RE: necessity of Chinese language

[Guest guest]

TCM, as a product of communist nationalism in the 1950's, is not the

" traditional " medicine of China. It has only 1/100 the knowledge of the

diverse master/apprentice lineages that preceded it, that it effaced in the

name of conformity and dialectic materialism. If you look at history, you

will see that Chinese medicine arose out of shamanic/divinatory practices.

Where/how did they find the points, all those 3000 / 5000/ 10000+ years ago?

According to you, they must have " pulled them out of their butts. " They

" made them up. " Where/how did they find the herbs? Double-blind clinical

trials?

 

At some point, according to your criteria, they were " MSUing " . Therefore,

the entire theoretical framework of Chinese medicine, according to your laws

of textual precedent, rests on nothing, on bull. It's turtles all the way

down, as they say. This is precisely the argument of biomedical skeptics

against CM. So, if you need a scientific basis, you're out of luck. If you

want a textual origin, you also are out of luck. What text did the Yellow

Emperor read? Find it for me, please. I'd like to see it.

 

JASON BLALACK SAID:

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

compare religious paths to medicine (TCM). }

 

What do you mean by " medicine " ? I would argue strongly that the development

of Chinese medicine more clearly parallels Asian religious traditions than

biomedicine, at least in its 20th century, scientific form. No scientific

trials, just the steady accretion and refinement and reiteration of

knowledge, both in a textual branch and a practical branch, which many

times, but not always, intersect.

 

JASON SAID: {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.}

 

I never mentioned getting hit with a stick to gain enlightenment. In fact, I

didn't mention enlightenment at all. Internal cultivation is one of the arts

of Chinese medicine (though not in " TCM " , which is just one recent

permutation of Chinese medicine). Note the word " cultivation " : a path of

study. We are not talking about innate genius or supernatural ability here

but the development of certain skills which enable a physician to diagnose

and treat illness by, namely, increasing the acuity of perception.

 

This can be done discursively, or this can be done apperceptively, but both

require much training. I agree that mental laziness is often disguised as

spontaneity and intuition, but neither does copious knowledge produce

wisdom.

 

JASON SAID: {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. }

 

Is this a " TCM " list? Or is this a traditional Chinese medicine list? Are we

discussing the tradition of Chinese medicine, or the national medicine of

the PRC? If this is a " TCM " list exclusively, then your criticism is valid

within that narrow framework. In such a case, I propose a Chinese medical

tradition list, with discussions appropriate to the full tradition and

lineage of Chinese medicine.

 

JASON SAID:{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. }

 

Did I talk about these things? No. I merely mentioned that the original

basis of the written tradition of Chinese medicine has not been entirely

superceded by the text, and in fact the texts are dead without the practice

lineages to challenge and refine them. Theory runs out, hits brick walls.

Likewise, practice hits blocks, becomes blind. The interplay of theory and

practice _is_ medicine. What you have described above is not Chinese, is not

the result of lineages of practice. Maybe a dowser hurt you one time, I

don't know, but it has nothing to do with my point. There are charlatans and

incompetents in every walk of life, in every culture. Americans have no

monopoly on them.

 

I wish you would actually read what people wrote instead of harping on the

tired old issue of how much you hate your American classmates. You might

actually be able to participate in a conversation instead of giving a

lecture to an audience of one.

 

 

-Benjamin Hawes

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " Benjamin Hawes "

<ben_laura@n...> wrote:

 

 

If you look at history, you

> will see that Chinese medicine arose out of shamanic/divinatory

practices.

> Where/how did they find the points, all those 3000 / 5000/ 10000+

years ago?

> According to you, they must have " pulled them out of their butts. " They

> " made them up. " Where/how did they find the herbs? Double-blind clinical

> trials?

>

> At some point, according to your criteria, they were " MSUing " .

Therefore,

> the entire theoretical framework of Chinese medicine, according to

your laws

> of textual precedent, rests on nothing, on bull. It's turtles all

the way

> down, as they say. This is precisely the argument of biomedical skeptics

> against CM. So, if you need a scientific basis, you're out of luck.

If you

> want a textual origin, you also are out of luck. What text did the

Yellow

> Emperor read? Find it for me, please. I'd like to see it.

 

Benjamin,

 

You are totally missing the point of my posts and I did not in anyway

say what you think I said (above). The MSU concept has to do with the

present. But let us look back at history. 1st the HuangDiNeiJing did

have books before them, and actually quite a few. There were many

neijing's this is just one of many (that survived). It is also a

compilation of ideas from many practitioners and previous books, hence

the many contradictory statements and ideas. But CM as we know it has

a couple of important selling points to note.

1) is that knowledge is built on the past ideas. People all through

history have been innovative, but historically one can always read how

the great innovators have not only studied the past, but usually use

some part of the past ideas. Look at the wenbing (early writers used

6 divisions)… this is reality. It is a gradual 2000 year snowball…

2) Things that are not true clinically get weeded out, i.e. many of

the shamanic practices, and bizarre treatments are hence no longer.

Point being, if you were 5000 years ago, you were probably be in a

small tribe, the local medicine man would show you his tricks and you

would use those + whatever you could figure out. You would pass this

on and if things did work overtime they would be gone… And much of

this stuff was pulled out of the butt that is why we don't use it

anymore, like treating night blindness by rubbing dog shit over

oneself under a full moon. This is CM history … (but rubbing the dog

shit is of course much better than what we do today in TCM because it

is pre-mao right?)

 

BUT we are not living 5000 years ago, and we have a huge amount of

data collected and this is why CM is so respected by many! The

distillation process (into TCM) is its strength. This has nothing to

do with double-blind studies, I don't know where that has come

from..?? I don't know where your turtle and bull comes from, but my

point is simple, I am highly skeptical of any innovation of CM that

are not grounded in some sort of study. (this maybe modern research or

just years of clinical experience with a firm understanding of the

foundation). The great innovations in CM can easily be seen to have

come from years of hard to study of the past with a necessity to

develop something new. Show me great innovations in CM that don't

have a firm understanding of what has come before it. I can easily

list the other side. So this comes full circle to us. We a have a

hypothetical graduate, who had a mediocre education, has a shaky

theoretical understanding and is having trouble getting the medicine

to really work in the clinic. They do not read Chinese and haven't

read many books, they have not spend i.e. 10 years studying with a

master. Now I don't blame them for dousing herbs or whatever they do

to come up with `stuff' to help their patients (because they have

limited options), but I give there discoveries about a 1% chance of

standing the test of time. And this is what I call MSU…

 

-

[Guest guest]

>Chinese Medicine , " Benjamin Hawes "

<ben_laura@n...> wrote:

 

> Is this a " TCM " list? Or is this a traditional Chinese medicine

list? Are we

> discussing the tradition of Chinese medicine, or the national

medicine of

> the PRC? If this is a " TCM " list exclusively, then your criticism is

valid

> within that narrow framework. In such a case, I propose a Chinese

medical

> tradition list, with discussions appropriate to the full tradition and

> lineage of Chinese medicine.

 

Maybe my mistake, I thought of this list as a modern CM list, because

of its title. I could have been totally mistaken. I was going on

some comments made by others previously that the 5 element stuff

people were discussing was not TCM and not really part of the list…if

this list is about anything in Chinese medical history, ie. Shamanism,

oral lineages etc, that is fine, just let it me known (moderator?)

 

>

> JASON SAID:{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. }

>

(BEN)> Did I talk about these things?

[Also]

(BEN) > I never mentioned getting hit with a stick to gain enlightenment.

 

Ben,

Wooo. Hold you defensive horses, I was not saying you did say these

things, I was just rambling to prove a point. You might not agree

with the point, and that is fine, but I was not addressing you or

anyone specifically… I was just posting to the list, take it for what

it is… If I don't mention your name than I am just generally speaking,

I thought this was understood?? I think my point about the douser is

hopefully explained in my previous post. And no I was never hurt by

one and have nothing personally against them….

 

 

> I wish you would actually read what people wrote instead of harping

on the

> tired old issue of how much you hate your American classmates.

 

I did read, and I posted, if it is tired and old then ignore it…If I

misunderstood something I apologize, but no need to get angry with me…

But IT seems lively enough for you to make a lengthy response.

Furthermore, I in no way hate my American classmates. I just think it

is disrespectful to MSU without even understanding fundamental CM.

That is it, (Chinese or American I could care less, it is just more

prevalent in America, and these reasons should be explored, and I have

mentioned many of them.)

 

You might

> actually be able to participate in a conversation instead of giving a

> lecture to an audience of one.

 

Well as much as you think people are not reading this, People are,

like it or not. And I am having a conversation with you, so if you

don't like what I say, then ignore it, otherwise the conversation will

continue. I just disagree with some that has recently been said, I

have expressed this, if this makes you mad then look at yourself not

me. I am only calling out ideas and words, not the people (this time

). If one is attached to their words so closely that it upsets them

if I call it BULL, then that is too bad, that is not my problem. maybe

one's zen teacher should hit them with another stick…

 

-

[Guest guest]

I think the study of chinese language is very important. However my most

influential teacher (chinese), said I should study to get electrical engineering

and doctor of divinity degrees first, because what he could teach me of chinese

medicine, which is a great amount, he could relay it in my language (my primary

language) because that is what he set out to do when he came to this place 50

some years ago. So now that he is gone, it would be a value to continue and

read the modern journals in thier original language, but his fluency made it

unnecesary then. So to think anyone who can't read or speak chinese, can't be

good at the chinese medicine, is like saying anyone who can't speak arabic,

can't be good with numbers.

 

Rich <rfinkelstein wrote:Hi Benjamin,

 

If I might add to your comments which I very much agree with:

 

>

> JASON SAID: {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. }

>

> Is this a " TCM " list? Or is this a traditional Chinese medicine

list? Are we

> discussing the tradition of Chinese medicine, or the national

medicine of

> the PRC? If this is a " TCM " list exclusively, then your criticism is

valid

> within that narrow framework.

 

As I noted in a post to Jason, qigong (chi kung) is very much part of

the national medicine of the PRC and is taught in universities in

China and is considered a seperate branch within hospitals that sits

alongside herbology, acupuncture, and tuina. There is no conflict, as

far as I can see, in discussing qigong within any definition of TCM.

 

From my experiences, any type of qigong, which of course would include

medical qigong, is nearly impossible to trasnfer on as " text " . This

may account for part of the reason that it is not considered an

" exportable " product by the PRC - though interestingly taiji is

considered an exportable product (maybe because of the photos which

make it a " physical practice " as opposed to an internal practice).

There is also the problem that the PRC suppresses various forms of

qigong practice for political reasons. Finally, there is the cultural

issue. Most Westerners are not " open " to the possibilities of this

practice. Hence, its lack of propogation and penetration into Western

cultures. But for me and my friends, it and tuina, is what we rely on

for our medical treatments.

 

Regards,

Rich