Communist destroy CM - perspectives in herbal medicine

[Guest guest]

Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:47:26, wrote:

 

>> I am only discussing and curious about (as stated previously) the

literary herbal traditions...

If some support from this angle I welcome it immensely.

 

A couple of thoughts along the lines of herbal traditions (to the best of

my knowledge):

 

1) Academic TCM training vs practiced traditions.

 

On the one hand, there is the pedagogical context, wherein I (and perhaps

most practitioners educated in the West since ca. 1975) have received a

basic theoretical training, thanks to fairly standardized TCM source

materials. (My understanding is that it is the same in modern China.) Given

the framework of 4 examinations, 10 questions, 8 principles, etc., a

(perhaps differential) pattern diagnosis is established. Apply this seeking

traditional formulas (e.g. in Bensky's book), according to pattern and

theoretical functions, and modify using traditional examples, or by one's

own selecting herbs according to theoretical parameters indexing a materia

medicae.

 

In isolation, one can practice an herbal medicine on this basis, and, with

experience, become skillful. This textual and methodological

standardization is one of the virtues of TCM.

 

In practice, each of us has probably been exposed to teachers (e.g. family

traditions) or more specialized texts (possibly classical) that introduce

more specific, traditionally or experientially informed guidelines. In so

far as this kind of material is often inconsistent with standardized TCM

practice, and with other teachers or texts, this is more a picture of CM

practice, i.e. a milieu of diverse traditions.

 

It seems to be the case that in China (and around the world), practitioners

operate in this milieu, but label it TCM. Among westerners due to the

common use of 'TCM' in an historically generic sense (i.e. in spite of the

'evidence' and preferences of those like Drs Unschuld and Taylor); among

Chinese similarly, and also in accordance to the time-honored tradition of

deferring to the current political currents and norms. (For instance, in

the study of versions of classical texts, a complicating factor, but one

which helps with dating, is that in any given period, homonyms of the

characters in the emperor's or dynasty's name are systematically avoided,

substituted for with synonym characters in key terminology in the texts.)

There are many notable older-generation Chinese practitioners in the West

(fugitives from the times of the revolution and cultural-revolution) who

privately take serious exception to the tenor and content of 'TCM', but who

publicly rally under its banner, out of both professional and cultural

solidarity.

 

Footnote here: I have noticed that some individuals rigorously trained in

(some) TCM herbal practice in China, react to non-conforming practices by

branding them as erroneous or inauthentic. (I could cite published

examples.) This probably reflects strong personal investment in what

they've learned, coupled with a lack of exposure to alternative viewpoints,

and perhaps some appropriation of an authoritarian mannerism that might be

found in Chinese institutional education.

 

2) Divergence among classical traditions

 

Given a particular case/patient, one versed in the ShangHanLun tradition

might frame a diagnosis and treatment plan (identifying the phases and

state of transmutation). For the same case, from the Earth School tradition

(BuTuPai) one might come up with an alternative Dx and TP (evaluate and

support the PiWei to provide a basis for approaching the condition). Or one

practicing according to the School of Attacking and Purging (GongXiaPai)

would probably have yet another Dx and TP (mobilize the Liver to move the

PF to the surface and then drive it out, probably violently). Skillful

practitioners of all three traditions are likely to have success (given a

reasonably large sampling). And there would likely be some aspects of

common theory and application across the three methods (all being rooted in

NeiJing tradition, and both Earth and Attacking schools building on the

basis of the SHL tradition, and to some extent cognizant of each other).

 

This is a characterization of CM, or perhaps more accurately CCM (classical

Chinese medicine), as distinct from academic TCM with its bias in the

direction of modern Western notion of there being a standardized solution

to a single, correct pattern diagnosis.

 

3) Issues of " spirit "

 

Ted Kaptchuk, for instance in the lecture " Psychological vs. Spiritual

Issues in Traditional " (1), makes the case that there are

dimensions of traditional (largely herbal) medicine that are prominent in

the literature across the imperial era, but notably absent in the TCM (post

1950) literature. He refers to the aspects of the 5 zang-related spirits

(shen) - the shen, yi, po, zhi and hun. (Other authors also refer to these,

or sometimes to the " 7 souls [sometimes as the emotions] and the 3 spirits

[sometimes as the shen, hun and po] " , going back to the NeiJing.) He finds

that informed consideration and interpretation of this material can provide

important insights and interventions into patient situations in the

present, as they have across the last 2000 years or so.

 

TCM texts (official publications out of the PRC since the 1950's) focus on

physical medicine, and interpret psychological aspects in terms of modern

neurology (initially via Russian science). Key passages (e.g.,

paraphrasing, " without considering the patient's spirit, acupuncture will

be ineffective " ) from, say, the SuWen are quoted occasionally but not

elaborated upon.

 

This (as well as the examples under (2) above) illustrates, I think, Paul

Unschuld's sense in the statement:

" While it is entirely understandable and legitimate for the Chinese

leadership to select from this

tradition, and to reinterpret those elements it considers helpful to build

a future meaningful coexistence of modern Western and traditional Chinese

ideas and practices, it is not clear whether populations in Western

countries wish to make the same choices when they are confronted with the

legacy of the past. "

 

As " alternative " medicine, CM classical sources are of interest to many in

the West precisely because they provide insight into applying the

theoretical framework to mental and emotional states, and how people find

meaning in their lives and illnesses.

 

 

 

1) Presented at the first Pacific Symposium in 1989. c.f.

http://www.conferencerecording.com/altmed/acu89.htm,

[Guest guest]

_____

 

[]

Monday, September 06, 2004 3:00 PM

Chinese Medicine

Re: Communist destroy CM - perspectives in herbal medicine

 

 

 

Thu, 02 Sep 2004 23:47:26, wrote:

 

>> I am only discussing and curious about (as stated previously) the

literary herbal traditions...

If some support from this angle I welcome it immensely.

 

A couple of thoughts along the lines of herbal traditions (to the best of

my knowledge):

 

1) Academic TCM training vs practiced traditions.

 

On the one hand, there is the pedagogical context, wherein I (and perhaps

most practitioners educated in the West since ca. 1975) have received a

basic theoretical training, thanks to fairly standardized TCM source

materials. (My understanding is that it is the same in modern China.) Given

the framework of 4 examinations, 10 questions, 8 principles, etc., a

(perhaps differential) pattern diagnosis is established. Apply this seeking

traditional formulas (e.g. in Bensky's book), according to pattern and

theoretical functions, and modify using traditional examples, or by one's

own selecting herbs according to theoretical parameters indexing a materia

medicae.

 

In isolation, one can practice an herbal medicine on this basis, and, with

experience, become skillful. This textual and methodological

standardization is one of the virtues of TCM.

 

In practice, each of us has probably been exposed to teachers (e.g. family

traditions) or more specialized texts (possibly classical) that introduce

more specific, traditionally or experientially informed guidelines. In so

far as this kind of material is often inconsistent with standardized TCM

practice, and with other teachers or texts, this is more a picture of CM

practice, i.e. a milieu of diverse traditions.

 

It seems to be the case that in China (and around the world), practitioners

operate in this milieu, but label it TCM. Among westerners due to the

common use of 'TCM' in an historically generic sense (i.e. in spite of the

'evidence' and preferences of those like Drs Unschuld and Taylor); among

Chinese similarly, and also in accordance to the time-honored tradition of

deferring to the current political currents and norms. (For instance, in

the study of versions of classical texts, a complicating factor, but one

which helps with dating, is that in any given period, homonyms of the

characters in the emperor's or dynasty's name are systematically avoided,

substituted for with synonym characters in key terminology in the texts.)

There are many notable older-generation Chinese practitioners in the West

(fugitives from the times of the revolution and cultural-revolution) who

privately take serious exception to the tenor and content of 'TCM', but who

publicly rally under its banner, out of both professional and cultural

solidarity.

 

Footnote here: I have noticed that some individuals rigorously trained in

(some) TCM herbal practice in China, react to non-conforming practices by

branding them as erroneous or inauthentic. (I could cite published

examples.) This probably reflects strong personal investment in what

they've learned, coupled with a lack of exposure to alternative viewpoints,

and perhaps some appropriation of an authoritarian mannerism that might be

found in Chinese institutional education.

 

2) Divergence among classical traditions

 

Given a particular case/patient, one versed in the ShangHanLun tradition

might frame a diagnosis and treatment plan (identifying the phases and

state of transmutation). For the same case, from the Earth School tradition

(BuTuPai) one might come up with an alternative Dx and TP (evaluate and

support the PiWei to provide a basis for approaching the condition). Or one

practicing according to the School of Attacking and Purging (GongXiaPai)

would probably have yet another Dx and TP (mobilize the Liver to move the

PF to the surface and then drive it out, probably violently). Skillful

practitioners of all three traditions are likely to have success (given a

reasonably large sampling). And there would likely be some aspects of

common theory and application across the three methods (all being rooted in

NeiJing tradition, and both Earth and Attacking schools building on the

basis of the SHL tradition, and to some extent cognizant of each other).

 

This is a characterization of CM, or perhaps more accurately CCM (classical

Chinese medicine), as distinct from academic TCM with its bias in the

direction of modern Western notion of there being a standardized solution

to a single, correct pattern diagnosis.

 

[Jason]

 

I disagree that TCM feels that there is 'only' one single solution, I have

never met a Chinese TCMer that said this. Also I contend that 'the earth

school', SHL, wen bing etc are all incorporated into and that is the

point. IT makes use of all the major past positions / traditions and gives

you many many options. Maybe you are thinking about the TCM schools in the

west where you might get 2 classes on the SHL or something, but I know many

many Chinese that studied these topics extensively in their TCM programs and

actually some have memorized such texts.

 

 

 

Let's look at your (Kaptchuk) spirit idea. and which brings me back to my

original post! I would like to see some example that TCM (c.1949) has

eliminated this aspect. Again, everything I have read and researched has

shown that this style of practice has long been eliminated (before TCM came

on the seen). Kaptchuk in of himself, because he can get out there, is not

IMO a valid source, but even with your quote it says nothing about TCM /

1949. but If you have a source from him I would like to see it (or anywhere

else). Therefore, the spirit (as you say) may or may not be useful,

considering ghosts as a dx may or may not be useful, but such styles of

thinking, although still existing in fridge circles today, where weeded out

long ago. There is no doubt that one can go back 1000 or 2000 years and find

things that are not in TCM, and that is NOT the point! Of course one can,

but I personally do not call this an oversight, but mere evolution. Once

again I am strictly looking for evidence that TCM somehow eliminated such

issues, and so far in my past searches, posting the question to 3 lists, no

one has given 1 such example. This is quite telling, because I hear all the

time how evil TCM is because it killed the real medicine, it may have, but I

have yet to see any example of such.

 

 

 

Still Looking,

 

 

 

-

 

*

 

3) Issues of " spirit "

 

Ted Kaptchuk, for instance in the lecture " Psychological vs. Spiritual

Issues in Traditional " (1), makes the case that there are

dimensions of traditional (largely herbal) medicine that are prominent in

the literature across the imperial era, but notably absent in the TCM (post

1950) literature. He refers to the aspects of the 5 zang-related spirits

(shen) - the shen, yi, po, zhi and hun. (Other authors also refer to these,

or sometimes to the " 7 souls [sometimes as the emotions] and the 3 spirits

[sometimes as the shen, hun and po] " , going back to the NeiJing.) He finds

that informed consideration and interpretation of this material can provide

important insights and interventions into patient situations in the

present, as they have across the last 2000 years or so.

 

TCM texts (official publications out of the PRC since the 1950's) focus on

physical medicine, and interpret psychological aspects in terms of modern

neurology (initially via Russian science). Key passages (e.g.,

paraphrasing, " without considering the patient's spirit, acupuncture will

be ineffective " ) from, say, the SuWen are quoted occasionally but not

elaborated upon.

 

This (as well as the examples under (2) above) illustrates, I think, Paul

Unschuld's sense in the statement:

" While it is entirely understandable and legitimate for the Chinese

leadership to select from this

tradition, and to reinterpret those elements it considers helpful to build

a future meaningful coexistence of modern Western and traditional Chinese

ideas and practices, it is not clear whether populations in Western

countries wish to make the same choices when they are confronted with the

legacy of the past. "

 

As " alternative " medicine, CM classical sources are of interest to many in

the West precisely because they provide insight into applying the

theoretical framework to mental and emotional states, and how people find

meaning in their lives and illnesses.

 

 

 

1) Presented at the first Pacific Symposium in 1989. c.f.

http://www.conferencerecording.com/altmed/acu89.htm,

 

..

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

* Chris,

*

 

I disagree that TCM feels that there is 'only' one single solution, I have

never met a Chinese TCMer that said this. Also I contend that 'the earth

school', SHL, wen bing etc are all incorporated into and that is the

point. IT makes use of all the major past positions / traditions and gives

you many many options. Maybe you are thinking about the TCM schools in the

west where you might get 2 classes on the SHL or something, but I know many

many Chinese that studied these topics extensively in their TCM programs and

actually some have memorized such texts.

 

Let's look at your (Kaptchuk) spirit idea. and which brings me back to my

original post! I would like to see some example that TCM (c.1949) has

eliminated this aspect. Again, everything I have read and researched has

shown that this style of practice has long been eliminated (before TCM came

on the seen). Kaptchuk in of himself, because he can get out there, is not

IMO a valid source, but even with your quote it says nothing about TCM /

1949. but If you have a source from him I would like to see it (or anywhere

else). Therefore, the spirit (as you say) may or may not be useful,

considering ghosts as a dx may or may not be useful, but such styles of

thinking, although still existing in fridge circles today, where weeded out

long ago. There is no doubt that one can go back 1000 or 2000 years and find

things that are not in TCM, and that is NOT the point! Of course one can,

but I personally do not call this an oversight, but mere evolution. Once

again I am strictly looking for evidence that TCM somehow eliminated such

issues, and so far in my past searches, posting the question to 3 lists, no

one has given 1 such example. This is quite telling, because I hear all the

time how evil TCM is because it killed the real medicine, it may have, but I

have yet to see any example of such.

 

Still Looking,

 

 

 

_____

 

[]

 

 

A couple of thoughts along the lines of herbal traditions (to the best of

my knowledge):

 

1) Academic TCM training vs practiced traditions.

 

On the one hand, there is the pedagogical context, wherein I (and perhaps

most practitioners educated in the West since ca. 1975) have received a

basic theoretical training, thanks to fairly standardized TCM source

materials. (My understanding is that it is the same in modern China.) Given

the framework of 4 examinations, 10 questions, 8 principles, etc., a

(perhaps differential) pattern diagnosis is established. Apply this seeking

traditional formulas (e.g. in Bensky's book), according to pattern and

theoretical functions, and modify using traditional examples, or by one's

own selecting herbs according to theoretical parameters indexing a materia

medicae.

 

In isolation, one can practice an herbal medicine on this basis, and, with

experience, become skillful. This textual and methodological

standardization is one of the virtues of TCM.

 

In practice, each of us has probably been exposed to teachers (e.g. family

traditions) or more specialized texts (possibly classical) that introduce

more specific, traditionally or experientially informed guidelines. In so

far as this kind of material is often inconsistent with standardized TCM

practice, and with other teachers or texts, this is more a picture of CM

practice, i.e. a milieu of diverse traditions.

 

It seems to be the case that in China (and around the world), practitioners

operate in this milieu, but label it TCM. Among westerners due to the

common use of 'TCM' in an historically generic sense (i.e. in spite of the

'evidence' and preferences of those like Drs Unschuld and Taylor); among

Chinese similarly, and also in accordance to the time-honored tradition of

deferring to the current political currents and norms. (For instance, in

the study of versions of classical texts, a complicating factor, but one

which helps with dating, is that in any given period, homonyms of the

characters in the emperor's or dynasty's name are systematically avoided,

substituted for with synonym characters in key terminology in the texts.)

There are many notable older-generation Chinese practitioners in the West

(fugitives from the times of the revolution and cultural-revolution) who

privately take serious exception to the tenor and content of 'TCM', but who

publicly rally under its banner, out of both professional and cultural

solidarity.

 

Footnote here: I have noticed that some individuals rigorously trained in

(some) TCM herbal practice in China, react to non-conforming practices by

branding them as erroneous or inauthentic. (I could cite published

examples.) This probably reflects strong personal investment in what

they've learned, coupled with a lack of exposure to alternative viewpoints,

and perhaps some appropriation of an authoritarian mannerism that might be

found in Chinese institutional education.

 

2) Divergence among classical traditions

 

Given a particular case/patient, one versed in the ShangHanLun tradition

might frame a diagnosis and treatment plan (identifying the phases and

state of transmutation). For the same case, from the Earth School tradition

(BuTuPai) one might come up with an alternative Dx and TP (evaluate and

support the PiWei to provide a basis for approaching the condition). Or one

practicing according to the School of Attacking and Purging (GongXiaPai)

would probably have yet another Dx and TP (mobilize the Liver to move the

PF to the surface and then drive it out, probably violently). Skillful

practitioners of all three traditions are likely to have success (given a

reasonably large sampling). And there would likely be some aspects of

common theory and application across the three methods (all being rooted in

NeiJing tradition, and both Earth and Attacking schools building on the

basis of the SHL tradition, and to some extent cognizant of each other).

 

This is a characterization of CM, or perhaps more accurately CCM (classical

Chinese medicine), as distinct from academic TCM with its bias in the

direction of modern Western notion of there being a standardized solution

to a single, correct pattern diagnosis.

 

 

*

 

3) Issues of " spirit "

 

Ted Kaptchuk, for instance in the lecture " Psychological vs. Spiritual

Issues in Traditional " (1), makes the case that there are

dimensions of traditional (largely herbal) medicine that are prominent in

the literature across the imperial era, but notably absent in the TCM (post

1950) literature. He refers to the aspects of the 5 zang-related spirits

(shen) - the shen, yi, po, zhi and hun. (Other authors also refer to these,

or sometimes to the " 7 souls [sometimes as the emotions] and the 3 spirits

[sometimes as the shen, hun and po] " , going back to the NeiJing.) He finds

that informed consideration and interpretation of this material can provide

important insights and interventions into patient situations in the

present, as they have across the last 2000 years or so.

 

TCM texts (official publications out of the PRC since the 1950's) focus on

physical medicine, and interpret psychological aspects in terms of modern

neurology (initially via Russian science). Key passages (e.g.,

paraphrasing, " without considering the patient's spirit, acupuncture will

be ineffective " ) from, say, the SuWen are quoted occasionally but not

elaborated upon.

 

This (as well as the examples under (2) above) illustrates, I think, Paul

Unschuld's sense in the statement:

" While it is entirely understandable and legitimate for the Chinese

leadership to select from this

tradition, and to reinterpret those elements it considers helpful to build

a future meaningful coexistence of modern Western and traditional Chinese

ideas and practices, it is not clear whether populations in Western

countries wish to make the same choices when they are confronted with the

legacy of the past. "