Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Hi Zev, I think the points you have raised are very interesting ones. You are right that many of the new forms of 'TCM' are not traditional in their scope. For example, auricular acupuncture to more modern aspects such as abdominal acupuncture which I witnessed in Beijing recently. Auricular acupuncture does have a loose basis to the Neijing, whilst abdominal acupuncture is closely related to the I Ching. But both forms are off-shots of TCM and are readily acceptable as TCM by the Chinese. I've noticed that new methods are constantly being developed in China and those that work, i.e. cure the patient, are keep on, integrated into TCM and carried forward. Therefore my question is this, What is TCM? Is it TCM from the time of the classics? From what period does the inclusion of new methods not become TCM? Kind regards Attilio D'Alberto Doctor of (Beijing, China) BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM 07786198900 attiliodalberto <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com [zrosenbe] 20 December 2004 00:49 Chinese Medicine Re: Severe shock and its effects help please Here we are entering a new arena. What is and what isn't Chinese medicine? And how do we define it? You use the example of Voll acupuncture, which is not based on yin yang or channel theory, but has developed into an autonomous system with its own system of 'meridians' and points. Similarly with Nogier auriculotherapy, which is based largely on embryology and the ear as a micro-system of the body. Because they use different criteria and diagnostic methods, in my opinion they are not Chinese medicine, but spinoff systems that are like cousins to the main body of the medicine. Just because they use a technology of Chinese medicine (needles) doesn't mean they are Chinese medicine. As I mentioned earlier, such innovations are rare with the herbal/internal medicine tradition. They are much more common with acupuncture. While pharmacological uses of herbs has increased, it still has relatively little influence on how herbal prescriptions are designed. On Dec 20, 2004, at 2:51 AM, Alon Marcus wrote: > > Z'ev my position i a little different. I take a view that clinical > outcome is the only important parameter. So if new observations are > developed in the west, which use the language of acup and CM > regardless of modern influences (which as been the case through out CM > history) they are welcomed and should be peer reviewed and > experimented with. For example, Voll's work started from traditional > acupuncture but clearly gone beyond and is strongly influenced by > modern physiology and diagnostic lingo. While i have a limited > experience with Voll's work i know many that say it is extremely > effective (and many state it is much more effective than " traditional > approaches " ). This is no different than any new development in CM > history. I take a patient focused approach, if my use of Chinese > herbal therapy or acupuncture is benefited (and the patients shows a > better outcome) by integrating newer information i see this as a > natural progression of what we call Chinese medicine. As far as > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 I think we need to first define the term TCM. I have seen two very common definitions used. The first one is that of all (loose term) and the other is a narrowly defined term related to a modern east-west intergrated medical system, now employed in China. This modern system (communist in nature) has changed and eliminated many aspects from the ancient knowledge and should not be considered an accurate representative of the whole. In the states, I would say that TCM, which is taught in most schools and tested on as well, is of the later understanding. This is a good first place to start. What do you think? Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " Attilio D'Alberto " <attiliodalberto >Chinese Medicine ><Chinese Medicine > > What is TCM? >Mon, 20 Dec 2004 12:33:15 -0000 > >Hi Zev, > >I think the points you have raised are very interesting ones. > >You are right that many of the new forms of 'TCM' are not traditional in >their scope. For example, auricular acupuncture to more modern aspects such >as abdominal acupuncture which I witnessed in Beijing recently. Auricular >acupuncture does have a loose basis to the Neijing, whilst abdominal >acupuncture is closely related to the I Ching. But both forms are off-shots >of TCM and are readily acceptable as TCM by the Chinese. I've noticed that >new methods are constantly being developed in China and those that work, >i.e. cure the patient, are keep on, integrated into TCM and carried >forward. >Therefore my question is this, What is TCM? Is it TCM from the time of the >classics? From what period does the inclusion of new methods not become >TCM? > >Kind regards > >Attilio D'Alberto >Doctor of (Beijing, China) >BSc (Hons) TCM MATCM >07786198900 >attiliodalberto > <http://www.attiliodalberto.com/> www.attiliodalberto.com > > > [zrosenbe] >20 December 2004 00:49 >Chinese Medicine >Re: Severe shock and its effects help please > > >Here we are entering a new arena. > >What is and what isn't Chinese medicine? > >And how do we define it? > >You use the example of Voll acupuncture, which is not based on yin yang >or channel theory, but has developed into an autonomous system with its >own system of 'meridians' and points. Similarly with Nogier >auriculotherapy, which is based largely on embryology and the ear as a >micro-system of the body. Because they use different criteria and >diagnostic methods, in my opinion they are not Chinese medicine, but >spinoff systems that are like cousins to the main body of the medicine. > Just because they use a technology of Chinese medicine (needles) >doesn't mean they are Chinese medicine. > >As I mentioned earlier, such innovations are rare with the >herbal/internal medicine tradition. They are much more common with >acupuncture. While pharmacological uses of herbs has increased, it >still has relatively little influence on how herbal prescriptions are >designed. > > >On Dec 20, 2004, at 2:51 AM, Alon Marcus wrote: > > > > > Z'ev my position i a little different. I take a view that clinical > > outcome is the only important parameter. So if new observations are > > developed in the west, which use the language of acup and CM > > regardless of modern influences (which as been the case through out CM > > history) they are welcomed and should be peer reviewed and > > experimented with. For example, Voll's work started from traditional > > acupuncture but clearly gone beyond and is strongly influenced by > > modern physiology and diagnostic lingo. While i have a limited > > experience with Voll's work i know many that say it is extremely > > effective (and many state it is much more effective than " traditional > > approaches " ). This is no different than any new development in CM > > history. I take a patient focused approach, if my use of Chinese > > herbal therapy or acupuncture is benefited (and the patients shows a > > better outcome) by integrating newer information i see this as a > > natural progression of what we call Chinese medicine. As far as > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 While TCM is clearly a distillation and modern system as compared with Classical , and the Western practice is more or less based on TCM (except for Worsley and Japanese schools of acupuncture), the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans have immediate access to the classical medicine via textual knowledge, whereas we do not. On Dec 20, 2004, at 6:29 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > I think we need to first define the term TCM. I have seen two very > common > definitions used. The first one is that of all > (loose > term) and the other is a narrowly defined term related to a modern > east-west > intergrated medical system, now employed in China. This modern system > (communist in nature) has changed and eliminated many aspects from the > ancient knowledge and should not be considered an accurate > representative of > the whole. In the states, I would say that TCM, which is taught in > most > schools and tested on as well, is of the later understanding. This > is a > good first place to start. What do you think? > Later > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 The Practice of TCM 2.1 What is Traditional ? Traditional (TCM) is as diverse in its practice as western medicine. It is employed in both acute and chronic illnesses, and it includes: a.. Internal and external pharmacological therapy. Chinese herbal medicine includes the use of plant, animal and mineral substances. Preparations are administered, similar to western medicine, via a number of routes: a.. oral consumption (such as pills, teas and powders) b.. nasogastric administration c.. topical applications d.. intravenous, intramuscular, subcutaneous injections e.. vaginal and rectal preparations f.. ear and eye preparations; b.. acupuncture, including: a.. traditional manual needle stimulation b.. modern usage of laser and electrical stimulation c.. embedding needles; c.. Chinese massage; d.. dietary and lifestyle advice; e.. specific techniques including: a.. moxibustion b.. cupping c.. scraping d.. point injection therapy; f.. breathing, movement and meditation; and g.. Orthopaedic manipulations and surgery. h.. TCM is based on an understanding of health and illness which differs substantially from that in western medicine. Clinical phenomena are interpreted by reference to theories of bodily operation which are alien to the western-trained scientific eye. - " " <zrosenbe <Chinese Medicine > Monday, December 20, 2004 10:34 AM Re: What is TCM? While TCM is clearly a distillation and modern system as compared with Classical , and the Western practice is more or less based on TCM (except for Worsley and Japanese schools of acupuncture), the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans have immediate access to the classical medicine via textual knowledge, whereas we do not. On Dec 20, 2004, at 6:29 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > I think we need to first define the term TCM. I have seen two very > common > definitions used. The first one is that of all > (loose > term) and the other is a narrowly defined term related to a modern > east-west > intergrated medical system, now employed in China. This modern system > (communist in nature) has changed and eliminated many aspects from the > ancient knowledge and should not be considered an accurate > representative of > the whole. In the states, I would say that TCM, which is taught in > most > schools and tested on as well, is of the later understanding. This > is a > good first place to start. What do you think? > Later > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Dear Members I have passed an article I wrote on this topic I hope it helps your discussion. The article follows. It is well footnoted. What is and why should we care? By Phillip A Reynes, L.Ac. Chinese medicine has gained acceptance in the eyes of the public and seen growth that has exceeded most of our expectations in the last two decades. As a medicine we as practitioners know this is because we are effective. We have not however been embraced with the same enthusiasm by the mainstream of medicine in the West. Insurance companies, medical research institutions (like the NIH) and Western physicians have been slower to accept us. We do not have insurance parity or hospital privileges. As a medicine we have a great deal to offer health care in the West, however, we have some obstacles to overcome if we as a medicine are to take our place alongside western physicians a respected and valued system of medicine. This article will explore some of the barriers that Chinese medicine faces if we are to take what I believe is our rightful place in Western healthcare, which is as a medical system of equal respect standing to that of Western medicine. As we shall see there are a number of issues that Western medicine and academia have with Chinese medicine in the West that have hindered our ability as a medicine to grow and thrive. What is Chinese medicine and why should we care? This is a question that Western practitioners asked and for answers they turned to the science of medical anthropology. What defines the discipline of medical anthropology? It is the study of human beings and their culture in relation to their medical practices. It is not the study of the application of medicine directly nor is it meant to verify or refute the efficacy of a medicine. What have medical anthropologist been saying about Chinese medicine, its history and how that relates to Communism, which has played such a large role in the development of modern TCM? Professor Paul Unschuld, director of the Institute for the History of Medicine at the University of Munich, is one of the world’s leading authorities on the history of Chinese medicine. in one of his texts defines TCM. His Definition is the one most commonly used in academia, while the dissenting view is only found in China. Professor Unschuld wrote what follows. What is ? When asked Professor Unschuld sated the following. “First, Chinese medicine is referred to as the as the historical reality of a multi-layered, dynamic medical tradition which developed over the course of the past three millennia from magical and religious beginnings – constantly incorporating new ideas and findings while simultaneously retaining older beliefs – and which was, with greater or lesser degrees of alteration, adopted by China’s neighboring countries – Japan, Korea, and Vietnam. The theoretical and practical reality of this medicine in the tenth century differed from that of the first century and, likewise, the nineteenth century from that of the tenth century. Second, the term ‘Chinese medicine’ covers the contents of the relevant literature from the Peoples Republic of China (PRC) as well as the daily reality of traditional Chinese medicine as practiced there. A type of ‘Chinese medicine’ was developed in the PRC in the 50’s in contrast to “Western” medicine and as an alternative to it, and which at the same time has abandoned all of the traditional aspects of Chinese healing that appear to the authorities to be no longer justifiable on the grounds of materialistic and scientific criteria. Third, numerous European and American writers and clinicians use the term “Chinese medicine” to describe their interpretations of traditional Chinese medicine based on their training with Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, Ceylonese, European, or American teachers as well as there own sometimes different understandings arising from personal experience. Finally, it should be pointed out that, about 150 years ago, the scientifically oriented medicine of Europe found entry into China, and that it dominates medical care there today. In recent decades, Chinese physicians and scientist have made important contributions to the development of “Western” medicine; these also should be regarded as a component of “Chinese medicine” today. At present, research has not yet been done on broad areas of the history of medicine in China prior to the twentieth century or on the acceptance of what in China is called “Western medicine”. Only a few of the roughly thirteen thousand medical texts which have been composed in China over the past two millennia, and which are still available in libraries and private collections, have been translated into Western languages. Even the question of converting traditional Chinese medical terminology into Western terms has not been settled; a standardized system of German or English equivalents agreed upon by all translators of Chinese medical texts does not yet exist.” It is the second point that most practitioners will find significant in that he said “…at the same time has abandoned all of the traditional aspects of Chinese healing that appear to the authorities to be no longer justifiable on the grounds of materialistic and scientific criteria.” What professor Unschuld is saying here is the very system of reasoning and logic that was the underpinning of this medicine since its inception that has been changed and that in its place the reductive Western worldview has been substituted. Consider the following misunderstanding carefully, which has been to equate China and the Chinese people with reverence and use of Chinese medicine. In actual fact, Chinese medicine has been on the defensive in its homeland for a century, “the Chinese medicine that patients in Europe and the USA are turning to is not to be compared with the reality of the healing system in East Asia…”[ii] It is a common misconception to think that people living in urban China have been steeped in the traditions of yin and yang and five elements for the most part they have no more understanding of these things than does the average American TCM student when they enter a TCM school in the West. It is not true that the average Chinese student has studied yin and yang or five elements unless they are studying it in a college. In fact the average westerner would surprised if he where to look at the educational system in China since the revolution in that it adopted a distinctly western approach to education that did not emphasize Chinese culture or traditional beliefs.[iii]. As a result of both the great leap forward and the Cultural Revolution the government of China has made a conscious effort leave behind much of its cultural heritage[iv]. One only needs to read a history of modern China to know this as an indisputable fact[v]. There is much in the way of literature in the Western academic press documenting the unreliability of the Chinese University Presses in not just the fields of TCM but in other areas such as religion, history, etc. Revisionist history has long been a tool of governments, even ours in the US. My point is that when you speak to a Chinese trained practitioner you are speaking to someone who in fact could not read the classics in their original form, which was the in the ancient characters. What he or she has read is the classics after they where translated into modern characters (referred to as simplified characters); this is what has been edited. Jurgen Kovacs in a paper derived to the University of California department of medical anthropology gave an extensive list of modern printing from university presses in China that had grave omissions and “dubious translation methodologies”[vi]. Six other papers on related topics where presented at the same symposium. The point here is that the classics studied by students in medical schools in China have been edited with political and social considerations in mind.[vii] I would also refer you to Bob Flaws article Thoughts on Acupuncture, Internal Medicine, and TCM in the West[viii]: likewise, Joseph Needium, Manfred Porkert, and Leon Hammer, have all had plenty to say that is in direct contrast to the position commonly taught in TCM schools in the west and in China. All of the authors above have written in English on this topic and are accessible to the English reader.[ix] The problem we as a profession face is that when we discuss our medicine with other scholars they know, beyond doubt, that we as a profession are misinformed and it leads them to the question; if we are so very wrong in this what else don’t we know? It also makes them distrust our professionalism. Would you as an MD trust someone that did not know where there information came from? Lets consider this briefly. I would like to take a few moments to discus how this medicine was codified in the early 50’s by the communists. The information that follows can be found by reading the works of Heiner Fruehauf, and numerous other sources[x]. Heiner Fruehauf is a PhD. In East Asian languages and Civilization from the University of Chicago and has a post-doctoral degree from Chengdu University in China. Mao was very disparaging of TCM when he first came to power.[xi] It was for complex political reasons that he changed his view toward TCM. It is certain that it was not a belief in the Medicine that caused him to have a change in heart. Mao’s motivations where based on factors like the distancing of China from Russia and China’s reliance on Russian medical technology, the cost of western medicine, and Mao’s incessant theme of self reliance. TCM was a political tool that helped him to excuse not providing modern medicine and set the stage for the arrival of the first TCM schools in modern China. In 1956 Zhou En Lai, established the first four TCM schools, Cheng Du, Beijing, Shang Hai, and Guan Zhong, the Nan Jing School was opened the following year. The Committees of Five who in China are know as the “five elders” was formed at the same time to codify the medicine in order to make it easily taught in the modern university paradigm. This committee, which was made up of classically trained practitioners, set to work. The committee included Qin Bowei, Cheng Shen Wu, Ren Ying Qiu, Li Chong Ren, and Yu Dao Ji. In 1959 Mao published a decree that outlined his vision for the integration of Chinese and Western medicine. The result of which was the complete abandonment of the major aspects of the work done by the “Five Elders”.[xii] What came after still bore their name but was not there work. Remember, the concept of Academic Freedom is not known in the Chinese University system.[xiii] Mao’s decree, the “Zhong Xi Yi jiehe”, an outline of his views of TCM and how it should be practiced, abandons the very foundation of TCM, the reliance on synthetic logic and reasoning, and in its place it puts western scientific method and the principles of reductionism. This is a very fundamental change in the medicine! In this same time period communist party committees at the university level started reviewing university administrative structures with the aim of insuring allegiance to the party. Their influence was enormous and had great impact on how the medicine of TCM developed. One of the most obvious outcomes to the outside observer was that the medicine was now in the control of western trained doctors not TCM doctors. These Doctors where in political positions, served as party functionaries, and to ascribe to them academic freedom or the ability to act as a scientist in incorrect. I would also point out that these people do not believe in the medicine or its efficacy, and this is not just my opinion but also the opinion of respected anthropologists and researchers.[xiv] In the mid 80’s I lived in China. I lived in a Taoist monastery studying qi gong, herbs and medicine, but mostly, Taoism. I know first hand that when the Chinese government says that they leave Taoist alone to practice their religion that this is false. I saw acts of both coercion and contempt on the part of the government. In living there I came to strongly suspect, as a result of both the great leap forward and the Cultural Revolution, that there was a large cultural difference between urban Chinese and rural Chinese. The monks where I lived disliked the government to a man, and where vastly different in their worldview then the urban Chinese I met. They where acutely aware of the cost to their culture that communism; especially the great leap forward and the Cultural Revolution had caused. While in China I was fortunate enough to see this medicine practiced in a more traditional way. I can assure you that what I saw was substantially different from what many Chinese trained doctors teach their students. I would like to state that I do not discount TCM as it is taught in China today. I think of it as a style of TCM the way I think of Whorsley as a style. I read some Chinese and have learned much from the Shang Hai and Beijing Journals of TCM. I think also that there is, as Bob Flaws has pointed out in some of his writings, a tendency to view all that is old as good and what is new as bad, and Bob Flaws is write, it is not good science to do this. TCM is a science, both the communist version, and the traditional one. I would like to see the science of the traditional medicine used and I would also like to see modern Chinese medicine looked at with a critical eye and not the romanticized and politicized view that the West and Western practitioners have used to view our medicine. After all how traditional is an article, which bears the title “The study of 54 cases of Stomach Cancer using Modified Ba Wei Di Huang Wan”, the very title is almost a refutation of the Traditional Medicine. Are we not using traditional herbal formulas here as if they where drugs? Where does pattern identification come into play in this sort of study? Having said this I will of course read the article and learn from it, but I will treat it as modern in approach. It should be apparent that is in fact not one thing, not one style or even one set of unifying principles. This is why the generally accepted definition of TCM given earlier in this article defines TCM in a number of ways. Today in America the NCCAOM and ACAOM have modeled their view of TCM on the Communist definition of the medicine. This was done because in the early years when TCM came to America practitioners saw so much potential in the medicine and in their enthusiasm they adopted what was told to them without critical review. Without an understanding of how the medicine they studied was codified. This led to a rather uncritical adoption of a standard of practice that was not debated by the profession and lead to some extent, in my mind, to a great deal of friction between different styles of practice. It has also possibly denied us the opportunity to look critically at how we practice and how that practice meets the needs of our patients. We have a different lifestyle, diet, and stressors then do people in China. Surely the Communist did some things right when they codified the medicine but they did many things wrongly if you consider revising the classics for political and social ends wrong. Do the standards of the NCCAOM and ACAOM (based largely upon the communist model of TCM) meet the needs of western patients? Is the abandonment of the fundamental systems of reasoning that historically have always been part of TCM a good thing to do? Do TCM schools in the West teach enough western science to make the communist model of TCM effective? Do they teach enough of the fundamental underpinnings of the medicine to allow students to practice classically? This is a debate that has not taken place yet in the American TCM community. This is a debate that requires that we better understand our history, and starts with the question, what is TCM? Lastly it has caused the medical and scholarly community in the West to view TCM in the West in a poor light. Institutions like the NIH, insurance companies, and hospitals research us, they see the gap between what we say as a profession and what academia says about us: when we want to receive grants, have hospital privileges, or be covered by insurance how can this not affect there views on our credibility? When a practitioner says, “TCM today is similar to what it was in ancient times”, or that “TCM as it is practiced in China and the west today is a 5,000-year-old tradition”, this is wrong and is known to be wrong by everyone but the western TCM communities. When we misrepresent what we do and our history it affects our credibility and the willingness of the western healthcare system to invest in research, offer hospital privileges or extend insurance coverage. How can we gain respect as a science and a medicine when we do not teach or tell the truth about our own history and medicine? How can we educate the practitioners of the future in a way that will further our medicine? I believe that Chinese medicine is a health care system that has the potential to become a respected system of medicine alongside Western medicine. What is Chinese medicine and why should we care? If you believe as I do that Chinese medicine deserves the same respect that western medicine has earned, if you believe that we should have the same respect and acceptance in society as a profession, if you believe we should have the same access to funding and insurance, if you want our medicine to be able to grow and thrive, then this is why we should care. References P. U. Unschuld, Medicine in China; Historical Artifacts and Images, New York, Prestel Press, 2000. Pages 7 and 8. [ii] P. U. Unschuld, , Mass, Paradigm Publications, 1998, Pages 2 and 3. [iii] D. Surowski, History of Educational Systems in China: an essay, Kansas State University Press, 2002 [iv] See the above the following quote is from page 4. “These reform measures can be traced directly to the Communist Party Central Committee (or various sub-committees), rather than to the Ministry of Education, as this latter organ ceased to function from 1967 through 1974.” Thus it can be seen that education was not in or under the control of the Chinese department of education. [v] Ray Huang, China: a macro History, Armonk, NY, M.E. Sharpe, 1997 [vi] From my notes, University of California, Lecture; Modern Translations of Chinese Medical Classics a Survey”, given at 9/04/92; Jurgen Kovacs presenting. [vii] I refer you to note iv. [viii] Journal of , Vol 38. Go to http://www.jcm to download this article. [ix] See the following references on this topic and Chinese medicine in general. 1) M. Porkert, The theoretical Foundations of , MIT Press, Cambridge MA: 1974 2) R. Croizier, Traditional Medicine in Modern China, Cambridge, Harvard University Press, 1968 3) J. Needham, Science and Civilization in China, Cambridge, Vol. I, III, and IV, 1959 [x] H. Fruehauf , in Crisis, Journal of Number 61, October 1999 [xi] Wa Zhiya, 1987, Pg 288 this reference is for our Chinese readership and Mao Zhuxi Yuli (saying of Chairman Mao); No editor or publisher, pg 54. [xii] Yu Zhenchu, Zhonggu Yixue Jianshi (A Brief History of Chinese Medical Science), FuZhou: Fujian Kexue Jishu, 1983, page 446. There are Chinese reader who will have a hard time accepting what is presented in this article and so for them I offer this reference written in Chinese by Chinese scholars who will make this clear. [xiii] See a series of articles published in 1958 in Chinas official newspaper, Renmin Ribao (the peoples daily). To find these articles you can go to the Denver Public library. [xiv] H. Fruehauf , in Crisis, Journal of Number 61, October 1999 Phillip Reynes, L.Ac. [zrosenbe] Monday, December 20, 2004 9:34 AM Chinese Medicine Re: What is TCM? While TCM is clearly a distillation and modern system as compared with Classical , and the Western practice is more or less based on TCM (except for Worsley and Japanese schools of acupuncture), the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans have immediate access to the classical medicine via textual knowledge, whereas we do not. On Dec 20, 2004, at 6:29 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > I think we need to first define the term TCM. I have seen two very > common > definitions used. The first one is that of all > (loose > term) and the other is a narrowly defined term related to a modern > east-west > intergrated medical system, now employed in China. This modern system > (communist in nature) has changed and eliminated many aspects from the > ancient knowledge and should not be considered an accurate > representative of > the whole. In the states, I would say that TCM, which is taught in > most > schools and tested on as well, is of the later understanding. This > is a > good first place to start. What do you think? > Later > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 You missed my point about definition of what we do and who we are. This is a major problem for us as we have no future if we cannot do this honestly. I see that our western practice and education is reliant upon bio med for this. As for the other statement, I agree that the Asian people have more direct access to thier own traditional medical knowledge. Later Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > " " <zrosenbe >Chinese Medicine >Chinese Medicine >Re: What is TCM? >Mon, 20 Dec 2004 08:34:20 -0800 > >While TCM is clearly a distillation and modern system as compared with >Classical , and the Western practice is more or less >based on TCM (except for Worsley and Japanese schools of acupuncture), >the Chinese, Japanese and Koreans have immediate access to the >classical medicine via textual knowledge, whereas we do not. > > >On Dec 20, 2004, at 6:29 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > > > I think we need to first define the term TCM. I have seen two very > > common > > definitions used. The first one is that of all > > (loose > > term) and the other is a narrowly defined term related to a modern > > east-west > > intergrated medical system, now employed in China. This modern system > > (communist in nature) has changed and eliminated many aspects from the > > ancient knowledge and should not be considered an accurate > > representative of > > the whole. In the states, I would say that TCM, which is taught in > > most > > schools and tested on as well, is of the later understanding. This > > is a > > good first place to start. What do you think? > > Later > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 20, 2004 Report Share Posted December 20, 2004 Dear Phillip, I enjoyed this article very much, and agree with its salient points, but would add the following: 1) What is called TCM in Mainland China is not as uniform as we might think in the late communist era. There are differing opinions on many things, and unlike in the West, there is research into the classical texts. However, I do know what you are speaking about. I recently had a fiery debate with a fellow teacher from the mainland about including the Nan Jing in a Western school's doctorate cirriculum. He argued that 'the Nan Jing is not a classic', and I cited other sources, such as Unschuld and Taylor, to show that this was not the case until the communist reformation. 2) You mention that the schools/colleges and organizations such as NCCAOM and ACAOM are based largely on the communist model of TCM. I would add that our profession as a whole has a limited understanding of even the TCM model, due to limitations of language and source material. Otherwise, I agree we need to pay close attention to the scholarly community and its research of Chinese medicine and science. Paul Unschuld's writings should be required reading for all practitioners of Chinese and other Asian medicines. On Dec 20, 2004, at 9:31 AM, Phillip Reynes wrote: > > Dear Members > > I have passed an article I wrote on this topic I hope it helps your > discussion. The article follows. It is well footnoted. > > What is and why should we care? > By Phillip A Reynes, L.Ac. > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 Zev, Although I respect Unschuld as a translator and good historian, I do not always buy his comments as he is not a practicing Acupuncturist/Chinese Medicine practitioner. For clinical efficacy, it is good to study the classics and see how they translate into a working system for practitioners today, but few have the ability to take from the classics and apply them. Robert Chu, L.Ac., QME, PhD chusauli See my webpages at: http://www.chusaulei.com > " " <zrosenbe >Chinese Medicine >Chinese Medicine >Re: What is TCM? >Mon, 20 Dec 2004 14:59:49 -0800 > > >Dear Phillip, > I enjoyed this article very much, and agree with its salient points, >but would add the following: > >1) What is called TCM in Mainland China is not as uniform as we might >think in the late communist era. There are differing opinions on many >things, and unlike in the West, there is research into the classical >texts. > >However, I do know what you are speaking about. I recently had a fiery >debate with a fellow teacher from the mainland about including the Nan >Jing in a Western school's doctorate cirriculum. He argued that 'the >Nan Jing is not a classic', and I cited other sources, such as Unschuld >and Taylor, to show that this was not the case until the communist >reformation. > >2) You mention that the schools/colleges and organizations such as >NCCAOM and ACAOM are based largely on the communist model of TCM. I >would add that our profession as a whole has a limited understanding of >even the TCM model, due to limitations of language and source material. > >Otherwise, I agree we need to pay close attention to the scholarly >community and its research of Chinese medicine and science. Paul >Unschuld's writings should be required reading for all practitioners of >Chinese and other Asian medicines. > > >On Dec 20, 2004, at 9:31 AM, Phillip Reynes wrote: > > > > > Dear Members > > > > I have passed an article I wrote on this topic I hope it helps your > > discussion. The article follows. It is well footnoted. > > > > What is and why should we care? > > By Phillip A Reynes, L.Ac. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 21, 2004 Report Share Posted December 21, 2004 I think both perspectives are necessary, but I agree that it is up to practitioners to study the classics and apply them. However, it takes the scholars and historians to translate, compile, reference, and provide footnotes, related texts, glossaries and other essential tools (whether reading Chinese or translated texts). This is why I am working on Nan Jing pulse material myself to put out someday. On Dec 20, 2004, at 4:18 PM, Robert Chu wrote: > > Zev, > > Although I respect Unschuld as a translator and good historian, I do > not > always buy his comments as he is not a practicing Acupuncturist/Chinese > Medicine practitioner. For clinical efficacy, it is good to study the > classics and see how they translate into a working system for > practitioners > today, but few have the ability to take from the classics and apply > them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2004 Report Share Posted December 24, 2004 Hi all, It appears that there exist some misunderstandings about the question " What is TCM? " The misunderstandings probably originated from some conclusions drawn by people who either had not been to China or are not practitioners of Chinese Medicine. The question " What is TCM " involves a very large topic. Due to time limit, I will only address several points below. (1) Introduction of the terms TCM and CM First of all, it should be pointed out that neither the term " TCM " nor the term " CM " existed in 's history. These terms came into existence in in a fairly short time. For thousands of years, because there was only one medicine in China, it was quite clear that the medicine is , and is the medicine. So for thousands of years, there was no need to place " Chinese " in front of " medicine " . As a result, there was only one term in 's history - medicine - that was equivalent to . Therefore, in the most part of 's history, there were no terms of TCM and CM. The terms TCM and CM were introduced to in recent centuries. This happened about one or two hundred years ago when Western Medicine arrived in China. In order to differentiate from Western Medicine, the terms TCM and CM were coined. This occurred before 1949, and was mainly from academic considerations. There was no governmental politics involved here. (2) Differences between CM and TCM Since the introduction of CM and TCM, the two terms were used interchangeably referring to . However, there is a subtle difference between these two terms. In China, the term CM is more commonly used. Outside China, TCM is used more frequently. The fact that CM is more commonly used in China also supports that the term TCM is not a product of governmental politics. Otherwise, China government would enforce the use of TCM in China. However, it is the CM rather than TCM that enjoys the most popularity in China. Therefore, there is no governmental plan or scheme to make or design a " TCM " in China. This saying is completely a misunderstanding about TCM. (3) Combination of CM and WM (Zhong Xi Yi Jie He) What many people outside China perceive as a governmental plan or scheme on probably is related to the Combination of CM and WM (Zhong Xi Yi Jie He). This indeed was called upon and advocated by China government. However, this should not be viewed as a governmental scheme either. The original goal of the Combination of CM and WM was for better efficacy and safety in the practice of medicine, and to promote the health for patients and the public. So the original purpose of Combination of CM and WM was benign and positive, even though it has generated some technical problems later on. The advantages and disadvantages of Combination of CM and WM is still controversial, and remained to be judged by time and history. (4) What is TCM To answer " What is TCM? " , we should look at the question " What is Western Medicine (WM)? " first. For hundreds years, WM has been developing and updating constantly. There are many new methods, techniques, drugs, specialties, etc. coming out from around the world. However, no matter where those progresses were made, they are all grouped under the umbrella of " Western Medicine " as long as they follow the allopathic principle. None of the new developments or branches were coined a new name or named as a new medicine simply because the new method, technique, drug, or specialty, etc were developed in a different country, location, or from different approaches, etc so long as they follow allopathic principle. (and holistic medicine) has met similar situation. It's clear that has been advancing and developing all the time. Each generation has made contributions to , enriched the knowledge of , broadened the scope of , and enabled to be adaptable to new challenges in corresponding eras. At the time when CM giants appeared, milestones were established in Chinese Medicine. During the era when giants were unavailable, was still progressing. has never stopped growing and advancing. Now let's go back to the original question: " What is TCM? " Because is an integral part of Chinese culture and history, the answer to this question is actually very long and can be approached from many different angles. It is impossible to provide a complete answer to this question in a short paragraph. Following, we only approach this question from one angle. For doctors of (CMDs), TCM should include, but not limited to: (1) all classics of ; (2) all growths, developments, advancements, branches, etc. derived directly from since the beginning of ; (3) all growths, developments, advancements, branches, etc. developed under direct influence of since the beginning of ; (4) all branches developed indirectly under the influence of since the beginning of . Due to historic reasons, some issues here have not been resolved yet. Further investigations, studies, and researches are needed in order to answer the following questions: What's the relationship between -- the world's earliest holistic medicine - and other holistic medicines? If all new growths, developments, branches, etc. in allopathic medicine are grouped under the umbrella of WM, should all new growths, developments, branches, etc. in holistic medicine be grouped under the umbrella of CM? Is it appropriate to coin a new name of medicine by detaching it from its source or history? Some of these issues have been addressed in the ACMA Unified Medicine Project (to be published). Without answering these questions, " What is TCM? " could not be answered completely. Bob Xu http://www.AmericanChineseMedicineAssociation.org The all-new My – What will yours do? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2004 Report Share Posted December 24, 2004 Excellent post Bob. You provide a wide range of answers to this interesting question 'What is TCM?'. From this many further threads of thought can be developed. Many thanks Attilio Bob Xu <bxu6 wrote: Hi all, It appears that there exist some misunderstandings about the question " What is TCM? " The misunderstandings probably originated from some conclusions drawn by people who either had not been to China or are not practitioners of Chinese Medicine. The question " What is TCM " involves a very large topic. Due to time limit, I will only address several points below. (1) Introduction of the terms TCM and CM First of all, it should be pointed out that neither the term " TCM " nor the term " CM " existed in 's history. These terms came into existence in in a fairly short time. For thousands of years, because there was only one medicine in China, it was quite clear that the medicine is , and is the medicine. So for thousands of years, there was no need to place " Chinese " in front of " medicine " . As a result, there was only one term in 's history - medicine - that was equivalent to . Therefore, in the most part of 's history, there were no terms of TCM and CM. The terms TCM and CM were introduced to in recent centuries. This happened about one or two hundred years ago when Western Medicine arrived in China. In order to differentiate from Western Medicine, the terms TCM and CM were coined. This occurred before 1949, and was mainly from academic considerations. There was no governmental politics involved here. (2) Differences between CM and TCM Since the introduction of CM and TCM, the two terms were used interchangeably referring to . However, there is a subtle difference between these two terms. In China, the term CM is more commonly used. Outside China, TCM is used more frequently. The fact that CM is more commonly used in China also supports that the term TCM is not a product of governmental politics. Otherwise, China government would enforce the use of TCM in China. However, it is the CM rather than TCM that enjoys the most popularity in China. Therefore, there is no governmental plan or scheme to make or design a " TCM " in China. This saying is completely a misunderstanding about TCM. (3) Combination of CM and WM (Zhong Xi Yi Jie He) What many people outside China perceive as a governmental plan or scheme on probably is related to the Combination of CM and WM (Zhong Xi Yi Jie He). This indeed was called upon and advocated by China government. However, this should not be viewed as a governmental scheme either. The original goal of the Combination of CM and WM was for better efficacy and safety in the practice of medicine, and to promote the health for patients and the public. So the original purpose of Combination of CM and WM was benign and positive, even though it has generated some technical problems later on. The advantages and disadvantages of Combination of CM and WM is still controversial, and remained to be judged by time and history. (4) What is TCM To answer " What is TCM? " , we should look at the question " What is Western Medicine (WM)? " first. For hundreds years, WM has been developing and updating constantly. There are many new methods, techniques, drugs, specialties, etc. coming out from around the world. However, no matter where those progresses were made, they are all grouped under the umbrella of " Western Medicine " as long as they follow the allopathic principle. None of the new developments or branches were coined a new name or named as a new medicine simply because the new method, technique, drug, or specialty, etc were developed in a different country, location, or from different approaches, etc so long as they follow allopathic principle. (and holistic medicine) has met similar situation. It's clear that has been advancing and developing all the time. Each generation has made contributions to , enriched the knowledge of , broadened the scope of , and enabled to be adaptable to new challenges in corresponding eras. At the time when CM giants appeared, milestones were established in Chinese Medicine. During the era when giants were unavailable, was still progressing. has never stopped growing and advancing. Now let's go back to the original question: " What is TCM? " Because is an integral part of Chinese culture and history, the answer to this question is actually very long and can be approached from many different angles. It is impossible to provide a complete answer to this question in a short paragraph. Following, we only approach this question from one angle. For doctors of (CMDs), TCM should include, but not limited to: (1) all classics of ; (2) all growths, developments, advancements, branches, etc. derived directly from since the beginning of ; (3) all growths, developments, advancements, branches, etc. developed under direct influence of since the beginning of ; (4) all branches developed indirectly under the influence of since the beginning of . Due to historic reasons, some issues here have not been resolved yet. Further investigations, studies, and researches are needed in order to answer the following questions: What's the relationship between -- the world's earliest holistic medicine - and other holistic medicines? If all new growths, developments, branches, etc. in allopathic medicine are grouped under the umbrella of WM, should all new growths, developments, branches, etc. in holistic medicine be grouped under the umbrella of CM? Is it appropriate to coin a new name of medicine by detaching it from its source or history? Some of these issues have been addressed in the ACMA Unified Medicine Project (to be published). Without answering these questions, " What is TCM? " could not be answered completely. Bob Xu http://www.AmericanChineseMedicineAssociation.org ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 24, 2004 Report Share Posted December 24, 2004 Hi Bob, I enjoyed your post. I have a few points / questions: > Bob Xu <bxu6 wrote: > were coined. This occurred before 1949, and was[...] > governmental politics involved here. > supports that the term TCM is not a product of > governmental politics. Otherwise, China government > would enforce the use of TCM in China. > Therefore, there is no governmental plan or scheme > to make or design a " TCM " in China. This saying is > completely a misunderstanding about TCM. I may be misunderstanding, but the fact that I know of is that there was a government-led attempt in the early part of the 20th century to extinguish the non-western medicine ( " yi " ), which was considered an embarrassment to the Chinese nation by the PRC. This attempt was not popularly accepted. This led to a compromise by the PRC where two major things seemed to have happened: 1. the standardisation of a pluralistic and heterogenous (not my terms) indigenous medicine was accomplished and 2. the eradication of the most radically " non-scientific " aspects of this indigenous medicine was accomplished. Thus was born was is taught at schools today, generally speaking. From my personal experience, there is a tremendous, though not exactly a fundamental, difference between the 'new' medicine from China and the previous indigenous medicine (family lineage / imperial systems). Both groups (new medicine and family lineage / imperial medicine) share the basic theory - yin-yang - but the application is substantially different. From what I can tell, the original group of indigenous medicines were like a subtle animal of indeterminate and supple form. The lack of standardisation, the ability of the medicine to take the form of its region, populace and time is what sets it apart from the 'new' medicine. That's all I wanted to say, thanks for your time. Hugo _________ ALL-NEW Messenger - all new features - even more fun! http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 25, 2004 Report Share Posted December 25, 2004 Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor> wrote: > > I may be misunderstanding, but the fact that I know > of is that there was a government-led attempt in the > early part of the 20th century to extinguish the > non-western medicine ( " yi " ), which was considered an > embarrassment to the Chinese nation by the PRC. After the fall of the last Imperial dynasty, China was known as the ROC (Republic of China). The PRC (People's Republic) only began after WWII, after the communist party effectively won the civil war that was going on in China by driving the ROC gov't to Taiwan. So the PRC era didn't actually begin until 1949. However, I do believe that you are correct in that the early 20th century nearly brought about the demise of traditional medicine. Traditional medicine was given a boost after the formation of the PRC, in part to provide rudimentary healthcare quickly to a nation strapped for resources, and also to preserve valuable aspects of China's heritage. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 2004 Report Share Posted December 27, 2004 Hi Hugo, Your question actually has been answered by Eric Brand. Just as Eric said, the event you mentioned was not carried out by current PRC government. That event is called Fei Yi Cun Yao. It was not an isolated event. It had very complicated historical background. Now when review that part of CM history, the persons launching that event are regarded as national nihilists from medicine viewpoint, and traitors from political viewpoint. That event will not repeat again. Bob Xu Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: I may be misunderstanding, but the fact that I know of is that there was a government-led attempt in the early part of the 20th century to extinguish the non-western medicine ( " yi " ), which was considered an embarrassment to the Chinese nation by the PRC. This attempt was not popularly accepted. This led to a compromise by the PRC where two major things seemed to have happened: 1. the standardisation of a pluralistic and heterogenous (not my terms) indigenous medicine was accomplished and 2. the eradication of the most radically " non-scientific " aspects of this indigenous medicine was accomplished. Read only the mail you want - Mail SpamGuard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2005 Report Share Posted January 4, 2005 Only one point, I would like to make difference from Bob. Using Traditional term is not good way for long term. Chinese medicine is harmonised way and also is developing everyday. We prefer to use Chinese Medicine outside of China. There are several articles about whether we should use Tradtional or not in Chinese from the internet. Dr John Wu from Dr & HERBS 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.