The main differences between Classical Chinese Medicine (CCM) and Traditional Chinese Medicine (TCM) are found in their underlying philosophies. While CCM is rooted in naturalism and Daoism, TCM is strongly influenced by scientific materialism and colored by the politics of its inception. In a way, CCM is a response to the restricted model of TCM in an attempt to return to its source.

The best window into the development of Chinese Medical thought is thorough the pages of ancient texts. These select “classics” demonstrate not only the tried and true of early medicine, but also the importance of self-cultivation and observance of nature. Developing a relationship with these texts and their practices can impart a highly adaptive way of thinking. This flexible thought process, or the ability to explore through multiple perspectives, is the essence of CCM and its unique ability to approach complex situations with relative ease.

The practice of CCM is not about strict adherence to remnants of the past, but rather a reverence for them and their holistic understanding of the process of life and its patterns that endure. Personally, I relate the experience of wholeness to feeling connected. Such instances occur when I feel I’m tuned into the natural flow of life, when it seems like I’m vibrating at a frequency that resonates with my surroundings, or when I perceive the potential that gives me a purpose and place within the universe. Overtime we have limited our ability as humans to observe interconnectedness, as we have focused instead on identifying and analyzing fragments while neglecting the whole. This has become especially true along the path of becoming a physician.

In TCM and biomedical training there is greater focus on training as a diagnostician rather than someone capable of perceiving what is manifesting on different levels of existence. Standardization is often valued over individualization, which makes it that much more difficult to understand the influences that affect health of body, mind and spirit. TCM is a highly edited version of CM made to fit within the views of science and politics with the goal of progress alone. It is prone to over simplification of protocols and challenged to prove itself through research. At its best, TCM provides concise references and has allowed the medicine to survive and spread far beyond its place of origin.

In contrast, CCM is an experienced-based medicine that relies heavily upon subjective sensory perception rather than objective measurement alone. While TCM is more concerned with the ‘what’ of health CCM is more concerned with the ‘why’ and ‘when.’ The essential message of the Daodejing that is translated as “the movements of human beings are determined by the movements of the earth, the movements of the earth are determined by the movements of the celestial forces, the movements of the celestial forces are determined by the universal principle of movement, and the universal principle of movement just is.” CCM focuses more on dynamic relationships compared to the materiality concerns of TCM.

The CCM approach calls for a return to the philosophical teachings that explain how the universe itself works. It emphasizes cultivating knowledge and skills through experience and scholarship rather than instruction alone. This educational style supports not only learning the theory and practice of CCM, but also striving to become more self-actualized in the process.

In Analects line 2:12, “The gentleman is not a vessel,” Confucius implies that unlike a ritual vessel, a gentleman should serve more than a single specific purpose. In terms of CCM practice, this can be viewed as the idea that a practitioner is not just a technician to be sought for his or her specialized skills. While mastery of these skills is essential, great value lies in the practitioner’s ability to think broadly and not be limited by a single view or task. This also relates to the Confucian idea of maintaining a balance between learning and thinking.

TCM excels in providing specialized training but often falls short of teaching practitioners how to think more broadly from the CM perspective instead of just utilizing the tools. The profundity of CM is dependent more on the approach and intention than the tools themselves. When it comes down to medical practice, however, efficacy is what matters and both TCM and CCM have their strengths. Ultimately, it is up to the individual practitioner to cultivate the space to allow healing and this is what CCM reminds us.

Language barriers and application to the present may challenge the CCM approach, yet its purity and historical context make it incredibly valuable. Its stark contrast to TCM and other modes of education can actually strengthen the ability to learn and especially to think critically. It allows for the development of a different way of thinking and allows decision-making to be based on what is presented in any given moment. It is difficult to outright applaud or criticize an approach to learning that is still somewhat new to me, and only time and my experiences will prove if it is possible to adequately embody CCM scholarship and practice.