lineages of Oriental medicine as useful

[Guest guest]

Lon and Esteemed Colleagues,

 

What seems to me to have been off topic posts regarding my apologies to Lonny as

well as Lon's comments about Ken Wilbur or his own philosophical presentations,

now appears to me to have relevance to 5 Element Acupuncture, TCM and the larger

realms of Oriental medicine. Briefly, Lon, as indicated in both my on-list and

off-list apologies to you, I did not intend to be dismissive or superficial to

you or your comments. My apologies to you were direct and personal ... and

without aggression, passive or otherwise.

 

Now to the relevence of our posts to Oriental medicine. Regarding Ken Wilbur, I

have read only a little of what he has to say while you have apparently read and

studied considerably more. My life began as a philosophy student and writer of

poetry (not that I did either particularly well) which led to my reference about

philosophy colloquiums. Despite my brief exposure to Wilbur, it seems you and I

agree that he is attempting to be inventive while also attempting to break from

the past. I sense that you and he both believe this break from the past is

necessary to be properly inventive in the present time. You have already shared

with Shanna that Wilbur claims no lineage or deep roots to the past though he is

familiar with past philosophies. This point in particular is what I find useful

in our discussion of efficacy, invention, and the current professions in

Oriental medicines.

 

Invention like medical therapies is necessary to keep the qi flowing. There is

a saying in some traditions that a new teacher appears when the dharma of

current practices decays. From my observation new teachers (or inventors) come

in all realms of endeavor from philosophy and the arts to science and medicine.

What I have further noticed is that the progenitor of new ideas may be grounded

only in the present or may be deeply rooted through long lineages of practices

to the past. In the former case, the inventor and their invention is likely to

an expression of their culture or their times. That is, this inventor has

steered the practices or amplified the practices of the culture but not really

changed their roots. Technological change is such an example in which the speed

at which we do things has changed, but not exactly what we do. Real inventors

or composers in the arts or sciences are those with sufficiently deep lineages

to the past that they can see and change the practices at the roots. Such an

inventor can widen the roots of practices to offer new ways of carrying out the

practices or even new practices in order to overcome blockages in the present

time.

 

I'm far more familiar with such evolutionary change in lineages of meditative

practices which are off topic. Paul Unschuld, however, notes that Taoist

practitioners who historically utilized herbs/taiji/qigong as treatment

modalities worked in counterpoint to Confucianists who insisted that acupuncture

was the correct way to go. Each apparently was opposed or even aghast at the

modalities of the other until the 10th or 11th century when practitioners seemed

to accept a more unified practice. I have to say I still have Taoist friends

with deep lineage trainings who look upon acupuncture as inappropriate.

 

Other inventors of merit with deep roots in the past that occur to me in the

West are people like Darwin, Freud, Jung, Einstein, Pauling, Watson/Crick, Gould

to name but a few. These people changed how we Westerners think about things.

Thomas Edison or Bill Gates changed how we do things (through technological

change), but not particularly how we think about them. In either case do you

see the changes were profound, but the level at which the change occurred is

also profoundly different.

 

So this is the distinction that I offer you regarding inventors who are steeped

and connected through lineages to the past, and inventors who have no deep

connections to the past and have no lineage practices to bring to their work.

The kinds of inventions that each offers, I would say, are different. This

specific difference that grounding in the cultural substrates of the past offers

is of significance to me. The grounding might be through literature or oral

traditions, but is in either case significant.

 

One final note is that I'm starting just now to learn yet a new form (or subset)

of taiji from a good friend who recently won a gold medical in China in the Yang

long form. His style is significantly different from what I'm used to, so I've

decided to use my breath practices from Buddhist and Sufi traditions while

practicing the forms. My friend indicates that expanding consciousness to all

the parts of the body and its relatedness to surroundings helps with the

development. I must say using my breath practices in conjunction helps

enormously, and of course many taiji instructors teach such breath practices up

front for this particular reason.

 

Respectfully and in gratitude,

Emmanuel Segmen

 

 

[Guest guest]

What I have further noticed is that the progenitor of new ideas may be

grounded only in the present or may be deeply rooted through long lineages

of practices to the past. In the former case, the inventor and their

invention is likely to an expression of their culture or their times. That

is, this inventor has steered the practices or amplified the practices of

the culture but not really changed their roots. Technological change is

such an example in which the speed at which we do things has changed, but

not exactly what we do. Real inventors or composers in the arts or

sciences are those with sufficiently deep lineages to the past that they

can see and change t!

he practices at the roots. Such an inventor can widen the roots of

practices to offer new ways of carrying out the practices or even new

practices in order to overcome blockages in the present time. - Emmanuel

 

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. - RoseAnne

 

I think it is worth noting that the teacher RoseAnne refers to is deeply

grounded in Western anatomical knowledge and utilizes that knowledge with

great detail and precision, as well as in movement and " energy " training

from Cheng ManChing and Japanese Katsugen-endo. In other words, she is a

synthesizer, but more than that, she combines and amplifies the knowledge

of these different lineages to create something new which is comprehensive

and perhaps more directly applicable to the needs of this culture at this

time. Many of the great innovators in various fields I have had the

privilege of observing also have this great depth of background in one or

more areas, which they then synthesize and bring in fresh application to

the present. And they all contribute to the overall field of knowledge;

one is not the be-all and end-all. The background knowledge which comes

from that continuity of lineage comes from those innovators as well as

those who simply repeat the past information, which is what makes for a

living and evolving tradition. Obviously not all that is new or

synthesized has real validity, in the sense of efficacy; but application

over time will distinguish between the useful and the fad.

 

Pat

 

 

 

==============================================================================

NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally

privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or

disseminate the information; please advise the sender immediately by reply email

and delete this message and any attachments without retaining a copy. Although

this email and any attachments are believed to be free of any virus or other

defect that may affect any computer system into which it is received and opened,

it is the responsibility of the recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no

responsibility is accepted by Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or

damage arising in any way from its use.

 

==============================================================================