Why discuss Spirit in Medicine?

April 22, 2004

Hi Attilio, Doug, Emmanuel, Pete, Z'ev, & All,

Attilio wrote:

> The idea of spirit in medicine (and everything else) is something

> that can only be sought and not given.

Agreed.

Belief in, and training in the use of, " Spirit " rest with eash person.

However, study, discussion and experience can influence (build or

alter) belief and practice.

> I don't understand why you bother to convince others of spirit in

> medicine.

For me, Spirit is as real as the keyboard that accepts symbols of

these thoughts.

IMO, society (including acupuncture / medical society) has

become far too materialistic. It has forgotten or discarded as

irrelevant concepts of spirituality that add great meaning in an

apparently meaningless world.

That is why I and many others raise these questions with any

students and practitioners who may be interested. Those not

interested can delete the mails.

I do not convince (or try to convince) anybody! I only question and

comment on by own beliefs and experiences, and those of others.

We all take what we need from these discussions, and ignore that

which does not find resonance within us.

Each of us must find our own way, but it can be useful to discuss

the ways of others also.

See mails from Emmanuel, Ze'v, and Doug, below. [Thanks All!]

Peace to all,

Phil

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Z'ev wrote:

Phil, As far as intention goes, I didn't talk about it here because a

few months ago, I wrote a long post on yi/intention in Chinese

medicine as one of its most important components. I didn't want to

repeat myself, but sometimes forget that e-mails quickly get lost in

the digital shuffle. Volker Scheid wrote an excellent article on

yi/intention available at the Seattle Institute of Oriental Medicine

website.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Doug wrote:

" MEDICINE IS SIGNIFICATION " - MOVING TOWARDS HEALING

POWER IN THE CHINESE MEDICAL TRADITION,

by Volker Scheid Ph.D. and Dan Bensky D.O.

http://www.siom.com/resources/texts/articles.html

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Emmanuel wrote:

Hi Phil, Perhaps it's age, experience, many losses, many gains

and survival in to better times ... but I agree with your perspective

whole heatedly. I'm a Sufi priest ... and my initial training in my

twenties so thoroughly healed me that I went on to medical and

graduate school with enormous strength, patience and humility ... I

wanted only to serve, and still do. In my spiritual training as well it

is said that the message which you have just delivered can only be

a clarion to a few and but a lullaby to the many. So most will reject

what you've said. Such is life. Most people " recognize " and, thus,

can not " see " .

To me it's hard to imagine that CM can arise from anywhere but

mysticism ... an empirical or phenomenological mysticism at

times. To me CM is a wealth of mythos and mysticism ... a living

thing. Science is merely fact ... a dead thing ... merely snapshots

of life. CM, and healing in general, is " Life finding a way ... "

Mysticism is not mere fact ... it's the truth ... most often hidden

from sight by a veil of tears. The one place that science is not

likely to ever look for " facts " . All the Best, Emmanuel

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Pete wrote:

Hi Dr. (Fr.) Phil! <g>, I kind of do the " God as you understand God "

in my own practice. I tell the patients that their physical experience

will be better as their relation with God (as they understand God)

improves. Usually, the religion they grew up with is closest to their

roots. If the religion of youth was an avenue for people to abuse

them, though, it is problematic.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

Best regards,

Email: <

WORK : Teagasc Research Management, Sandymount Ave., Dublin 4, Ireland

Mobile: 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

HOME : 1 Esker Lawns, Lucan, Dublin, Ireland

Tel : 353-; [in the Republic: 0]

WWW : http://homepage.eircom.net/~progers/searchap.htm

April 22, 2004

Phil,

CHA has requested no cross-posting , which we should respect, and because

I don't know the policy of the other lists to which your post was addressed, I

am replying only to Attilio's list and to you.

> Attilio wrote:

> > The idea of spirit in medicine (and everything else) is something

> > that can only be sought and not given.

My problem with these discussions is my problem with the intentioning

article often mentioned; that is, unless you wish to argue that intentioning

or any other psycho-spiritual quality is unique to , or that

Chinese medicine has a unique ability to exercise that quality, their

discussion is simply a diversion or -- often enough -- a invitation to

demagogery. It is somewhat ironic that lists in which discussion of whether

ideas about Chinese medicine withstand academic scrutiny is dismissed as

" non-clinical, " leap upon these " spiritual " discussions with such vigor.

While it is my opinion that Chinese medicine contains qualities of thought

and notions of order that are conducive to the application of human will or

intention, it is also my opinion that many other human skills and arts have

the same quality.

Of course, some (not all) people like to talk about their particular feelings

and experiences in these matters, and I think that is fine, but I do object to

the tone of superiority that attaches to ideas when they get labelled as

" spiritual. " There is nothing un-spiritual about getting up every day and

doing your best to help those who walk through your door using your

knowledge and technical skills. None of these qualities are superior to

material knowledge or simple humanity.

Bob

Robert L. Felt bob

Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com

202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758

Taos, New Mexico 87571

April 23, 2004

Bob,

The interesting aspect about these discussions for me was the ongoing

controversy whether Chinese medicine is or should be 'spiritual' or

'secular' in nature. I think when we try to 'pin it down', we miss the

boat so to speak, because Chinese medicine truly is what it is, the

collected development of medical wisdom of 2000 years of China. It is

complex, sometimes contradictory, and eludes simplified description.

However, people being what we are, we tend to impose our world view

on whatever is in our sights. Some of us are more scientific-oriented,

some more spiritually oriented, some both, some neither. This is what

was fascinating in Volker's original article, the role of intention and

world view in the practice of medicine; or, as you point out, in any

human undertaking.

I think medicine is unique, however, because it is directly involved

in the care of human life. Therefore, issues of life, death and spirit

do come into play in any form of medicine or healing, because of its

intimate relationship with these subjects. What I reject is anyone

projecting an agenda onto Chinese medicine and then defining it in that

way, marketing it as a more limited subject that what it truly

represents. This can happen from a more 'spiritualist' agenda, as in

the various esoteric acupuncture approaches, or from a more

'materialist' and even secular humanist agenda, when advocates say

there is 'no room for spirit in Chinese medicine'. Are we even sure

what 'spirit' we are talking about? These words have emotional power,

and everyone seems to react to the terms 'spirit' or 'spiritual' in

different ways.

I think it doesn't matter whether practitioners are religious or

atheist, science-oriented or artistically inclined. I think everyone

brings their intention to the medicine, and as long as we are open to

grow and learn from this great tradition, it will be fine. As Judith

Farquhar discusses in her excellent text, " Knowing Practice " , the magic

happens in the interplay of physician and patient, and each clinical

encounter is unique. The growth, spiritual or otherwise, happens in

the interplay and communication of human beings.

On Apr 22, 2004, at 10:06 AM, Robert L. Felt wrote:

> Phil,

>

> > Attilio wrote:

> > > The idea of spirit in medicine (and everything else) is something

> > > that can only be sought and not given.

>

> My problem with these discussions is my problem with the intentioning

> article often mentioned; that is, unless you wish to argue that

> intentioning

> or any other psycho-spiritual quality is unique to ,

> or that

> Chinese medicine has a unique ability to exercise that quality, their

> discussion is simply a diversion or -- often enough -- a invitation

> to

> demagogery. It is somewhat ironic that lists in which discussion of

> whether

> ideas about Chinese medicine withstand academic scrutiny is dismissed

> as

> " non-clinical, " leap upon these " spiritual " discussions with such

> vigor.

>

> While it is my opinion that Chinese medicine contains qualities of

> thought

> and notions of order that are conducive to the application of human

> will or

> intention, it is also my opinion that many other human skills and

> arts have

> the same quality.

>

> Of course, some (not all) people like to talk about their particular

> feelings

> and experiences in these matters, and I think that is fine, but I do

> object to

> the tone of superiority that attaches to ideas when they get labelled

> as

> " spiritual. " There is nothing un-spiritual about getting up every

> day and

> doing your best to help those who walk through your door using your

> knowledge and technical skills. None of these qualities are superior

> to

> material knowledge or simple humanity.

>

> Bob

>

> Robert L. Felt

> bob

> Paradigm Publications www.paradigm-pubs.com

> 202 Bendix Drive 505 758 7758

> Taos, New Mexico 87571

>

Membership requires that you do not post any commerical, swear,

> religious, spam messages,flame another member or swear.

>

> To change your email delivery settings,

> Chinese Medicine/ click

> ‘edit my membership' on the right hand side and adjust accordingly.

>

> If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop

> being delivered.

>

April 23, 2004

Bob,

This is an earlier essay I wrote which I think also applies to your

last posting here.

I am not going to condemn the sentiment outright of

spirituality in medicine. While I certainly respect what some

call a 'secular humanist' perspective in medicine, and certainly

support a grounded approach to Chinese medicine, I will humbly

offer that the terms 'spirit' and 'spiritual' have been misunderstood

and misused in relationship to medicine in general.

In all medical traditions, these medical figures, sometimes

mythologized, sometimes more accurately portrayed, show us that

people view medicine in a more spiritual light than other

professions. In Judaism, medicine is considered to be 'the most

noble profession.' It requires a dedication to personal development

and devotion to craft, to compassion and helping others, to

constant study and reflection. It is said of Hippocrates that 'he

would go without sleep for three nights before administering a

purgative'. It reminds me of the Chinese physician who wouldn't

give his mother bai hu tang for fear of damaging her spleen qi, so

he asked another physician to take his mother's case.

I think of Qian Yi, the great 12th century Chinese pediatrician, who

devoted himself to treating children after his mother died and father

moved far away to raise money for his family. On his journey to

visit his father when he grew up, he was filled with compassion for

the sick children he saw along the way and decided to practice

medicine. We can thank him for such prescriptions as Dao chi

san, Xie bai san, and Ren shen bai du san.

What is truly 'spiritual', as I see it, is not mystical, unclear, feel-

good or withdrawal from the world. It is not the poetic names of

acupuncture points. It is the refinement of human nature by

service, study, self-reflection and devotion to craft.

On Apr 22, 2004, at 10:06 AM, Robert L. Felt wrote:

>

> My problem with these discussions is my problem with the intentioning

> article often mentioned; that is, unless you wish to argue that

> intentioning

> or any other psycho-spiritual quality is unique to ,

> or that

> Chinese medicine has a unique ability to exercise that quality, their

> discussion is simply a diversion or -- often enough -- a invitation

> to

> demagogery. It is somewhat ironic that lists in which discussion of

> whether

> ideas about Chinese medicine withstand academic scrutiny is dismissed

> as

> " non-clinical, " leap upon these " spiritual " discussions with such

> vigor.

April 23, 2004

Hi Bob,

I have no problem with cross-posting. Actually, I wholly support it.

Kind regards

Attilio