The real medicine???

July 31, 2004

Chinese Medicine , " Benjamin Hawes "

<ben_laura@n...> wrote:

> 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.

Propaganda…(?) This may be your opinion, but it is not the

mainstream. I can't think of one Chinese person I have met that

agrees with this and yes I have asked many. TCM, was formed by taking

the most important practical knowledge from top doctors from all over

the country and putting it all together. The sum is much more than

the individual is and was the thought process. TCM, includes about 10

diagnostic systems as a whole (i.e. 4 portion, 6 divisions etc etc) –

Apprenticeships prior to this might only have 1-2 ways of looking at

things, now there are so many ways. Maybe the TCM one learned (in the

the USA) was cut short and this is hard to see, but TCM as a whole is

arguable much much more comprehensive than anything in the past! I

think it is just historically wrong to think that the communist

somehow destroyed the `real medicine' – this is what I think you are

saying in your above quote, am I wrong?

-

July 31, 2004

I really agree with what jason says here. Not that anybody gives a damn with

what I think anyhow. I guess. geez

Says !!!

TCM, was formed by taking the most important practical knowledge from top

doctors from all over the country and putting it all together. The sum is much

more than the individual is and was the thought process. TCM, includes about 10

diagnostic systems as a whole (i.e. 4 portion, 6 divisions etc etc) –

Apprenticeships prior to this might only have 1-2 ways of looking at things, now

there are so many ways. Maybe the TCM one learned (in the the USA) was cut

short and this is hard to see, but TCM as a whole is arguable much much more

comprehensive than anything in the past! I think it is just historically wrong

to think that the communist somehow destroyed the `real medicine'

July 31, 2004

Hi,

If one reads Chapter 1, section 3 of Wiseman's translation of the

Fundamentals of by Zhong, one can begin to get an

idea of how the " Modern Appraisal " of Chinese medicine has sought to

revise classical Chinese/Asian medicine. Mark Seems also sets forth

his own critique of TCM (teh PRC version) in his books. I'm sure there

are many others who have similar critiques of PRC TCM. Whether or not

the modern appraisal of classical Chinese medicine represents

progress, I guess depends upon one's own experiences and point of view.

Regards,

Rich

Chinese Medicine , mystir

<ykcul_ritsym> wrote:

> I really agree with what jason says here. Not that anybody gives a

damn with what I think anyhow. I guess. geez

>

> Says !!!

> TCM, was formed by taking the most important practical knowledge

from top doctors from all over the country and putting it all

together. The sum is much more than the individual is and was the

thought process. TCM, includes about 10 diagnostic systems as a whole

(i.e. 4 portion, 6 divisions etc etc) – Apprenticeships prior to this

might only have 1-2 ways of looking at things, now there are so many

ways. Maybe the TCM one learned (in the the USA) was cut short and

this is hard to see, but TCM as a whole is arguable much much more

comprehensive than anything in the past! I think it is just

historically wrong to think that the communist somehow destroyed the

`real medicine'

>

July 31, 2004

I am only agreeing to notice the modern attempts at synthesizing or maybe

cataloging the many streams of CM of the past. Some of which are very complete

in themselves. Progress can be evaluated truthfully on a personal basis, and

also on a broad scale. My opinion is personal progression in general is way

ahead of trends in the biosphere as a whole. If someone noticed thier hair was

on fire, it would be important. But if someone hears thier world is on fire ,

then 'eh, watcha gonna do?'. When we see and value the relationship of the

world at large to all its present and future inhabitants, then real medicine

will follow.

Rich <rfinkelstein wrote:Hi,