1.Breaking Attachment
What is "breaking attachment"?
This lecture seems unrelated to traditional Chinese medicine (TCM). Generally, TCM lectures do not cover this topic.
However, if one wishes to become a good TCM practitioner, they must overcome this mental barrier. In fact, only those who have overcome this mental barrier can be considered wise.
Those who completely deny TCM, as well as those TCM enthusiasts who completely reject Western medicine, or those who within the TCM system believe in one school and oppose another, are all individuals who have not passed this barrier. They are not wise and are unlikely to become a TCM practitioner who truly understands medical theory.
So, what is "breaking attachment"? It means breaking free from rigid adherence.
The entire Diamond Sutra is about: what is, is not, what is called something. When you read it, you might find it repetitive, but it's actually teaching people to break their attachments.
The first sentence of the Tao Te Ching is: "The Tao that can be told is not the eternal Tao; the name that can be named is not the eternal name." This also means breaking attachment.
Why can't we accept TCM?
Twenty years ago, when I had just entered Beijing University of Chinese Medicine (now Beijing University of Chinese Medicine) after high school, like everyone else, I had received modern scientific education and had no opportunity to come into contact with traditional culture.
After being exposed to TCM, TCM's conclusions were thrown at you, and they were completely different from the scientific knowledge you had learned before, making them hard to accept.
For example, TCM says that the heart governs the mind. But the scientific knowledge we learned earlier tells us that the heart is responsible for pumping blood, and the brain governs the mind. Anatomically, this is indeed the case. Now, encountering TCM's conclusions that completely contradict scientific knowledge, how could it be easily accepted? What's worse is that when you study TCM, you only encounter conclusions without any reasoning process or explanation. These conclusions contradict what you already know, and there is no explanation provided. I was very resistant to such ideas and disliked having them forced upon me.
For instance, when first studying the Yin-Yang and Five Elements theory, the book states: bright, upward-moving, and hot elements belong to Yang, while dark, downward-moving, and cold elements belong to Yin.
You can define it this way, but it becomes confusing later on.
It says that Yin and Yang are relative, which is easy to understand: brightness and darkness are relative, upward and downward are relative, hot and cold are relative.
But then it says that Yin and Yang generate each other, which is harder to understand. How does brightness generate darkness? How does upward generate downward? How does hot generate cold? Isn't this nonsense? Can the teacher show me how one generates the other? The teacher couldn't explain it either.
At that time, there were 1-2 students each year at our school who had mental health issues or committed suicide, so teachers often reminded us to just remember the conclusions and not get too caught up in details, to avoid mental strain.
But I have a poor memory, and just remembering conclusions without understanding the reasoning behind them was very painful for me. So at that time, I was very resistant to studying TCM, almost to the point of wanting to drop out.
I didn't have the courage of today's young people and never dared to bring up the idea of dropping out with my family.
I didn't attend classes much and often skipped them to read extracurricular books in the school library. I started with novels and later moved on to Tang and Song poetry, among other things.
One day, I finally came across a book that greatly influenced my thinking — Collected Essays in Memory of Einstein. I remember the cover of the book was a light white color with a faint black outline of Einstein's portrait. The content included summaries of Einstein's scientific views, letters discussing problems with friends, and some articles written by famous physicists in memory of Einstein.
These articles roughly outlined the trajectory of Einstein's intellectual development and were very helpful for gaining an overall understanding of how his thought system was formed.
Among them, one sentence had a profound impact on me:
"The essence of science is hypothesis and proof. When a theoretical system is still being developed, it is completely constrained by the worldview of the person who develops it."
When I read this sentence, it was a huge shock to me, and all my confusion was suddenly cleared up. Why can't we accept TCM? Because many of the conclusions in TCM theory differ from the conclusions we have learned from modern science.
Why can't we accept conclusions that differ from modern scientific theory? Because we believe that the same object of study has only one true state, and it cannot exist in two states at the same time. Therefore, the theory that can correctly describe its true state can only be one.
Since the scientific theories we previously learned have been verified through experiments and practical tests, and are correct, then descriptions that differ from scientific theory must be wrong. Therefore, we cannot accept those conclusions in TCM theory that differ from modern science.
The Formation Pattern of Scientific Theories
We always understand the world through scientific theories. Now, let's take a look at science itself to see whether scientific theories are the only objective laws that describe the same object of study. Let's first examine how scientific theories are formed.
The Formation Pattern of Scientific Theories
Observing Phenomena
Proposing Hypotheses to Explain Phenomena
Verifying Hypotheses to Form Scientific Theories
None of these three processes are objective; they are all subjective. You might say that phenomena objectively exist, so how can they be subjective?
Let me give you an example. A tabletop, when viewed with the naked eye, appears as a very dense, flat surface. But if we magnify it with a microscope, or if we ourselves become very small, like bacteria, this dense tabletop turns into a landscape of mountains, ravines, and plains made up of the cell walls of the wood, just like humans living on Earth.
If we go even smaller, to the point where we can see atomic nuclei like a person sees the sun, then what image does the tabletop present to you? It's like a universe. The atomic nucleus is like a star, and the electrons revolving around it are like planets, and there are many such galaxies.
So, is this tabletop smooth or filled with mountains and ravines? Is it dense or filled with infinite space? Can there be a definitive answer? No, it depends on the level at which you are speaking.
Therefore, even the same object of study presents completely different images at different levels.
Proposing hypotheses to explain phenomena is even more inseparable from the scientist's subjectivity.
Since the phenomena that a scientist can observe are always limited, when constructing a theory to explain phenomena, the scientist needs to imagine the common characteristics of all phenomena in this field. A scientist who believes the Earth is flat cannot possibly construct a theory that states the shortest distance between two points is a curve.
After the theory is constructed, it is then verified. The scope of this verification is also determined by the scientist's worldview.
Newton summarized a law in mechanical motion: distance equals speed multiplied by time.
This law was only verified in low-speed mechanical motion because scientists at that time could not imagine high-speed particle motion. Therefore, when verifying this law, no problems were found. But when scientists were able to observe high-speed particle motion, they found that distance cannot equal speed multiplied by time.
Now, you can see that the formation of a scientific theory is not only determined by the object of study itself but also by its creator. Even when studying the same object, different creators can create different forms of theories.
The scientific theories we once thought to be completely objective are actually only objective within a subjective range. Of course, most creators and believers are not aware of this subjective range. Until they encounter phenomena that cannot be explained, they always believe this is the ultimate truth.
Although scientific theories can reflect some characteristics of the object of study, they do not fully represent the object itself. This is what Laozi said: "The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao; the name that can be named is not the eternal name." You cannot think that the theory you believe in completely represents the object it describes, and that any other theory that does not conform to your theory is a wrong description of the object.
The Relationship Between Different Theoretical Systems Within the Same Field of Study
Now, let me give an example to help you clearly see the relationship between different theoretical systems within the same field of study.
Suppose a research field contains a total of 100 objects, of which 70 are triangles and 30 are quadrilaterals. The researcher can only see 10 of them, then proposes a hypothesis and proves it, identifying the pattern among them, and forms a theoretical system.
Why can they only see 10? Because we are simulating scientific research, scientists cannot see all the phenomena in their research field; they can only observe limited phenomena and summarize the patterns among them. So, we make this assumption.
Now let's see, how many forms of theories could the scientist possibly create? The following three forms of theories might emerge:
The scientist can see 10 objects, all of which are triangles, and cannot foresee the existence of quadrilaterals. In the process of verification, they also do not encounter quadrilaterals, so the theory formed is a pattern that only applies to triangular objects.
The scientist can see 10 objects, all of which are quadrilaterals, and cannot foresee the existence of triangles. In the process of verification, they also do not encounter triangles, so the theory formed is a pattern that only applies to quadrilateral objects.
The scientist sees 10 objects, some of which are triangles and some quadrilaterals, or although they only see triangles or quadrilaterals, they can foresee the existence of others. In this case, the theory formed is a pattern that applies to both triangular and quadrilateral objects.
These three forms of theories are certainly different in form, but there is no right or wrong, only different ranges of applicability.
The first theory is completely correct within the scope of the 70 triangles; the second theory is also completely correct within the scope of the 30 quadrilaterals; the third theory can be applied to the 100 objects.
Breaking the Attachment
Now, let's break the attachment.
When studying the same object, different theories can be derived. As long as these theories are logically sound, they are not wrong, only their ranges of applicability differ.
Western medicine and Chinese medicine are the same. Although they describe the same object of study—life—completely differently, it is only because the founders of these theories observed different ranges, so there is no right or wrong. What Western medicine sees is correct, and what Chinese medicine sees is also correct.
I don't know if you have gained any insights from the above discussion. After I understood these principles, I entered a realm of free thought, where I could correctly understand the relationship between the theoretical systems of Chinese medicine and modern science-based Western medicine, without the idea that two tigers cannot share one mountain.
Understanding these principles is very useful for studying Chinese medicine. Because in the process of studying Chinese medicine, not only will the theoretical systems of Chinese and Western medicine clash in your mind, but many schools of thought within Chinese medicine will also clash in your mind.
Those who believe in Chinese medicine often like to say that Western medicine thinking is mechanical, but how many in the Chinese medicine community can truly achieve the thorough understanding of medical principles?
Without a correct understanding of the nature of scientific theories, one might think that since both are studying the human body, there should only be one truth, either this or that. Accepting Western medicine means harshly criticizing Chinese medicine, and even if one is naturally passionate about Chinese medicine and accepts its various conclusions that do not conform to scientific common sense, it is still impossible to thoroughly understand the various schools of thought in Chinese medicine and can only become a follower of a certain school.
Advanced Theories and Lower-Level Theories
When I say that Western medicine's description of the human body is correct and that Chinese medicine's description of the human body is also correct, I am absolutely not compromising; it is because from different levels, the image of the human body presented is different, leading to differences in the descriptions of the human body by Chinese and Western medicine.
Although there is no right or wrong in theory, there are differences in the scope of applicability. The broader the scope of applicability, the more advanced the theoretical system.
What is the relationship between advanced theories and lower-level theories?
Advanced theories can solve problems within the scope of lower-level theories, but lower-level theories cannot solve problems beyond their scope of applicability. In other words, advanced theories can include lower-level theories, but lower-level theories cannot include advanced theories.
Let me explain with an example. In the study of the motion of objects in physics, there are currently two theoretical systems: one is Newtonian mechanics, and the other is Einstein's theory of relativity.
Because during Newton's time, scientists could only observe the motion of objects at low speeds, Newtonian mechanics is actually a summary of the laws of motion within this range.
When the scope of observation in the scientific community expanded to include high-speed particle motion, Newtonian mechanics could no longer explain these physical phenomena. Einstein summarized a set of laws within this expanded range, forming the theory of relativity.
The theory of relativity not only explains phenomena within the scope of Newtonian mechanics but also explains high-speed particle motion phenomena that Newtonian mechanics cannot.
Since applying the theory of relativity to solve low-speed mechanical motion problems involves complicated calculations and is not as convenient as Newtonian mechanics, we still use Newtonian mechanics to solve problems in the low-speed domain.
But after mastering a theory more advanced than Newtonian mechanics, we can know that using Newtonian mechanics to solve motion problems involves errors, but because in the low-speed domain, this error is relatively small, it can be ignored.
A theory with a small scope of applicability involves errors when solving problems, but because these errors are subtle, humans consider them negligible, so the theory is preserved and continues to be used.
If humans ever realize that the error is intolerable, the theory will be discarded. Newtonian mechanics has not yet been discarded because it is simpler to use it to solve low-speed motion problems, and the error is within acceptable limits.
To give another example, in the theory of solid geometry, two points determine a straight line, and three points determine a plane. We can use solid geometry to build bridges over the Yangtze River, because the distance is short, and the error is small. But if we were to build a bridge across the Pacific Ocean, solid geometry could not be used. The Earth is spherical, and the distance between two points is an arc. If the distance is too far, the error cannot be ignored.
Western Medicine is a Lower-Level Theory
In medicine, some errors that could be ignored at the time, after a period of time, the harm they cause to the human body will become apparent.
For example, when Western medicine treats pneumonia, by using anti-inflammatory drugs and antibiotics, the inflammation in the patient's lungs disappears, body temperature returns to normal, and clinical recovery is achieved. Although the patient may feel a bit weak, Western medicine will tell you that you are fully recovered, and after some rest, you’ll be fine. In the short term, this error can be ignored. But after a period of time, the consequences of this error will become apparent.
Around 1994 or 1995, I saw such a report in the Health News: A British epidemiological survey found that elderly asthma patients are closely related to having had pneumonia in their youth.
Over decades, the subtle error that was initially ignored has turned into a relatively large health problem.
Nowadays, many children have allergic conjunctivitis and rhinitis, which are also the result of errors accumulated from treating colds under the guidance of Western medical theory.
As for why treating colds and pneumonia under the guidance of Western medical theory causes such problems, it will be explained in detail in the later section of Zhou Shizhen's popular Chinese medicine textbook.
I wonder if you've noticed that many people in suboptimal health states already feel very uncomfortable, but when they go to the hospital for a check-up, there is no detectable illness. This indicates that Western medical theory still cannot recognize the differences between these people's bodies and truly healthy bodies, just like a ruler that can only measure down to millimeters cannot measure lengths below a millimeter.
There’s another phenomenon: Western medicine always needs to eliminate some treatment plans after a certain period, or urgently recall some drugs, banning them from clinical use.
Some people might think, “Look, how rigorous Western medicine is.” But this precisely reflects that the current Western medical theory is not perfect.
For a drug to enter clinical use in Western medicine, it must undergo strict laboratory experiments and clinical trials, with comprehensive evaluations of its pharmacology and toxicology. Why then, after some time, do problems still arise, leading to recalls? This can only indicate that at the level Western medicine can observe, it is impossible to observe the subtle damage drugs cause to the human body in the short term. Only when these damages accumulate to a certain extent and become a big problem can Western medicine observe them.
So, although I said that as long as there are no logical problems, there is no distinction between right and wrong in theoretical systems, only differences in the scope of applicability. However, when solving specific problems, higher-level theories are closer to the essence of things, and lower-level theories will lead to errors.
Conclusion
If a person understands higher-level theories, the advantages and limitations of lower-level theories in the same field will be immediately clear—what problems they can solve, what they cannot solve, to what extent they solve them, and what errors exist, all will be immediately clear.
In this way, this person will thoroughly break the attachment in this field.
What is broken is the attachment to the idea that “only one theory can be formed when researching the same thing, and any other theory that does not conform to this theory is wrong.” Once this attachment is broken, the level of thinking will rise a step.
When encountering a theory, first check whether there are any logical problems. If there are no logical problems, then examine the size of its scope of applicability. In this way, even two completely different theories in the same field will not conflict in your mind.
If you want to refute a theory, first check if there are any logical problems. If there are no logical problems, then look for phenomena that this theory cannot explain. If you can find phenomena that this theory cannot explain, you can completely refute this theory.
Only by recognizing that theoretical systems have scopes of applicability can we correctly approach different forms of theoretical systems.
Only in this way can one become a wise person, truly enter the realm of Chinese medicine, grasp the core theories of Chinese medicine, and become a truly enlightened Chinese medicine practitioner.
