re: study of TCM--Jason and all

[Guest guest]

Hi All

 

 

With respect to meditation, qi gong and the non-textual basis

for " perceiving qi " , I have a few references to offer and things to

say. First, Daniel Goleman's book " Destructive Emotions:

Conversations with the Dalai Lama " recounts a meeting facilitated by

the Mind and Life Institute of Boulder between Buddhist scholars,

phychologists, neuroscientists, philosophers and others regarding

destructive emotions or " the seven affects " as they are called in

TCM which are recognized as a very powerful etiology of disease. The

participants dialogued with " His Holiness " about the ideas of his

tradition concerning these emotions and why meditation might be a

way to " cure " or ameliorate mental illness in many cases. Many new

avenues of study were discovered and HH gave them all a lot to think

about. According to the Epilogue, the neuroscientist later engaged a

highly skilled lama for meditation experiments while being evaluated

by an fMRI machine. All the Dalai Lama's claims were substantiated

regarding one's ability to cultivate equanimity. In one experiment,

a gun was shot off (without having informed the lama that this would

be happening) during the middle of the experiment and his " brain

picture " remained very nearly completely unfazed--moreso than any of

the previous participants in the same experiment were able to

manage. His " brain picture " in general exhibited previously

unrecorded refinement of balance and equanimity. This is " scientific

evidence " in support of the effects of meditation on the human brain

and thus on neurotransmitters, hormones and physiological process.

Meditation is patient-centered, self-empowering medicine which can

remove causes just like changing one's diet, stopping smoking, etc.

Because it is completely internal, I believe it is even more

powerful and empowering. The " cat's out of the bag " so to speak.

Also, in my experience, MD's more readily refer their patients for

meditation, Tai Ji etc. than acupuncture or herbs. It is so simple

compared to acu/herbs that it is easier to prove its effectiveness.

This is truly root treatment in many cases.

Another sweet little " bathroom book " is " Einstein and Buddha: The

Parallel Sayings " . It makes elegant links between Eastern philosophy

and Quantum Physics by using quotes from the masters in both

traditions. Here's one: Werner Heisenberg said, " We should not let

everything else atrophy in favor of the one organ of rational

analysis....It is a matter, rather, of seizing upon reality with all

the organs that are given to us, and trusting that this reality will

then also reflect the essence of things, the 'one, the good and the

true.' " and the parallel saying attributed to Buddha

is, " Transcendental intelligence rises when the intellectual mind

reaches its limit and if things are to be realized in their true and

essential nature, its processes of thinking must be transcended by

an appeal to some higher faculty of cognition. " Really a neat little

book which addresses much of what the list has been talking about

lately.

As to the mixing of " religious traditions " and TCM, as has been

said, qi gong and Daoism were at the beginning. Daoism wasn't a

religion in the strictest sense of the word at its beginning. It's

my understanding that the Daoists adopted their " deities " after the

introduction of Buddhism in China to compete for the support of the

masses who were attracted to the concept of sacrificing to idols as

an easy way to ensure a good afterlife or reincarnation. Even

Buddhism, in its beginning, was never about idols perse. These

practices arose in the masses who admired the equanimity they

observed in monks and practitioners but were unable to study or

practice because of the lack of mass communication and literacy.

When HH was self-exiled from Tibet, he made an effort to contact

many of the other world " religious leaders " and found them

pendantic, unpractical, political and completely closed to his

tradition which supported a more self-empowered approach to

contentment and the alleviation of suffering. There was always some

God to please, sin to be guilty about and more sacrifices and self-

flaggelation to subject oneself to. In the 1970's, he and his

advisors came to realize that the introduction of Buddhism to the

West (to further their goals of alleviating suffering and winning

back their homeland) would be through the fields of science and

psychology. I propose that much of Buddhism revolves around the

science of the mind and conciousness and that one can use its

practices and the practices of Daoism (which are quite similar in

many ways) to achieve self-regulation of mental and physical health,

many times without the help of " medicine " --Eastern or Western. Some

(hopefully) Eastern medicine may be desirable to help the process

along but once near balance is achieved, I propose that one can

maintain their health quite effectively requiring fewer treatments

and become a happier more equanamous person to boot. Thought, i.o.

judgement, precedes emotion which drives production of many

neurotransmitters creating cascades of hormones which can either

support or destroy health.

In my American TCM studies, we were all required to study both Asian

Bodywork in some form and martial arts, internal or external or

both. I am, indeed, very thankful for these requirements as they

have helped me to help myself and many patients as well.

My Mission Statement for my clinic goes something like this: " I will

strive to help my patients achieve health and wellbeing in the most

expedient, cheapest way possible through methods both self-

empowering and assisting. " This has proven quite successful for my

practice for as I quickly " graduate " one patient, 10 more call me

having heard of the honest and expedient help to be had. My patients

are less " dependent " on my skills if they choose the path of self-

empowerment which I offer to them. Of course, life being what it is,

they do come back from time to time when the slings and arrows

become too intense and they lose time for their own practice. I,

too, experience this. But, for the most part, since learning my

meditation and Tai Ji skills, I find it much easier to maintain and

fend off pain and problems than before when I was blown around by

the winds of chance and found myself either obsessively distracting

myself from internal processes or compulsively diving in to

emotional turmoil. I am, understandably, very cautious about how and

to whom I introduce these " mind exercises " as some might be quite

put off thinking I'm advocating they change their religious beliefs.

I try to direct them to scientific sources on the effectiveness of

meditation and stress that they are not worshiping any " God " when

performing these exercises. Buddhism and Daoism, as many of you may

know, are non-theistic in nature.

Jason: Your tone is faltering. Do not believe that the only way

to " get attention " for your views is by acting out in a negative

manner. Starting a firestorm is to cause pain and suffering to

others even if it promotes a sort of glib satisfation for you. The

bully on the playground is a sad person indeed. If he only knew that

cooperation and compassionate dialogue would promote a more fruitful

harvest of ideas and knowledge, think what he could accomplish! Then

he would be the first to be picked for the team, dialogue, research

group, as a practitioner. I know that you can get your point accross

and take exception to the ideas of others without calling their

ideas " bull " . Were you only given attention or touched when you were

contentious and rebellious in your past? This behaviour must have

been modeled by someone of authority in your history. It is

unnecessary and unintelligent and not in accordance with a healing

nature.

 

Regards, Shanna

[Guest guest]

shannahickle <shannahickle wrote

Eastern medicine may be desirable to help the process

along but once near balance is achieved, I propose that one can

maintain their health quite effectively requiring fewer treatments and become a

happier more equanamous person to boot.

 

Very nice, Shanna. I think its important too, to remember that we are just

trying to help the natural streams/processes along from time to time (sometimes

a long time). Most streams lead to the sea, and when a person can face it's

uncertain unimaginable depth, open-eyed without scars of the past or fear of the

future- with power and joy even, then no matter what, they are in the stream

securely- they are free as a bird of fire. Thier mind no longer feels the need

to construct a familiar cage out of things. Channels open to their source. Now

is wow(indescribable). Gaining in experience of more and more subtle qi flow and

its give/outflowing and take/inflowing in this dance. Does that make sense? I

was taught and found it to be true, I think, that opening those large blocks

should only have to be done once, and then remember and refine. I sound so

sophmoric or random sometimes maybe, but the elements of the picture are

diverse.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Shanna,

I just wanted to make one simple response to your long posting.

There is no problem with qi gong, meditation, tuina or any other

modalities that are part of Chinese or world medicine. There are lots

of interesting interactions between buddhist psychology and

neuroscience. Taoism did contribute to Chinese medicine. All this is

true. But this is not the point I think Jason is trying to make.

 

The issue here is what constitutes 'medicine'? The aspects of

Chinese medicine that treat illness require great skill in diagnostics

and treatment, and the ability to manage these patients and their

conditions. The major therapeutic modality is herbal medicine,

secondly acupuncture. Qi gong, manipulation, behaviorial therapies are

all part of Chinese medicine, but one can practice these techniques

without diagnosing patients (by trained therapists). These modalities

are designed not to treat illness, but to preserve, restore and

maintain health. This is no small thing. However, if patients are ill

and need professional care, only a trained physician can treat them or

recommend them to other therapies. This is true in Chinese, Ayurvedic,

Unani, Tibetan or any traditional medical system as well as

biomedicine. I think we are so confused, and so reactive to Western

medicine, that we forget that Chinese medicine is professional medicine

that requires rigorous training in how to take care of sick people.

 

 

On Jul 31, 2004, at 9:46 AM, shannahickle wrote:

 

> With respect to meditation, qi gong and the non-textual basis

> for " perceiving qi " , I have a few references to offer and things to

> say.

[Guest guest]

Hi Shanna,

 

Thank you for your posting.

 

> As to the mixing of " religious traditions " and TCM, as has been

> said, qi gong and Daoism were at the beginning. Daoism wasn't a

> religion in the strictest sense of the word at its beginning.

 

The way I view Daoism is that it is more like a philosophy, or a way

of life, than a religion - though it has evolved and many people

practice it as a religion. The same can be said of Buddhism.

 

> I try to direct them to scientific sources on the effectiveness of

> meditation and stress that they are not worshiping any " God " when

> performing these exercises. Buddhism and Daoism, as many of you may

> know, are non-theistic in nature.

 

Qigong itself does have a " spiritual " aspect to it, as part of its

meditation since through the process one obtains a better

understanding concerning " the stuff of the universe " - better known as

qi. :-)

 

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Dear Z'ev,

 

> The aspects of

> Chinese medicine that treat illness require great skill in diagnostics

> and treatment, and the ability to manage these patients and their

> conditions. The major therapeutic modality is herbal medicine,

> secondly acupuncture. Qi gong, manipulation, behaviorial therapies are

> all part of Chinese medicine, but one can practice these techniques

> without diagnosing patients (by trained therapists). These modalities

> are designed not to treat illness, but to preserve, restore and

> maintain health.

 

Since my own experiences, and that of my family and friends, as well

as many acquaintences, is quite contrary to what you have outlined in

the above posting, I would be very interested in hearing about your

training in qigong and tuina, and any experiences that you may have

had with these modalities.

 

Regards,

Rioch

[Guest guest]

Hi Z'ev

 

Thanks for the clarification as to what you and Jason are talking

about. I don't disagree with any of it except that, at least in my

training in qi gong and tui na, we used the same diagnostic criteria

and similar treatment principles that we used in acupuncture. So I'm

unclear as to what you're getting at with regard to your

statement " The aspects of

> Chinese medicine that treat illness require great skill in

diagnostics

> and treatment, and the ability to manage these patients and their

> conditions. " . We explored, in tui na and QG, the treatment of

everything from menstrual disorders and back pain to depression

using the same points and dx as other forms of TCM. Perhaps that

side effects of wrong acu/herbal treatment could be more serious due

to the more invasive nature of herbs and acu? Or that these

treatments are more powerful and affect the patient on a deeper

level? I guess there are many practitioners of QG and Tui Na who

don't use traditional diagnostics but according to my training, I

and my teachers do. I must say, however, they are not my primary

tools and I usually only use them with patients who don't want

needles or herbs--too labor intensive and not as expedient. But when

people feel the effects of the points, they become more open to

acupuncture and I have created many converts in my community by

using these " lesser " modalities.

Perhaps, because I was concurrently being educated in herbs/acu we

were able to dove tail in the higher diagnostic skills along with

the perseptive ones. Maybe their being included in the definition

of " medicine " would have to do with wheather the practitioner was

trained to diagnose using TCM principles. Or are you unconvinced of

their effectiveness? I've never experienced any major healing with

the application Qi Gong by another (I've never been treated by

anyone considered a true " master " nor was I ever " sick " during class

practice) although I manage many of my own occasional transient

symptoms with acupressure/self tui na and directing my qi

internally, healing sounds etc. Maybe it's just that this aspect of

my practice is not considered " medicine " in the strictest sense of

the word. Shouldn't they, however, still be included if possible? I

agree that to treat a seriously ill person, precise herbal and

acupuncture dx and tx are the superior choices and expedient for the

not so ill as well. But what of our role as empowerer and instructor

of the patient in removing causes (meditation) and managing

symptoms, modifying diet and lifestyle and emotion? Are these not

considered " medicine " or practice thereof? Isn't an MD who also

advises patients about diet and lifestyle considered, at least, by

his patients to be superior? I am in a unique situation in my

practice as well since I have no one to whom to refer people--the

nearest MD is 80miles, other acupuncturist 200 miles, tui na and qi

gong 500 miles away. My practice is sort of a " one stop shop " though

my lifelong study will be primarily herbs and secondarily acu.

Thanks for your patience with my ignorance. Gosh! Not another long

post!!

 

Respectfully if not wordily, Shanna

 

Chinese Medicine , " Z'ev

Rosenberg " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Shanna,

> I just wanted to make one simple response to your long

posting.

> There is no problem with qi gong, meditation, tuina or any other

> modalities that are part of Chinese or world medicine. There are

lots

> of interesting interactions between buddhist psychology and

> neuroscience. Taoism did contribute to Chinese medicine. All

this is

> true. But this is not the point I think Jason is trying to make.

>

> The issue here is what constitutes 'medicine'? The aspects of

> Chinese medicine that treat illness require great skill in

diagnostics

> and treatment, and the ability to manage these patients and their

> conditions. The major therapeutic modality is herbal medicine,

> secondly acupuncture. Qi gong, manipulation, behaviorial

therapies are

> all part of Chinese medicine, but one can practice these

techniques

> without diagnosing patients (by trained therapists). These

modalities

> are designed not to treat illness, but to preserve, restore and

> maintain health. This is no small thing. However, if patients

are ill

> and need professional care, only a trained physician can treat

them or

> recommend them to other therapies. This is true in Chinese,

Ayurvedic,

> Unani, Tibetan or any traditional medical system as well as

> biomedicine. I think we are so confused, and so reactive to

Western

> medicine, that we forget that Chinese medicine is professional

medicine

> that requires rigorous training in how to take care of sick people.

>

>

> On Jul 31, 2004, at 9:46 AM, shannahickle wrote:

>

> > With respect to meditation, qi gong and the non-textual basis

> > for " perceiving qi " , I have a few references to offer and things

to

> > say.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/1/04 12:44:58 AM, zrosenbe writes:

 

<< The issue here is what constitutes 'medicine'? >>

 

A couple of thoughts come up for me:

 

One is what someone mentioned before, that the method of learning CM

primarily from textbooks is a 'western' method. People seem so concerned that

we not

lose any of the Chinese theory (through lack of reading the language, for

instance) yet do these same people care if we lose the 'eastern' methods of

learning (movement, energy work, direct hands-on learning, direct transmission?)

 

This leads me to my second thought, that is, it would be a real shame if we

let the western practice of CM disembody the medicine. WM is for the most part

unembodied, ie. witness the pushing to the sidelines of all the body

therapies - physical therapy and all other body-work modalities not being

considered

medicine and pretty much devalued by most with a medical background. Yet if

one studies some of the body-work methods (I'm thinking of the ones I know best,

Body-Mind Centering and Craniosacral work) one finds that this is the place

where eastern and western ideas have already merged and become 'complementary'.

 

 

After 15 years of study of Body-Mind Centering, I have found my current study

of CM to be smooth-sailing. Yes, I still have to memorize herbs and point

functions, but the BODY I learned through my BMC study is the same BODY of CM.

My teacher/mentor of BMC is one of those rare ones - she has a kind of

'inner-sight' (like some of the great CM master-teachers). But she has

endeavored to

teach her skills to others, and after 15+ years of witnessing this

teaching/learning, I can say that a good percentage of what she can do CAN be

passed to

others. Though I know most if not all of you have not heard of Body-Mind

Centering, I mention my training because I think it is analogous to training in

qi

gong healing.

 

I think the attempt to say that 'herbs and acupuncture are medicine and gi

gong is not' reflects the western inclination to deny the body and elevate the

brain as the foremost organ of learning and assessment. This, IMO, would not

be a step forward for CM in the west. This trend could bring about a

reiteration of what has happened in Osteopathy. I've been told that as D.O.'s

have

sought to become on par with M.D.'s they have dropped their own heritage of

body-based therapies. Thus craniosacral work (the body modality of osteopathy)

has

slipped out of the medical schools and has become a thriving enterprise in

the 'alternative' world.

 

-RoseAnne

[Guest guest]

Hi Shanna,

 

> Or are you unconvinced of their effectiveness?

 

My friends and acquaintenances have used qigong/tuina with more

effectiveness than herbs/acupuncture in the following situations:

 

1) ovarian cysts

2) high blook pressure

3) infertility

4) arthritis

5) bursitus

6) severe curvature of the spine (I forgot the western diagnosis)

7) insomnia

 

This is a short list since in many cases the problems were so strange

that no diagnosis, western or eastern, were possible. In all cases,

acupuncture and herbal treatment by highly skilled, Chinese trained

doctors had failed and in several cases surgery was avoided. Which is

the more superior treatment? For these patients it was tuina/qigong

since it was this treatment that finally succeeded. Also, as I

mentioned in a previous post, the only diagnosis that is made is the

area of cold or or wind damp obstruction.

 

While I too only knew of the PRC TCM methodology up until three years

ago, this new methodology opened up many new doors to my familie's

health and well-being. I hope you find it interesting.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Hi RoseAnne,

 

> People seem so concerned that we not

> lose any of the Chinese theory (through lack of reading the

language, for

> instance) yet do these same people care if we lose the 'eastern'

methods of

> learning (movement, energy work, direct hands-on learning, direct

transmission?)

 

I very much agree. From these practices sprang the knowledge written

and texts of Chinese medicine.

 

> Yet if

> one studies some of the body-work methods (I'm thinking of the ones

I know best,

> Body-Mind Centering and Craniosacral work) one finds that this is

the place

> where eastern and western ideas have already merged and become

'complementary'.

 

This is so true. I come across bodyworkers with many different

backgrounds, yet we are able to relate very easily to each other at

all levels - physical, emotional, spiritual, energetic. It is all the

same because the fundamental body/mind body is the same.

 

>

>

> I think the attempt to say that 'herbs and acupuncture are medicine

and gi

> gong is not' reflects the western inclination to deny the body and

elevate the

> brain as the foremost organ of learning and assessment.

 

I agree. The tone of this comment reminded me of how western trained

M.D.s describe TCM.

 

> This, IMO, would not

> be a step forward for CM in the west. This trend could bring about a

> reiteration of what has happened in Osteopathy.

 

My D.O who has included homeopathy, cranialsacral, and Chinese

medicine in his practice has made the same observations. His own

practice, however, has flourished and he is in very heavy demand.

 

Thank you very much for your insights on this topic.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Au contraire,

I thought this list was a professional TCM list. Are you also an

acupuncturist or herbalist?

 

I was trained as a shiatsu therapist in the early 70's and a licensed

massage therapist since then, with some training in tuina later on.

Ditto with qi gong, although for many years now I've concentrated on

the practice of Iyengar Yoga, and my wife is a teacher of this school.

 

How are your experiences contrary to what I've said below? Do you do

pulse diagnosis, tongue diagnosis, questioning, make a pattern

differentiation and treat with specific herb or point prescriptions?

 

 

On Jul 31, 2004, at 10:15 PM, Rich wrote:

 

> Dear Z'ev,

>

>> The aspects of

>> Chinese medicine that treat illness require great skill in diagnostics

>> and treatment, and the ability to manage these patients and their

>> conditions. The major therapeutic modality is herbal medicine,

>> secondly acupuncture. Qi gong, manipulation, behaviorial therapies

>> are

>> all part of Chinese medicine, but one can practice these techniques

>> without diagnosing patients (by trained therapists). These modalities

>> are designed not to treat illness, but to preserve, restore and

>> maintain health.

>

> Since my own experiences, and that of my family and friends, as well

> as many acquaintences, is quite contrary to what you have outlined in

> the above posting, I would be very interested in hearing about your

> training in qigong and tuina, and any experiences that you may have

> had with these modalities.

>

> Regards,

> Rioch

>

>

[Guest guest]

Rich,

I wish you would get your points straight. No one is saying that

bodywork or qi gong are not essential, important practices, and an

integral part of Chinese medicine. The point is that doing either of

these as one's sole modality is not the professional practice of

Chinese medicine. I am sorry if that ruffles your feathers. Mastering

qi gong or tui na does not give you the knowledge to make a pulse

diagnosis and prescribe internal medicines for the treatment of

specific disease patterns.

 

On Aug 1, 2004, at 7:50 AM, Rich wrote:

 

> I agree. The tone of this comment reminded me of how western trained

> M.D.s describe TCM.

 

The M.D. view of TCM is largely uniformed, so how is it valid? In this

group, it seems that the membership cannot agree on what TCM is, or

isn't. So how do we expect anyone else to understand what it is?

>

>> This, IMO, would not

>> be a step forward for CM in the west. This trend could bring about a

>> reiteration of what has happened in Osteopathy.

>

> My D.O who has included homeopathy, cranialsacral, and Chinese

> medicine in his practice has made the same observations. His own

> practice, however, has flourished and he is in very heavy demand.

 

How does this make your point? Your D.O. is a physician, and if he is

trained in other modalities, he can use them. It doesn't mean he will

gain mastery of those methods, however. . . to master both homeopathy

and Chinese medicine will be quite difficult.

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Shanna,

> I just wanted to make one simple response to your long posting.

> There is no problem with qi gong, meditation, tuina or any other

> modalities that are part of Chinese or world medicine. There are lots

> of interesting interactions between buddhist psychology and

> neuroscience. Taoism did contribute to Chinese medicine. All this is

> true. But this is not the point I think Jason is trying to make.

>

> The issue here is what constitutes 'medicine'? The aspects of

> Chinese medicine that treat illness require great skill in diagnostics

> and treatment, and the ability to manage these patients and their

> conditions. The major therapeutic modality is herbal medicine,

> secondly acupuncture. Qi gong, manipulation, behaviorial therapies are

> all part of Chinese medicine, but one can practice these techniques

> without diagnosing patients (by trained therapists). These modalities

> are designed not to treat illness, but to preserve, restore and

> maintain health. This is no small thing. However, if patients are ill

> and need professional care, only a trained physician can treat them or

> recommend them to other therapies. This is true in Chinese, Ayurvedic,

> Unani, Tibetan or any traditional medical system as well as

> biomedicine. I think we are so confused, and so reactive to Western

> medicine, that we forget that Chinese medicine is professional medicine

> that requires rigorous training in how to take care of sick people.

>

>

 

Z'ev,

 

This is very close to what I am saying, and you are as usual much

clearer than I... I will elaborate.

 

To Rich: Thanx for the link, it does acknowledge some formal training

for medical qigong. It does not really mention the idea of external

qigong, but it seems that it is some part of it. The unfortunate

thing seems to be that this is far from mainstream, and I guess that

hospitals and universities are not that convinced of the efficacy. I

am really skeptical on how important `TCM doctors' think it is. You

always hear success stories (i.e. yours) but can this method be

translated into reproducible results. I only say this because we all

know that Chinese Academia is very much into research. Looking at the

latest journals we are seeing I high increase in rigor. I don't see

qigong even being researched in the journals I have checked out. Why

would journal that specialize in TCM not even mention it if it so

great (in their minds)? Is it just a fridge idea that can benefit

health but when it comes to healing disease is questionable? I do not

know… I still think this external qigong is not mainstream excepted as

TCM, otherwise not only would they be in the journals, but mentions in

textbooks, and Chinese docs would talk about it… Comments?

 

 

 

 

[Rich]This type of treatment requires a completely different

" diagnostic " approach than that which is found in TCM texts.

 

[Jason]I think this is my point, they are two different systems.

 

[Rich] Medical qigong, as well as tuina, are considered equal to

acupuncture within Chinese TCM practice.

 

[Jason] This is a hard one to sell…

 

[Rich] Yes, this is pretty much how I feel nowadays. I have tried many

modalities, as have my friends, and at this point we seem to have come

to an agreement that this qigong combined with tuina are the most

effective approach - and one that we can also assimilate into our

daily lives.

 

[Jason] I think this is great, but maybe because things are so labor

intensive this isn't the consensus of most people (IMO). Or maybe you

just have an incredibly gifted practitioner. But therapies that are

dependent on some extraordinary skill are questionable in my mind…

 

 

But finally, going back to my original idea, which was taken out of

context and this QiGong thread started. The idea that shamanic

practices, breathing, QIGONG, etc. can be the main source of TCM

knowledge is what I disagree with. I think it is agreed upon by most

people on the list that these all can be beneficial and can give

incredible insights. People have expressed amazing results by these

type of healers, OK. But here is the point, I personally see a

difference between this and TCM. TCM by definition is a systematic

specific approach. Rich mentioned it is a completely different

system, that is my point. Mixing the two can be fine in the clinic,

but making theoretical leaps based on the former and applying it to

TCM is a slippery slope. I see two separate skills, and if one is

writing herbal formulas based on qigong skills I am skeptical that

those methods will enable one to succeed. Acupuncture or tuina has

more cross-over I imagine. Finally, These qigong masters practice

hours a day, I assume they have a system, albeit different theoretical

framework. This all started because I got the impression from the

posts that people take the newage mentality that books are really not

important and if you just feel the energy and meditate then you can

practice TCM. I argue that one might be able to help people, but THIS

is what I do not consider TCM, and applying this anything does

attitude could be the downfall of our chance. Comments?

 

-

[Guest guest]

Jason Wrote

 

This all started because I got the impression from the

posts that people take the newage mentality that books are really not

important and if you just feel the energy and meditate then you can

practice TCM. I argue that one might be able to help people, but THIS

is what I do not consider TCM, and applying this anything does

attitude could be the downfall of our chance. Comments?

 

-

 

Yes Jason at the risk of being shot down in flames,I do have a few comments

 

Firstly you assume too much about " new age mentality " in our profession and

use very sarcastic remarks I think you actually intimidate others to make

your points and it should stop.In so many posts I have read I have NEVER

seen anyone use new age gobbledegook and call it TCM that is what You do

with their information.

After twenty years of talking to so many practitioners around the world the

one thing I am certain of is that what TCM is or is not is a long long

conversation it is a Major discussion, not really possible in this forum

personally I really dont care about defining it.What seems way over the top

is how you and some others on this list keep correcting,lecturing,and

telling everyone " no " this is how it is.It looks like some practitioners make

their point then you and a couple of others on this list " jump " all over them

and " mark their papers " Just falling short of giving a grade.This latest

thread has obviously raised the hackles of those who seem intent on

defending their Academic position,it is not really us and them,is there

really such a need to make others " wrong " when no one has all the pieces NO

ONE

Conclusion A little more respect will go a long way.

 

Ray Ford

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " rayford "

<rford@p...> wrote:

>

> Jason Wrote

>

> This all started because I got the impression from the

> posts that people take the newage mentality that books are really not

> important and if you just feel the energy and meditate then you can

> practice TCM. I argue that one might be able to help people, but THIS

> is what I do not consider TCM, and applying this anything does

> attitude could be the downfall of our chance. Comments?

>

> -

>

> Yes Jason at the risk of being shot down in flames,I do have a few

comments

>

> Firstly you assume too much about " new age mentality " in our

profession and

> use very sarcastic remarks I think you actually intimidate others to

make

> your points and it should stop.In so many posts I have read I have NEVER

> seen anyone use new age gobbledegook and call it TCM that is what You do

> with their information.

> After twenty years of talking to so many practitioners around the

world the

> one thing I am certain of is that what TCM is or is not is a long long

> conversation it is a Major discussion, not really possible in this forum

> personally I really dont care about defining it.What seems way over

the top

> is how you and some others on this list keep correcting,lecturing,and

> telling everyone " no " this is how it is.It looks like some

practitioners make

> their point then you and a couple of others on this list " jump " all

over them

> and " mark their papers " Just falling short of giving a grade.This latest

> thread has obviously raised the hackles of those who seem intent on

> defending their Academic position,it is not really us and them,is there

> really such a need to make others " wrong " when no one has all the

pieces NO

> ONE

> Conclusion A little more respect will go a long way.

>

> Ray Ford

>

Ray,

 

I appreciate your comments, but in defense of this I have to say a

couple things: First I am sorry if you feel I intimidate others… But

why be intimidated? Afraid of an idea being wrong or challenged, by

asking for a reference or presenting an argument that devaluates it.

This is called dialogue and debate. Some things that are presented

are just wrong or right, some live in a more grey area. When something

is my opinion I preface by IMO or (as above) `I do not consider…' etc…

When I feel there is 99% consensus or I have overwhelming facts I will

happily state " that is wrong " – I.e. " The idea that acupuncture

needles cannot cause Pneumothorax is just wrong " (I am confident on

certain things…)

 

But I do believe in presenting a solid argument for a given side. I

feel no problem in presenting everything I can to try to disprove the

other. I think it should be known that I might not 100% believe in

what I am saying and may change my mind completely by the next day.

If someone says something I believe is just wrong, I will say so and

present an argument and evidence especially when it perpetrates an

attitude that I feel weakens our profession. If contrary evidence is

presented and I am proven wrong than such is life, we have all learned

something.

 

I would like to hear more of why you think I assume too much about the

`new age movement?' I do have my assumptions and they may be wrong.

I do have connections that I have made between it and certain

attitudes of our medicine, and yes they may be wrong. I put it out

there, my side, as vulgar as it may be, for others to disprove. I do

not use `newage' as some derogatory figurative putdown, but more

importantly I believe this is where much of alternative medicine's

roots have come from and I find them in direct conflict with some

ideas from TCM. The newage movement is a real thing that penetrates

our field, for better or worse. I believe it demands attention.

 

I really believe there are many grey areas and when I see black and

white statements I have a tendency to show strong evidence for the

other side, if anything not proving anyone is right (or wrong), but

more that it is not as clear as one may think.

 

I think if someone wants to present information on whatever, if they

have some source and are just MSUing why would they be intimidated?

I.e. A few posts ago someone presented information of an alternative

viewpoint on the distillation of TCM (via ming dynasty)- Although

there are other sources that say things differently, the information

is cited and what can one say except, " Yes there are different

opinions " . I think this intimidation idea is a bit passé and people

should just get over their own ego's being damaged through some

argument with one's idea. If I believe something is wrong I am going

to firmly say so, sorry if this bothers people.

To restate, when people LECTURE on how BAD western medicine is etc

this is somehow alright and accepted? I find it unproductive and as

we saw, the stats to back them up were just untrue. When I challenge

the merits of something like QiGong, I am considered the devil. It is

interesting by the responses how such a challenge effects everyone

differently. Everyone starts defending what they hold true, as if

someone personally attacking them.

 

Finally in regard to QiGong like I have stated, I do believe in it.

Do you not think it is valuable to evaluate through history & present

day info (etc) what role it actually has in the world of TCM or just

CM? How effective is it really? Can anyone do it or are there only a

special few that `have the power'? IS it more like reiki then we

would like to believe? What is the historical record of its use? What

research has been done to prove it? Etc etc. These questions are

interesting (at least to me). I have presented information that I

have I.e. I have not read journal articles that present any research.

This is valuable and it true. It doesn't mean there are not journal

articles, just I have not read them. If there some (which I am sure

there are somewhere) I would love to see as many as possible. This

would really say something. I like to critically evaluate things, and

not just take things because someone said it was the macdaddy of

treatments.

 

I hope this email presents a window into my methodology for my posts.

I am not just trying to argue, I am trying to arrive at some truth.

I suggest that instead of trying to `fix' me and the way I communicate

you may try to understand where I am coming from and not take things

so seriously. Everyone is different (communication etc.), and it is

real easy to blame others. I am sure everyone out there are great

healers and believe in what they believe in, and that is part the

problem. Without critically looking at things, everything is true

according to someone. But there is (IMO) a reality consensus and some

things just happen to be true or not. Comments?

 

Regards,

 

 

-

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

> Au contraire,

> I thought this list was a professional TCM list. Are you also an

> acupuncturist or herbalist?

>

 

That is what I would like to know...? It is hard when we don't speak

the same language and this is how all this started. That is why

limiting things to something (whatever that may be) at least in my

mind, makes sense. Otherwise we start talking about something as

basic as phlegm theory as we have a `TCM shaman' telling us that

phlegm is nothing more than one's evil greatgrandmother harassing

one's channels, and one cannot burn moxa on the points because the

grandmother will be outraged, but instead one must throw a spear into

the corner of the room after sacrificing a goat. Although this

fictitious story (I am not implying anyone) is a little over the top,

it is clear, to me, what happens when we do not speak the same

language. The story might be true, but a common language is

important? Am I smoking crack or does this resonate with anyone?

 

-

 

 

> I was trained as a shiatsu therapist in the early 70's and a licensed

> massage therapist since then, with some training in tuina later on.

> Ditto with qi gong, although for many years now I've concentrated on

> the practice of Iyengar Yoga, and my wife is a teacher of this school.

>

> How are your experiences contrary to what I've said below? Do you do

> pulse diagnosis, tongue diagnosis, questioning, make a pattern

> differentiation and treat with specific herb or point prescriptions?

>

>

> On Jul 31, 2004, at 10:15 PM, Rich wrote:

>

> > Dear Z'ev,

> >

> >> The aspects of

> >> Chinese medicine that treat illness require great skill in

diagnostics

> >> and treatment, and the ability to manage these patients and their

> >> conditions. The major therapeutic modality is herbal medicine,

> >> secondly acupuncture. Qi gong, manipulation, behaviorial therapies

> >> are

> >> all part of Chinese medicine, but one can practice these techniques

> >> without diagnosing patients (by trained therapists). These

modalities

> >> are designed not to treat illness, but to preserve, restore and

> >> maintain health.

> >

> > Since my own experiences, and that of my family and friends, as well

> > as many acquaintences, is quite contrary to what you have outlined in

> > the above posting, I would be very interested in hearing about your

> > training in qigong and tuina, and any experiences that you may have

> > had with these modalities.

> >

> > Regards,

> > Rioch

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

>

> How are your experiences contrary to what I've said below? Do you do

> pulse diagnosis, tongue diagnosis, questioning, make a pattern

> differentiation and treat with specific herb or point prescriptions?

>

 

My experiences and observations are different in two respects:

 

1) None of the diagnostic techniques that you mention are used by my

doctor who has 30 years of tuina/qigong training.

 

2) In a previous posting, which apparently did not make it to he

forum, I outlined a whole series of cases where friends were treated

sucessfully for serious chronic illnesses by tuina/qigong when they

found herbs and acupuncture ineffective.

 

I think your premise is that good treatment is dependent upon the

quality of diagnostic techniques outlined in TCM texts. There is an

issue here since I have found that it is quite common for TCM

practitioners to arrive at different diagnosis and completely

different treatment protocols. It would be very difficult for me to

say which practitioner was more highly qualified. They could be both

correct within their own system of treatment. There are also many

practitioners who rely on completely different techniques. A D.O

friend of mine uses cranial-sacral to diagnose and treat with Chinese

medicine and/or homeopathy. Other Shiatsu practitioners that I know

rely primarily on hara diagnosis that has nothing to do with the TCM

techniques that your have outlined, but they have found to be more

effective in their practice.

 

Within the scope of TCM, however one chooses to define it, there is a

very wide breadth of techniques for determining treatment. Mark Seems

in his books describes his approach while others may rely on 5-element

theory. My own doctor relies mostly on touch and his senses. I

personally have found his approach the most reliable and effective of

all the different doctors that I have known and been treated by over

the last 20 years. I am sure others have had different experiences

which is the nature of health. Each practitioner and each

client/patient is different and the combination is in itself also unique.

[Guest guest]

Jason Wrote

 

This all started because I got the impression from the

posts that people take the newage mentality that books are really not

important and if you just feel the energy and meditate then you can

practice TCM. I argue that one might be able to help people, but THIS

is what I do not consider TCM, and applying this anything does

attitude could be the downfall of our chance. Comments?

--------------

 

Jason and all

 

I hardly think it is that black or white.

Can one be more than a basic TCM practitioner without been in touch

with Qi energy?

Isn't it one of the premises of the 'science' that treatment is about

the moving or adding of Qi energy?

 

If so, how does one get there? surely meditation - centering of self

and contemplation are essential ingredients for a tcm practitioner ? I

would also argue, that experimentation with feeling energy is a

prereqisite. Certainly in my practice there has been many a time when

I have been stuck in knowing wether a point(s) on the Du / Ren Chanel

needed tweaking and having to decide wether to sedate or tonify. Yet

feeling the direction of the energy has allowed me to make an informed

choice.

 

I totally agree that we need the ideas that are contained in the books

to give us a grounding. I am uncertain wether the academic pathway is

the way forward though. My wife is highly academic, the price she has

paid is a certain loss of creative spontaneity and pedantic obsession

with where the comma goes. I on the other hand am the most unacademic

person you could hope to meet (to my regret in many ways) yet this

same lack of costraint/indoctrination has allowed me to question and

make connections in the world of healing and acupuncture that I would

have never dared to question had I been more academically minded.

 

Someone told me the other day that Einstein was a clerk and possibly

ridiculed in the beggining (I don't know wether there is truth in the

story).

 

Of course you might argue that The world of TCM does not need to be

questioned because it has been done for a few thousand years aready

and we now have all the books with the all the information we could

hope to need. And to be really good we just need to absorb all the

ideas, formulas etc., as written down over millenia ,because they

alrady undertood all the posibilities for ill health that might arise,

what ever the century.

 

salvador

[Guest guest]

I, and other people I know, use the term Energy Work, or Intuitive Bodywork, or

something like this on our buisness card-in addition to my Oriental Medical

credentials- to advertise the fact that we also perform therapy that is

distinguished a bit from TCM(acupuncture, acupressure, herbs, massage/tui-na, qi

kung, dietary therapy).

Altho the vast techniques in TCM overlap in modern days with things like;

nutritional/supplemental recommendations, personal technique in massage and

qikung, electro-therapuetics, and so on, in my mind and experience, and for the

craft as a whole, it feels natural to call work done from the TCM perspective

just what it is TCM, and other therapies-what they are. People like knowing what

they are getting, some want a seer to feel out and talk out the situation, and

some want CM, some want both. I like to use both(somewhat free-form energy work

and manipulation,and, TCM), so I tell them. it doesn't seem a problem, in fact

it is interesting to them. The threads the work is spun from are identifiable.

I know the boundaries are blurred, but not usually the core, and sometimes

because of one's training (especially the further away in culture one gets from

the source), one therapy can seem like another. But for common language's sake,

for public awareness's sake, it makes sense to differentiate between them.

If I'm making passes over an area with qi kung, maybe focusing on points and

non-points while needles are in, and being receptive to what is going on, some

might say that is proper TCM and some may not. So if someone is uneasy or unsure

or finds it hard to relax with that show going on, I'll just go in the next room

and work it from there ( just kidding, in case there are some FDA or AMA

'watchers' lurking out there).

more harmony pleese dear fellow medical workers of the professional altruists

guild!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On the surface,

This all sounds very nice, but I don't think one could 'choose how

to define', by personal taste, a health care system that is already

established in mainland China. Traditional is the

name that the mainland Chinese chose for their national

medical/healthcare system (as exported to the West, for better or

worse) . The name of this group is T_C_M. . . which would imply that

the topic of discussion is this form of medicine. No one is denying

that there are broad, eclectic strokes within the vast realm of Asian

medicine, but when false or simplistic statements are made about 'how

the communists killed Chinese medicine'. or that 'Chinese medicine

comes from Taoism', they obscure the historical facts about our field.

 

What we call 'TCM' is a literary medicine whether you like it or

not. There seems to be a strong anti-intellectual bias in many

individuals in this field and group, and this only can be damaging in

the long run. By the way, scholarship is not opposite to a hands-on

grasp of the subject. Most of the scholarly teachers and practitioners

I know are also very hands-on. It is a whitewash to imply otherwise.

 

If medicine, as you say, is only personal and interpretive, then we

have no hope of building a profession in the west, no accountability

for what we do, because each individual does what he or she thinks is

right in their own eyes. Then clinical results cannot be shared (each

to his own interpretation), negative reactions cannot be measured

(healing crises, anyone?), and there is no accountability to patients.

 

 

On Aug 1, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Rich wrote:

 

> Within the scope of TCM, however one chooses to define it, there is a

> very wide breadth of techniques for determining treatment. Mark Seems

> in his books describes his approach while others may rely on 5-element

> theory. My own doctor relies mostly on touch and his senses. I

> personally have found his approach the most reliable and effective of

> all the different doctors that I have known and been treated by over

> the last 20 years. I am sure others have had different experiences

> which is the nature of health. Each practitioner and each

> client/patient is different and the combination is in itself also

> unique.

[Guest guest]

The diagnostic techniques in Chinese medical texts are very vast and

broad; remember we are talking about a 2000 year old literature and its

interaction in clinical practice. This includes 'hara diagnosis' as

well, which was first outlined in the Nan Jing. So you cannot say 'it

has nothing to do with Chinese medicine'. Palpation techniques are

also clearly outlined in the Nan Jing as well.

 

The main issue is intellectual honesty. Can you find a source to

connect one's work with the vast history of Chinese medicine, or is it

something new? If it is, be honest, and share it with the profession

so it can be tried out in the light of what has come before.

 

 

On Aug 1, 2004, at 3:42 PM, Rich wrote:

 

> I think your premise is that good treatment is dependent upon the

> quality of diagnostic techniques outlined in TCM texts. There is an

> issue here since I have found that it is quite common for TCM

> practitioners to arrive at different diagnosis and completely

> different treatment protocols. It would be very difficult for me to

> say which practitioner was more highly qualified. They could be both

> correct within their own system of treatment. There are also many

> practitioners who rely on completely different techniques. A D.O

> friend of mine uses cranial-sacral to diagnose and treat with Chinese

> medicine and/or homeopathy. Other Shiatsu practitioners that I know

> rely primarily on hara diagnosis that has nothing to do with the TCM

> techniques that your have outlined, but they have found to be more

> effective in their practice.

[Guest guest]

> What we call 'TCM' is a literary medicine whether you like it or

> not.

 

My qigong doctor worked in PRC TCM hospitals and lectured in them. He

did not and does not use any of the diagnostic techniques that you

describe. But it doesn't bother me. What is good enough for the

Chinese Communist government, is good enough for me.

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

I agree with you. We just need to keep clear about what it is that we

are doing. Anyone should be able to practice what they are trained and

licensed to do.

 

 

On Aug 1, 2004, at 6:32 PM, mystir wrote:

 

> I, and other people I know, use the term Energy Work, or Intuitive

> Bodywork, or something like this on our buisness card-in addition to

> my Oriental Medical credentials- to advertise the fact that we also

> perform therapy that is distinguished a bit from TCM(acupuncture,

> acupressure, herbs, massage/tui-na, qi kung, dietary therapy).

> Altho the vast techniques in TCM overlap in modern days with things

> like; nutritional/supplemental recommendations, personal technique in

> massage and qikung, electro-therapuetics, and so on, in my mind and

> experience, and for the craft as a whole, it feels natural to call

> work done from the TCM perspective just what it is TCM, and other

> therapies-what they are.

[Guest guest]

>

> The main issue is intellectual honesty. Can you find a source to

> connect one's work with the vast history of Chinese medicine, or is it

> something new?

 

You may be interested in Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming's translations of the

original source texts of many of the qigong techniques that are in

practice today. However, this is just the tip of the iceberg since

there are literally thousands of practices that are passed down

through family practice. But like the many qigong doctors that I have

had the privilege to meet, where there is a will there is a way. And I

am sure that in your continued studies of medical qigong you will find

the information you are seeking. You may want to start by emailing or

telephoning Dr. Jerry Alan Johnson. His information can be found at:

 

http://www.fivebranches.edu/programs/certificates/qigong.asp

 

Regards,

Rich

[Guest guest]

Hi Jason

 

I don't think phlegm theory could be considered basic. It's a

complicated pathogen to dispel and to understand apparently. Perhaps

the example you took over the top below wasn't the best you could

have chosen to get your point across--I remember the dialogue being

one of differing traditions and points of view with respect to

treating phlegm diseases with citations on both sides supporting

their aguments as to wheather it is appropriate to moxa phlegm

conditions in general (even if the " no moxa " citation was the lame

CAM). Another example of the inherant contradictions among Asian

medicine theories and practices--nothing more, nothing less.

Of course, unless your claim of " fictitious story " really means

ficitious and doesn't refer to the recent dialogue on phlegm. If

this is the case, then what in particular is your gripe here and why

make up stories? IMHO, everyone on this group seems to be speaking

the same language albeit coming from differing traditions, using

different methods but all with some common root. This richness could

serve us, not to say I think everyone is " right " according to my

training and thinking. Just that everyone has the " right " to express

their ideas concerning their practices.

 

Shanna

 

Chinese Medicine , " "

wrote:

Otherwise we start talking about something as

> basic as phlegm theory as we have a `TCM shaman' telling us that

> phlegm is nothing more than one's evil greatgrandmother harassing

> one's channels, and one cannot burn moxa on the points because the

> grandmother will be outraged, but instead one must throw a spear

into

> the corner of the room after sacrificing a goat. Although this

> fictitious story (I am not implying anyone) is a little over the

top,

> it is clear, to me, what happens when we do not speak the same

> language. The story might be true, but a common language is

> important? Am I smoking crack or does this resonate with anyone?

>

> -

>

>

> > I was trained as a shiatsu therapist in the early 70's and a

licensed

> > massage therapist since then, with some training in tuina later

on.

> > Ditto with qi gong, although for many years now I've

concentrated on

> > the practice of Iyengar Yoga, and my wife is a teacher of this

school.

> >

> > How are your experiences contrary to what I've said below? Do

you do

> > pulse diagnosis, tongue diagnosis, questioning, make a pattern

> > differentiation and treat with specific herb or point

prescriptions?

> >

> >

> > On Jul 31, 2004, at 10:15 PM, Rich wrote:

> >

> > > Dear Z'ev,

> > >

> > >> The aspects of

> > >> Chinese medicine that treat illness require great skill in

> diagnostics

> > >> and treatment, and the ability to manage these patients and

their

> > >> conditions. The major therapeutic modality is herbal

medicine,

> > >> secondly acupuncture. Qi gong, manipulation, behaviorial

therapies

> > >> are

> > >> all part of Chinese medicine, but one can practice these

techniques

> > >> without diagnosing patients (by trained therapists). These

> modalities

> > >> are designed not to treat illness, but to preserve, restore

and

> > >> maintain health.

> > >

> > > Since my own experiences, and that of my family and friends,

as well

> > > as many acquaintences, is quite contrary to what you have

outlined in

> > > the above posting, I would be very interested in hearing about

your

> > > training in qigong and tuina, and any experiences that you may

have

> > > had with these modalities.

> > >

> > > Regards,

> > > Rioch

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/1/04 10:08:06 PM, zrosenbe writes:

 

<< Rich wrote:

 

> I think your premise is that good treatment is dependent upon the

> quality of diagnostic techniques outlined in TCM texts. >>

 

Group - I am not answering or rebutting any one person with this post, but

just chiming in on the discussion.

 

I had another thought about diagnosis and treatment that I wanted to put out

there for consideration. My thought is that perhaps the closer to the 'root'

one is aiming one's treatment, the less need there is for a differentiated

diagnosis and differentiated treatment. When Rich says that his Qi Gong Dr.

doesn't diagnose, perhaps this could be restated as " the diagnsosis is always

the

same - lack of flow of the vital qi " . (forgive me Rich and correct me if

this isn't right.)

 

As a practitioner aims to treat the 'branch' then a more differentiated

diagnosis and treatment become necessary.

 

I came to this thought remembering assisting my own mentor/teacher in the

1980's as she taught a week-long workshop on treating dance injuries. Even

though the different injuries were differentiated and discussed in a detailed

way

in the morning sessions, in the afternoon sessions, where she actually treated

people while we observed, she gave more or less the same treatment to each

person, regardless of the injury. That treatment was explained as " encouraging

the local cellular breathing " in the area of the injury. From the outside, it

didn't look like she was doing anything but putting her hands on the person

and waiting. She explained by saying when there is an injury, some of the cells

will be struggling, and until their proper breathing (flow into and out of

the cell and the mitochondria) are restored, the injury can't heal. In

retrospect, I think she was giving a " root " treatment to each person, (probably

partly

because that was a concept she had been exploring and elucidating for several

years at the time of that workshop.)

 

And believe it or not, my teacher succeeded, over the years, in teaching many

of us how to feel the activity of and improve the vitality of the

mitochondria and " cellular breathing " . I used that approach for years in my

practice and

primarily did 'root' treatments.

 

It was, in fact, a desire to learn more about differentiated diagnosis that

brought me to the study of TCM.

 

So now I do have a question for Rich: Is there ever a time, in your

opinion, when a 'qi gong' treatment is not the best treatment, or perhaps makes

things worse?

 

-RoseAnne