RE: importance of Chinese language

[Guest guest]

I wholeheartedly concur with both Atillio's AND Rich's/Chris's sentiments.

The tradition of Chinese medicine must be grappled with and mastered by our

culture from both without and within. In other words, scholarship and praxis

are Yin and Yang, and both benefit from the other without having final claim

on the " true nature " of CM. As a parallel, I offer the paradigm of Tibetan

Buddhism, a not wholly unrelated scholarship/praxis lineage of lengthly

development and history. There are four main schools, two of which would

seem, at least superficially, diametrically opposed. The Gelugpa tradition,

to which the Dalai Lama belongs, is a scholarship-based path. Meditation

practices are the culmination of long years of scriptural memorization and

mastery. Textual mastery is the prerequisite for, and epistemological basis

of, the praxis and manifestation of the scriptural knowledge. In the

Dzogchen tradition, which has many similarities to Zen Buddhism, texts are

secondary to the practice. The practice is the vehicle of knowledge, the

basis of the texts which cannot be understood without the direct experience

of meditative insight.

 

My point is that both of these schools exist within the same tradition. In

fact, the tradition is continually refined and refreshed because of the

tension between these perspectives. And it is a broader path because it has

not felt compelled to purge itself of one or the other in the name of

ideological purity: individuals, depending on their inclinations and natural

abilities, will gravitate more towards one pole or the other, and through

diligent practice will eventually approach the other side. The poles may

thus be considered segments of a circle that, if pursued to the utmost along

that vector, completes itself on the other side of the path.

 

In , some may need to delve deeply into the past, mastering

the mother tongue and developing an exceedingly refined and nuanced mastery

of the basic concepts in order to retrieve that diamond hidden under the

mountain of textual tradition. These are the scholer-practitioners, and that

is their way. Others practice Qigong, meditation, breathing practices, and

shamanic arts to burn through discursive smoke and mirrors and arrive at the

crystalline structure of healing through direct apperception of the cosmic

qi-source. That is the way of the intuitive-practitioner.

 

Tell me which one is the real doctor and, as my Zen teacher say, I hit you

thirty times.

 

 

 

 

 

-Ben Hawes

 

 

 

" Rich " <rfinkelstein said:

 

>>My Chinese doctor has very limited textbook knowledge (he apprenticed),

yet is able to deliver a quality of care that I have not seen in other

skilled doctors. I believe this is because of his 30 years training in

Daoism, Buddhism, and Qigong - the " fundamental experiences " from which all

of Chinese medicine is built upon.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Benjamin Hawes, MAOM, Lic. Ac.,

 

 

 

 

CORTEZ FAMILY ACUPUNCTURE

 

1430 E. Main Street, Suite #4

 

Cortez, CO 81321

 

(970) 565-0230

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " Benjamin Hawes "

<ben_laura@n...> wrote:

> > In , some may need to delve deeply into the past, mastering

> the mother tongue and developing an exceedingly refined and nuanced mastery

> of the basic concepts in order to retrieve that diamond hidden under the

> mountain of textual tradition. These are the scholer-practitioners, and that

> is their way. Others practice Qigong, meditation, breathing practices, and

> shamanic arts to burn through discursive smoke and mirrors and arrive at the

> crystalline structure of healing through direct apperception of the cosmic

> qi-source. That is the way of the intuitive-practitioner.

>

 

problem is, in the West we have few practitioners experienced enough to model

excellence in either of these two ways. the intuitive is in particular in

danger of

lapsing into self-gratification unless they have a reference point. at least

there are

historical models of excellence in the written records, contemporary ones too of

course (not many of us can actually study with Jiao Shude, but at least we have

his

books).

 

another problem IMO is lack of discernment as to who is a good model and who is

not. lots of hype does not a healer make.

 

robert hayden

[Guest guest]

Dear Benjamin,

 

Chinese Medicine , " Benjamin Hawes "

<ben_laura@n...> wrote:

> I wholeheartedly concur with both Atillio's AND Rich's/Chris's

sentiments.

> The tradition of Chinese medicine must be grappled with and mastered

by our

> culture from both without and within.

 

I very much enjoyed the way you presented the different perspectives

and " paths " . It is a very nice way to look at things.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " Benjamin Hawes "

<ben_laura@n...> wrote:

> I wholeheartedly concur with both Atillio's AND Rich's/Chris's

sentiments.

> The tradition of Chinese medicine must be grappled with and mastered

by our

> culture from both without and within. In other words, scholarship

and praxis

> are Yin and Yang, and both benefit from the other without having

final claim

> on the " true nature " of CM. As a parallel, I offer the paradigm of

Tibetan

> Buddhism, a not wholly unrelated scholarship/praxis lineage of lengthly

> development and history. There are four main schools, two of which would

> seem, at least superficially, diametrically opposed. The Gelugpa

tradition,

> to which the Dalai Lama belongs, is a scholarship-based path. Meditation

> practices are the culmination of long years of scriptural

memorization and

> mastery. Textual mastery is the prerequisite for, and

epistemological basis

> of, the praxis and manifestation of the scriptural knowledge. In the

> Dzogchen tradition, which has many similarities to Zen Buddhism,

texts are

> secondary to the practice. The practice is the vehicle of knowledge, the

> basis of the texts which cannot be understood without the direct

experience

> of meditative insight.

>

> My point is that both of these schools exist within the same

tradition. In

> fact, the tradition is continually refined and refreshed because of the

> tension between these perspectives. And it is a broader path because

it has

> not felt compelled to purge itself of one or the other in the name of

> ideological purity: individuals, depending on their inclinations and

natural

> abilities, will gravitate more towards one pole or the other, and

through

> diligent practice will eventually approach the other side. The poles may

> thus be considered segments of a circle that, if pursued to the

utmost along

> that vector, completes itself on the other side of the path.

>

> In , some may need to delve deeply into the past,

mastering

> the mother tongue and developing an exceedingly refined and nuanced

mastery

> of the basic concepts in order to retrieve that diamond hidden under the

> mountain of textual tradition. These are the scholer-practitioners,

and that

> is their way. Others practice Qigong, meditation, breathing

practices, and

> shamanic arts to burn through discursive smoke and mirrors and

arrive at the

 

Yes this is true, but these are not TCM! I think it is not fair to

compare religious paths to medicine (TCM). One may get hit with a

stick and gain enlightenment, but I have yet to meet anyone that has

'mastered' TCM by getting hit with such a stick (or without study.)

You can meditate and 'feel the way' all you want, but I am very

skeptical that this approach will suddenly give enlightenment of the

medicine. If one wants to just be some energy qi gong healer, fine

this path might work, but again this is not TCM. I am only

emphasizing this, because we are dealing with a subject TCM

specifically on this list. Even Lonny, as much as he talks about the

now and spontaneous information, has obviously built up his past with

study. I think anyone that thinks they can intuitively understand

what is going on in TCM without rigor is highly deluded. Finally,

this comes back to western acupuncturist versus Chinese. This western

mentality has produced people who pick the herbs through things like

dousing and muscle testing. I would really like to see a Rx written

by someone with this style. Of course with acupuncture one can get a

way with much more and this woo woo western approach. And there are

i.e. many practitioners (i.e. Japanese) that all they do is palpate

meridians and find blockages and needle, but again this is not TCM…

TCM is a science. There is inherit rules and logic. One MUST study

them to understand. Does one understand quantum physics without any

prior theory? Maybe 1 in a million… Even the best free-form Jazz

cats, who sound like they are creating out of thin air, have hours a

day of practice of the past masters, theory, etc to create there

improvisations. One of the most famous improvers once said, " on a

great night I might actually only create 5-10% of my `improvisations'

the rest is past practice. " Have you ever heard people who think they

can just play music without following any form or without practicing

scales, licks etc…I have, and I wish I hadn't, they are totally

deluded, and I have a hard time calling what they do music, but

everyone has there opinion. IMO, maybe 1 out of 1 million people may

have some spontaneous gift for music, medicine, etc, the rest of us

have to work at it. Spiritual paths are completely different realm

than understanding TCM, hell one can eat a handful of mushrooms and

have a religious experience. This process might actually work for

some insight (ala shamanism) for a given patient, but I seriously

doubt one could write formulas all day based on such insights or as

put below practicing intuitively (without a foundation).

There is no substitute for the real thing, education & study, built on

blood, sweat, and tears. I have never heard a master TCMer or Chinese

say otherwise. And I think that it is pretty much agreed upon that

once one has such a foundation, things like intuition are important,

but how before hand?

 

Finally, as said previously even if one has some special qi gong power

" crystalline structure of healing through direct apperception of the

cosmic

> qi-source. "

(which is not really TCM), how does one communicate this to others, it

is useless only in dealing with directly patients. I get referrals

from one of these people, it is quite interesting, because it is when

there is actually something organically wrong (like asthma), and the

patient is usually getting worse and is of course all do to some

negative energy, that needs to be cleared... But I am open that this

style works (ala qigong healing, ala shamanism) but I suggest we keep

this separate from TCM for the above reasons. TCM has evolved for

better or worse past such ideas for disease cause and its rationality

and theory is what holds it together, not some intangible energy. And

BTW, this was not created by the communist, this shift happened many

many 100 years ago…

 

The skeptic as usual,

 

-

 

 

> crystalline structure of healing through direct apperception of the

cosmic

> qi-source. That is the way of the intuitive-practitioner.

>

> Tell me which one is the real doctor and, as my Zen teacher say, I

hit you

> thirty times.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Jason,

 

> If one wants to just be some energy qi gong healer, fine

> this path might work, but again this is not TCM.

 

Medical qigong, as well as tuina, are considered equal to acupuncture

within Chinese TCM practice.

 

 

> I am only

> emphasizing this, because we are dealing with a subject TCM

> specifically on this list.

 

 

http://www.index-china.com/index-english/TCM-s.html

 

" TCM is defined as a medical science governing the theory and practice

of traditional Chinese medicine. It includes Chinese medication,

pharmacology/herbalogy, acupuncture, massage and Qigong. "

 

Tuina is the Asian form of massage - though it is really much more

since it encompasses the whole skeletal, muscular and sinew system as

well as the underlying energetic meridians. And it is certainly not

" pleasent " . I think " body energetic work " is a better way to describe

it. The unique aspect of my own doctor's practice is that he combines

tuina with qigong.

 

> TCM is a science.

 

Yes, I agree but I have found that many people do not consider qigong

and tuina (massage) sciences - but others may disagree. In fact,

there are tons of scientists who do not even think herbology or

acupuncture are sciences. Do you?

 

> There is inherit rules and logic.

 

Yes, within the " system " that is being studied. The system of yin/yang

and qi are consistent within itself and all of the concepts that arise

out of them, but it does not follow necessarily the rules of

Aristotelian logic. But neither does Quantum Physics - or do you think

Quantum Physics is " logical " .

 

" Anyone who says that they can contemplate quantum mechanics without

becoming dizzy has not understood the concept in the least. "

-- Niels Bohr

 

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/30/04 12:30:54 AM, writes:

 

<< Yes this is true, but these are not TCM! I think it is not fair to

 

compare religious paths to medicine (TCM). >>

 

Jason, with all due respect, I think it's not right to call what people are

talking about in terms of meditation, qigong, etc. 'religion'. And later in

your post you use the term 'woowoo'. I think this particular thread has been

able to penetrate the issues further than previous threads because, so far,

those who have written in have avoided this kind of labeling and polarizing

language.

 

If you want to say such things are not TCM, fine.

 

--RoseAnne

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , ra6151@a...

wrote:

>

> In a message dated 7/30/04 12:30:54 AM, writes:

>

> << Yes this is true, but these are not TCM! I think it is not fair

to

>

> compare religious paths to medicine (TCM). >>

>

> Jason, with all due respect, I think it's not right to call what

people are

> talking about in terms of meditation, qigong, etc. 'religion'. And

later in

> your post you use the term 'woowoo'.

 

I really think that you should re-read my post, and if I was unclear

I apoligize but in previous posts (others) it was clear people were

comparing religious paths with TCM, especially in reference to

enlightened ah-ha experiences. Infering that this same type of

mentality could be applied to medicine (TCM). I disagree, period.,

you may not, fine... Also as far as the woo woo comment goes I was

clearly talking about dousing and muscle testing herbs, and I stick

to my statement that this is WOOWOO and far from TCM...

 

 

I think this particular thread has been

> able to penetrate the issues further than previous threads because,

so far,

> those who have written in have avoided this kind of labeling and

polarizing

> language.

>

> If you want to say such things are not TCM, fine.

>

> --RoseAnne