RE: necessity of Chinese language - Medicine (Benjamin Hawes)

[Guest guest]

Fri, 30 Jul 2004 14:27:15, Benjamin wrote:

>> If you look at history, you will see that Chinese medicine arose out of

shamanic/divinatory practices.

 

Scientific history (alla P Unschuld, K Taylor etc) and mythic Chinese

history agree on this. With a difference: the latter see it a continuum of

'history' of 'medicine'. One may not agree with it, but the following is an

attempt to depict the former interpretation, at least on the part of Paul

Unschuld:

 

There are " healing practices " (Heilpraxis), including those based in

shamanism, ancestor worship, demonology, etc. and then there is " medicine " ,

i.e. a system of theory based on natural law (held to be true irrespective

of time, place and particular human factors, e.g. family, or " numinous "

influences).

 

In this sense, both Chinese and Western history of what we informally call

" medicine " is actually a mixture of these two.

 

In Han China, the system of natural law had to do with descriptive climate

and seasonal factors, such as wind, cold, heat, etc., and abstract concepts

(or perhaps metaphors) like Yin and Yang, 5 phases, etc. Hence Chinese

medicine traces back about 2000 years. The stuff documented in the earlier

history (e.g. roughly up to and including the MaWangDui manuscripts)-

DaoYin, moxa therapy, bian stones (blood letting), herbal practices, etc. -

were grounded either in ritual/religious practices, or in ad hoc physical

remedies, health promoting/restoring practices (without a theoretical

framework).

 

Modern Western medicine's system of natural law is grounded in sciences

like chemistry and physics, and a dynamic element, the " scientific method. "

 

Hippocratic Greek medicine also was elaborated on the basis of a system of

natural low. Perhaps also Ayruvedic.

 

Most of the rest of " medical " traditions (and many modalities still

practiced today in the West and elsewhere) are " healing practices " .

 

Apropos the subsequent discussion about medicine and professionalism (over

the weekend) a medicine, in Unschuld's sense does imply professional level

education, systematic mastery of techniques, as well as an ethical code.

Jeffery Yuan has also weighed in on the topic (1). He outlines three

perspectives (as he always does - Daoistic trinities of concept): 1)

practice of a technical system of medicine; 2) scholar-teacher role, e.g.

as in Confucian; and 3) shamanistic, or " healing by presence " . There's much

more to it, of course, and these three are not mutually exclusive - as the

case can be made that personages such Sun SiMiao operated at all 3 levels.

 

As the forum here relates to a profession, I agree that we all should be

qualified (or in the process/study of it) in some flavor or a traditional

Chinese/Oriental medical system/techniques -- theory, diagnosis, treatment

strategies, management and specific techniques. And that, given this,

teaching/scholarship issues are germane to discussion here. And even

questions in the 3rd category, though this may be, for some, a slippery

slope. I mean I believe rational and fruitful discussion is possible in

this area, though it might be difficult in this group, at this time. I

would refer to Ted Kapchuk's ideas which I think approach this area (2).

 

(1) Lecture titled " Cultivating the Teacher Within " , at CSOMA, 2001.

Available on tape from ConferenceRecording.com, ID CAA21-015 (2 tape set)

 

(2) for instance, TED KAPTCHUK, " Psychological vs. Spiritual Issues in

Traditional Chinese " , Pacific Symposium 1989 (the 1st one!), Available on

tape from ConferenceRecording.com, ID ACU89-027 (2 tape set)