V. Other Works – Pei Zhengxue / 268

V. Other Works – Pei Zhengxue / 268

“Tears of Gratitude for a Close Friend, Mou Benli” / 268

Pei Zhengxue’s Blog Collection

PEIZHENGXUE BOKE WENJI

Famous Doctor Pei Zhengxue

Pei Zhengxue’s Brilliant Life Path / Zheng Fangjiang, Qi Qin / 270

Pei Zhengxue’s “Three Foundations” / Fang Jianping / 274

Pei Zhengxue’s Holidays / Ji Wenli / 276

Pei Zhengxue: Passing On Knowledge, Teaching, and Spreading the Legacy of Traditional Chinese Medicine – A Model of Virtue and Artistry, Famed Students Flourish / Xin Ya / 278

The Light of a Medical Scientist’s Spirit – Reflections on Reading the Biographical Work “Famous Doctor Pei Zhengxue of the Loess Plateau” / Nie Zhongmin / 281

The Style and Contributions of a Master – Reading “Famous Doctor Pei Zhengxue of the Loess Plateau” / Niu Qingguo / 286

[Reflections on Pei Shen’s “Rainy Days Collection” / Zhang QuanYou / 293]

[Impressions of Doctor Pei Zhengxue / Zhang QuanYou / 300]

[Talking with Professor Pei Zhengxue About Weibo Communication / Zhang QuanYou / 307]

[Celebrating Professor Pei’s 72nd Birthday / Ji Wenli / 311]

“Birthday Wishes for Professor Pei” / Liu Shiru / 317

“Birthday Wishes for Professor Pei at 76” / Zhan Wenguo / 318

Medical Research

■ Eastern and Western Cultures in the Middle Ages and Their Influence on Later Generations / Pei Zhengxue Task output rules: Translate this markdown block from Chinese to English. Preserve markdown markers, links, and formatting. Keep headings and list structure unchanged. Return only the translated block.

Input: 公元前八至二世纪，正值我国的春秋战国时代。和我国的诸子百家一样，古希腊学者苏格拉底、柏拉图、亚里士多德在哲学和科学方面的贡献，为西方世界带来了灿烂夺目的文化前景。他们三人的学术思想依次师承，代代创新，使古希腊文化达到了前所未有的巅峰；和我国的孔丘、孟柯、韩非等人的学术思想遥相呼应，成为各自屹立于东西两半球的文化灯塔。苏格拉底开馆授徒，传学带教，有点像孔子，虽无著述流传，但其学说被柏拉图、亚里士多德等人发扬光大，声名四播。苏格拉底认为："心"是至高无上的，只有"心"才能把握真正的形式和理想。而感官只能接近对象的形式，并使之成为形成理想的工具，而这一切都是由神来创造和安排的，体现着神的智能与目的。世间最有知识的是神，真正的知识服从于神。柏拉图是苏格拉底的学生，是唯心主义哲学的伟大代表。他对事物的看法是从人类的需要和意向中去完成推导。比如：神是最完美无缺的智者，球是最完美无缺的形式，因此宇宙必然是一个球体，它理应由神来主宰。他重视数学这样的逻辑思维，并在他的学院中开设了大量数学课程，这为古希腊以后出现像毕达哥拉斯、留基伯、德谟克利特这样一批天才的数学家提供了先决条件。亚里

裴正学博客文集 PEIZHENGXUE BOKE WENJI

士多德是一位集古希腊知识大成的伟大学者，在很多领域都有重要贡献。他是柏拉图的学生，他的名言"吾爱吾师，吾尤爱真理"为世人周知。在哲学上，他提出了"唯名论"，即同时承认"感官"对象和"心灵"对象的实在性。他认为个体是唯一的实在，而"类"是名称或心理概念。他特别重视对个体的研究和实验，由此可知他的思想更有利于推动实验科学的发展；而他的老师柏拉图则重视对抽象理念的研究，其思维则偏重于哲学范畴。总之包罗万象的古希腊文化为近代科学的产生准备了充分和必要的条件。差不多与上述三位学者同一时期，还有一位著名的学者——希波克拉底，他在古希腊大地上，为医学树起了丰碑。二十卷《希波克拉底文集》是以后西方医学发展取之不尽的源泉。

正当古希腊文化被苏格拉底和他的学生们操持得如火如荼的时候，在地球另一面的中华大地上，一场轰轰烈烈的学术争鸣正在方兴未艾。儒家的创始人孔子，是当时最著名的理论家。他的理论核心是一个"仁"字，完成"仁"的方法是"恕"，体现"仁"的行为是"礼"。孟子是孔子的嫡孙子思的学生，和孔子一样，带着数百弟子周游列国、著书立说。宣扬"仁义"，提倡"仁政"，主张"法先王"。他把孔子的"仁"学与政治结合，实属一大发展，但其"法先王"的思想却具复古之嫌。儒家的另一代表人物荀子亦属孔子之私塾弟子。他赞扬富国强兵，宣扬秦国的革新，对孟子的"复古"有过批评。韩非是荀子的弟子，与李斯同学。他把荀子的"仁政"提到立法水平，提出"法"、"术"、"势"相结合的法治理论。认为"法"是根本，主张"罢黜百家"，崇尚法制，使儒学完全趋向政治。秦始皇读过《韩非子》一书后，感叹地说："寡人得见此人与之游，死不恨矣！"李斯在一旁说："此韩非所著也。"不久，韩非来到秦国，李斯妒其贤能，横加罪名害死了韩非。然而，韩非的学说对秦始皇统一中国、巩固政权起了积极作用。

墨家创始人墨子，是孔子百年以后的鲁国人。他的主张和儒家针锋相对。反对世裔，主张尚贤，打破旧的等级观念，主张"官无常贵，民无终贱"，"饥者得食，寒者得衣，劳者得息"。他把政治革新的希望寄托在"圣君"身上；提出"明鬼"学说，相信鬼神，鼓吹鬼神的作用，反映出其思想局限性。

道家学派的创始人老子，楚国人，约与孔子同时，《老子》一书中，提出"祸兮福所倚，福兮祸所伏"，"柔弱胜刚强"这些朴素的辩证法观点，是非常可贵的。主张"无为而治"，倡导"小国寡民"的理想境界，"鸡犬之声相闻，民至老死不相往来"。道家在战国时期的代表人物是庄周。曾任宋国漆园小吏。后来弃官而终身不仕。他对"道"的解释更深刻。认为宇宙万物的本源叫作"道"。"道"衍生天地万物，连鬼神也是"道"的产物。只有"真人"才能得"道"。事物虽然万变无常，却都在"道"的掌握之中。

差不多与此同时，伟大的医学家——扁鹊，和著名的《黄帝内经》出现，为东方医学树立了丰碑，成为以后中医学发展的理论基础。

在中世纪，交通极度不便，信息高度不灵，这给东西方文化交流带来了诸多不便。但是由于罗马帝国的东扩以及后来的大汉、大元帝国的西进，也曾使东西方文化交流游丝未绝。公元前四世纪，古罗马在意大利半岛中部兴起，先后征服了希腊，及欧洲、亚洲、非洲的大片领土。330年君士坦丁大帝迁都土耳其的伊斯坦布尔（后改称君士坦丁堡），史称东罗马（拜占庭）帝国，尊奉希腊东正教，与原在意大利半岛的西罗马帝国并存。罗马人在长期远程征战中，一定程度上也促进了东西方文化的交流。东罗马帝国在西罗马帝国崩溃后，它依然存在了将近一千年，（公元395至1453年）。君士坦丁堡位于亚、欧、非三大洲之间的贸易路线上，占有理想的地理位置，是丝绸之路的目的地，是中国通往西方的重要商品集散地。随着汉武帝的军事西进、成吉思汗钦察汗国的西扩，由甘肃的河西走廊到波斯湾的丝绸之路上商贾络绎、驼马如云。丝绸、茶叶、瓷器东进；工具、古玩、钟表东来。诸子百家和古希腊哲学的交流，东西方医学的交流，从情理上讲也是不可避免的。但是由于交通、通信、语言、风土、人情的差异，影响了这一交流，使其作用微乎其微，蔚为大观。东西方文化的影响力只是局限在各自所在的地区。正是这一影响力持续性作用，地球的东西两半部，在社会、人文、科学技术诸方面发生了巨大的差异。

其一是在科学技术方面，柏拉图以后的西方，哲学和科学形成了同步发展，哲学站在科学一边，竭力证明科学才是真理。亚里士多德开创的实践理念使西方世界的哲学与实验研究相结合。18世纪德国大哲学家康德提出的批判主义认为：科学是以先验形式和知性概念开始的，应该把这一些形式和概念发展到深入人心的结构。从而进一步设定了哲学指导科学的使命。尽管这种观念曾受到传统宗教势力的强烈反对和残暴干预，但是它仍然不负众望，勇往直前的发展。哥白尼、伽利略、笛卡儿、牛顿、阿基米德、达尔文、摩尔根、魏尔啸、爱迪生等人在科学领域的杰出贡献，把西方科学技术水平推上了空前高度。十九世纪到上世纪末，人们在声、光、化、电……各个方面取得了触目惊心的伟大成就。把一个人类社会活脱脱推上了五彩缤纷、绚丽多姿的平台。所有这些科技成果的问世，无一不是由西方世界首发。

在中国，诸子百家中以儒家最受青睐，孔孟学说被历代王朝一升再升，孔孟地位被一提再提。自隋唐以后，我国历代选拔人才之科举制度皆以四书五经为准绳，将包括科学技术在内的其他学科称之曰三教九流、雕虫小技。导致整个国家民族不重视科学技术的发展。从远古始，中国人在科技领域曾有过辉煌的表现。公元前六世纪发明了炼铜，前四世纪发明了炼铁，之后又有火药、指南针、造纸、印刷术等四大发明推出。与此同时，战国人李冰父子建造了技术水准在当时堪称一绝的安蓝桥、都江堰；东汉人张衡创造了地震仪，发明了定量制图法；南朝人祖冲之把圆周率推算到小数点后第八位。这说明中国人具备攀登科学顶峰的天才和智慧。然而自隋唐以后，中国的科学技术便一直停滞不前。由此导致了后来，中华民族在西方列强的坚船利炮下，溃不成军的屈辱史。

其二在社会状况方面，儒学之三纲五常、三从四德、忠孝节义的说教，经过两千多年的不断强化教育，已经形成了中华民族精神文明的传统内涵，由此确立了整个民族的修养模式。这一模式有利于人民"克勤克俭"，"谦虚谨慎"，"奉公守法"，孔子曰："孝悌也者，其为仁之本也。""父母在，不远游。"以"孝道"为核心的理念，造就了家庭的亲情、和谐；以忠君爱国为核心的士人理念，造就了国家的安定、团结。从而使整个社会"家和人静"，"国泰民安"。中华民族在五千年的历史长河中有兴有衰，有分有合，然而传统文化始终像是一条无形的纽带将人们牢牢地凝聚在一起。由春秋战国之分到秦汉统一；由魏晋十六国之分到隋唐统一；由五代十国之分到宋元明清统一。变来变去，统一始终居于主要地位。近一千万平方公里之中华疆土，至今巍然未动。反观欧洲，其面积与我国大体等同，君斯坦丁大帝、圣彼德大帝，以及拿破仑、希特勒等都曾统一过欧亚半壁河山，却只能是过眼云烟，时过即散。而今的欧罗巴洲，散居着大小四十三个国家，人们感到了它的不便，才筹组了当今的欧洲共同体。

其三是医学发展方面，自汉唐以降，鉴于儒家说教之影响，我国的科学技术未能得到大力发展。其经济基础只能以个体农业和分散手工业为主体。这样的经济基础，给医学的发展不可能提供现代化的研究器材和工具，从而不可能产生生理、病理的微观依据。中医前辈在从事临床工作的时候，所能凭借的只有患者的主观感觉和疾病的外在表现，除此之外，如果还能有所凭借，那就是三个指头和一个枕头了。西医的发展，则是在与中医完全不同的社会条件下进行的。从16世纪开始，由于采矿、冶炼等工业的发展，出现了资本主义的萌芽，各种新的机器工具相继产生，特别是天体望远镜和显微镜的发明，为人类打开自然界奥秘之门提供了空前的有利条件。自然科学以大量实验数据为武器，打破了经院哲学的牢笼，使其长驱直入，迳上坦途。医学领域，由于显微镜的应用，人们开始向微观进军。细胞的发现，血液循环的揭晓，使医生大开眼界。18世纪中叶，以蒸汽机为动力的近代大工业产生后，给医学发展带来了空前未有的机遇。随着机器、光电、制药技术之改进，西方医学很快便登上现代科学技术的快车，以全新的面貌雄居于世界医林。

---

把宏观辨证推向微观辨证是当前中医学术发展的当务之急

裴正学

中医学术自先秦奠基，经历了张仲景的实践升华，金元诸家的争鸣强化，温病学派的大胆创新，使之成为我中华民族赖以繁衍生息、强身固邦之无价瑰宝。它在21世纪的今天，仍然屹立于世界医学之林，闪闪发光，引人瞩目。然而近百年来，现代科学技术正以惊人的速度向前发展，人类对疾病的认识正由宏观转向微观，由大体伸入细微。中医学作为人类向疾病做斗争的自然科学，理应成为现代科学网络系统中的一环，并与现代科学技术同步前进。但是由于历史条件的限制，前人在这方面还没有、也不可能迈出更大的步伐，这个光荣而又艰巨的历史使命便责无旁贷地落在我辈中医工作者的肩上了。面对这一问题，笔者提出"把宏观辨

裴正学博客文集

PEIZHENGXUE BOKE WENJI

证推向微观辨证"的问题，和广大中医界同道共同商榷，不妥之处，希望同志们批评指正。

中医传统辨证是宏观的

"辨证论治"是中医学术体系的特色，也是整个中华医学的精华所在。"辨证论治"的基础是望、闻、问、切；"辨证论治"的方法是逻辑推理。在"辨证论治"的过程中，只是充分地发挥了医生感官的作用和大脑皮质的分析能力。回顾中医学发展的历史，我们就不难看出这一倾向的来龙去脉了。中医学术的发展，上溯公元前4世纪的扁鹊，下至现代医家肖龙友、蒲辅周，他们的实践经验和学术思想的产生，始终是以农业和手工业为其社会基础的，历代中医学家们从来没有机会采用大工业所赋予的精密工具来研究祖国医学，于是中医学领域内的传统成果只能出自宏观地对疾病的外象进行观察和判断，在这里舌色、脉象、患者的自觉症状和外在的部分体征成为诊断疾病的主要依据。前人为我们总结了四诊、八纲、气血痰火、五运六气……。由此形成了富有特色的中医辨证体系。这一体系在人类认识疾病和治疗疾病的过程中，确实产生了巨大的作用，而且至今仍然在继续发挥作用。但是由于人的感官只能观察疾病的外象，所谓"治病必求于本"的实质则是审证求因的逻辑推理，而对疾病的内在质变并不能取得直观的认识。历代医家在丰富的实践中积累了许多生动的说理方法，诸为取类比象，同气相求等，力图对疾病的实质形成正确的想象，尽管这些想象缺乏实验研究基础，但是由于它来自临床实践，有实践经验作

医学研究

其内核，所以它对中医临床具有普遍的指导意义。

现代医学提供的根据是微观的

近代，大工业的发展与自然科学的发展相辅相成，互相促进。人类借助于自然科学赋予的崭新理论和大工业产生的先进工具，对疾病的认识逐步微观化。17世纪末叶，在英国产业革命之后，西方医学就是在这种形势下起步的，实验研究代替传统的逻辑说教，微观认识补充中世纪的宏观推理，是这一起步的特色，于是西方医学以全新的面貌脱颖而出，形成了以器官、组织、细胞、体液、神经的生理、病理改变为基础的微观体系，该体系的每一环节，以及在临床上相应出现的治疗措施和方药，都和现代自然科学的进展息息相关。出现在西医领域内的这一变化使西医成为现代科学技术网络系统的一个重要环节，它与现代自然科学的其他环节如物理学、化学、微生物学、气象学、地质学等互相渗透，互相为用，同步前进。诊查肝病的肝功、蛋白电泳、甲胎球蛋白、乙肝两对半，病毒定性；诊查胃病的纤维胃镜、组织活检，诊查心脏病的心电图、心电向量、超声心动图等检查手段和微观数据，无一不是实验研究的产物，无一不是现代自然科学领域相互渗透的结果。

宏观与微观结合才能全面认识疾病

毋庸置疑，宏观辨证是认识疾病的重要方面；但是微观辨证则是认识疾病的另一个重要方面。欲使辨证全面而又精确，必须二者兼而有之。肝病时，在宏观的肝气郁结、肝木克土、肝胆湿热、肝肾阴虚的基础上，把微观的肝功、血浆蛋

裴正学博客文集

PEIZHENGXUE BOKE WENJI

白、甲胎球蛋白等的变化，用中医辨证论治的观点予以全面考虑，则必能加强认识，提高疗效。笔者在长期临床实践中发现了一些规律，可供同志们参考。欲使转氨酶下降，多用银花、连翘、蒲公英、败酱草、夏枯草、板蓝根、龙胆草、垂盆草等清热解毒药有效；欲使浊度试验转阴，则多以黄芪、党参、首乌、当归等扶正固本药获效。以药测证，则可认为前者属实，乃热毒为患，后者属虚，乃气虚血亏。转氨酶的上升乃酶之含量升高，此为"有余"；浊度之增加乃白蛋白之减少，此为"不足"，《内经》云："损其有余"、"补其不足"，因此前者用清热解毒法，后者用扶正固本法。在乙肝三系统之调节中，笔者辄以清热解毒法降低表面抗原比数；以扶正固本法使核心抗体转阴。现代免疫学观点认为抗原与抗体的关系是相辅相成的，于是乙肝三系统的中医辨证实质应该是虚实相兼，论治当以清热解毒与扶正固本并重，才能药中病的。慢性肾炎的宏观辨证多体现阳虚水泛、脾胃气虚、肺失肃降、肝胆实火、膀胱湿热等；微观辨证则应注意尿常规中的管型、红球、白球、蛋白及非蛋白氮、二氧化碳结合力等，笔者在治疗此病时，先以宏观辨证确定一基础方，如真武汤、济生肾气汤、六君子汤、龙胆泻肝汤等，然后针对蛋白尿投以扶正固涩之品，针对血尿投以泻火止血之品，针对尿中之白细胞则投以清热解毒之品；如非蛋白氮上升，或兼二氧化碳结合力下降则宜用升清降浊法。胃脘疼痛的辨证论治，宏观有脾胃气虚、肝胃不和、胃火炽盛、脾胃湿热、肺胃阴虚诸端；微观则系纤维胃镜、病理活检改变，胃液分析等。笔者

医学研究 Task output rules: Translate this markdown block from Chinese to English. Preserve markdown markers, links, and formatting. Keep headings and list structure unchanged. Return only the translated block.

Input: Typically, a basic formula such as Liu Jun Zi Tang, Xiao Yao San, Qing Wei San, Xie Xin Tang, or Yi Guan Jian is used for macroscopic diagnosis; if microscopic findings indicate superficial gastritis, Huang Lian and Huang Qin are added; for atrophic gastritis, Danshen, Yuan Hu, Huang Lian, and Huang Qin are used; for gastric and duodenal ulcers, Bai Shao, Sheng Long Mu, and Wu Che Gu are added; for gastric prolapse, Huang Qi, Zhi Shi, and Bai Zhu are used; and for gastric mucosal prolapse, Mu Xiang, Tan Xiang, Sha Ren, and Cao Kou are employed.

Conclusion

The integration of macroscopic and microscopic diagnostic approaches represents a crucial trend in the development of traditional Chinese medicine today—not only concerning therapeutic efficacy but also as an urgent priority for TCM as it moves forward into the 1980s. Only by boldly extending TCM’s academic framework to the microscopic realm can TCM both preserve its unique characteristics and seamlessly integrate into the interconnected and mutually permeating network systems of modern science and technology. Only in this way can TCM keep pace with contemporary scientific advancements. The era when “the older the TCM, the better” was indeed over. The days when the “Shang Han Lun” was regarded as having “golden principles and jade statutes that cannot be altered by a single character” are also long gone—our hope is that, in the near future, TCM monographs surpassing those of the “Shang Han Lun” and the “Wen Bing Tiao Bian” will emerge in China’s medical community, bearing the distinctive feature of combining macroscopic and microscopic approaches.

---

The Necessity and Inevitability of Integrating Chinese and Western Medicine – Pei Zhengxue

“Integrating Chinese and Western Medicine”—a critical issue that has shaped the rise and fall of traditional Chinese medicine—has increasingly garnered attention from medical professionals both domestically and internationally, as well as from all sectors of society. As two distinct medical systems developed on entirely different social foundations, Chinese and Western medicine have evolved into completely different academic frameworks, both in form and content. Each system possesses clear complementary characteristics, and contemporary medical practitioners deeply recognize the necessity of their integration. This aspiration now transcends national borders, giving rise to…

Pei Zhengxue Blog Collection PEIZHENGXUE BOKE WENJI

This shared vision among medical professionals across East and West not only reflects their common aspirations but also marks an inevitable trend toward elevating global medical practice to new heights.

I. The Origins and Evolution of Chinese and Western Medicine

Chinese and Western medicine emerged and developed on vastly different social foundations. As Engels noted in his work “Dialectics of Nature,” “When the economic base changes, the entire superstructure undergoes transformation, either quickly or slowly.” The fundamental reason why Chinese and Western medicine differ lies in the profound shifts that occurred in their respective superstructures. Chinese medicine became a formal discipline around the 4th century BCE, during a period of transition from slave society to feudal society in China. In alignment with the transformation of production relations, Chinese medicine broke free from the constraints of divine authority and celestial mandates, eventually separating itself from shamanism. A prominent figure of this transformative era was the renowned Chinese physician Bian Que; his work, the Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon (hereafter referred to as “Inner Canon”), stands as a landmark in the history of world medicine. Over the following more than 2,000 years, China remained firmly rooted in a feudal society—though after the Opium War of 1840, China entered a semi-feudal, semi-colonial phase. Its economic foundation continued to be primarily based on individual agriculture and scattered handicrafts. Such an economic structure did not provide Chinese medicine with the sophisticated experimental tools and equipment necessary for modern science, nor did it offer the microscopic data essential for contemporary medicine. When practicing Chinese medicine clinically or engaging in theoretical research, medical professionals could rely solely on the external manifestations of disease; beyond that, their ability to draw upon other sources lay in their own thinking and analytical skills.

Before the 16th century, Western medicine, like Chinese medicine, did not possess the economic foundations necessary for modern industrialization. From the 4th to the 3rd century BCE, the works of Hippocrates, the great father of Greek medicine, were published—Hippocrates’ Works, comprising over 70 treatises that synthesized the pinnacle of ancient Greek medical knowledge. Like the Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon in China, these writings served as beacons illuminating the world of medicine. Both systems guided and influenced medical development within their respective regions, each in its own way. Around the 2nd century CE, the focus of Western medicine shifted from ancient Greece to the Mediterranean coast; the academic ideas of Hippocrates began to take root in ancient Rome, where a brilliant medical star rose—a figure known as the “King of Physicians,” Galen. Galen was born in 130 CE and died in 200 CE. Around the same time, another Chinese figure emerged who would later be called the “Sage of Medicine,” Zhang Zhongjing (150–219 CE). While Zhang Zhongjing inherited the ideas of Hippocrates and integrated them further with clinical practice, he established a lasting legacy in the evolution of Western medicine. In contrast, Zhang Zhongjing carried forward the academic traditions of the Yellow Emperor’s Inner Canon, weaving them into his clinical practices and thus creating a unique model for the development of Eastern medicine.

From Hippocrates’ Works to Galen, and from the Inner Canon to Zhang Zhongjing, the social foundations upon which Western and Chinese medicine relied for their emergence and development were clearly similar—neither possessed the economic bases characteristic of modern industrialization. However, because the Greeks and Romans lived for generations in the Aegean Sea and Mediterranean waters, their turbulent maritime lives fostered a spirit of innovation and progress. In contrast, the Chinese people had long resided in the inland Yellow River region, where their stable agricultural lifestyle instilled a sense of security, conservatism, and a lack of boldness. Moreover, after the Western Han Dynasty, the teachings of “abolishing all schools of thought except Confucianism” greatly constrained the Chinese people’s capacity for innovation. In the realm of medicine, while Hippocrates and Galen’s works contained extensive “logical reasoning”—as well as many passages inspired by the Inner Canon and the Treatise on Cold Damage and Miscellaneous Diseases—some of their experiments on anatomy, physiology, and pathology were quite innovative. These experiments laid the groundwork for Western medicine’s rapid emergence from the womb of ancient Roman medicine when modern industry took hold.

Although Western medicine, through the creations of Galen and others, initially bore the mark of “experimental research,” this was still largely a manual, hands-on activity. Without the economic foundations provided by modern industry, such activities ultimately remained confined to the realm of “logical reasoning,” as medicine at that time was, at best, merely a superstructure dependent on economic conditions. It became clear that, over the more than 1,500 years following Galen, Western medicine—without experiencing a major societal shift that would break down old production relations and create new productive forces—continued to develop and thrive on the foundations of a society lacking modern industrialization. The experimental research sections in Hippocrates’ and Galen’s works were not widely developed or elevated to become the dominant theme of Western medicine; instead, some of their sayings and teachings were revered as golden principles, becoming the very foundations of the “scholastic” school of ancient Roman medicine, which restricted innovative thinking.

Only after the 16th century was this situation able to change. During this time, capitalism began to take root in the West. With the development of mining and machine industries—and especially with the invention of the telescope and microscope—the human mind was opened to the mysteries of nature, providing unprecedented opportunities. Natural sciences began to break free from the shackles of “scholastic philosophy,” taking giant steps toward modern experimental research. In the field of medicine, the use of microscopes allowed scientists to venture into the microscopic world; the discovery of cells and a renewed understanding of blood circulation both emerged from this breakthrough. In the mid-16th century, modern industry powered by steam engines began to take shape, profoundly impacting the development of medicine. The precision machinery produced by industrialization accelerated basic medical research, leading to groundbreaking theoretical achievements that quickly propelled Western medicine to a new level. Modern Western medicine, with its disciplines closely tied to clinical practice—such as physiology, anatomy, pathology, and biochemistry—formed a scientific system grounded in experimental research. Every component of this system was closely linked to advances in modern natural sciences, making it naturally part of the broader framework of modern science. Modern natural science is a complex, interwoven network of disciplines, where each link promotes and restrains the others, and the advancement of one link often drives the advancement of related links. Consider how every invention in modern science inevitably leads to technological breakthroughs in the medical field. The development of the glass and metallurgy industries gave rise to the microscope; the invention of electricity and electric light enabled the use of various endoscopic devices; advances in atomic physics led to the clinical application of X-rays; radar technology provided ultrasound imaging for medicine; integrated circuits paved the way for CT scans; and isotope technology gave birth to gamma cameras and ECT. In short, most major inventions in contemporary science were directly adopted and utilized by modern medicine.

However, traditional Chinese medicine remained excluded from the ranks of modern science and technology. The achievements of modern science and technology could not be absorbed or applied by Chinese medicine. The primary reason for this was that, throughout its long history spanning more than 2,000 years—from Bian Que in the 4th century BCE to contemporary medical masters like Xiao Longyou and Pu Fuzhou—Chinese medicine consistently developed on the foundations of individual agriculture and scattered handicrafts. The entire theoretical system was built upon “logical reasoning,” rather than the conclusions drawn from experimental research. X-ray machines cannot detect “uncontrolled fire,” and CT scans and ultrasounds cannot reveal “Liver Wood’s control over Earth.” Since the founding of New China, and especially over the past decade, China has established a vast modern industrial system, fundamentally transforming its social and economic foundations. Traditional Chinese medicine must adapt to these changes; otherwise, it will forever remain disconnected from modern science and technology and unable to advance in step with it.

Pei Zhengxue Blog Collection PEIZHENGXUE BOKE WENJI

II. The Two Medical Systems Are Completely Different Academic Frameworks

Because Chinese and Western medicine employ fundamentally different research methods, Western medicine relies on experimental research, while Chinese medicine employs logical reasoning. These differing methodologies result in vastly different forms and contents for the two medical systems—but both systems study the human body and human diseases. By comparing the two systems, we can clearly see that they exhibit three distinct tendencies when it comes to the human body and disease:

1. Western medicine tends toward microscopic understanding, while Chinese medicine leans toward macroscopic understanding.

Since the advent of modern industry in the West in the 16th century, Western medicine, leveraging advanced tools provided by modern industry, quickly shifted its focus from macroscopic to microscopic studies. In 1665, the Britishman Robert Hooke was the first to observe cork slices using a self-made microscope, introducing the concept of plant cells. Later, the Dutchman Anton van Leeuwenhoek used a microscope with 270x magnification to observe human bone cells and skeletal muscle cells for the first time, drawing detailed diagrams. In the early 19th century, the German philosopher Auguste Comte pointed out that all organisms are composed of cells. By the late 1830s, the German biologists Matthias Schleiden and Theodor Schwann discovered the cell nucleus and described the basic structure of cells. They believed that although the external forms of organisms varied greatly, their internal structures were unified—comprising cells. In the mid-19th century, building on the research of these scholars, another renowned German pathologist Rudolf Virchow embarked on pioneering work in “cell pathology,” establishing a new milestone in medical research. He argued that living organisms are societies composed of cells, and that the body is a federation of cells: “Every animal is the sum of many life units, and each life unit exhibits all the characteristics of life.”② Disease, according to Virchow, is the result of changes occurring within a group of cells in the body—a synthesis of microscopic alterations. This perspective opened up new horizons for Western medicine’s focus on microscopic understanding. The German bacteriologist Paul Ehrlich once aptly remarked: “After Virchow’s brilliant research opened up new avenues, people’s thinking turned to the localization of disease and the causes of disease—and it became clear that this perspective played a decisive role in our treatment practices.”③ Virchow’s theories, from the 19th century through the 20th century, continued to guide the overall direction of Western medicine. Microscopic understanding of disease remained the mainstream of Western medical epistemology, permeating every branch of Western medical theory—such as anatomy, physiology, embryology, biochemistry, and pathology—and strongly influencing clinical practice across Western medicine’s various specialties.

Traditional Chinese medicine, however, had never benefited from the support of modern industry and thus could only move forward slowly along the path of logical reasoning. Looking back at ancient and modern Chinese medical texts, no single viewpoint was ever divorced from logical reasoning. The “Six External Pathogens” and “Seven Emotional Disturbances” theories proposed in the Inner Canon, as well as Chen Wuzhe’s “Three Causes Theory,” were not the products of experimental research, so they could only address disease causation from a macroscopic perspective. The “Nineteen Principles of Disease Mechanism” in the Su Wen Tai Zhen Ya Da Lun are widely recognized as guiding principles for Chinese medicine, yet because they were based on macroscopic understanding, they lacked precise localization, characterization, and quantification. While these principles could guide Chinese medical practice, as conditions changed and cases grew more complex, physicians often drew upon their own experience to arrive at diverse interpretations. Liu Hejian’s “Nineteen Principles of Disease Mechanism” focused exclusively on “Fire,” from which he developed numerous new perspectives on “Fire” syndromes; Zhang Zihua, meanwhile, sought new ways to attack pathogenic factors. Some even said that these theories could only offer vague directions for diagnosis. In recent years, researchers have reorganized the “Nineteen Principles of Disease Mechanism” in the Inner Canon, proposing more systematic classifications—but even after revisiting these principles, they still spoke only in macroscopic terms, leaving the microscopic changes in disease onset and progression largely unknown. The etiology, pathogenesis, principles, formulas, and therapies of traditional Chinese medicine all remained macroscopic in scope, with conclusions often derived from logical reasoning.

2. Western medicine emphasizes local understanding, while Chinese medicine focuses on holistic understanding.

As early as the 4th century BCE, the great Greek anatomist Aristotle (384–322 BCE) began to pay attention to the local structures of the human body and the localized morphological changes in disease. In the 2nd century CE, Galen established a series of experimental methods for physiology and anatomy, shifting Western medicine’s focus from the whole to the parts. Yet over the long decades that followed, Western medicine—lacking the support of modern industry—remained bound by religious beliefs, just like all other superstructures. Understanding localized lesions remained stagnant, while extensive speculative teachings gradually dominated Western medical thinking. Starting in the 16th century, as Western society underwent economic transformations driven by modern industry, advanced production tools significantly enhanced Western medicine’s ability to gain insights into the microscopic realm, while local understanding also grew. After more than a decade of experimentation, Western medicine rapidly made unprecedented strides on both paths toward the microscopic and the local. Today, local understanding in Western medicine has almost become the core of Western medical diagnosis and treatment.

Chinese medicine, beginning with the Inner Canon, established a relatively complete holistic view, emphasizing the unity, interconnectedness, and wholeness of the human body through the theory of yin and yang and the Five Elements’ principles of mutual generation and restraint. It held that the various tissues and organs that make up the human body are structurally inseparable, functionally coordinated, mutually supportive, and influence each other pathologically. It also emphasized the idea that “humans are in harmony with heaven and earth,” stating in the Ling Shu “People and heaven and earth are in harmony, and they correspond with the sun and moon,” and in the Su Wen “The Five Constants,” “First understand the seasonal energy, do not disrupt the harmony of heaven.” These statements underscored that when understanding disease and treating illness, medical professionals should not only focus on the unity between all parts of the body but also on the unity between humans and their surrounding environment. Of course, while the Inner Canon emphasized holistic views and the concept of harmony between man and nature, it also included some discussions on local anatomy—for example, in the Ling Shu “The Water Channels,” it stated: “For those who are eight feet tall, skin and flesh are here; their external dimensions can be measured and traced, and their bodies can be dissected to examine them. The firmness or softness of their organs, the size of their viscera, the amount of food consumed, the length of their pulses, the clarity or turbidity of their blood, the quantity of qi… all have precise measurements.” However, after the Han Dynasty, China experienced a long feudal society. Confucian teachings held that “one’s body and hair belong to one’s parents, and should not be damaged,” and that “baring one’s chest and bare abdomen is considered impolite.” This mindset severely limited medical professionals’ exploration of localized disease. Although there were medical pioneers like Wang Qingren who dared to innovate and seek to explore localized lesions, due to the fact that Chinese medicine had never been equipped with the conditions for modern industry, this spirit of local exploration ultimately failed to develop further. Only the holistic view and the theory of harmony between man and nature—where logical reasoning was the primary research tool—were able to flourish. Indeed, the “holistic view” advocated in the Inner Canon was continuously enriched and developed over the centuries by medical professionals, becoming not only more thorough in its reasoning but also more complete in its system. Some of the local concepts that once existed in Chinese medical history were eventually lost beneath the vast ocean of holistic teachings.

3. Western medicine emphasizes pathogenic mechanisms, while Chinese medicine focuses on the body’s responses.

Before the 18th century, there was little qualitative difference in the understanding of disease causation between Chinese and Western medicine; both relied on speculative reasoning to explain disease origins. Ancient Greek medicine posited four elements—air, fire, water, and earth—as the causes of disease, which roughly aligned with the Five Elements theory of Chinese medicine. Western medicine attributed the cause of puerperal fever to “changes in the universe—earth—atmosphere,” a view broadly consistent with the Chinese concept of “harmony between heaven and earth.” But after Western medicine was blessed with the benefits of modern industry, this situation began to change. In 1847, Austrian doctor Semmelweis first noticed that fever in the postpartum period was caused by infection with putrid substances. Though his ideas were suppressed by religious authority at the time and Semmelweis himself was even expelled from the hospital, he soon died of mental illness. Around the same time, the famous French scientist Louis Pasteur discovered that souring of milk and wine was caused by microorganisms. Soon after, British surgeon Joseph Lister suggested that inflammation in wounds was caused by bacterial infections. He was the first to spray surgical rooms with carbolic acid and sterilize surgical instruments by boiling, laying the groundwork for disinfection, sterilization, and preservation. Among the pioneers in the field of pathogen recognition, German physician Robert Koch (1843–1910) deserves special mention—he made groundbreaking contributions to the development of pathogenology. He created solid culture media, developed bacterial staining techniques, and established infection models using laboratory animals, thereby laying the groundwork for the development of modern pathogen microbiology. Thanks to Koch’s creative work, Western medicine in the latter half of the 19th century established a strong understanding of pathogenic microorganisms. With the support of industrial technologies, this understanding deepened over nearly a century, and with the rise of immunology, Western medicine’s understanding of pathogenic mechanisms became increasingly comprehensive, forming a complete academic system that moved from practice to theory—and became the foundational standard for understanding disease causes and pathologies. Task output rules: Translate this markdown block from Chinese to English. Preserve markdown markers, links, and formatting. Keep headings and list structure unchanged. Return only the translated block.

Input: Traditional Chinese Medicine’s understanding of disease causes has always been based on the principles in the "Nei Jing," namely “When a person’s righteous qi remains within, external evils cannot invade,” and “When evil qi gathers, its qi must be deficient.” It believes that the causes of disease lie primarily in two extremes: “deficiency of righteous qi” and “excess of evil qi,” with the former being of paramount importance, while the latter merely serves as a condition for disease onset. Therefore, TCM has consistently advocated the theory of “deficiency of righteous qi leading to disease,” and in terms of treatment, it has adopted “strengthening righteous qi and consolidating the root” as the overarching principle for treating many diseases. The "Su Wen · Yin Yang Ying Xiang Da Lun" states: “Yin and yang are the way of heaven and earth; they are the framework of all things, the parents of change, the origins of life and death, and the realm of divine wisdom—when treating illness, one must seek the root cause.” Here, “root cause” refers to regulating yin and yang; in other words, regulating yin and yang means adjusting the body’s responsiveness. After the "Nei Jing," numerous scholars such as Zhang Zhongjing, Chao Yuanfang, and Chen Wuzhe offered extensive discussions on disease causes. Although they proposed theories like “external invasion by the Six Evils,” “internal injury caused by the Seven Emotions,” “damage from diet and food,” and “excessive labor or rest,” especially Chen Wuzhe’s theory of “three causes” as the basis for disease, none of these ideas ventured beyond the framework of reasoning established in the "Nei Jing." TCM’s understanding of disease causes remained largely unchanged, focusing solely on the body’s responsiveness while neglecting further exploration of the true pathogens. Although there were instances in the history of TCM development—such as the first application of the cowpox vaccine and Wu Youke’s theory of “lì qi” causing disease—these innovative endeavors and perspectives, though possessing immense potential, were unable to be promptly integrated into experimental research due to the lack of a strong industrial foundation. Consequently, they faded away into the vast ocean of logical speculation. Records regarding brewing and drinking date back to ancient texts like the "Zhou Li" and the "Nei Jing," spanning nearly 2,000 years ago; yet no one had ever considered using these substances for surgical disinfection. Instead, people simply used the flammable and fluid properties of alcohol to draw conclusions through logical reasoning: “Since wine can ignite, its nature resembles fire; since wine flows, its form resembles water.” This clearly reveals the one-sidedness of reasoning lacking experimental research. During the Ming and Qing dynasties, the Warm Disease School made significant corrections and additions to the concept of disease causes in the "Shang Han Lun," but because it continued to rely on traditional logical reasoning and lacked the conditions for experimental research, its findings were limited to distinguishing “wind-cold” from “wind-heat,” and “mao-gui” from “sang-yin.” In modern times, physicians Wang Qingren, Tang Zonghai, and Zhang Xichun sought to revolutionize traditional TCM theory—but due to the lack of sufficient experimental research conditions, their efforts ultimately resulted in only differing between “wind-cold” and “wind-heat,” and between “mao-gui” and “sang-yin.” Modern medical pioneers Wang Qingren, Tang Zonghai, and Zhang Xichun strove to innovate within the framework of traditional TCM theory, but because they still lacked adequate experimental research conditions, when it came to pathogenic mechanisms…

Pei Zhengxue Blog Collection PEIZHENGXUE BOKE WENJI

Their contributions were minimal.

III. The complementary nature of Chinese and Western medicine is both a necessity for each field’s development and an inevitable outcome of historical progress

Chinese and Western medicine each followed their own paths to modern times. Although Western medicine’s experimental research was remarkably advanced, just as Weiliao’s cytology swept away the remnants of medieval Western medicine with new methods, ushering in a new era in history, amidst the joy of uncovering the microscopic mysteries of disease, another side of the story—the evolution of things—also harbored a seed of impending trouble. People’s thinking shifted from the micro to the ultra-micro, from cells to cell nuclei, mitochondria, ribonucleic acid… Yet to some extent, they overlooked the fact that all of these developments could not escape the objective reality of overall regulatory functions. This tendency persisted until the 1930s, when Western medicine inevitably began to suffer from the fatal consequence of treating only the symptoms of a disease—“treating the head when the headache occurs, treating the feet when the footache arises.” As a result, within the ranks of Western medicine, Pavlov’s theory of neural reflexes and Selye’s theory of stress response emerged one after another. In 1937, Harris discovered the systemic regulatory role of the thalamus and hypothalamus. Their research and theories aimed to shift Western medicine from localized treatments to holistic approaches, from the micro to the macro. This perspective was further strengthened over the past three decades through remarkable advances in immunology. Looking at the modern history of TCM, although it did not shine as brightly as Western medicine, we can still discern subtle attempts by enlightened scholars to move their understanding from the macro to the micro. Wu Youke’s “lì qi” theory, Wang Qingren’s “anatomy,” and Tang Zonghai and Zhang Xichun’s “integration of Chinese and Western medicine” were all concrete manifestations of this endeavor. Looking back at the dynamic history of Chinese and Western medicine over the past century, both sides have begun to address their own shortcomings. All things, in their development, proceed on the premise of gradual correction and continuous improvement—this is an inevitable law of evolution. As part of modern science and technology, Western medicine, in its rapid advancement, has sought to obtain nourishment from every possible source in order to strengthen itself. In recent years, a wave of interest in TCM has swept across the West. While clinical treatment needs also play a role, the deeper significance lies in the fact that Western medicine has begun to draw from TCM, seeking to adopt its essence and apply it to its own practices. It is safe to say that the holistic perspectives and the concept of harmony between heaven and man found in the treasure trove of TCM were the first concepts Western medicine explored, then subjected to experimental research, aiming to make them useful for us in the short term, striving for a new leap forward in Western medical scholarship. Descendants of Yan and Huang—the inheritors of contemporary TCM—have clearly recognized that, today, advancing TCM’s academic system from the macro to the micro is an urgent task, the only path forward for developing TCM. There is no other way. Modern science and technology have formed interconnected and interdependent networks; yet TCM remains excluded from these networks, continuing to follow ancient traditions and slowly progressing through the old ways of logical reasoning. The reasons for this situation were already mentioned earlier: the long-standing feudal society, where individual agriculture and scattered handicrafts failed to provide TCM with opportunities to advance toward the micro. We cannot place too much expectation on our ancestors. However, as we enter the 1990s, China’s modern industry has entered the global arena, and the conditions for TCM to move toward the micro have been fully met. Contemporary TCM practitioners must align with the laws of evolution, boldly pushing their thinking toward the micro, adopting Western medical experimental techniques for our own use, developing ourselves, and achieving the goal of “using the past for the present, adapting the foreign for the Chinese,” in order to preserve TCM’s unique characteristics while opening up new prospects for modern TCM. TCM should combine its focus on the whole with Western medicine’s emphasis on the local; it should combine its macroscopic perspective with Western medicine’s microscopic approach; and it should integrate TCM’s view of bodily responses with Western medicine’s perspective on pathogenic mechanisms—this is precisely the need for both fields to learn from each other and complement one another. Whoever takes the initiative first, learning from the strengths of the other and applying them to their own work, will achieve substantial progress in the short term. Contemporary TCM practitioners should clearly recognize this reality: under current conditions, the most effective way to develop TCM is to first draw from Western medicine, for it is precisely in Western medicine’s strengths that TCM’s weaknesses lie. The integration of Chinese and Western medicine is the primary model for drawing from Western medicine (though it also involves mutual exchange between the two), but within this model, TCM practitioners must always uphold the principle of “using the past for the present, adapting the foreign for the Chinese.” Only in this way can we achieve the goal of developing TCM. With the development of China’s large-scale industry, unprecedented opportunities have arrived, and the glorious yet arduous task of developing modern TCM falls squarely upon our shoulders as TCM practitioners.

Note: ① Engels: “Dialectics of Nature,” People’s Edition, p. 30, 1971 ② Weiliao: “Cytology,” Renwei Edition, p. 11, 1963 ③ Lin Dehong: “History of Scientific Thought,” Social Sciences Edition, p. 298, 1961

---

Discussing the Modernization of TCM

Pei Zhengxue

TCM is a cultural treasure of our country; for thousands of years, the Chinese nation has thrived thanks to it. TCM was founded in the pre-Qin period, and through the clinical enhancements of Zhang Zhongjing, the ongoing additions of Huangfu Mi, Sun Simiao, and Wang Tao, the ongoing debates among the Four Great Masters of the Jin and Yuan Dynasties, and the revolutionary innovations of the Warm Disease School, it evolved into a complete medical system—from theory to practice. However, this medical system has always developed and been perfected on the foundations of agriculture and handicrafts; it never had the conditions—or the opportunity—to embark on the path of experimental research. Its achievements were all born from logical reasoning, which, put plainly, were summaries of clinical experience. Today, with the unprecedented development of modern science and technology, Western medicine, as an important component of modern science and technology, has always moved in step with it. Whenever a new breakthrough emerges in modern science and technology, it is promptly reflected in the field of Western medicine. The explosion of the atomic bomb brought X-rays to Western medicine, the application of radar technology gave Western medicine B-ultrasound, the development of integrated circuits provided Western medicine with CT scans, and advances in modern atomic physics led to gamma imaging, nuclear magnetic resonance imaging, ECT, and PET. Each of these advanced tools brought new opportunities for modern Western medicine, enabling it to keep pace with the times and evolve rapidly. Yet these new tools did not bring opportunities to TCM: X-rays cannot reveal the liver’s wood overcoming Earth’s soil, CT scans cannot detect the excessive movement of Fire energy—and TCM still relies on the same three fingers and a pillow. How can this be? When the locomotive of modern science and technology drives society forward at breakneck speed, with all industries—including Western medicine—moving in sync with it, TCM has yet to board that train. The situation is truly grave. In this context, fifty years ago, Comrade Mao Zedong proposed the great decision to “integrate Chinese and Western medicine to create a new pharmaceutical system for national reunification,” sparking waves of Western medicine learning from TCM across our land. This brought hope and light to the development of TCM in our country. If we continue to move forward according to this directive, TCM will soon board the train of modern science and technology, keeping pace with the times and constantly evolving. However, within TCM itself, a few people still argue that “we only need to emphasize TCM’s unique characteristics—we don’t need to integrate Chinese and Western medicine,” or “too much integration of Chinese and Western medicine has led to the destruction of TCM.” Others even suggest that “TCM should integrate with modern science and technology, but not with Western medicine.” But modern Western medicine is the concentrated expression of modern science and technology in the medical field; like TCM, it studies and serves humans and disease. TCM does not integrate with Western medicine—it should integrate with modern science and technology. Are you saying that modern science and technology includes technologies unrelated to the human body, technologies that Western medicine doesn’t even connect with? How can TCM possibly connect with them? Isn’t this just a dream? I believe that if some comrades refuse to hear the five words “integrate Chinese and Western medicine,” let’s not talk about integration—let’s instead discuss the issues facing TCM’s development under the banner of TCM modernization.