Guest guest Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 OK, Geoffrey. I'll take this on I hope no one sees me as a dour-faced priest in a frock on a jeweled throne, passing down vindictive edicts On Sep 23, 2004, at 2:31 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > What I find particularly worrying about Z'ev's outbursts is that the > approach is very much like the aggressive line taken by the WM > quackbuster sceptic's. For them,the practice of any non-orthodox > medicine has to be justified on the basis of some external Authority > (scientific proof, RCTs etc). Demanding quotations, sources for > anything that's said in a conversation is a similar kind of aggression > in the TCM world. Who controls this Knowledge? - a handful of academic > medical historians? Who controls the dispensation of this Knowledge in > the west? - a handful of TCM Colleges in whose interests it is to > " academicize " any discussions. Geoffrey, I am hardly a power-broker on some pharmaceutical company's payroll. I am an individual who has devoted his life for almost thirty years to the study and practice of Chinese medicine. I have struggled to make a living in this profession, struggled to understand this subject, and have devoted my life to helping others, seeing an average of forty patients a week, 50 weeks a year, for 23 years. My only 'vested interest' is to see Chinese medicine survive past the baby boomer generation with some integrity and relationship to the original subject. I have little interest in 'scientific proofs' of Chinese medicine. I am very interested in what Chinese medicine actually has to say, and that means accurate translation, and learning medical Chinese so I could understand what the literature actually says. I am going to quote a colleague who has devoted all her time to the study of Chinese medical history as, 'horrors', an academic. " Your point about the value of the oral tradition is well-taken. I have been frustrated many many times by people and books that retreat to that line (about oral traditions) when their argument fails to hold up in rigorous historical research. Daoism is in this context a lot like Chinese medicine in the sense that it is such a a foreign and relatively new subject of inquiry that lots of people say lots of things without being really informed, and it is so easy to do that about a culture that is far distant in time and language. " Oral traditions may have great value, but without recording them, they will eventually be distorted or lost to the caverns of time. There is little accountability on individual interpretations, little way to see what actually happens in clinic, unless you are actually there. The qi gong and martial arts worlds are very subject to fraud and shoddy training because of these issues. True teachers are difficult to find, and the reputation of qi gong as a healing art has suffered as a result. I have said this before many times on this list, that there seems to be an anti-intellectual bias in our profession, a deadly one in my opinion. There is no way to keep a discipline such as Chinese medicine alive without deep study, practice, and accurate transmission of material. Like it or not, Chinese medicine is a literary medicine, requiring deep study of books. Instead of attacking the scholars and historians as if they were priests of some religion, we should appreciate their efforts to keep a body of knowledge alive for us, with much devotion and effort. > This denial of the ordinary individual's ability to obtain knowledge > through experiential means, reminds me of the Pre-Reformation Church. > It was heresy to read the Bible in English - services were in Latin, > the Bible was in Latin - the ordinary folk had no access to their > " Truth " except via the 'experts' - the priests. An individual's > relationship with divinity could only be by means of intermediaries, > controlled by powerful vested interests - never through what they felt > or experienced directly. So I feel this argument is very much about > our's views about what constitutes " Knowledge " or " Truth " , and whether > we are willing to deny personal experience of something, in favour of > an external " authority " . Instead of comparing Chinese medicine to Christianity, and the Nei Jing to the Bible, can we please discuss the issue at hand. To me, this is a very foolish argument. You are talking about one book, and a culture's religious practices, and comparing it to the transmission of thousands of texts and many more journals with a vast body of data on diagnosis and treatment of human beings. Rather than just relying on one's intuition, which, surprise! may be wrong, we need to develop an attitude of respect for what has come before us. By all means, let's share and record our experiences, but let's put them in context of the centuries of experience of those great practitioners who proceeded us. It is cultural strip-mining to just take what we want, and then reinterpret source materials without the tools to do so properly. You end up not with the original subject, but a facsimile without depth or content. Without the efforts of translators, historians, and those who take the effort to study the subject in Chinese, Japanese or other Asian languages, there is no way for Chinese medicine to survive our generation in the West. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Since I don't have the aforementioned Ph. D., Geoffrey, I hope you will accept this example of the present situation:) I've also been a teacher of Chinese medicine (along with my clinical practice described in my last post), three classes a week for the past fifteen years, in a major TCM colleges and across North America doing seminars. Just yesterday in an herbal medicine class, I was using one of the state board 'standard texts' which is usually quite reliable, but the students and I came across a problem with the description of a formula used to stop upper burner bleeding (vomiting of blood, nosebleeds, etc.). The text described the pattern in a way that did not fit either the symptoms and signs, pulse and tongue, or the herbs used in the prescription. I asked one of my Chinese students to go to the library and find a Chinese source text to compare. She brought back two, we read them both, and were able to see clearly that the English text had made a major error. While human error is a given, if students want to know why information in a textbook contradicts what they have learned about Chinese medicine, I consider it my job to clarify the situation for them. My job is to give the most accurate reading of the subject possible, since they will go on and use these herbs, needles and moxas on their patients. When someone says that they experience the qi of the classics, that is a statement that can only be backed up by the person's bravado, nothing else. It is no more authoritative than someone saying they found G-d, and starting a new religion based on their experience. If anything, this smacks more of religious behavior than what you are attacking me for in your post. The point of accuracy in translation is so that anyone reading a text can figure out for themselves exactly how the text is being interpreted. When classical texts such as the Mitchell Shang Han Lun give the Chinese and English side by side, with the pinyin as well, with glossaries to explain term choices, the reader can understand exactly what the translator is trying to convey. This is just responsible behavior. Why, Geoffrey, does this bother you so much? On Sep 23, 2004, at 2:31 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > What I find particularly absurd is the suggestion that no-one can say > anything on this list without having a PH.D in ancient Mandarin, and > without citing some ancient text which " proves " what they are saying, > and without also " proving " that this is an accurate translation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 I would like to state that I believe this thread touches on issues that are critical to the future of CM. In my opinion, like many contentious issues, I feel the truth of the matter is found in a dynamic balance between the opposing (opposite) points. My first exposure to this subject was studying Taoist philosophy/spirituality from an oral tradition so I too, give a lot of credence to oral traditions. Over time however, I found that scholars who devoted their energy to translating and interpreting classic texts provided invaluable resources to round out my education by grounding " claims " in verifiable evidence. I especially respect those westerners who learned Chinese and the easterners who learned western languages and who translate these valuable texts so the rest of us can learn from them. None of these scholars/translators make enough money from their efforts to pay for the time they devote - pennies an hour is what these people make for their time. The above being said, I have to respectively disagree with Z'ev's claim that " Like it or not, Chinese medicine is a literary medicine, requiring deep study of books. " I would contend that, while Chinese medicine has an important literary component, we cannot say that it " is a literary medicine. " Why? Because there is no literary source that can tell us exactly when these practices first began, who started them, why these practices were begun, and under just what circumstances they began. The oldest texts never even consider the question of the roots of these practices/theories in any detail what so ever. Now - different sources over time have offered their personal beliefs over questions of the genesis of these practices/theories, but we have no original text from those who actually deserve the credit for their birth. There are legends about a lost Golden Age of Sage leaders such as the Yellow Emperor who deserve the credit, but no one can prove of disprove these claims via literary sources. This leaves a huge gap in our understanding of the most critical period - the birth - of these practices that no literary source can fill. Because of this gap, we cannot rely 100% on literary sources. The above leaves our profession with a unique quandary; On one hand, many of us advocate that the ancient sources are the highest authorities whose opinions trump those of any modern authority - that the degree of authority is proportional to the antiquity of the source - yet we have no actual written materials from the greatest authorities of all - the originators of the concepts of qi, yin/yang, wu-hsing, or even the actual practice of acupuncture. I personally believe we need to consider oral history, with a strong grounding in literary history, to help us better understand the roots of our beloved healing system(s). I have dedicated myself to this task and hope to one day offer constructive opinions that might further our consideration of these great, ongoing mysteries. Respectfully - Matt Bauer - Chinese Medicine Thursday, September 23, 2004 8:06 AM Re: Response to Geoffrey OK, Geoffrey. I'll take this on I hope no one sees me as a dour-faced priest in a frock on a jeweled throne, passing down vindictive edicts On Sep 23, 2004, at 2:31 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > What I find particularly worrying about Z'ev's outbursts is that the > approach is very much like the aggressive line taken by the WM > quackbuster sceptic's. For them,the practice of any non-orthodox > medicine has to be justified on the basis of some external Authority > (scientific proof, RCTs etc). Demanding quotations, sources for > anything that's said in a conversation is a similar kind of aggression > in the TCM world. Who controls this Knowledge? - a handful of academic > medical historians? Who controls the dispensation of this Knowledge in > the west? - a handful of TCM Colleges in whose interests it is to > " academicize " any discussions. Geoffrey, I am hardly a power-broker on some pharmaceutical company's payroll. I am an individual who has devoted his life for almost thirty years to the study and practice of Chinese medicine. I have struggled to make a living in this profession, struggled to understand this subject, and have devoted my life to helping others, seeing an average of forty patients a week, 50 weeks a year, for 23 years. My only 'vested interest' is to see Chinese medicine survive past the baby boomer generation with some integrity and relationship to the original subject. I have little interest in 'scientific proofs' of Chinese medicine. I am very interested in what Chinese medicine actually has to say, and that means accurate translation, and learning medical Chinese so I could understand what the literature actually says. I am going to quote a colleague who has devoted all her time to the study of Chinese medical history as, 'horrors', an academic. " Your point about the value of the oral tradition is well-taken. I have been frustrated many many times by people and books that retreat to that line (about oral traditions) when their argument fails to hold up in rigorous historical research. Daoism is in this context a lot like Chinese medicine in the sense that it is such a a foreign and relatively new subject of inquiry that lots of people say lots of things without being really informed, and it is so easy to do that about a culture that is far distant in time and language. " Oral traditions may have great value, but without recording them, they will eventually be distorted or lost to the caverns of time. There is little accountability on individual interpretations, little way to see what actually happens in clinic, unless you are actually there. The qi gong and martial arts worlds are very subject to fraud and shoddy training because of these issues. True teachers are difficult to find, and the reputation of qi gong as a healing art has suffered as a result. I have said this before many times on this list, that there seems to be an anti-intellectual bias in our profession, a deadly one in my opinion. There is no way to keep a discipline such as Chinese medicine alive without deep study, practice, and accurate transmission of material. Like it or not, Chinese medicine is a literary medicine, requiring deep study of books. Instead of attacking the scholars and historians as if they were priests of some religion, we should appreciate their efforts to keep a body of knowledge alive for us, with much devotion and effort. > This denial of the ordinary individual's ability to obtain knowledge > through experiential means, reminds me of the Pre-Reformation Church. > It was heresy to read the Bible in English - services were in Latin, > the Bible was in Latin - the ordinary folk had no access to their > " Truth " except via the 'experts' - the priests. An individual's > relationship with divinity could only be by means of intermediaries, > controlled by powerful vested interests - never through what they felt > or experienced directly. So I feel this argument is very much about > our's views about what constitutes " Knowledge " or " Truth " , and whether > we are willing to deny personal experience of something, in favour of > an external " authority " . Instead of comparing Chinese medicine to Christianity, and the Nei Jing to the Bible, can we please discuss the issue at hand. To me, this is a very foolish argument. You are talking about one book, and a culture's religious practices, and comparing it to the transmission of thousands of texts and many more journals with a vast body of data on diagnosis and treatment of human beings. Rather than just relying on one's intuition, which, surprise! may be wrong, we need to develop an attitude of respect for what has come before us. By all means, let's share and record our experiences, but let's put them in context of the centuries of experience of those great practitioners who proceeded us. It is cultural strip-mining to just take what we want, and then reinterpret source materials without the tools to do so properly. You end up not with the original subject, but a facsimile without depth or content. Without the efforts of translators, historians, and those who take the effort to study the subject in Chinese, Japanese or other Asian languages, there is no way for Chinese medicine to survive our generation in the West. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Matt, I didn't say (or mean) that Chinese medicine is ONLY a literary medicine. Just that it is an important component of it. For me, the great beauty of Chinese medicine is the interface between the written text, the received teaching, and the clinical interaction between practitioner and patient. On Sep 23, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Matt Bauer wrote: > Because of! > this gap, we cannot rely 100% on literary sources. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Why do you use this as an argument against literary sources? I see it as irrelevant where the specific origin (i.e., who stuck the first needle, who gave the first herb) was of the tradition. We know enough from the Mawangdui and Dunhuang manuscripts to know that these methods were used millenia ago, and have survived somewhat intact until the present era. This is one assurance of reliability. When I talk about the literate aspect of Chinese medicine, I include the modern and ancient writings, modern journals from TCM colleges in China, the vast case history literature of centuries that remain untranslated. The clear fact that Chinese medical theory and practice has survived the ages is proof enough of legitimacy and efficacy, while based still on the original theories of the Nei Jing corpus. On Sep 23, 2004, at 9:58 AM, Matt Bauer wrote: > I would contend that, while Chinese medicine has an important literary > component, we cannot say that it " is a literary medicine. " Why? > Because there is no literary source that can tell us exactly when > these practices first began, who started them, why these practices > were begun, and under just what circumstances they began. The oldest > texts never even consider the question of the roots of these > practices/theories in any detail what so ever. Now - different sources > over time have offered their personal beliefs over questions of the > genesis of these practices/theories, but we have no original text from > those who actually deserve the credit for their birth. There are > legends about a lost Golden Age of Sage leaders such as the Yellow > Emperor who deserve the credit, but no one can prove of disprove these > claims via literary sources. This leaves a huge gap in our > understanding of the most critical period - the birth - of these > practices that no literary source can fill. Because of! > this gap, we cannot rely 100% on literary sources. Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Wow! 2 lengthy ripostes to my original missive! It's getting late here in England and I've been treating patients continuously until 10 minutes ago, and I'm too knackered to reply properly now. But I would just say that I hope that in all your 23 years of practice Z'ev, that you managed to do your clients the courtesy of getting their name right! Best wishes, Godfrey Bartlett. Chinese Medicine , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > OK, Geoffrey. I'll take this on > > I hope no one sees me as a dour-faced priest in a frock on a jeweled > throne, passing down vindictive edicts > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 23, 2004 Report Share Posted September 23, 2004 Godfrey, Most of the time! Sorry about that, just the absent-minded professor pattern. I wonder what the Chinese would call it? On Sep 23, 2004, at 11:51 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > But I would just say that I hope that in all your 23 years of practice > Z'ev, that you managed to do your clients the courtesy of getting > their name right! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 Z'ev, I've re-read your comments and can't decide whether you didn't understand my points (though no-one else seems to have had a problem),or whether you did, and are being deliberately obtuse. Rather than discuss the points I was making about your heavy-handed attitude towards Rich, you refer to all sorts of things I didn't say and then argue against them. As a defender of a 'scholarly' approach, your imprecision sets a poor example. On Sep 23, 2004, at 2:31 AM, acu_qichina wrote: >> What I find particularly worrying about Z'ev's outbursts is that the >>approach is very much like the aggressive line taken by the WM >>quackbuster sceptic's. For them,the practice of any non-orthodox >>medicine has to be justified on the basis of some external Authority >>(scientific proof, RCTs etc). Demanding quotations, sources for >>anything that's said in a conversation is a similar kind of >>aggression in the TCM world. Who controls this Knowledge? - a >>handful of academic medical historians? Who controls the >>dispensation of this Knowledge in >> the west? - a handful of TCM Colleges in whose interests it is to >> " academicize " any discussions. >Geoffrey, I am hardly a power-broker on some pharmaceutical company's payroll. Firstly, you don't have to be on a pharmaceutical company's payroll in order to attack aspects of a healing system which threaten your world-view. But I wasn't suggesting you were. I said that you seemed to be adopting a similar hard-line approach whereby no-one can say anything without finding some historical source to substantiate it. I think if someone on the list started making statements like: " It's very dangerous to use Erjian L.I.-2 and Baihui DU-20 in the same treatment " , then it would be perfectly reasonable to ask how they might have acquired this " knowledge " . If they had lots of clinical experience and weren't too loopy, you might believe them. If they had a theoretical explanation of why there might be a unhealthy interaction between two points, it would be interesting to debate. But I certainly wouldn't tell them to shut up unless they can quote chapter and verse from some classical text. >I am an individual who has devoted his life for almost thirty >years to the study and practice of Chinese medicine. I have struggled >to make a living in this profession, struggled to understand this >subject, and have devoted my life to helping others, seeing an >average of forty patients a week, 50 weeks a year, for 23 years. Good for you. (Hardly 'struggling' with that many pts!) Your clinical experience is laudable, but it doesn't entitle you to disrespect others on this list. >My only vested interest' is to see Chinese medicine survive past the >baby boomer generation with some integrity and relationship to the >original subject. Chinese medicine isn't a fixed thing that either survives or disappears – you should know that – it changes in nature and emphasis with each century and within each culture that picks it up. >I have little interest in 'scientific proofs' of Chinese medicine. I didn't say you were. The simile was that the WM quackwatch tactic of demanding references to an external Authority, which in their case is scientific experts or research evidence, is similar to your tactic of demanding classical citations. >I am very interested in what Chinese medicine actually has >to say, and that means accurate translation, and learning medical >Chinese so I could understand what the literature actually says. >Oral traditions may have great value, but without recording them, >they will eventually be distorted or lost to the caverns of time. Oral traditions seem to have done very nicely all over the world so far without anyone writing them down. Where is the basis of your assertion " they will be distorted or lost " How do you know this? >There is little accountability on individual interpretations, little >way to see >what actually happens in clinic, unless you are actually there. The >qigong and martial arts worlds are very subject to fraud and shoddy >training because of these issues. True teachers are difficult to >find, and the reputation of qi gong as a healing art has suffered as >a result. I agree. But shoddily-trained martial artists lose their fights against the ones with sound training. Similarly, poor healers of whatever persuasion get a bad rep. The proof is in the pudding. Just because there are few self-appointed sifus with dubious motives, it doesn't mean all knowledge gained through apprenticeship is suspicious. >I have said this before many times on this list, that there seems to >be an anti-intellectual bias in our profession, a deadly one in my >opinion. There is no way to keep a discipline such as Chinese >medicine alive without deep study, practice, and accurate >transmission of material. Like it or not, Chinese medicine is a >literary medicine, requiring deep study of books. Well you say elsewhere that you didn't mean to say that it is *only* a literary medicine, but it sure doesn't sound like it. This also sounds like the book-bias of the herbalist who sees herbalism at the centre of Chinese medicine, whereas many feel the direct body-work aspects of acupuncture, tuina and qicong are an equally important aspect of TCM. Anti-intellectualism may be 'deadly', but over-emphasising the book-learning left-brain aspects of healing practice, is an equally damaging way of distorting the totality of oriental healing practices. >Instead of attacking the scholars and historians as if they were >priests of some religion, we should appreciate their efforts to keep >a body of knowledge alive for us, with much devotion and effort. I do appreciate them, and I didn't attack them. What I object to is the use of " experts " being referred to in a reverential way as if to say, " They have spoken and that is the end of it " . Politicians use " expert opinion " all the time to quash debate and tell us things are necessary/safe/dangerous, when we know, without being " expert " , that the opposite is so. The logical conclusion of your argument is literally and fundamentally Authoritarian: i.e. unless some has studied all their life, learnt ancient Chinese, got loads of letters after their name, then nothing they say has any worth or validity. >>This denial of the ordinary individual's ability to obtain knowledge >>through experiential means, reminds me of the Pre-Reformation Church. >>It was heresy to read the Bible in English - services were in Latin, >>the Bible was in Latin - the ordinary folk had no access to their >> " Truth " except via the 'experts' - the priests. An individual's >>relationship with divinity could only be by means of intermediaries, >>controlled by powerful vested interests - never through what they >>felt or experienced directly. So I feel this argument is very much >>about our's views about what constitutes " Knowledge " or " Truth " , and >>whether we are willing to deny personal experience of something, in >>favour of an external " authority " . >Instead of comparing Chinese medicine to Christianity, and the Nei >Jing to the Bible, can we please discuss the issue at hand. To me, >this is a very foolish argument. You are talking about one book, and >a culture's religious practices, and comparing it to the transmission >of thousands of texts and many more journals with a vast body of data >on diagnosis and treatment of human beings. A very foolish argument? Other respondents like Rich, Ray, Matt etc seem to have understood that I was making a point about the acquisition of knowledge. It was an epistemological analogy which you've chosen to take too literally. I wasn't making any point about religion. (BTW- you are wrong about the Bible being one book. It is a collection of many books, written by different people at different times. Just like the Chinese Med classical texts, there are some books which are more `canonical' than others, some exist but have been left out, some are lost, and generally there is quite a lot of scholarly dispute about their inconsistencies, and about who actually wrote what and when.) >Rather than just relying on >one's intuition, which, surprise! may be wrong, we need to develop an >attitude of respect for what has come before us. There you go again - arguing against a point I didn't make. I did not say that we should not respect the recorded clinical experience of centuries. Nor did I use the word " intuition " - which you are using as if it meant 'making it up'. I was talking about a personal experience of qi which we can all have with appropriate training and practice. I note that you chose to ignore the quote from Vivienne Lo about how the direct experience of qi cong exercises informed the early development of concepts of yin, yang, qi and acu-points within the body. She's a respected researcher of ancient Chinese medical concepts, but she's also a practitioner who can appreciate that awareness of bodily qi gained from direct experience (not from a book!) is fundamental to the beginnings of this modality. >Without the efforts of translators, historians, and those who >take the effort to study the subject in Chinese, Japanese or other >Asian languages, there is no way for Chinese medicine to survive our >generation in the West. Well that's a grandiose shroud-waving statement. The knowledge of CM that's around now – in colleges, in practitioners on this list, is enough to mean that CM will survive. Hardly anyone knew anything about it in the west until 40 years ago but there's an awful lot of accumulated knowledge and experience around now, whether or not they can understand ancient pictograms. Maybe our knowledge and re-interpretation of some of the old classical souces would be put on hold for a bit, if historians suddenly stopped studying, but it certainly wouldn't kill off in the west or anywhere else. Godfrey Bartlett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 Surely the issue of how this knowledge came about is absolutely fundamental to everything we do? By just saying it's " classical " and therefore imbued with some sort of authority is a cop-out. If modern day humans will never be in the position to replicate how that original knowledge was acquired, then all the weight is thrown on the source texts, elevating them in some sort of self-fulfilling prophecy to an almost mystical status. If the opposite is true - that we can through direct experience and using all our senses including reason, deduce similar patterns of imbalances in qi which cause disease, and develop theories and techniques how to remedy that, then we would have an alternative 'window' into this system of medicine which above all, a *practical* system of medicine, rather than an historical research exercise. It's not true to say the Mawangdui manuscripts tell us about TCM methods at all - this is a gross over-simplification. If you want to say that such classical sources are still relevant and are an 'assurance of reliability', then I suggest you try this piece of authoritative treatment advice for inguinal swelling: On the sixteenth day of the month when the moon first begins to deteriorate, perform the Pace of Yu thrice. Say: " Moon is matched against sun " and " Sun is matched against moon " - three times each. " Father is perverse, Mother is strong. Like other people they bore Sons, and only bore inguinal swelling bulges. Perversness desist. Grasp the hammering stone and strike your Mother. " Immediately, exorcistically beat and hammer the person twice seven times with an iron mallet. Do it at sunrise, and have the person with inguinal swelling face east. (Mawangdui Medical Manuscripts translation by Donald Harper.) Ouch! Godfrey Bartlett Chinese Medicine , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > Why do you use this as an argument against literary sources? I see it > as irrelevant where the specific origin (i.e., who stuck the first > needle, who gave the first herb) was of the tradition. We know enough > from the Mawangdui and Dunhuang manuscripts to know that these methods > were used millenia ago, and have survived somewhat intact until the > present era. This is one assurance of reliability. > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 The tone of this post is so condescending and cynical, that I refuse to go anywhere else with this discussion. Godfrey's statements are, in my opinion, slanderous, and not relevant at all to any reasonable discussion. Tarring me with statements about the Church, Quackbusters and other epithets meant to slander my position should be unacceptable on this list, and I refuse to go any further with you, Godfrey to discuss anything. Shame on you! On Sep 26, 2004, at 10:23 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > Z'ev, > I've re-read your comments and can't decide whether you didn't > understand my points (though no-one else seems to have had a > problem),or whether you did, and are being deliberately obtuse. Rather > than discuss the points I was making about your heavy-handed attitude > towards Rich, you refer to all sorts of things I didn't say and > then argue against them. As a defender of a 'scholarly' > approach, your imprecision sets a poor example. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 No, it is not a gross over-simplification. Herbal prescriptions and moxa charts were found in the Mawangdui ruins, showing that some of the source material for our present-day practice comes from there. This is the end, Godfrey, I cannot discuss anything with you on this list any more. You cannot hear what I am saying, and I have no more interest in hearing abuse from you. On Sep 26, 2004, at 10:42 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > It's not true to say the Mawangdui manuscripts tell us about TCM > methods at all - this is a gross over-simplification. If you want to > say that such classical sources are still relevant and are an > 'assurance of reliability', then I suggest you try this piece of > authoritative treatment advice for inguinal swelling: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 Hi Godfrey, :-) Chinese Medicine , " acu_qichina " <acu@q...> wrote: > Surely the issue of how this knowledge came about is absolutely > fundamental to everything we do? Yes, this question has been much debated throughout history. For me it is commonsense that we have all of our senses - including our sixth sense - for a reason. And we have our Zhi, Shen, Po, Hun, and Yi for a reason. None, in my opinion, are a " mistake " of nature. They all serve a purpose so I use them all. All, also have equal status, since I do not know how I would put more weight on one rather than the other. Do they all provide me with avenues toware greater Awareness? I think yes. Do they all " deceive " me. I am satisfied that I respect all modes of acquisition of knowledge that I and other may have, and I continue to develop all aspects through my various activities - such as attending to this forum. Hoping you, and all other members of this forum, had a great weekend! Regards, Rich Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 26, 2004 Report Share Posted September 26, 2004 Anyone can take a quote out of a text to try to make an argument, but it doesn't give your point of view any authority. There is also much discussion on acutracts, moxabustion, and herbal prescriptions in the text, therefore there is clearly a relationship to Chinese medicine as practiced today. On Sep 26, 2004, at 10:42 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > It's not true to say the Mawangdui manuscripts tell us about TCM > methods at all - this is a gross over-simplification. If you want to > say that such classical sources are still relevant and are an > 'assurance of reliability', then I suggest you try this piece of > authoritative treatment advice for inguinal swelling: > > On the sixteenth day of the month when the moon first begins to > deteriorate, perform the Pace of Yu thrice. Say: " Moon is matched > against sun " and " Sun is matched against moon " - three times each. > " Father is perverse, Mother is strong. Like other people they bore > Sons, and only bore inguinal swelling bulges. Perversness desist. > Grasp the hammering stone and strike your Mother. " Immediately, > exorcistically beat and hammer the person twice seven times with an > iron mallet. Do it at sunrise, and have the person with inguinal > swelling face east. > (Mawangdui Medical Manuscripts translation by Donald Harper.) > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 --- acu_qichina <acu wrote: > Immediately, > exorcistically beat and hammer the person twice > seven times with an > iron mallet. Do it at sunrise, and have the person > with inguinal > swelling face east. > (Mawangdui Medical Manuscripts translation by Donald > Harper.) > Ouch! Godfrey Bartlett Ever tried it, Godfrey? Know how to do it properly? I haven't tried it and I won't try it, since that's like trying to perform a modern TCM diagnosis from a text that tells you to " use the eight principles " . What I can tell you, however, is that I've seen similar, and very effective, practices performed in sweat lodges. So, as far as I am concerned, your argument is flawed. The " modern man's condescension " kind of gets to me as well. See you, Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 27, 2004 Report Share Posted September 27, 2004 While leery of again inserting myself into a disagreement, I wanted to offer some more thoughts on the issue of authority in Chinese medicine as I think this is manifesting in this thread. I have a real concern that the foundation upon which Chinese medicine theory is based is in the process of being seriously undermined and that this will lead to a shake-up in our educational institutions and perhaps, the profession itself. I think our profession would be well served to try to discuss our thoughts and feelings on this issue in as constructive a manner as possible. I attempted to do this last May at the Acupuncture/Oriental Medicine Alliance's annual conference when I gave a presentation in which I reviewed books from four authorities: Paul Unschuld, Felix Mann, Deke Kendall, and George Ulett. The point of my presentation was to stress that while each of these credible and knowledgeable authorities' teachings focus on different specific themes, the one theme they all have in common is the contention that what we are teaching in our acupuncture/OM schools is wrong. I can't try to explain a 2 hour presentation in this forum, but I think the theme of that talk applies to this thread: What do we really know about the foundations of Chinese medicine theories - especially from a historic basis and how that may now apply clinically? As I stated in my last post, I believe we need to seriously examine how we feel about the legends of a lost golden era in which mystic sages discovered the original tenets (qi, yin/yang, wu-hsing) that form the foundation of Chinese medicine theories. I am in the process of developing a topic for next year's Alliance conference and I am thinking of titling it " Do You Believe in the Yellow Emperor? " I seek to explore this theme because I think such questions will become more and more a source of disagreement as it seems to have done in this thread. Does the MWD tomb finds trump all other sources because of its age? If so - what do we make of the materials found there? To what degree do we rely on the classics because they emerged as some sort of consensus over generations as the primary texts even though they contain many seemingly contradictory statements? While I stated in my last post that the gap in our knowledge of the genesis of CM theories/practices makes it unwise to rely on the classics as the sole basis of our knowledge, I should make clear that I think a through grounding in the classics is essential for us to address these other questions. I admire those who devote themselves to the classics and agree our profession would be wise to make such study a primary component of our education. I do not believe however, that the issue of the roots of CM concepts were well enough addressed by the authors of those texts and thus we need to take up this topic today by combining not only the classics, but current understanding of modern archeology, the insights of oral traditions as well as the intuitive insights of those who practice versions of the ancient mystic methods. This would of course be a massive undertaking needing decades to address. But, maybe we can make a small start here by considering the question: " Do you believe in the Yellow Emperor? " I really believe that exploring this and similar questions will prove helpful to our understanding of this healing system. - Matt Bauer - Chinese Medicine Sunday, September 26, 2004 12:32 PM Re: Response to Geoffrey The tone of this post is so condescending and cynical, that I refuse to go anywhere else with this discussion. Godfrey's statements are, in my opinion, slanderous, and not relevant at all to any reasonable discussion. Tarring me with statements about the Church, Quackbusters and other epithets meant to slander my position should be unacceptable on this list, and I refuse to go any further with you, Godfrey to discuss anything. Shame on you! On Sep 26, 2004, at 10:23 AM, acu_qichina wrote: > Z'ev, > I've re-read your comments and can't decide whether you didn't > understand my points (though no-one else seems to have had a > problem),or whether you did, and are being deliberately obtuse. Rather > than discuss the points I was making about your heavy-handed attitude > towards Rich, you refer to all sorts of things I didn't say and > then argue against them. As a defender of a 'scholarly' > approach, your imprecision sets a poor example. http://babel.altavista.com/ and adjust accordingly. If you , it takes a few days for the messages to stop being delivered. 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.