HAN Yong-Gang
Abstract: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) belongs to the category of primitive metaphysics, rather than the so-called “metaphysics” that emerged after the “controversy over science and metaphysics”. TCM has dual attributes of science and philosophy, with its scientific attribute being primary and its philosophical attribute secondary. The western scientific system is an empirical science system based on reductionism, whereas the ancient Chinese scientific system is an a priori science system based on ontology.
Keywords: Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), Metaphysics, Philosophy, Science.
“To be, or not to be, that is the question.” Shakespeare poses this profound question through Hamlet. Though famous, this question pertains merely to individual emotional confusion.
“Who am I? Where did I come from? Where am I going?” The tripartite query of ancient Greek philosopher Plato holds more universal significance, representing humanity’s ultimate 3 questions.
Regarding Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM), I also pose an ultimate question: “Is TCM metaphysics, philosophy, or science?” This is a crucial question that the modern TCM community must confront and explain, and one that remains unresolved. It concerns the very survival of TCM. This is not alarmism; both domestic and international communities are awaiting a reasonable explanation of TCM’s disciplinary attributes.
Practitioners of TCM often proudly state, “Medicine is intention”. However, westerners and those educated in modern systems believe TCM is overly subjective and lacks objectivity; it relies too heavily on personal experience and not enough on scientific logic. In short, TCM is considered unscientific. So, how can people in and outside of China trust TCM? How can they dare to use an unscientific modality like TCM to treat illnesses?!
Yu Yunxiu graduated from Osaka Medical University in Japan in 1916. In 1917, Yu authored Ling Su Shang Dui [Discussions on Ling Shu and Su Wen]. Huangdi Neijing [The Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon] is composed of Ling Shu [The Magic Pivot] and Su Wen [Plain Questions], and is considered the “Bible” of TCM. Ling Su Shang Dui ostensibly engages in a discussion, but in reality, it criticizes and invalidates Huangdi Neijing. Yu Yunxiu’s fundamental approach to invalidate TCM is to start by invalidating Huangdi Neijing; to invalidate Huangdi Neijing, Yu starts by invalidating yin, yang, and the 5 phases. “No clearly defined experiments, no solid evidence.” This is Yu Yunxiu’s standpoint for criticizing Huangdi Neijing. “What they call yin and yang is mysterious and inconceivable.” “As for the theory of the 5 phases, it is even more unfounded. In India and the west, there are 4 elements: earth, water, wind, and fire. In China, there are 5 elements: metal, wood, water, fire, and earth. Given the differences between the east and west, which one is true? It is indeterminable.” This is Yu Yunxiu’s basic rationale for negating yin, yang, and the 5 phases. Yu Yunxiu firmly believed that by breaking the theory of yin, yang, and 5 phases, the entire TCM system would collapse.
After Yu Yunxiu’s personal criticism of TCM, prominent cultural figures in the New Culture Movement, such as Liang Qichao, Liang Shuming, Zhang Taiyan, and Yan Fu, began collectively challenging the core theory of TCM—yin, yang, and the 5 phases, leading to the famous “controversy over science and metaphysics” in 1923. Science, representing western scientific principles, and metaphysics, representing philosophical principles, have 2 key distinctions: empirical verification and repeatability. Science can be empirically verified and repeated, while metaphysics cannot. TCM was thus labeled as metaphysics in this debate. The many cultural figures listed above have indeed made significant contributions in certain fields, but their research on the concepts of yin, yang, and the 5 phases was likely too superficial. As a result, they criticized or dismissed what they did not understand. When renowned scholars hold such attitudes, it is natural for the general public to agree with the opinions of these so-called experts and scholars.
To determine whether TCM is metaphysics, we must first define what constitutes metaphysics. According to Yan Zhitui of the Northern Qi dynasty in volume 3 of Yanshi Jiaxun [The Family Precepts of Master Yan], entitled “Diligent Study”: “Zhuangzi, Laozi [or Dao De Jing], and Zhouyi [or Yi Jing, Classic of Changes] are collectively referred to as the ‘3 profound [or metaphysical] texts’.” A primitive form of metaphysics emerged as a mode of philosophical thought during the Wei, Jin, Southern, and Northern dynasties, designating Laozi, Zhuangzi, and Zhouyi as the ‘3 profound texts’. Since their subjects of study are abstract metaphysical concepts rather than concrete physical matters, this body of thought is referred to as “the study of the profound and distant.” Thus, it is evident that the metaphysics of the “3 profound texts” falls within the realm of philosophy.
Yang Xiong of the Western Han dynasty stated in the Taixuanjing [The Classic of the Supreme Profound]: “The profound is the way of heaven, the way of earth, and the way of humanity; encompassing all 3 ways, it is thus named by heaven.” Primitive metaphysics belonged to the domain of science, encompassing the way of heaven, the way of earth, and the way of humanity. In brief, it is called the way of heaven; differentiated in detail, it is divided into the 3 attributes: heaven, earth, and humanity. Therefore, in ancient times, “metaphysics” was an absolutely positive term, belonging to the realms of philosophy and science, and was filled with positive energy.
In modern scientific and metaphysical debates, the essence of metaphysics has been distorted, with everything unknown or inexplicable by modern science being lumped into the realm of metaphysics. Disciplines like geomancy, TCM, astrology, physiognomy, and divination, known as the “5 techniques of Chinese metaphysics,” were all categorized under metaphysics by modern scholars. Consequently, the connotation of metaphysics evolved into a thoroughly derogatory term, diametrically opposed to science. To many modern individuals, TCM is synonymous with metaphysics, not science.
Therefore, the answer to the question of whether TCM is metaphysics is clear: TCM belongs to the primitive metaphysics category, rather than the so-called “metaphysics” that emerged after the “controversy over science and metaphysics”.
Next, is TCM, especially its theory of yin, yang, and the 5 phases, philosophical?
The modern textbook Zhongyi Jichu Lilun [Foundations of TCM Theory] defines the theories of yin, yang, and the 5 phases as follows: “The theory of yin and yang belongs to the category of ancient Chinese philosophical theory. The opposition and unity of yin and yang are the fundamental laws of movement and change in the universe. TCM uses the principles of interaction, opposition, mutual rootedness, waxing and waning, conversion, and spontaneous harmonization of yin and yang to understand and explain life, health, and disease.”
“The so-called 5 phase theory categorizes the attributes of things or phenomena based on the functional properties of wood, fire, earth, metal, and water. It discusses and deduces the relationships among things or phenomena and their complex laws of movement and change based on the principles of mutual generation and mutual restraint among the 5 phases. It is an important component of ancient Chinese materialist philosophy.”
Since the establishment of TCM universities in 1950, there have been 11 editions of TCM textbooks. Overall, textbooks clearly classify the theories of yin, yang, and the 5 phases as belonging to the category of ancient Chinese philosophy. However, is this classification reasonable? If TCM is merely philosophical, wouldn’t every TCM practitioner essentially be practicing philosophy rather than medicine?!
Imagine if we could travel back to ancient times and carefully consider what our ancestors’ greatest concern was. Of course, it was survival. Setting aside natural disasters and predatory animals, the key to survival was food. Food doesn’t appear out of thin air; our ancestors first needed to master agricultural techniques for planting and harvesting. The agricultural level at that time can be summarized as “dependent on the weather,” so the planting and harvesting of crops depended on advanced astronomy and calendar systems, which are part of ancient Chinese science. TCM originated from ancient Chinese science, especially astronomy and calendar systems. Astronomy was the first science in China and the calendar system was the first law in China. The ancient Chinese astronomical and calendar system formed the basis of other academic systems. Compared to the rest of the world, only the Chinese people placed such great importance on astronomy and calendar systems.
The text Guanzi [Writings of Master Guan] states: “When the granaries are full, we know the rites and customs; when we have enough clothing and food, we know honor and disgrace.” Modern people enjoy art such as music, theater, movies, and television, and often say “art originates from life.” In other words, life comes first and art follows. Art abstracts and elevates life. TCM is the same; it originated from ancient Chinese science and later evolved into ancient philosophy. The philosophical aspect of TCM emerged after our ancestors had solved the problem of survival. TCM has a dual nature of science and philosophy, with its scientific aspect preceding its philosophical aspect.
The Institute for the History of Natural Sciences, Chinese Academy of Sciences published a list of “85 major scientific and technological inventions and creations in ancient China” in 2015. Among them, 8 items, nearly 10%, are related to TCM, including the theory of channels and vessels, the 4 examinations, herbal foundation, the study of formulas, the system of forensic medicine, the classification system in the Bencao Gangmu [Herbal Foundation Compendium], acupuncture, moxibustion, and variolation. Based on this, it is clear and indisputable that TCM is a part of ancient Chinese science.
Some TCM scholars lament: “TCM can cure diseases, but it cannot cure the ignorance and superstition of modern people.” Now, in the historical process of the great rejuvenation of the Chinese nation, we TCM practitioners have an obligation to step forward and reveal the scientific nature of TCM using language that modern people can understand.
The modern western scientific system is based on an empirical science system grounded in reductionism. Its characteristics include hypothesizing based on phenomena, proving through experiments, and forming theories through induction and summarization. It progresses from details to the whole and from micro to macro; it reduces the local to the global and continually revises previously established laws through practice. It is akin to completing a puzzle piece by piece to ultimately form a grand model.
The ancient Chinese scientific system is based on an a priori science system grounded in ontology. Its characteristic is progressing from source to flow, from macro to micro. It first grasps the core laws of the universe and builds a grand model, then extends the core laws to different fields through deduction and with the help of the grand model. It is like understanding architectural laws, drawing blueprints, constructing models, and then building individual houses and buildings in different regions. It is like the Zen Buddhist concept of “pointing directly to the human mind, seeing one’s true nature, and becoming a Buddha,” from the inside out, or like the Big Bang, originating from a singularity. TCM stems from this a priori science system. In other words, TCM is a science, but unlike western medicine, it is a science rooted in a different system.
Chapter 69 of Huangdi Neijing, entitled “Great Treatise on Mutations at Qi Intersections” states: “Those who are good at describing heaven’s principles must respond to people. Those who are good at describing ancient times must be verified by the present. Those who are good at describing qi must manifest [what they describe] in material things. Those who are good at describing responses must follow the transformation of heaven and earth. Those who are good at describing transformation must understand the principles of spirit light.”
The western empirical science system focuses on “local details”, while the Chinese a priori science system focuses on “overall directions”. The western empirical science system centers on “the material realm”, while the Chinese a priori science system centers on “heaven, earth, and humanity”. The western empirical science system separates time and space; the Chinese a priori science system unifies time and space. The western empirical science system studies the earth, heaven, people, and things from a static perspective, separating them from each other; the Chinese a priori science system studies them from a dynamic perspective, closely integrating them. Thus, chapter 2 of Zhuangzi, entitled “On the Equality of Things” states: “Heaven and earth are born with me, and all things are one with me.” While the west advocates “putting humanity first”, this perspective is limited to that of white westerners. The Chinese a priori scientific system truly embodies “putting humanity first” with all people on Earth as its focus!
These 2 scientific systems have different cores and references, and the terms used by each system are also different. For example, the western empirical scientific system refers to the “natural world”, while the Chinese a priori scientific system refers to “heaven, earth, and humanity”. The western empirical scientific system refers to “matter”, while the Chinese a priori scientific system refers to “forms” and “receptacles”. The western empirical scientific system refers to “fields”, “particles”, “energy”, and “information”, while the Chinese a priori scientific system refers to “qi”. The western empirical scientific system refers to the “4 fundamental forces”, while the Chinese a priori scientific system refers to “mutual engendering and mutual restraining”, and so on. As modern Chinese people, we should not only be familiar with western terminology, but also understand the terms that have been passed down in China for thousands of years.
Life is the most advanced and complex form of material movement in the world, and humans are the most advanced and complex life forms among all living beings. Modern western medicine, based on reductionism, has deviated from the complexity inherent in life in the real world. This complexity also accounts for the “incommensurability” between TCM and western medicine. Western medicine, being an empirical scientific system founded on reductionism, is suitable for studying simple phenomena. In contrast, TCM, rooted in ontological and a priori scientific principles, is well-suited for exploring complex phenomena, such as life.
TCM possesses both scientific and philosophical attributes. The primary focus of its study—human health and disease—is characterized by complexity, making TCM a pioneer in the global study of complexity. The 21st century has been recognized as the century of complexity science; TCM, as a pioneer in the exploration of complexity, is destined to become a leader in the new medical revolution in this new century and millennium.
About the author：
Han Yonggang earned his doctoral degree from the Institute of Basic Research in Clinical Medicine at the China Academy of Chinese Medical Sciences. He studied under Wang Yongyan, a member of the Chinese Academy of Engineering, and Professor Gao Sihua, former president of Beijing University of Chinese Medicine. He is currently employed at Chelsea Natural Health Clinic and the London Academy of Chinese Acupuncture. He serves as vice-chairman of the EU TCM Wuyunliuqi Association and is a standing member of the World Federation of Chinese Medical Societies Expert Committee on Prescription-Dose Effects. He also serves as an executive council member of the World Federation of Chinese Medical Societies Targeted Diagnosis and Treatment Committee and the World Federation of Chinese Medical Societies Pulse Manifestation Committee. In addition, he is the head of the Education and Academic Department of the Huatuo International Medical Research Association, academic director of the Chinese Acupuncture and Herbal Medicine Alliance UK (CAHMA), associate editor of the New England Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine, and vice-chairman of the Swiss edition of the World Journal of Traditional Chinese Medicine.
Email:[email protected] WeChat：yonggang01
