Guest guest Posted July 12, 2004 Report Share Posted July 12, 2004 To TCM Group: Following is a part of the ACMA Unified Medicine project. Since it touches many sensitive issues relating to medicines, for accuracy and being prudent, we would like to get as wide comments and feedbacks as possible. Especially, we would like to hear practitioners who are familiar with chiropractic, naturopathy, homeopathy, Tibetan medicine, Ayurveda, etc. on the sections relating to corresponding medicines. You may send comments and feedbacks to (1) TCM Group directly or (2) info It would help if references could be provided in support of your comments and feedbacks. Thanks! Bob Xu http://www.americanchinesemedicineassociation.org ================================================== 3 Medicine Evaluation Due to historic reasons, the term ¡°medicine¡± probably has been widely used inappropriately. Many of those medicines are probably simply branches or derivatives of after was introduced to and practiced in those countries for hundreds and thousands years. However, they have been given a new name under the term of ¡°medicine¡±, and therefore, have probably infringed the intellectual property rights of . In order to make clear whether those ¡°medicines¡± are independent professional medicine, more studies and researches are needed. If one qualifies to be an independent professional medicine, it will be included into the Unified Medicine system. If it does not qualify to be an independent professional medicine, it will not be included in the Unified Medicine system, and should be re-classified under other appropriate categories. 3.1 Chiropractic Chiropractic is regarded as an alternative medicine by many sources. However, many questions exist surrounding the origin and independency of Chiropractic. These questions have to be answered before concluding whether Chiropractic is an independent professional medicine or not. (1) The contents of chiropractic are very similar to several branches of such as tui na, an mo, CM massage, and CM zheng gu therapy, etc. The question is: What is the relationship between chiropractic and those branches of ? (2) Chiropractic was founded around 1890s to 1900s [4,5]. However, Chinese Medicine was introduced to and practiced in Europe and many other countries more than 2000 years ago. Therefore, the Chiropractic was born in an environment where had been practiced for more than 2000 years. The questions are: What was the influence of on the formation of Chiropractic? What is the historical relationship between Chiropractic and ? (3) Does Chiropractic has its own established, comprehensive, independent, distinguished, consistent, complete, and systematic principles, theories, diagnostic techniques, and treatment methods, etc. that are of significant differences from ? Further studies and researches are needed to clarify whether Chiropractic is originated, derived, branched, developed from, and/or influenced by Chinese Medicine. These are very important questions to be answered before deciding whether Chiropractic can be incorporated into the Unified Medicine system. 3.2 Naturopathy ¡¡ Naturopathy is regarded as an alternative medicine by many sources. However, many questions need to be answered before concluding that Naturopathic is an independent professional medicine or not. (1) The contents of Naturopathy are similar to several branches of Chinese Medicine such as CM dietary therapy, CM medicated food therapy, CM exercise medicine, CM psychotherapy, CM preventive medicine, CM rehabilitation therapy, and Chinese Herbal Medicine (CHM), etc. The question is: What is the relationship between Naturopathy and ? (2) Naturopathy was founded around 1800s to 1900s [5,6]. However, Chinese Medicine was introduced to and practiced in Europe and many other countries more than 2000 years ago. Therefore, the Naturopathy was born in an environment where had been practiced for more than 2000 years. The questions are: What was the influence of on the formation of Naturopathy? What is the historical relationship between Naturopathy and ? (3) Naturopathy uses Chinese herbs directly (some of the herbs are used in English names rather than in Chinese pin yin names). Naturopathy also uses local herbs. As mentioned above, using local herbs does not justify being an independent professional medicine. The question is: What is the medicinal relationship between Naturopathy and ? (4) Does Naturopathy has its own established, comprehensive, independent, distinguished, consistent, complete, and systematic principles, theories, diagnostic techniques, and treatment methods, etc. that are of significant differences from ? Further studies and researches are needed to clarify whether Naturopathy is originated, derived, branched, developed from, and/or influenced by Chinese Medicine. These are very important questions to be answered before concluding whether Naturopathy can be incorporated into the Unified Medicine system. ¡¡ 3.3 Homeopathy ¡¡ Homeopathy is regarded as an alternative medicine by many sources. However, many questions exist surrounding the origin and independency of Homeopathy. These questions have to be answered before concluding whether Homeopathy is an independent professional medicine or not. (1) The basic concept of Homeopathy ¡°vital force¡± is similar to the concept of qi in . The basic principle of Homeopathy ¡°like cures like¡± is similar to several treatment principles of such as cong zhi, fan zhi, re yin re yong, han yin han yong, sai yin sai yong, tong yin tong yong, etc. Therefore, there are similarities between Homeopathy and . The question is: What is the relationship between Homeopathy and ? (2) Homeopathy was founded around 1700s to 1800s [5,7]. However, Chinese Medicine was introduced to and practiced in Europe and many other countries more than 2000 years ago. Therefore, the Homeopathy was born in an environment where had been practiced for more than 2000 years. The questions are: What was the influence of on the formation of Homeopathy? What is the historical relationship between Homeopathy and ? (3) Homeopathy also uses local herbs. As mentioned above, using local herbs does not justify being an independent professional medicine. The question is: What is the medicinal relationship between Homeopathy and ? (4) Does Homeopathy has its own established, comprehensive, independent, distinguished, consistent, complete, and systematic principles, theories, diagnostic techniques, and treatment methods, etc. that are of significant differences from ? Further studies and researches are needed to clarify whether Homeopathy originated, derived, branched, developed from, and/or influenced by Chinese Medicine. These are very important questions to be answered before concluding whether Homeopathy can be incorporated into the Unified Medicine system. ¡¡ 3.4 Tibetan Medicine Some sources single Tibetan Medicine out as an independent alternative medicine. However, there are many evidences indicating that Tibetan Medicine came from . Following questions have to be answered before concluding whether Tibetan Medicine is independent or not: (1) There were reports that the founder of Tibetan Medicine studied Chinese Medicine in China first. He then went back to Tibet, wrote the ¡°Si Bu Yi Dian¡± in Tibet language based on his studies on in China, which later on was developed into the medicine practiced in Tibet today. The question is: Whether above reports are true or not? (2) Tibetan Medicine was developed much later than . However, it has close relationship in contents with . The question is: What is the historical relationship between Tibetan Medicine and Chinese Medicine? (3) Tibetan Medicine uses local herbs too. However, Tibetan Medicine employs many 's theory, methods, techniques, etc. Therefore, Tibet Medicine was probably developed from even though it uses many local Tibetan herbs. The question is: What is the medicinal relationship between Tibetan Medicine and ? (4) Does Tibetan Medicine has its own established, comprehensive, independent, distinguished, consistent, complete, and systematic principles, theories, diagnostic techniques, and treatment methods, etc. that are of significant differences from ? Further studies and researches are needed to clarify whether Tibetan Medicine is originated, derived, branched, developed from, and/or influenced by Chinese Medicine. These are very important questions to be answered before concluding whether Tibetan Medicine can be incorporated into the Unified Medicine system. 3.5 Ayurveda ¡¡ Ayurveda is regarded as an independent alternative medicine by many sources. However, many questions need to be answered before concluding whether Ayurveda is an independent professional medicine or not. (1) The basic concept of ¡°prana¡± in Ayurveda is similar to the concept of qi in . The basic principles of Ayurveda are similar to several basic principles and philosophies of such as five elements theory, yin yang theory, and yi jing. The ¡°three humors¡± in Ayurveda is similar to a condensed form of the ¡°five elements¡± in , which is a derivative of yi jing. (2) The essence of five elements theory, yin yang theory, and yi jing etc. in is to layout foundation for universe, world, and human body classification. So although there are some differences in nomenclature of the five elements used in Ayurveda, the classification principle is similar between Ayurveda and . (3) The Constitutional Remedies of Ayurveda is similar to several branches of such as CM dietary therapy, CM medicated food therapy, CM exercise medicine, CM psychotherapy, CM preventive medicine, and CM rehabilitation therapy, etc. The Clinical Remedies of Ayurveda is similar to a few branches of such as gong xia fa, cui tu fa, guan chang therapy, ci xue therapy, etc. [5,8]. The treatment principle of Ayurveda ¡°to restore balance¡± is exactly the same as the treatment principle of Chinese Medicine. (4) There are many other similarities between Ayurveda and . Based on the close territory relationship between China and India, it is very likely that there exist influences between Ayurveda and . The question is: In which direction does the influences exert between the two medicines? (5) It was reported that more than 2300 years ago, India regarded the pain as a demon that was the God's punishment on human beings. In other words, India did not have a mature medicine for pain treatment at that time. However, by 2300 years ago, already had comprehensive practice and complete theory on pain treatments as well as treatments for many other diseases and illnesses. The questions are: Is the above report true? Did develop earlier than Ayurveda? (6) is a closed medicinal system. In other words, Chinese Medicine developed within China¡¯s territory without introduction of other medicines. Therefore, Ayurveda either developed from or developed independently. The question is: What¡¯s the influence of Chinese Medicine on Ayurveda? ¡¡ (7) The primary emphasis in Ayurveda is on diseases prevention and promoting longevity. Treatment of illness is an important secondary aim for Ayurveda. Ayurveda generally does not address such problems as traumatic injuries, acute pain, and advanced diseases [8]. This is very different from . is a full spectrum medicine concentrating not only on prevention, but also on treatments for all diseases and illnesses, including but not limited to traumatic injuries, acute pain, and advanced diseases, etc. From this viewpoint, is more complete, comprehensive, and systematic than Ayurveda. (8) Although Ayurveda is similar to several branches of , contains more branches that are not available in Ayurveda. In other words, covers Ayurveda in contents. The question is: Was Ayurveda developed under the influence of several branches of Chinese Medicine? (9) Ayurveda uses Chinese herbs. It also uses local herbs. However, as mentioned above, using local herbs does not justify being an independent professional medicine. If the applications of the local herbs in countries outside China still follow the holistic theory of , they should belong to the holistic system. The question is: What¡¯s the medicinal relationship between and Ayurveda? ¡¡ (10) Most Asian nations around India either use directly or use branches or derivatives of . was introduced and practiced in Europe more than 2000 years ago. However, due to close territory relationship, was introduced to and practiced in Asian nations much earlier than 2000 years ago. India is China¡¯s close neighbor. The questions are: If most other Asian countries use Chinese Medicine, is it possible that India makes an exception by developing its own medicine, which in contents is very similar to , and in an environment where most other Asian nations use ? Is it true that, similar to other Asian nations, India also introduced either directly from China or indirectly through other Asian nations? (11) The complete theory of was established more than 2300 years ago. However, the practice of was traced back to the Peking Man¡¯s era about 600,000 years ago. It is estimated that the practice of probably began around a million years ago. It is reported that Ayurveda has been practiced for 5500 years [8]. The question is: Is it true that Ayurveda was developed later than and under the influence of ? (12) Does Ayurveda has its own established, comprehensive, independent, distinguished, consistent, complete, and systematic principles, theories, diagnostic techniques, and treatment methods, etc. that are of significant differences from ? To make clear of above issues, further studies and researches are needed to clarify whether Ayurveda was originated, derived, branched, developed from, and/or influenced by from China directly or via other Asian nations that had been using for long time. These are very important questions to be answered before concluding whether Ayurveda can be incorporated into the Unified Medicine system. Above we have discussed some major alternative medicines currently existed. There are many other alternative medicines that have not been discussed. For example, someone mentioned of ¡°Hawaiian Medicine¡±, which is probably just a branch of brought to Hawaii by practitioners of Chinese Medicine in Japan and other Asian countries. Examples like this are numerous. Due to space limit, we will not cover them here. However, the discussions, questions, and conclusions are similar to them before they can be incorporated into the Unified Medicine system. .... References: Xu, B. 2002. Letter to the Congress. American Association (ACMA) Publication Issue Aug 2002. Xu, B. 2004. On Unified Medicine (UM) ¨C 1. Introduction. American Chinese Medicine Association (ACMA) Publication Issue March 15, 2004. Xu, B. 2003. On vs. Oriental/Asian Medicine. American Association (ACMA) Publication Issue May 2003. Lenarz, M. 2003. The Chiropractic Way. Bantam Books. New York. Burroughs, H. and Kastner M. 1993. Alternative Healing. Halcyon Publishing: La Mesa, CA. Murray M.T. and Pizzorno J.E. 1991. Encyclopedia of Natural Medicine. Prima Publishing: Rocklin, CA. Bark, T. and Dwyer, D. 2003. Homeopathy. Textbook of Complementary and Alternative Medicine. Edited by Yuan, C.S. and Bieber, E.J. Parthenon Publishing Press / CRC Press: New York. Pelletier, K.R. 2000. The Best Alternative Medicine. A Fireside Book: New York. New and Improved Mail - Send 10MB messages! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 In my opinion, various topics for discussion appropriate to this forum might develop out of this, but Mr. Xu's overall thrust here is essentially political. What I mean by 'political' is that is mirrors, if perhaps indirectly or unintentionally, the attitude and policy of the government of the PRC. The terms " Chinese medicine " (ZhongYi), and " traditional Chinese medicine " , as a translation of ZhongYi, are historical products of the Chinese government in the late 1950's (1) (2). And the term " unified medicine " (Chinese and Western) is also a political slogan originated by Mao ZeDong in that decade, and has been government policy, has shaped the evolution of " TCM " ever since (1) (3). Secondly, the framing of discussion for other alternative medical traditions in terms of their comparison and implied (the rhetorical questioning) derivations of Chinese medicine is based on mythical historical assumptions. Furthermore, it expresses a fundamentalist position as to the primacy of Chinese tradition as the source of traditional medical knowledge. 1. History From Mr. Xu's text, section 3.5, subsection 5: " [T]he practice of was traced back to the Peking Man's era about 600,000 years ago. It is estimated that the practice of Chinese Medicine probably began around a million years ago. " This claim has no historical basis. The Han /NeiJing medicine, according to both Western and PRC historical scholars, was fully formed in the 1st two centuries CE. Earlier fragments which were compiled together as the NeiJing date back to the two centuries BCE, and some of the formative ideas go back into the Warring States period (4). But the full medical system, and particularly acupuncture, i.e. relating to a scientific system of natural laws, is just barely 2000 years old (3) (5). Elements of " healing arts " , as distinct from a medical system, date back into the earlier artifacts, but in quasi-religious or just ad hoc theoretical contexts (5). And as Unschuld points out (6), there is a long-standing discrepancy in Chinese history between publicly held views of history (as in what we learn as a part of TCM training), and the views of genuine historical scholars. I have seen more often recently this claim that acupuncture stones were found with the Peking Man. It relates, probably, to a PRC government mandate some years ago that their historical " scholars " go back and establish earlier " historical " origins for the essential elements of Chinese culture. Out of that movement, one sees now occasional replacement of the mythical 5000 year TCM tradition with the figure of 8000 years. This is propaganda rather than history.. From Mr. Xu's text (multiple locations): " was introduced to and practiced in Europe and many other countries more than 2000 years ago. " This oft-repeated statement in Mr. Xu's text, with respect to Europe, is off by 1800-1900 years (5). An identifiable Chinese medicine (NeiJing) it itself barely 2000 years old (5) (7). With respect to other, Asian countries, not that accurate either. That dissemination appears to have taken place in the course of the 1st millennium, CE (8). 2. Fundamentalist reductionism vs. comparative cultural history The contention that chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, Indian and Tibetan traditions may be reducible to Chinese influence borders on chauvinistic fundamentalism. (Mr. Xu's implication that the various world and western medical traditions " may have probably infringed the intellectual property rights of . " -- early in his section 3). This reflects a very real problem that TCM is framed as scientific (along the lines of dialectical materialism (9)), as explicit in the CAM and other official texts), but in fact the Chinese practice and dissemination of it is highly culture-bound. Mr. Xu's exposition and his sense of history is less unique than representative of this tendency. For a comprehensive review of both Chinese and Western medical history, considered in parallel and across the period from ca. 600 BCE to the present, see reference (10). There are speculations on the part of various scholars of contacts between east Asia and the Mediterranean area across this 2500+ year span, but no conclusive evidence of major influence or assimilation in either direction, prior to the modern era. For instance, Unschuld hypothesizes that the Greek notion of " physis " resembles in many ways some of the characterizations of " qi " , and the Greek literary elucidation predates comparable theory in China by a couple of centuries. He further speculates that the name " QiBo " - HuangDi's major discussion partner in the NeiJing - appears nowhere else in early Chinese classical literature, and could be a transliteration from " hippo " , i.e. Hippocrates, the author of an extensive medical literature several centuries prior to the earliest compilations of the NeiJing (4). Again, outside of a few documented exchanges, e.g. of an herb, a remedy or an identifiable person (11), none of the numerous speculations along these lines (influences west to east, or east to west) is firmly established among historians. This overall topic, -- the interplay of the world's medical traditions, in terms of possible historical links, more so in terms of synchronicity and linkage with the larger cultural contexts - is a fascinating and fruitful study. More so today's global confrontation, mutual influences, and various amalgams of traditions. Culture-bound viewpoints will arise, on all sides. They can be the basis for a continuing process of communication, learning and growth. , L.Ac. ------- References: 1) Taylor K. Medicine of Revolution: in Early Communist China (1945-1963). unpublished dissertation, Univ. of Cambridge (UK), 2000. (According to Dr. Taylor, this is to be published 2004 or 2005. Copies of the dissertation can be obtained through the Needham Research Institute (UK) - reachable on the internet via Google search.) 2) Fruehauf H, in Crisis: Science, Politics, and the Making of " TCM " . Journal of , 61.. (reachable at http://www.jcm.co.uk/SampleArticles.phtml, in either PDF or text/html format). 3) Unschuld, . trans. Wiseman N. Paradigm Publications, Brookline MA, 1998. ISBN 0-912111-55-0. (See Chapter 7) 4) Harper D. Early Chinese Medical Literature - The MaWangDui Medical Manuscripts. Kegan Paul International, London/New York 1998. ISBN 0710305826 5) Unschuld PU, Medicine in China - a History of Ideas. University of Calif. Press, Berkeley, LA 1985. ISBN 0-520-06216-7 (pbk). 6) Unschuld PR, HuangDi Neijing SuWen - Nature, Knowledge, Imagery in an Ancient Chinese Medical Text. University of Calif. Press, Berkeley, LA. 2003. ISBN 0-520-23322-0. p. 1 7) ibid, Chapter I 8) Cheng X et al. Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion. Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1987. ISBN 0-8351-2109-7. p. 9 (2nd edition p. 10) (2nd edition is almost identical, with large type face and hence displaced page numbers) 9) ibid, p. 11 (2nd edition p. 12) 10) Unschuld PU, Was Ist Medizin? - Westliche und oestliche Wege der Heilkunst ( " What is Medicine? - Western and Eastern Paths of Healing Art " ). C.H.Beck, Munich, 2003. ISBN 3 406 502245. (Unfortunately, this book is available as yet only in German. I have inquired of Dr. Unschuld if a translation into English is underway, with no reply as yet. I believe it should be available and read by medical professionals, east or west, interested in the history of and nature of their or any medicine.) 11) Unschuld PU. Medicine in China - A History of Pharmaceutics. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley/LA/London, 1986. ISBN 0-520-05025-8. (Multiple mentions of herbs assimilated into the BenCao literature from foreign sources (often marked by use of the character " Hu " - barbarian - in the herb name); one reference to a formula/remedy assimilated from the west, and a mention of a blue-eyed, blond haired personage who shows up in Chinese literature.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Chris, Thank you for sharing this essay with the group. Cross-cultural medicine is one of my great interests, and I am always interested in how different medicines evolve in different cultures. Tibetan medicine is a great example of how different streams from China, India, Persia and native Bon medicine merged into a new medical form which continues to the present day. Also, during the Jin-Yuan dynasty, the Mongol rulers established and encouraged integrative medical clinics with elements of Chinese and Unani (Greco-Arabic) medicine. I think that the publication of Kim Taylor's book, along with Volker Scheid's history of modern Chinese medicine in the fall will give the CM community much food for thought on what we can expect to apply from TCM to our own needs in the West, rather than adapt this modern version of CM wholesale without critique. On Jul 13, 2004, at 1:58 AM, wrote: > In my opinion, various topics for discussion appropriate to this forum > might develop out of this, but Mr. Xu's overall thrust here is > essentially > political. What I mean by 'political' is that is mirrors, if perhaps > indirectly or unintentionally, the attitude and policy of the > government of > the PRC. The terms " Chinese medicine " (ZhongYi), and " traditional > Chinese > medicine " , as a translation of ZhongYi, are historical products of the > Chinese government in the late 1950's (1) (2). And the term " unified > medicine " (Chinese and Western) is also a political slogan originated > by > Mao ZeDong in that decade, and has been government policy, has shaped > the > evolution of " TCM " ever since (1) (3). > > Secondly, the framing of discussion for other alternative medical > traditions in terms of their comparison and implied (the rhetorical > questioning) derivations of Chinese medicine is based on mythical > historical assumptions. Furthermore, it expresses a fundamentalist > position > as to the primacy of Chinese tradition as the source of traditional > medical > knowledge. > > 1. History > > From Mr. Xu's text, section 3.5, subsection 5: > " [T]he practice of was traced back to the Peking > Man's > era about 600,000 years ago. It is estimated that the practice of > Chinese > Medicine probably began around a million years ago. " > > This claim has no historical basis. The Han /NeiJing medicine, > according to > both Western and PRC historical scholars, was fully formed in the 1st > two > centuries CE. Earlier fragments which were compiled together as the > NeiJing > date back to the two centuries BCE, and some of the formative ideas go > back > into the Warring States period (4). But the full medical system, and > particularly acupuncture, i.e. relating to a scientific system of > natural > laws, is just barely 2000 years old (3) (5). Elements of " healing > arts " , as > distinct from a medical system, date back into the earlier artifacts, > but > in quasi-religious or just ad hoc theoretical contexts (5). And as > Unschuld > points out (6), there is a long-standing discrepancy in Chinese history > between publicly held views of history (as in what we learn as a part > of > TCM training), and the views of genuine historical scholars. > > I have seen more often recently this claim that acupuncture stones were > found with the Peking Man. It relates, probably, to a PRC government > mandate some years ago that their historical " scholars " go back and > establish earlier " historical " origins for the essential elements of > Chinese culture. Out of that movement, one sees now occasional > replacement > of the mythical 5000 year TCM tradition with the figure of 8000 years. > This > is propaganda rather than history.. > > From Mr. Xu's text (multiple locations): > " was introduced to and practiced in Europe and many > other > countries more than 2000 years ago. " > > This oft-repeated statement in Mr. Xu's text, with respect to Europe, > is > off by 1800-1900 years (5). An identifiable Chinese medicine (NeiJing) > it > itself barely 2000 years old (5) (7). With respect to other, Asian > countries, not that accurate either. That dissemination appears to have > taken place in the course of the 1st millennium, CE (8). > > 2. Fundamentalist reductionism vs. comparative cultural history > > The contention that chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, Indian and > Tibetan traditions may be reducible to Chinese influence borders on > chauvinistic fundamentalism. (Mr. Xu's implication that the various > world > and western medical traditions " may have probably infringed the > intellectual property rights of . " -- early in his > section > 3). This reflects a very real problem that TCM is framed as scientific > (along the lines of dialectical materialism (9)), as explicit in the > CAM > and other official texts), but in fact the Chinese practice and > dissemination of it is highly culture-bound. Mr. Xu's exposition and > his > sense of history is less unique than representative of this tendency. > > For a comprehensive review of both Chinese and Western medical history, > considered in parallel and across the period from ca. 600 BCE to the > present, see reference (10). There are speculations on the part of > various > scholars of contacts between east Asia and the Mediterranean area > across > this 2500+ year span, but no conclusive evidence of major influence or > assimilation in either direction, prior to the modern era. For > instance, > Unschuld hypothesizes that the Greek notion of " physis " resembles in > many > ways some of the characterizations of " qi " , and the Greek literary > elucidation predates comparable theory in China by a couple of > centuries. > He further speculates that the name " QiBo " - HuangDi's major discussion > partner in the NeiJing - appears nowhere else in early Chinese > classical > literature, and could be a transliteration from " hippo " , i.e. > Hippocrates, > the author of an extensive medical literature several centuries prior > to > the earliest compilations of the NeiJing (4). Again, outside of a few > documented exchanges, e.g. of an herb, a remedy or an identifiable > person > (11), none of the numerous speculations along these lines (influences > west > to east, or east to west) is firmly established among historians. > > This overall topic, -- the interplay of the world's medical > traditions, in > terms of possible historical links, more so in terms of synchronicity > and > linkage with the larger cultural contexts - is a fascinating and > fruitful > study. More so today's global confrontation, mutual influences, and > various > amalgams of traditions. Culture-bound viewpoints will arise, on all > sides. > They can be the basis for a continuing process of communication, > learning > and growth. > > , L.Ac. > > ------- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 13, 2004 Report Share Posted July 13, 2004 Mr. wrote: ¡°In my opinion, various topics for discussion appropriate to this forum might develop out of this, but Mr. Xu's overall thrust here is essentially political.¡± Based on Mr. Macie¡¯s message, the term ¡°political¡± he used here is very vague and general. Based on this broad definition of ¡°political¡±, anything relating to human being¡¯s life and death would be called ¡°political¡±. Medicine, as a science directly relating to patient¡¯s life and death, would be permeated with politics in this sense. As a result, almost any topics in medicine are ¡°political¡± in one way or another. From patient¡¯s rights to practitioner¡¯s rights, from MDs and chiropractors¡¯ qualifications of practicing acupuncture to naturopathic doctors¡¯ qualifications of practicing Chinese Herbal Medicine, etc. all are political. Even pure efficacy and safety issue in medicine (e.g. the ephedra event) are closely related to politics. So, ¡°political¡± topics are permeated here and elsewhere in medicine. Doctors and practitioners cannot avoid such ¡°political¡± topics because patient¡¯s life and death are in their hands everyday. Mr. wrote: ¡°What I mean by 'political' is that is mirrors, if perhaps indirectly or unintentionally, the attitude and policy of the government of the PRC. The terms " Chinese medicine " (ZhongYi), and " traditional Chinese medicine " , as a translation of ZhongYi, are historical products of the Chinese government in the late 1950's (1) (2).¡± The technique Mr. Macie used here is labeling. Labeling is an inappropriate technique in discussions and rhetoric. Mr. Macie probably thought by labeling his argument with PRC government, his argument would stand. However, the term ¡°PRC government¡± does not necessarily associate with negative meanings in medicine. History will judge what a person or organization has done rather than what labels they have. Let¡¯s see what PRC government has done in medicine: (1) It is the PRC government that has sent Doctors of (CMDs) to World Health Organization (WHO) helping the WHO¡¯s alternative and holistic medicine program, which has helped millions of people around the world. Today, the WHO¡¯s definition of disease is closer to CM than to WM; (2) It is the PRC government that has sent CMDs to many countries, and has helped hundreds and thousands of people from laypersons to kings; (3) It is the PRC government that invited president Nixon¡¯s visit to China, which opened the door for the growth of CM in America. In this sense, (4) It is the PRC government that helped establish the profession of L.Ac. in America, which creates thousands of employment opportunities (including Mr. Macie, L.Ac.) and helps many American patients; (5) It is the PRC government that has established the world¡¯s most systematic, comprehensive, advanced, and reputable holistic medicine education system ¨C CMD education system, which has set norm for CM education and become the Mecca in CM education system for more than 100 countries; Examples like this are very long. In short, PRC government¡¯s contributions to the world medicine system probably is non-comparable by most other governments. In the field of medicine, the term ¡°PRC government¡± is closely associated with the advancement of medicine, promotion of health, and development of human civilization. History will remember¡°PRC government¡± for its contributions to medicine. So, labeling technique does not work here. On the contrary, it helps the world know what PRC government has done for medicine. Mr. wrote: ¡°And the term " unified medicine " (Chinese and Western) is also a political slogan originated by Mao ZeDong in that decade, and has been government policy, has shaped the evolution of " TCM " ever since (1) (3). ¡± The Unified Medicine is a new project at ACMA. It is very different from the Combined Medicine (Zhong Xi Yi Jie He) developed in China. We will publish the entire ACMA Unified Medicine project when it¡¯s ready. Again, Mr. Macie used labeling technique by mention ¡°political slogan originated by Mao ZeDong in that decade¡±. Mao ZeDong, as a person, has every right to participate in history. As a state leader, history will remember him for his contributions in saving CM from the hands of national nihilism. It was under Mao ZeDong¡¯s leadership that the CMD education system was established. Mr. wrote: ¡± ¡¯[T]he practice of was traced back to the Peking Man's era about 600,000 years ago. It is estimated that the practice of Chinese Medicine probably began around a million years ago.¡¯ This claim has no historical basis. The Han /NeiJing medicine, according to both Western and PRC historical scholars, was fully formed in the 1st two centuries CE. Earlier fragments which were compiled together as the NeiJing date back to the two centuries BCE, and some of the formative ideas go back into the Warring States period (4). But the full medical system, and particularly acupuncture, i.e. relating to a scientific system of natural laws, is just barely 2000 years old (3) (5). Elements of " healing arts " , as distinct from a medical system, date back into the earlier artifacts, but in quasi-religious or just ad hoc theoretical contexts (5). And as Unschuld points out (6), there is a long-standing discrepancy in Chinese history between publicly held views of history (as in what we learn as a part of TCM training), and the views of genuine historical scholars. I have seen more often recently this claim that acupuncture stones were found with the Peking Man. It relates, probably, to a PRC government mandate some years ago that their historical " scholars " go back and establish earlier " historical " origins for the essential elements of Chinese culture. Out of that movement, one sees now occasional replacement of the mythical 5000 year TCM tradition with the figure of 8000 years. This is propaganda rather than history.. ¡° Here, Mr. Macie is using labeling technique again. If one thinks the Peking Man¡¯s findings are not related to CM, please present your evidences, and provide facts and truth to prove it. Simply labeling it to PRC government is inappropriate, non-convincing, and does not help. What we are facing now is medicine and history. In history, there is only one final judge: facts and truth. It does not matter where the facts and truth come from. PRC government, as the legitimate government of China, is in a unique position on CM. It has access to many historical facts and discoveries relating to Chinese culture and CM, which most likely are still unavailable to the rest of the world. PRC government is in an authoritative position to provide those facts and truth. If one does not know the facts and truth, the best way is to study and research them before drawing conclusions. The PRC government, similar to all other organizations, has every right to participate in the process of clarifying the history in general, CM history in particular. History is history, no matter one likes it or not. History will not remember what we have said here, but what facts and truth we have provided here. In front of history, there is only one rule: honesty. We all need to be honest to the historical findings and discoveries. Peking Man¡¯s finding has long been recognized internationally. Distorting historical findings and discoveries because one does not like them will not work. Paper cannot wrap fire. Facts and truth, like or dislike, eventually will prevail. There are many such examples in the long human history. No one today can make an exception. The rule of thumb here is: Please provide facts and truth, and don¡¯t label any organization or person. All organizations and persons have their rights to participate in history as long as they respect facts and truths. If one thinks they are wrong, please show your facts and truths to debate their facts and truths. Please target issues rather than label organizations. Labeling organization or person is a non-professional behavior, and is inappropriate in medicine and history. Using labeling technique will eventually label oneself. Mr. wrote: ¡°Earlier fragments which were compiled together as the NeiJing date back to the two centuries BCE, and some of the formative ideas go back into the Warring States period (4). But the full medical system, and particularly acupuncture, i.e. relating to a scientific system of natural laws, is just barely 2000 years old (3) (5).¡± Please note that ¡°the practice of CM¡± is completely different from ¡°the establishment of CM theory (Neijing)¡±. The former is much earlier than the latter. Please do not change topics here. Neijing is a summary of CM practice rather than beginning of CM practice. However, most English version books on CM have confused the two concepts, and left many English speaking people an impression that CM started with Neijing. This confusion originated either from language barrier, cultural barrier, non-practitioner translating, misunderstanding of ancient CM books, or any other reasons. This common mistake should be corrected. Mr. Macie mixes the two concepts, which changed the topic we are discussing. Mr. wrote: ¡° was introduced to and practiced in Europe and many other countries more than 2000 years ago. This oft-repeated statement in Mr. Xu's text, with respect to Europe, is off by 1800-1900 years (5). An identifiable Chinese medicine (NeiJing) it itself barely 2000 years old (5) (7). With respect to other, Asian countries, not that accurate either. That dissemination appears to have taken place in the course of the 1st millennium, CE (8).¡± Again, we are talking about the ¡°practice of CM introduced to Europe and other Asian nations¡± rather than ¡°Neijing¡¯s introduction (translation) to Europe and other Asian nations.¡± Mr. Macie has confused and changed topics again. Mr. wrote: ¡°The contention that chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, Indian and Tibetan traditions may be reducible to Chinese influence borders on chauvinistic fundamentalism. ¡± This is another labeling technique Mr. Macie used. Similar to patent disputes, if one think chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, Indian and Tibetan traditions have no relationship with CM, please provide facts and truth proving that. If one think they existed earlier than CM, please also provide data and evidences. Without providing related facts and truth, Mr. Macie switched to other issue. We are talking about medicine and history here. Avoiding answering the questions in medicine directly, and changed to some other unrelated issues is inappropriate here. Mr. wrote: ¡°For a comprehensive review of both Chinese and Western medical history, considered in parallel and across the period from ca. 600 BCE to the present, see reference (10). There are speculations on the part of various scholars of contacts between east Asia and the Mediterranean area across this 2500+ year span, but no conclusive evidence of major influence or assimilation in either direction, prior to the modern era. For instance, Unschuld hypothesizes that the Greek notion of " physis " resembles in many ways some of the characterizations of " qi " , and the Greek literary elucidation predates comparable theory in China by a couple of centuries. He further speculates that the name " QiBo " - HuangDi's major discussion partner in the NeiJing - appears nowhere else in early Chinese classical literature, and could be a transliteration from " hippo " , i.e. Hippocrates, the author of an extensive medical literature several centuries prior to the earliest compilations of the NeiJing (4). Again, outside of a few documented exchanges, e.g. of an herb, a remedy or an identifiable person (11), none of the numerous speculations along these lines (influences west to east, or east to west) is firmly established among historians.¡± Mr. Macie has brought a very interesting issue. Hippocrates, father of WM, lived in a time when CM theory has already been established. Besides Neijing, there are other known books earlier than Neijing with established CM theory that are unavailable now. (As to unknown books earlier than Neijing, it¡¯s still a major task and challenge for historians.) Therefore, Hippocrates either was influenced by CM¡¯s theory or established his theory independently. But it could not be possible for him to influence the CM theory¡¯s establishment. Because there are still many questions for the direction of influence here, we encourage more historians, medical historians, scientists, doctors, and practitioners to participate in this historical research and clarify the questions here. In sum, the ACMA Unified Medicine project has not drawn final conclusions yet. Instead, it has raised many questions for further studies and researches. Its goal is to call for more studies and researches from historians, medical historians, scientists, doctors, practitioners of all related fields in both China and all other countries in order to clarify the existing questions in medicine. Bob Xu < wrote: In my opinion, various topics for discussion appropriate to this forum might develop out of this, but Mr. Xu's overall thrust here is essentially political. What I mean by 'political' is that is mirrors, if perhaps indirectly or unintentionally, the attitude and policy of the government of the PRC. The terms " Chinese medicine " (ZhongYi), and " traditional Chinese medicine " , as a translation of ZhongYi, are historical products of the Chinese government in the late 1950's (1) (2). And the term " unified medicine " (Chinese and Western) is also a political slogan originated by Mao ZeDong in that decade, and has been government policy, has shaped the evolution of " TCM " ever since (1) (3). Secondly, the framing of discussion for other alternative medical traditions in terms of their comparison and implied (the rhetorical questioning) derivations of Chinese medicine is based on mythical historical assumptions. Furthermore, it expresses a fundamentalist position as to the primacy of Chinese tradition as the source of traditional medical knowledge. 1. History From Mr. Xu's text, section 3.5, subsection 5: " [T]he practice of was traced back to the Peking Man's era about 600,000 years ago. It is estimated that the practice of Chinese Medicine probably began around a million years ago. " This claim has no historical basis. The Han /NeiJing medicine, according to both Western and PRC historical scholars, was fully formed in the 1st two centuries CE. Earlier fragments which were compiled together as the NeiJing date back to the two centuries BCE, and some of the formative ideas go back into the Warring States period (4). But the full medical system, and particularly acupuncture, i.e. relating to a scientific system of natural laws, is just barely 2000 years old (3) (5). Elements of " healing arts " , as distinct from a medical system, date back into the earlier artifacts, but in quasi-religious or just ad hoc theoretical contexts (5). And as Unschuld points out (6), there is a long-standing discrepancy in Chinese history between publicly held views of history (as in what we learn as a part of TCM training), and the views of genuine historical scholars. I have seen more often recently this claim that acupuncture stones were found with the Peking Man. It relates, probably, to a PRC government mandate some years ago that their historical " scholars " go back and establish earlier " historical " origins for the essential elements of Chinese culture. Out of that movement, one sees now occasional replacement of the mythical 5000 year TCM tradition with the figure of 8000 years. This is propaganda rather than history.. From Mr. Xu's text (multiple locations): " was introduced to and practiced in Europe and many other countries more than 2000 years ago. " This oft-repeated statement in Mr. Xu's text, with respect to Europe, is off by 1800-1900 years (5). An identifiable Chinese medicine (NeiJing) it itself barely 2000 years old (5) (7). With respect to other, Asian countries, not that accurate either. That dissemination appears to have taken place in the course of the 1st millennium, CE (8). 2. Fundamentalist reductionism vs. comparative cultural history The contention that chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, Indian and Tibetan traditions may be reducible to Chinese influence borders on chauvinistic fundamentalism. (Mr. Xu's implication that the various world and western medical traditions " may have probably infringed the intellectual property rights of . " -- early in his section 3). This reflects a very real problem that TCM is framed as scientific (along the lines of dialectical materialism (9)), as explicit in the CAM and other official texts), but in fact the Chinese practice and dissemination of it is highly culture-bound. Mr. Xu's exposition and his sense of history is less unique than representative of this tendency. For a comprehensive review of both Chinese and Western medical history, considered in parallel and across the period from ca. 600 BCE to the present, see reference (10). There are speculations on the part of various scholars of contacts between east Asia and the Mediterranean area across this 2500+ year span, but no conclusive evidence of major influence or assimilation in either direction, prior to the modern era. For instance, Unschuld hypothesizes that the Greek notion of " physis " resembles in many ways some of the characterizations of " qi " , and the Greek literary elucidation predates comparable theory in China by a couple of centuries. He further speculates that the name " QiBo " - HuangDi's major discussion partner in the NeiJing - appears nowhere else in early Chinese classical literature, and could be a transliteration from " hippo " , i.e. Hippocrates, the author of an extensive medical literature several centuries prior to the earliest compilations of the NeiJing (4). Again, outside of a few documented exchanges, e.g. of an herb, a remedy or an identifiable person (11), none of the numerous speculations along these lines (influences west to east, or east to west) is firmly established among historians. This overall topic, -- the interplay of the world's medical traditions, in terms of possible historical links, more so in terms of synchronicity and linkage with the larger cultural contexts - is a fascinating and fruitful study. More so today's global confrontation, mutual influences, and various amalgams of traditions. Culture-bound viewpoints will arise, on all sides. They can be the basis for a continuing process of communication, learning and growth. , L.Ac. ------- References: 1) Taylor K. Medicine of Revolution: in Early Communist China (1945-1963). unpublished dissertation, Univ. of Cambridge (UK), 2000. (According to Dr. Taylor, this is to be published 2004 or 2005. Copies of the dissertation can be obtained through the Needham Research Institute (UK) - reachable on the internet via Google search.) 2) Fruehauf H, in Crisis: Science, Politics, and the Making of " TCM " . Journal of , 61.. (reachable at http://www.jcm.co.uk/SampleArticles.phtml, in either PDF or text/html format). 3) Unschuld, . trans. Wiseman N. Paradigm Publications, Brookline MA, 1998. ISBN 0-912111-55-0. (See Chapter 7) 4) Harper D. Early Chinese Medical Literature - The MaWangDui Medical Manuscripts. Kegan Paul International, London/New York 1998. ISBN 0710305826 5) Unschuld PU, Medicine in China - a History of Ideas. University of Calif. Press, Berkeley, LA 1985. ISBN 0-520-06216-7 (pbk). 6) Unschuld PR, HuangDi Neijing SuWen - Nature, Knowledge, Imagery in an Ancient Chinese Medical Text. University of Calif. Press, Berkeley, LA. 2003. ISBN 0-520-23322-0. p. 1 7) ibid, Chapter I 8) Cheng X et al. Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion. Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1987. ISBN 0-8351-2109-7. p. 9 (2nd edition p. 10) (2nd edition is almost identical, with large type face and hence displaced page numbers) 9) ibid, p. 11 (2nd edition p. 12) 10) Unschuld PU, Was Ist Medizin? - Westliche und oestliche Wege der Heilkunst ( " What is Medicine? - Western and Eastern Paths of Healing Art " ). C.H.Beck, Munich, 2003. ISBN 3 406 502245. (Unfortunately, this book is available as yet only in German. I have inquired of Dr. Unschuld if a translation into English is underway, with no reply as yet. I believe it should be available and read by medical professionals, east or west, interested in the history of and nature of their or any medicine.) 11) Unschuld PU. Medicine in China - A History of Pharmaceutics. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley/LA/London, 1986. ISBN 0-520-05025-8. (Multiple mentions of herbs assimilated into the BenCao literature from foreign sources (often marked by use of the character " Hu " - barbarian - in the herb name); one reference to a formula/remedy assimilated from the west, and a mention of a blue-eyed, blond haired personage who shows up in Chinese literature.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 > (4) It is the PRC government that helped establish the profession of L.Ac. in America, which creates thousands of employment opportunities (including Mr. Macie, L.Ac.) and helps many American patients; Indeed. I can think of other L.Ac. members who have an obtuse attitude towards TCM issues. One does not expect them to be fawning boot lickers, but one does expect them to recognise (and honour) their origins. As for the thread on origins of TCM in prehistory, maybe Bob Xu or Mr Macie (or others) would like to comment on 'Oetzie the Iceman' a mummified 5000 year old European found in the Alps a dozen or so years ago. Oetzie had tattoos on his back which mapped out number of acu-points. Random chance? I would hazard a guess and say the Old World (east and west) shared the empirical based knowledge, phenomenological perspective and dialectic methodology we now associate with TCM. How such a body of profound knowledge formed over the millennia and was shared over such vast continental distances is a wonder of the prehistoric world. TCM is indeed an ancient world treasure we all have an investment in, and something we all have a responsibility to preserve in as pristine a condition as possible. If there are modifications and alterations to TCM then it should rightly be called something else, and the teaching of TCM should go on uncontaminated and unmolested. Sammy Bates Leicester, England - " Bob Xu " <bxu6 <Chinese Medicine > Tuesday, July 13, 2004 11:10 PM Re: Call for comments Mr. wrote: ¡°In my opinion, various topics for discussion appropriate to this forum might develop out of this, but Mr. Xu's overall thrust here is essentially political.¡± Based on Mr. Macie¡¯s message, the term ¡°political¡± he used here is very vague and general. Based on this broad definition of ¡°political¡±, anything relating to human being¡¯s life and death would be called ¡°political¡±. Medicine, as a science directly relating to patient¡¯s life and death, would be permeated with politics in this sense. As a result, almost any topics in medicine are ¡°political¡± in one way or another. From patient¡¯s rights to practitioner¡¯s rights, from MDs and chiropractors¡¯ qualifications of practicing acupuncture to naturopathic doctors¡¯ qualifications of practicing Chinese Herbal Medicine, etc. all are political. Even pure efficacy and safety issue in medicine (e.g. the ephedra event) are closely related to politics. So, ¡°political¡± topics are permeated here and elsewhere in medicine. Doctors and practitioners cannot avoid such ¡°political¡± topics because patient¡¯s life and death are in their hands everyday. Mr. wrote: ¡°What I mean by 'political' is that is mirrors, if perhaps indirectly or unintentionally, the attitude and policy of the government of the PRC. The terms " Chinese medicine " (ZhongYi), and " traditional Chinese medicine " , as a translation of ZhongYi, are historical products of the Chinese government in the late 1950's (1) (2).¡± The technique Mr. Macie used here is labeling. Labeling is an inappropriate technique in discussions and rhetoric. Mr. Macie probably thought by labeling his argument with PRC government, his argument would stand. However, the term ¡°PRC government¡± does not necessarily associate with negative meanings in medicine. History will judge what a person or organization has done rather than what labels they have. Let¡¯s see what PRC government has done in medicine: (1) It is the PRC government that has sent Doctors of (CMDs) to World Health Organization (WHO) helping the WHO¡¯s alternative and holistic medicine program, which has helped millions of people around the world. Today, the WHO¡¯s definition of disease is closer to CM than to WM; (2) It is the PRC government that has sent CMDs to many countries, and has helped hundreds and thousands of people from laypersons to kings; (3) It is the PRC government that invited president Nixon¡¯s visit to China, which opened the door for the growth of CM in America. In this sense, (4) It is the PRC government that helped establish the profession of L.Ac. in America, which creates thousands of employment opportunities (including Mr. Macie, L.Ac.) and helps many American patients; (5) It is the PRC government that has established the world¡¯s most systematic, comprehensive, advanced, and reputable holistic medicine education system ¨C CMD education system, which has set norm for CM education and become the Mecca in CM education system for more than 100 countries; Examples like this are very long. In short, PRC government¡¯s contributions to the world medicine system probably is non-comparable by most other governments. In the field of medicine, the term ¡°PRC government¡± is closely associated with the advancement of medicine, promotion of health, and development of human civilization. History will remember¡°PRC government¡± for its contributions to medicine. So, labeling technique does not work here. On the contrary, it helps the world know what PRC government has done for medicine. Mr. wrote: ¡°And the term " unified medicine " (Chinese and Western) is also a political slogan originated by Mao ZeDong in that decade, and has been government policy, has shaped the evolution of " TCM " ever since (1) (3). ¡± The Unified Medicine is a new project at ACMA. It is very different from the Combined Medicine (Zhong Xi Yi Jie He) developed in China. We will publish the entire ACMA Unified Medicine project when it¡¯s ready. Again, Mr. Macie used labeling technique by mention ¡°political slogan originated by Mao ZeDong in that decade¡±. Mao ZeDong, as a person, has every right to participate in history. As a state leader, history will remember him for his contributions in saving CM from the hands of national nihilism. It was under Mao ZeDong¡¯s leadership that the CMD education system was established. Mr. wrote: ¡± ¡¯[T]he practice of was traced back to the Peking Man's era about 600,000 years ago. It is estimated that the practice of Chinese Medicine probably began around a million years ago.¡¯ This claim has no historical basis. The Han /NeiJing medicine, according to both Western and PRC historical scholars, was fully formed in the 1st two centuries CE. Earlier fragments which were compiled together as the NeiJing date back to the two centuries BCE, and some of the formative ideas go back into the Warring States period (4). But the full medical system, and particularly acupuncture, i.e. relating to a scientific system of natural laws, is just barely 2000 years old (3) (5). Elements of " healing arts " , as distinct from a medical system, date back into the earlier artifacts, but in quasi-religious or just ad hoc theoretical contexts (5). And as Unschuld points out (6), there is a long-standing discrepancy in Chinese history between publicly held views of history (as in what we learn as a part of TCM training), and the views of genuine historical scholars. I have seen more often recently this claim that acupuncture stones were found with the Peking Man. It relates, probably, to a PRC government mandate some years ago that their historical " scholars " go back and establish earlier " historical " origins for the essential elements of Chinese culture. Out of that movement, one sees now occasional replacement of the mythical 5000 year TCM tradition with the figure of 8000 years. This is propaganda rather than history.. ¡° Here, Mr. Macie is using labeling technique again. If one thinks the Peking Man¡¯s findings are not related to CM, please present your evidences, and provide facts and truth to prove it. Simply labeling it to PRC government is inappropriate, non-convincing, and does not help. What we are facing now is medicine and history. In history, there is only one final judge: facts and truth. It does not matter where the facts and truth come from. PRC government, as the legitimate government of China, is in a unique position on CM. It has access to many historical facts and discoveries relating to Chinese culture and CM, which most likely are still unavailable to the rest of the world. PRC government is in an authoritative position to provide those facts and truth. If one does not know the facts and truth, the best way is to study and research them before drawing conclusions. The PRC government, similar to all other organizations, has every right to participate in the process of clarifying the history in general, CM history in particular. History is history, no matter one likes it or not. History will not remember what we have said here, but what facts and truth we have provided here. In front of history, there is only one rule: honesty. We all need to be honest to the historical findings and discoveries. Peking Man¡¯s finding has long been recognized internationally. Distorting historical findings and discoveries because one does not like them will not work. Paper cannot wrap fire. Facts and truth, like or dislike, eventually will prevail. There are many such examples in the long human history. No one today can make an exception. The rule of thumb here is: Please provide facts and truth, and don¡¯t label any organization or person. All organizations and persons have their rights to participate in history as long as they respect facts and truths. If one thinks they are wrong, please show your facts and truths to debate their facts and truths. Please target issues rather than label organizations. Labeling organization or person is a non-professional behavior, and is inappropriate in medicine and history. Using labeling technique will eventually label oneself. Mr. wrote: ¡°Earlier fragments which were compiled together as the NeiJing date back to the two centuries BCE, and some of the formative ideas go back into the Warring States period (4). But the full medical system, and particularly acupuncture, i.e. relating to a scientific system of natural laws, is just barely 2000 years old (3) (5).¡± Please note that ¡°the practice of CM¡± is completely different from ¡°the establishment of CM theory (Neijing)¡±. The former is much earlier than the latter. Please do not change topics here. Neijing is a summary of CM practice rather than beginning of CM practice. However, most English version books on CM have confused the two concepts, and left many English speaking people an impression that CM started with Neijing. This confusion originated either from language barrier, cultural barrier, non-practitioner translating, misunderstanding of ancient CM books, or any other reasons. This common mistake should be corrected. Mr. Macie mixes the two concepts, which changed the topic we are discussing. Mr. wrote: ¡° was introduced to and practiced in Europe and many other countries more than 2000 years ago. This oft-repeated statement in Mr. Xu's text, with respect to Europe, is off by 1800-1900 years (5). An identifiable Chinese medicine (NeiJing) it itself barely 2000 years old (5) (7). With respect to other, Asian countries, not that accurate either. That dissemination appears to have taken place in the course of the 1st millennium, CE (8).¡± Again, we are talking about the ¡°practice of CM introduced to Europe and other Asian nations¡± rather than ¡°Neijing¡¯s introduction (translation) to Europe and other Asian nations.¡± Mr. Macie has confused and changed topics again. Mr. wrote: ¡°The contention that chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, Indian and Tibetan traditions may be reducible to Chinese influence borders on chauvinistic fundamentalism. ¡± This is another labeling technique Mr. Macie used. Similar to patent disputes, if one think chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, Indian and Tibetan traditions have no relationship with CM, please provide facts and truth proving that. If one think they existed earlier than CM, please also provide data and evidences. Without providing related facts and truth, Mr. Macie switched to other issue. We are talking about medicine and history here. Avoiding answering the questions in medicine directly, and changed to some other unrelated issues is inappropriate here. Mr. wrote: ¡°For a comprehensive review of both Chinese and Western medical history, considered in parallel and across the period from ca. 600 BCE to the present, see reference (10). There are speculations on the part of various scholars of contacts between east Asia and the Mediterranean area across this 2500+ year span, but no conclusive evidence of major influence or assimilation in either direction, prior to the modern era. For instance, Unschuld hypothesizes that the Greek notion of " physis " resembles in many ways some of the characterizations of " qi " , and the Greek literary elucidation predates comparable theory in China by a couple of centuries. He further speculates that the name " QiBo " - HuangDi's major discussion partner in the NeiJing - appears nowhere else in early Chinese classical literature, and could be a transliteration from " hippo " , i.e. Hippocrates, the author of an extensive medical literature several centuries prior to the earliest compilations of the NeiJing (4). Again, outside of a few documented exchanges, e.g. of an herb, a remedy or an identifiable person (11), none of the numerous speculations along these lines (influences west to east, or east to west) is firmly established among historians.¡± Mr. Macie has brought a very interesting issue. Hippocrates, father of WM, lived in a time when CM theory has already been established. Besides Neijing, there are other known books earlier than Neijing with established CM theory that are unavailable now. (As to unknown books earlier than Neijing, it¡¯s still a major task and challenge for historians.) Therefore, Hippocrates either was influenced by CM¡¯s theory or established his theory independently. But it could not be possible for him to influence the CM theory¡¯s establishment. Because there are still many questions for the direction of influence here, we encourage more historians, medical historians, scientists, doctors, and practitioners to participate in this historical research and clarify the questions here. In sum, the ACMA Unified Medicine project has not drawn final conclusions yet. Instead, it has raised many questions for further studies and researches. Its goal is to call for more studies and researches from historians, medical historians, scientists, doctors, practitioners of all related fields in both China and all other countries in order to clarify the existing questions in medicine. Bob Xu < wrote: In my opinion, various topics for discussion appropriate to this forum might develop out of this, but Mr. Xu's overall thrust here is essentially political. What I mean by 'political' is that is mirrors, if perhaps indirectly or unintentionally, the attitude and policy of the government of the PRC. The terms " Chinese medicine " (ZhongYi), and " traditional Chinese medicine " , as a translation of ZhongYi, are historical products of the Chinese government in the late 1950's (1) (2). And the term " unified medicine " (Chinese and Western) is also a political slogan originated by Mao ZeDong in that decade, and has been government policy, has shaped the evolution of " TCM " ever since (1) (3). Secondly, the framing of discussion for other alternative medical traditions in terms of their comparison and implied (the rhetorical questioning) derivations of Chinese medicine is based on mythical historical assumptions. Furthermore, it expresses a fundamentalist position as to the primacy of Chinese tradition as the source of traditional medical knowledge. 1. History From Mr. Xu's text, section 3.5, subsection 5: " [T]he practice of was traced back to the Peking Man's era about 600,000 years ago. It is estimated that the practice of Chinese Medicine probably began around a million years ago. " This claim has no historical basis. The Han /NeiJing medicine, according to both Western and PRC historical scholars, was fully formed in the 1st two centuries CE. Earlier fragments which were compiled together as the NeiJing date back to the two centuries BCE, and some of the formative ideas go back into the Warring States period (4). But the full medical system, and particularly acupuncture, i.e. relating to a scientific system of natural laws, is just barely 2000 years old (3) (5). Elements of " healing arts " , as distinct from a medical system, date back into the earlier artifacts, but in quasi-religious or just ad hoc theoretical contexts (5). And as Unschuld points out (6), there is a long-standing discrepancy in Chinese history between publicly held views of history (as in what we learn as a part of TCM training), and the views of genuine historical scholars. I have seen more often recently this claim that acupuncture stones were found with the Peking Man. It relates, probably, to a PRC government mandate some years ago that their historical " scholars " go back and establish earlier " historical " origins for the essential elements of Chinese culture. Out of that movement, one sees now occasional replacement of the mythical 5000 year TCM tradition with the figure of 8000 years. This is propaganda rather than history.. From Mr. Xu's text (multiple locations): " was introduced to and practiced in Europe and many other countries more than 2000 years ago. " This oft-repeated statement in Mr. Xu's text, with respect to Europe, is off by 1800-1900 years (5). An identifiable Chinese medicine (NeiJing) it itself barely 2000 years old (5) (7). With respect to other, Asian countries, not that accurate either. That dissemination appears to have taken place in the course of the 1st millennium, CE (8). 2. Fundamentalist reductionism vs. comparative cultural history The contention that chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy, Indian and Tibetan traditions may be reducible to Chinese influence borders on chauvinistic fundamentalism. (Mr. Xu's implication that the various world and western medical traditions " may have probably infringed the intellectual property rights of . " -- early in his section 3). This reflects a very real problem that TCM is framed as scientific (along the lines of dialectical materialism (9)), as explicit in the CAM and other official texts), but in fact the Chinese practice and dissemination of it is highly culture-bound. Mr. Xu's exposition and his sense of history is less unique than representative of this tendency. For a comprehensive review of both Chinese and Western medical history, considered in parallel and across the period from ca. 600 BCE to the present, see reference (10). There are speculations on the part of various scholars of contacts between east Asia and the Mediterranean area across this 2500+ year span, but no conclusive evidence of major influence or assimilation in either direction, prior to the modern era. For instance, Unschuld hypothesizes that the Greek notion of " physis " resembles in many ways some of the characterizations of " qi " , and the Greek literary elucidation predates comparable theory in China by a couple of centuries. He further speculates that the name " QiBo " - HuangDi's major discussion partner in the NeiJing - appears nowhere else in early Chinese classical literature, and could be a transliteration from " hippo " , i.e. Hippocrates, the author of an extensive medical literature several centuries prior to the earliest compilations of the NeiJing (4). Again, outside of a few documented exchanges, e.g. of an herb, a remedy or an identifiable person (11), none of the numerous speculations along these lines (influences west to east, or east to west) is firmly established among historians. This overall topic, -- the interplay of the world's medical traditions, in terms of possible historical links, more so in terms of synchronicity and linkage with the larger cultural contexts - is a fascinating and fruitful study. More so today's global confrontation, mutual influences, and various amalgams of traditions. Culture-bound viewpoints will arise, on all sides. They can be the basis for a continuing process of communication, learning and growth. , L.Ac. ------- References: 1) Taylor K. Medicine of Revolution: in Early Communist China (1945-1963). unpublished dissertation, Univ. of Cambridge (UK), 2000. (According to Dr. Taylor, this is to be published 2004 or 2005. Copies of the dissertation can be obtained through the Needham Research Institute (UK) - reachable on the internet via Google search.) 2) Fruehauf H, in Crisis: Science, Politics, and the Making of " TCM " . Journal of , 61.. (reachable at http://www.jcm.co.uk/SampleArticles.phtml, in either PDF or text/html format). 3) Unschuld, . trans. Wiseman N. Paradigm Publications, Brookline MA, 1998. ISBN 0-912111-55-0. (See Chapter 7) 4) Harper D. Early Chinese Medical Literature - The MaWangDui Medical Manuscripts. Kegan Paul International, London/New York 1998. ISBN 0710305826 5) Unschuld PU, Medicine in China - a History of Ideas. University of Calif. Press, Berkeley, LA 1985. ISBN 0-520-06216-7 (pbk). 6) Unschuld PR, HuangDi Neijing SuWen - Nature, Knowledge, Imagery in an Ancient Chinese Medical Text. University of Calif. Press, Berkeley, LA. 2003. ISBN 0-520-23322-0. p. 1 7) ibid, Chapter I 8) Cheng X et al. Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion. Foreign Languages Press, Beijing, 1987. ISBN 0-8351-2109-7. p. 9 (2nd edition p. 10) (2nd edition is almost identical, with large type face and hence displaced page numbers) 9) ibid, p. 11 (2nd edition p. 12) 10) Unschuld PU, Was Ist Medizin? - Westliche und oestliche Wege der Heilkunst ( " What is Medicine? - Western and Eastern Paths of Healing Art " ). C.H.Beck, Munich, 2003. ISBN 3 406 502245. (Unfortunately, this book is available as yet only in German. I have inquired of Dr. Unschuld if a translation into English is underway, with no reply as yet. I believe it should be available and read by medical professionals, east or west, interested in the history of and nature of their or any medicine.) 11) Unschuld PU. Medicine in China - A History of Pharmaceutics. Univ. of Calif. Press, Berkeley/LA/London, 1986. ISBN 0-520-05025-8. (Multiple mentions of herbs assimilated into the BenCao literature from foreign sources (often marked by use of the character " Hu " - barbarian - in the herb name); one reference to a formula/remedy assimilated from the west, and a mention of a blue-eyed, blond haired personage who shows up in Chinese literature.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 14, 2004 Report Share Posted July 14, 2004 I agree with Chris, but I find it difficult to find a post on here which is not absolutely contaminated by the political. The tao te ching goes on about this problem at length. 84 chapters, I think. I also agree with Bob that there needs to be less labelling and more information. Labelling kind of assumes that others agree with, or even understand, the labels. In my POV, labelling is a manipulation. I almost agreed with Chris's post until I realised it was as political as Bob's!!! There was interesting info in Chris's post that I will follow up on in my own time though, so thanks Chris. Same goes for Bob. I find myself more wary of the PRC government, and surprisingly grateful to the PRC government as well. Thanks, Hugo --- Bob Xu <bxu6 wrote: > Mr. wrote: > > ¡°In my opinion, various topics for discussion > appropriate to this forum > might develop out of this, but Mr. Xu's overall > thrust here is essentially > political. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Thank you, Hugo, for your comments. What you think ¡°political¡± here actually is related to the national esteem rather than real politics. Everyone is patriotic. It does not need reasons for being patriotic. There is no ¡°why¡± in loving one¡¯s country, just like there is no ¡°why¡± in loving one¡¯s mother. On the contrary, if one does not love their country and mother, there will be questions ¡°why¡±. In your further readings, I¡¯d like to give you a suggestion here. Use your own judgments in the readings. Many English version books on CM and related medicines have not provided true, accurate, and complete info. For example, check the English version books on Tibetan medicine. How many of them have provided the origin of Tibetan medicine? Most of them omit, skip, and avoid mentioning the origin of Tibetan medicine. Then use your own judgment here: Isn¡¯t it strange that a medicine book doesn¡¯t provide info on the origin of the medicine? This would give you a red flag that this book probably is biased, and is not worth reading. Examples like this are plenty. History will forget the books that disrespect history. Bob Xu Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: I agree with Chris, but I find it difficult to find a post on here which is not absolutely contaminated by the political. The tao te ching goes on about this problem at length. 84 chapters, I think. I also agree with Bob that there needs to be less labelling and more information. Labelling kind of assumes that others agree with, or even understand, the labels. In my POV, labelling is a manipulation. I almost agreed with Chris's post until I realised it was as political as Bob's!!! There was interesting info in Chris's post that I will follow up on in my own time though, so thanks Chris. Same goes for Bob. I find myself more wary of the PRC government, and surprisingly grateful to the PRC government as well. Thanks, Hugo --- Bob Xu <bxu6 wrote: > Mr. wrote: > > ¡°In my opinion, various topics for discussion > appropriate to this forum > might develop out of this, but Mr. Xu's overall > thrust here is essentially > political. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Thank you, Sammy, for your comments. I agree with your viewpoints in general, and would like to add a few points below: (1) Most readers here probably cannot experience what kind of feelings Chinese people have on CM. In order for you to imagine this feeling, let¡¯s use an example. Suppose you had made an excellent achievement in your work. Then, suddenly you found that achievement had been adopted and used by your colleague without telling you. Furthermore, your colleague renamed that achievement, and claimed it¡¯s his own invention because he had done some modifications and alterations. What would they feel then? That¡¯s exactly what Chinese people feel on CM. (2) If modifications and alterations to CM are significant enough, it is justified to rename it. However, in science, to protect the academic integrity, any such modifications and alterations demands rigorous scrutiny before they can claim a new name. Letting it go (as what is happening now) without scrutiny will destroy scientific integrity. (3) If that modifications and alterations are significant enough to be justified for a new name, as you said, they still should recognize (and honour) their origins. However, current situation is there is no mentioning of their origins at all. This is something very inappropriate, distasteful, arrogant, or even rude and offensive to Chinese people. (4) You raised a good example of 'Oetzie the Iceman'. Whether those points are tattoos or acupoints, it needs further studies and researches. Tattoos, similar to many other drawings, may look like acupoints. However, they don¡¯t have medicinal meanings. Acupuncture findings did not rely solely on acupoint picture/figures. There were many other related findings and discoveries (acupuncture stones, needles, books, case records, practices, theories, etc.) too. It was all those info combined together that had reached the conclusion that those pictures/figures have medicinal meanings, are acupoints, and are not tattoos or a random drawing. (5) We acknowledge the possibility of parallel development of human civilizations. However, to ensure academic integrity, any claims of parallel findings in science demand rigorous scrutiny before being justified. Letting those claims go unchecked will destroy the scientific integrity. It is one of the goals of ACMA Unified Medicine project to call for further scrutiny on those claims. (6) Today, CM has already become a treasure of entire human beings. How to protect CM ¨C the world¡¯s earliest comprehensive, systematic, complete, effective, and safe medicine ¨C is actually a big challenge and test to the human civilization. If a civilized world let the questions raised in the ACMA Unified Medicine project go without further scrutiny, it would set an unprecedented example in history. This could become a major setback of entire human civilization. Therefore, to protect CM is actually to protect the foundation and framework of human civilization. Failure to protect CM will probably cause the breakdown of this foundation and framework. Bob Xu sammy_bates <sammy_bates wrote:> (4) It is the PRC government that helped establish the profession of L.Ac. in America, which creates thousands of employment opportunities (including Mr. Macie, L.Ac.) and helps many American patients; Indeed. I can think of other L.Ac. members who have an obtuse attitude towards TCM issues. One does not expect them to be fawning boot lickers, but one does expect them to recognise (and honour) their origins. As for the thread on origins of TCM in prehistory, maybe Bob Xu or Mr Macie (or others) would like to comment on 'Oetzie the Iceman' a mummified 5000 year old European found in the Alps a dozen or so years ago. Oetzie had tattoos on his back which mapped out number of acu-points. Random chance? I would hazard a guess and say the Old World (east and west) shared the empirical based knowledge, phenomenological perspective and dialectic methodology we now associate with TCM. How such a body of profound knowledge formed over the millennia and was shared over such vast continental distances is a wonder of the prehistoric world. TCM is indeed an ancient world treasure we all have an investment in, and something we all have a responsibility to preserve in as pristine a condition as possible. If there are modifications and alterations to TCM then it should rightly be called something else, and the teaching of TCM should go on uncontaminated and unmolested. Sammy Bates Leicester, England Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 15, 2004 Report Share Posted July 15, 2004 Actually, there are a few books that give at least a good chapter or two to Tibetan medical history, but not enough to satisfy me. And there is nothing comprehensive in English on the history of Chinese medicine, other than Paul Unschuld's writings. I'd like to see some of the biographies of great Chinese physicians translated, or books like Ge Jia Xue Shuo, which compares different historical theories of Chinese medicine. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done. However, I have to say that I think that Chris did an excellent job with his article nonetheless. On Jul 14, 2004, at 4:28 PM, Bob Xu wrote: > > In your further readings, I¡¯d like to give you a suggestion here. > Use your own judgments in the readings. Many English version books on > CM and related medicines have not provided true, accurate, and > complete info. For example, check the English version books on > Tibetan medicine. How many of them have provided the origin of > Tibetan medicine? Most of them omit, skip, and avoid mentioning the > origin of Tibetan medicine. Then use your own judgment here: Isn¡¯t > it strange that a medicine book doesn¡¯t provide info on the origin of > the medicine? This would give you a red flag that this book probably > is biased, and is not worth reading. Examples like this are plenty. > History will forget the books that disrespect history. > > Bob Xu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 16, 2004 Report Share Posted July 16, 2004 Z'ev, You mentioned that ¡°Actually, there are a few books that give at least a good chapter or two to Tibetan medical history, but not enough to satisfy me. ¡± The history described in those books is very different from what we learned in China. In China, there are very detailed documentation of the founder of the Tibetan medicine and the process of how he found the Tibetan medicine. The detailedness, in contrast to the dodging of behaviors in the English version books, made me believe that the documentation in China is more reliable. You raised a good question here: ¡°I'd like to see some of the biographies of great Chinese physicians translated, or books like Ge Jia Xue Shuo, which compares different historical theories of Chinese medicine.¡± There is a long tradition, phenomenon, but also a pity in CM that great CMDs usually don¡¯t write books in person. Most of the times, it was their students, relatives, or scholars who didn¡¯t know too much about CM wrote the books for them. If the students, relatives, or scholars could accurately document their ideas, methods, techniques, etc., great books may be generated. Otherwise, the book may be distorted one way or another. Besides distortion, another major setback to CM is that it has always lost some info during this process. The main reason of this phenomenon is that great CMDs don¡¯t have time on writing. They are not interested in writing either. This trend still keeps going on today. Some measures have been taken to try to save CM, but there is still no very effective way to change this situation. Another deeply rooted tradition, phenomenon, and also pity in CM is that some great CMDs don¡¯t publish their branches of CM to the outside world. It has been kept within families for generations. Many of the great CMDs are not in major cities. As a result, even China government couldn¡¯t get the branches of medicine they have. So it is still a myth as to exactly how many branches of CM there are in China. Bob Xu <zrosenbe wrote: Actually, there are a few books that give at least a good chapter or two to Tibetan medical history, but not enough to satisfy me. And there is nothing comprehensive in English on the history of Chinese medicine, other than Paul Unschuld's writings. I'd like to see some of the biographies of great Chinese physicians translated, or books like Ge Jia Xue Shuo, which compares different historical theories of Chinese medicine. There is still a tremendous amount of work to be done. However, I have to say that I think that Chris did an excellent job with his article nonetheless. On Jul 14, 2004, at 4:28 PM, Bob Xu wrote: > > In your further readings, I¡¯d like to give you a suggestion here. > Use your own judgments in the readings. Many English version books on > CM and related medicines have not provided true, accurate, and > complete info. For example, check the English version books on > Tibetan medicine. How many of them have provided the origin of > Tibetan medicine? Most of them omit, skip, and avoid mentioning the > origin of Tibetan medicine. Then use your own judgment here: Isn¡¯t > it strange that a medicine book doesn¡¯t provide info on the origin of > the medicine? This would give you a red flag that this book probably > is biased, and is not worth reading. Examples like this are plenty. > History will forget the books that disrespect history. > > Bob Xu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.