The Differences Between Traditional

Chinese Medicine and Classical Chinese

Medicine
on 06/15/2007 by Eric Grey in Community and Cultivation

This is an old article written when I was relatively new on the scene of Classical
Chinese Medicine. While Ive learned a lot since then I still think it serves as an
interesting introduction to the whole conversation.

On this site, I talk a lot about Classical Chinese Medicine

(CCM) as the school I studied at (and now work at) is devoted to the study of that particular form
of Chinese Medicine (CM).

CCM is distinguished from Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) in a number of ways, some of
which I will try to make clear here. Note that TCM is the type of CM known (and used) by many
people in the Western world, as well as in China.

The first and most fundamental difference between CCM and Traditional Chinese Medicine
(TCM) is that the former draws most deeply from the Classical literature of CM when interacting
with patients. The intake process, the patient-doctor interaction, the methods used for diagnosis
and the form of the diagnosis, the application of acupuncture, herbs and other modalities, the
reasoning out of prognosis all of these should be primarily (if not completely) based on
Classical sources and their most faithful commentaries. TCM, although it does pay attention to
the Classics and some TCM practitioners take it on themselves to delve more deeply into the
canon does not rely primarily on these sources in its practice.

What are these Classics?

This is open to some degree of interpretation. Most would agree that the Huang Di Nei Jing
(Yellow Emperors Internal Classic), the Nan Jing (Classic of Difficulties) and the Shen
Nong Ben Cao Jing (Divine Farmers Herbal Classic) and the Shang Han Lun
 (Treatise on Cold Damage) are the foundational texts of this medicine. Others might add other
medical texts and all would certainly include commentaries and further developments of these
basic works. All of these books were written during or before the Han dynasty.

You may be wondering what possible relevance books written 220 A.D. and prior could have for
contemporary medicine a fair question. This is an issue I will certainly be discussing on this
blog, but for now let me just say that my empirical relationship with this medicine has led me to
believe that a nearly rigid adherence to the Classics produces excellent clinical results. Let that be
okay for now.

CCM simply takes its historical and cultural roots very seriously. It pays attention to the fact that
many medical classics thought it of vital importance that practitioners cultivate themselves using
the arts, contemplation, interaction with nature and various esoteric practices. It asserts that the
Classical texts are not the mistaken ramblings of a primitive people but a record of (parts of) a
sophisticated medical system that has vital relevance for contemporary people.

CCM does not make its primary aim to justify itself in the language and method of Western
scientific materialism. It does not sacrifice the knowledge that comes from grappling with
difficult, often symbolic, literature for the sake of quick and easy one-size-fits-all treatment
protocols.

My personal experience of the difference between TCM and CCM has been profound. While
TCM has some approaches that have clinical effectiveness and while its insistence on becoming
closely entwined with Western medicine has had a few positive impacts on the profession, it
doesnt come close to transforming peoples situations in the way that CCM can and often does.

I believe this has to do with CCM practitioners acceptance of and ability to work with
complexity. The human body is an unbelievably complex thing and a medicine that seeks to
simplify relentlessly in diagnosis and treatment cant hope to keep up. Things will be missed, and
those missed things always have the potential to grow into a problem as big or bigger than the
original issue.