Guest guest Posted July 31, 2004 Report Share Posted July 31, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 31, 2004 Report Share Posted July 31, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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? - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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, - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 > > 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 1, 2004 Report Share Posted August 1, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 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! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 > > 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 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 > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 2, 2004 Report Share Posted August 2, 2004 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 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.