact existing in many traditional fields. To eliminate the obstacles in this cognitive process, we still need to start with theoretical construction. As discussed earlier, Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) classics are not constructed solely through rational thinking; there is also an internal verification process, which is the perfect product of the combination of both. It is precisely this perfect combination that constitutes what Mr. Liang Shuming called—the precocious product of future human culture. Moreover, this future, this span of precocity, is exceptionally large, so much so that we cannot yet fully understand this theory. For example, in the metaphysical realm, modern science involves very little, and many things we cannot explain, thus attributing them all to superstition and pseudoscience. In reality, this is not the case; it merely exceeds the level of the physical world (the realm of instruments/forms), and its radius of cognition is not entirely limited to this physical world. Therefore, if you view it completely through the lens of the physical world, it is difficult to fully discover it. The reason for such a difference lies in the fact that its experiment is not a conventional external verification experiment, but an internal verification experiment. As I have expressed to everyone before, the issue of internal verification experiments is difficult to discuss, but here, since we aim to sincerely explore TCM internally, this issue must be discussed. This experiment is not built by purchasing equipment or advanced instruments, nor is it a tangible laboratory placed there for you to see and touch. It is entirely constructed through arduous training, transcending tangible things. This relates to the issue of potential. Some days ago, I read the book *Discovering Mothers* by Wang Donghua, which collects rich materials. One chapter specifically discusses human potential, using plants as an example: identical seeds, due to different cultivation conditions and processes, yield vastly different results. Take a tomato plant, for instance; those of us who have stayed in rural areas should have experience—how many fruits can one tomato plant bear? Before seeing this information, based on my past rural experience, I thought that a tomato seedling could produce at most dozens or hundreds of fruits, and if cultivated better, perhaps no more than a few hundred. However, upon seeing a tomato plant cultivated by Japanese breeding experts, which actually bore over 13,000 fruits, I was dumbfounded. At that time, this specially cultivated tomato was exhibited in Japan, causing a great sensation and setting a new Guinness World Record. Everyone can ponder this phenomenon: what is it? This is potential! The same seed, due to different cultivation methods, yields such a huge difference. From the immense potential contained in plant seeds, we can infer how great human potential is, and how great the potential of the brain is? This magnitude is immeasurable. Therefore, rationally, we can completely infer the existence of this internal verification experiment. Through a special "cultivation" process, the conditions for internal verification can certainly be obtained. With these conditions, one can freely conduct various internal verification experiments required to establish classics. Internal verification experiments combined with rational thinking allow the establishment of these classics. However, after the theoretical formation of classics, later generations often only study this theory without personally experiencing the internal verification process. Over time, due to the lack of conscious cultivation of this internal verification ability, the conditions for internal verification gradually disappear, and people even disbelieve the existence of internal verification experiments. But in early times, such as during the era of Zhang Zhongjing, there would be no doubt about such an internal verification experiment. Thus, Zhang Zhongjing concluded the preface of *Shanghan Lun* (Treatise on Cold Pathogenic Diseases) with "I have long valued medical arts, and I request to follow these words." The term "medical arts" (Fangshu) used by Zhang Zhongjing largely refers to internal verification, a point verifiable by history. We can consult the biographies of Fangshu in the *Book of Han* and the *Book of Later Han* to know that Fangshu largely discusses the art of internal verification. As times moved forward, people's understanding of this internal verification art and process became increasingly vague. Why did Neo-Confucianism arise in the Song and Ming dynasties? Obviously, by this time, the understanding of internal verification had become very unclear, so one could only circle around in reasoning and speculation. Whether the emergence of Neo-Confucianism was due to the loss of internal verification can be judged from the Song and Ming scholars' understanding of "investigating things to extend knowledge" (Gewu Zhizhi). I do not intend to elaborate on "Gewu Zhizhi" here, but several basic principles should be clarified. First, "knowledge" (Zhi) is not general knowledge obtained through learning or deep analysis. This knowledge means awareness, that is, the state of mental clarity mentioned earlier. It is only by relying on this mental clarity and awareness that one can enter the state of internal verification and conduct internal verification experiments. So, how does this mental clarity come about? It comes through Gewu (investigating things). Gewu is not, as Song and Ming scholars said, exhaustively investigating physical principles; rather, Gewu means distancing oneself from material desires (Yan Xizhai explained that the "Ge" in "Gewu" is the same as the "Ge" in "hand-to-hand combat with fierce beasts"). This is a spiritual realm; only by attaining this realm is it possible to enter the state of internal verification. This knowledge is wisdom, present in Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. When Confucius said, "The gentleman seeks neither fullness in food nor comfort in dwelling," he was essentially describing this realm. The *Great Learning* states: "Knowing where to rest leads to stability; stability leads to tranquility; tranquility leads to peace; peace leads to deliberation; deliberation leads to attainment." Think about it: can one achieve stopping, stability, tranquility, and peace without "Gewu"? If you do not "seek neither fullness in food nor comfort in dwelling," but instead indulge in material desires all day, worrying about stock prices rising or falling, can you achieve stopping, stability, tranquility, and peace? If not, how can you attain anything? How can you extend knowledge? In Daoism, Laozi said: "In learning, each day something is acquired; in the Way, each day something is lost. Lost and lost again until non-action is reached." What is lost? Actually, it is losing attachment to things, which is Gewu. In Buddhism, Gewu clearly refers to distancing oneself from all frivolous discussions. Thus, Gewu has references in Confucianism, Buddhism, and Daoism. Although the levels of reference differ, their general meanings are similar, which is clearly different from the Song and Ming understanding. To acquire the ability of internal verification, Gewu is a fundamental condition. Without this condition, or if misunderstood, internal verification is out of the question. The Song and Ming scholars analyzed Gewu in minute detail and interpreted it as exhaustive investigation; this alone shows they did not understand internal verification and lacked experimentation. Therefore, it is now easy to see why some issues in TCM are difficult for us to understand? Why is it so hard for us to face the value of classics squarely? Why do we always harbor doubts about many things in TCM? Because we lack the eye of internal verification. This is actually a key factor causing our cognitive barriers. Therefore, if we want to obtain a relatively fair understanding of TCM, especially its classics, we must first clear this obstacle ideologically.
3. Three Cultures
Earlier, we emphasized the importance of theoretical understanding. Why emphasize this issue? Because the present differs from the past. In the past, many famous doctors embarked on the path of medicine without first needing a rational process; they started directly from sensibility. Sensibility is strange; its power is great. Once the motive force of sensibility is determined, other problems are easy to solve. Ancient people mostly entered the path of medicine from this aspect. Like Zhang Zhongjing, he was "moved by the decline and loss of the past, grieved by the untimely deaths that could not be saved, so he diligently sought ancient teachings and extensively collected various prescriptions." Huangfu Mi, the author of *Zhenjiu Jiayi Jing* (Systematic Classic of Acupuncture and Moxibustion), and other physicians had similar situations, obtaining motivation from such sensibility to strive in studying medicine. However, let everyone analyze themselves now: do we have this motivation? I think everyone lacks this motivation; even if present, it is vague. Look at how you came to the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Your college entrance examination scores were insufficient for Tsinghua University or Peking University, insufficient for key lines, or even failing to meet the standards of general universities, so you ended up at the College of TCM. Scores were disappointing, helpless, so you went to the College of TCM. Are there any with scores capable of entering Tsinghua or Peking University who chose to apply to the College of TCM? I see none! Everyone studies TCM with such a mindset; there is fundamentally no benign sensory motivation. How can one learn TCM well under these circumstances? My master once told me many times that TCM is not something anyone can learn; one must possess qualities comparable to those of Tsinghua or Peking University to possibly learn TCM well. Modern science requires high-quality talent, and so does TCM. Lin Yi and Gao Baoheng of the Song Dynasty also held this view. In the preface to *Chongguang Buzhu Huangdi Neijing Suwen* (Revised and Annotated Basic Questions of the Yellow Emperor's Inner Canon), they stated: "How can the most exquisite and subtle Way be passed down to the lowest and shallowest people? That it does not perish is already fortunate." The current situation is exactly like this: high-quality people disdain TCM, while low-quality people cannot learn TCM well at all, so "that it does not perish is already fortunate!" If this situation is not fundamentally changed, how can TCM be inherited? How can it be carried forward and developed? Why do high-quality people look down on TCM? This is closely related to the environment. What everyone feels around them now is the aura of modern culture, and everyone is accustomed to viewing and thinking about problems from a cultural perspective. Therefore, from a sensory level, it is difficult to generate motivation favorable to tradition and TCM. Precisely for this reason, we emphasize rationality; we must analyze from a rational level, using this analysis to help us find traditional feelings and establish sensory motivation. Culture is actually pluralistic, not limited to one model. It is just that everyone has become accustomed to this one model and uses it to view everything, which is actually limited and one-sided. The culture everyone is now accustomed to is actually modern scientific culture, or simply scientific culture. This culture has distinct characteristics: it has strong contemporaneity; as the era progresses, it progresses, truly described by the phrase "changing with each passing day." Can everyone feel whether everything around them is like this? Look at the differences between the previous ten years and this decade. The differences are too great. Because we have vividly felt all these huge changes, we naturally believe that all cultures are like this: "the new generation surpasses the old." As the era advances, all cultures progress; new culture is always stronger than old culture, and ancient things lag behind today's culture. This is inevitable. With this understanding, how could they look up to TCM? How could they value classics? When we speak of the pluralism of culture, we mean that culture is not limited to the above-mentioned model. Of course, in the stage so far, modern scientific culture has made us feel that it progresses with the advancement of the era. Do all other cultures have this characteristic? For example, artistic culture: if the era advances, must artistic culture necessarily advance? We do not need to specialize in art research; a rough review of Chinese and foreign art history confirms that this is absolutely not the case. Taking poetry as an example, Tang poetry, with its metrical forms, dominated the scenery for centuries in the Tang Dynasty. Did such poetry progress or develop further in the Song Dynasty? Of course not. Ancients knew that when poetry reached the level of the Tang, poets had exhausted its possibilities; surpassing Tang poetry was almost impossible. Thus, Song people became smarter; they stopped circling within Tang poetry and turned in another direction, leading to the formation of Song Ci (Lyrics). Yuan Qu (Qu poetry) is similar. This concerns poetry. What about music? Painting? The situation is similar. In Vienna, a New Year's Concert is held every January 1st. What pieces are performed? Almost exclusively works by Johann Strauss II and his father, Johann Strauss I. Performing these pieces is not merely for commemoration; the level of the works speaks for itself. For top musicians like Beethoven and Tchaikovsky, whose musical levels they represent, will there definitely be development, and will music surpassing this level appear after several decades or centuries? At least those in the music field are very clear that such a stage has not yet appeared. Whether music, painting, or poetry, cultures in these fields indeed do not follow the linear development laws of scientific culture; they are often non-linear. After a peak appears, another peak may appear after several decades or centuries, but the height of this peak may not necessarily exceed the previous one. One is linear, the other non-linear. One develops straight forward, the other lingers in curves. Clearly, the levels and models of these cultures are quite different. Besides the two levels of culture mentioned above, there is another special culture, namely some cultures formed in ancient times, such as Buddhist culture. Buddhist culture originated over four hundred years before Christ, founded by Siddhartha Gautama, the Crown Prince of India. Contrary to other cultures, especially scientific culture, Shakyamuni Buddha did not predict that the discipline he founded would continuously grow and strengthen. On the contrary, he predicted three different stages of his discipline in a unconventional mode: the Period of True Dharma, the Period of Semblance Dharma, and the Period of Degenerate Dharma. Here, we will not analyze professionally why such a special subject would take such an unusual path; we will temporarily not discuss this reason. We only need to be clear that this phenomenon is undeniable. Additionally, Daoist culture and Confucian culture are actually similar to this Buddhist model; they also entered a substantial peak stage after creation and then gradually declined, to the point of existing in name only nowadays. Therefore, culture is pluralistic and not limited to a single model. If everything is viewed from a developmental perspective, it may not necessarily conform to facts. Among these cultural levels, which level does TCM belong to, or does it encompass all three? This requires us to use our brains to think. My opinion is that TCM is at least not limited to the level of scientific culture. Therefore, viewing and researching it solely from this level inevitably leads to problems. For TCM, sometimes one needs to look forward, and sometimes backward. I often say that to determine what kind of culture TCM belongs to, observing ourselves might provide the answer. You can observe: what is the situation with TCM in you? Has it developed or regressed? If you are a graduate of a higher institution, even a master's or doctoral student, and your TCM is excellent, with no problems in theory and practice, and no obstacles in understanding classics, then perhaps TCM is developing in you, following a linear model. If the situation is reversed, your TCM is not good, your theory is weak, clinical practice cannot solve problems, especially if you are ignorant of classics, then TCM becomes problematic for you, regressing, following another model. Therefore, self-awareness must be particularly emphasized here. Another important issue is the understanding and evaluation of classics; this must be based on personal experience. Without experiential understanding of classics, what is said will surely be empty talk. Therefore, I advise those who wish to express opinions on classics to think thrice before speaking. Otherwise, your baseline will be obvious to others at a glance. Regarding the understanding of this issue, Confucius said well in the *Xi Ci* (Commentary on the Appended Phrases): "The benevolent see it as benevolence, the wise see it as wisdom; the common people use it daily without knowing it, thus the way of the gentleman is rare." Classics are indeed seen differently by the benevolent and the wise. Of course, there is another sentence that is not appropriate to say here, but everyone can ponder it carefully. Those who are benevolent see... Now, why have classics been changed to electives? Naturally, because their importance and necessity have decreased; in the eyes of some, the weight of classics is insufficient.