TCM vs. CCM

[Guest guest]

 

 

> While state sponsored TCM was indeed founded upon the principles of

> dialectical mateialism, the actual practiceof TCM has not been

limited

> to this, as I understand it. As I am sure Ken (and others) will

> confirm, even my teachers who studied during the cultural

revolution

> had access to the full range of premodern texts and ideas.

 

As I understand, most schools, colleges and

universities were closed down for much of

the Cultural Revolution. I frankly don't

have a clear idea of what people had access

to in the way of such materials in that

time. I do have a pretty clear idea of

the kinds of materials that have become

readily available in the years since

the Cultural Revolution. And they certainly

span the entire spectrum of extant literature

produced and retained within China over

many centuries. It's an eye-opening experience

to just walk into a well stocked bookstore's

Chinese medicine section in the PRC. It tells the story

more clearly than any narrative descritiption:

there's a vast literature on the subject.

 

Your

> statement that the communist version of TCM was " offered to the

WHO "

> pretty much says it all. This style was offered for export to be

both

> palatable to the west and to promote marxism. But practitioners

who

> pursued advanced studies worked with old doctors and learned their

> " classical " styles. So while basic textbooks like Fundamentals of

CM

> definitely reflect this marxist dialectic, advanced texts do not

(and

> never have). In addition, the state control of even basic TCM

> education began to subside in the mid late 80's and now plays

virtually

> no role at all. China is a capitalist country with what

essentially

> amounts to academic freedom within the TCM colleges at this point

in

> time, according to all reports I have received. So while religion

may

> still be frowned upon in government circles, I think there is

little in

> the way of medically applicable ideas that is currently taboo.

 

There's actually a single word on which some of

this discussion hinges. That word is shen2 Éñ, which

we frequently see translated as " spirit. " We've

written about it elsewhere at some length, but

it's important to point out in the context of

this discussion about religion and its influence

on Chinese medical ideas that some of the basic

religious terminology simply does not mean in

Chinese what it means in English. Shen2 is the

pivotal example.

 

There is a range of meanings of this Chinese

character that extends beyond what we think of

as " the spirit " in a Western religous sense.

 

The phenomena, beliefs, and practices of

religion in China are not equal to those of

the West so that when we talk about religious

influence on medicine (or vice versa) we have

to get a clear idea of the kinds of issues

that actually come into play.

 

 

>

> Personally, I frown upon religion, too, so a little distance from

> metaphysics I can only perceive as a good thing and a desirable

> evolutionary step.

 

Religion does not equal metaphysics. All systems

of knowledge are pegged to and depend up metaphysical

rationale, even mathematics...especially mathematics,

the Queen of the sciences.

 

Niels Bohr said that " on the stage of life we are

both actors and audience, " and he said he got this

awareness from the Daoists. His theory of complementarity

thus suggests that Chinese metaphysical influences

found their way into the roots of the modern scientific

understanding of the world.

 

Same is probably true of dialectics in the first

place. The cross-cultural movement of ideas and

the cross-fertilization of thought down through

the centuries is a complex array of factors and

forces. I'm not comfortable with turning these

into quips and epithets. Einstein said that

everything should be made as simple as possible...

but no simpler.

 

The Chinese who codified TCM from the 50s on

worked under the influence of Maoist Marxism.

Who here can tell us in less than a thousand

words what Chinese Communism is? much less

" the communist version of TCM " . What does

that mean?

 

Finally, while organized religion may be anathema,

> philosophical taoism also seems fairly alive and well in China.

But,

> as Bob Flaws has pointed out, the entire history of CM has been

> dominated by confucianism, not taoism, anyway.

 

Being the " state religion " for centuries,

Confucianism was required reading for the

intellectual class in China. But what most

people actually mean when they say " Confucianism "

is the Song recapitulation carried out by

Zhu Xi and his followers that is more

accurately known as " neo-Confucianism. "

 

We talk about this in Who Can Ride the Dragon?

 

The terms " Confucian " and " Daoist " are not

properly used to depict a Cartesian-style

schism in Chinese thought and life. The

ideal of the Chinese gentleman for many

centuries has been to lead a proper " Confucian "

life until retirement and then withdraw

into " Daoist " hermitage and contemplation.

 

It was something that people studied and

planned. There's a section of Qian Jin Fang

all about how to be a good hermit.

 

What we see reflected in our ceaseless

struggling with such issues, as with

the supposed conflicts of TCM vs. CCM,

CM vs. WM, and so on are our own habits

of mind.

 

And the confucians were

> just as suspicious of metaphysics and religion as the communists,

so

> this trend in China is hardly 50 years old, but more like 2000. I

> think a lot of the anti-TCM rhetoric popular in many circles is

> propaganda espoused by those who wish to promulgate a variety of

new

> age and metaphysical concepts as if they were inherent to CM. One

such

> method is to bash TCM and then introduce any metaphysical idea one

> likes and call it CM. A lot of this rhetoric lacks something very

> important, though. It lacks a well documented historical basis.

 

And it lacks a clearly defined nomenclature

in which it can be carried on. In the

resulting vacuum, it abounds with idiosyncratic

assertions.

 

On

> the other hand, the roots of TCM are clearly visble in the works of

> ming and qing dynasty physicians, as well as those from early this

> century before the communist era.

 

There's no reason to set a limit at the Ming.

You can find roots of TCM in the literature

from the Han dynasty and earlier.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Can you clarify what you mean by this ( " I frown upon religion, too " )?

 

 

 

And why is " a little distance from metaphysics " a " good thing and a

desirable evolutionary step? "

 

 

 

 

 

On Saturday, November 3, 2001, at 01:18 PM, wrote:

 

> Personally, I frown upon religion, too, so a little distance from

> metaphysics I can only perceive as a good thing and a desirable

> evolutionary step. 

[Guest guest]

Hi,prof.Todd and ken,

 

> the other hand, the roots of TCM are clearly visble

in the works of

> ming and qing dynasty physicians, as well as those

from early this

> century before the communist era.

 

There's no reason to set a limit at the Ming.

You can find roots of TCM in the literature

from the Han dynasty and earlier.

 

Ken

 

Jean:Yes!!TCM is more earler than Huang-Di(yellow

emprior),even before that era, because in the beging

of TCM ,at that era,the word wasn't invented

yet,therefore,language must be earler than words for

transmit information.

 

And,we chinese see no classical and modern TCM.They

are

all in one rule(one countinue for ever).Since before

yellow emporior until now and for ever.TCM are all in

one rule.It get never changed.

 

Jean

 

=====

 

 

--------------------------------

< ¨C¤Ñ³£ ©_¼¯ > www..tw

[Guest guest]

religion

>>>>I think the main question is how somebody define religion. I for one as far as medicine see it as the strong belief in an idea without logical/factual support.

Alon

[Guest guest]

Huang-Di(yellowemprior),even before that era

>>>What I have always found interesting that even in the Huang-Di area they have already kept repeating that the real practice of medicine is lost. This either points to a much earlier society that we do not know anything about or its just mythic talk.

Alon

[Guest guest]

 

-

alonmarcus

Sunday, November 04, 2001 8:56 AM

Re: Re: TCM vs. CCM

 

religion

>>>>I think the main question is how somebody define religion. I for one as far as medicine see it as the strong belief in an idea without logical/factual support.

Alon

 

 

Alon,

This is exactly the sort of judeo-christian centered, misguided definition of religion that led European and American scholars to falsely conclude that China had not developed a native "religion". Hence, Daoism was mistakenly called a "philosophy" for much of the last century, or arbitrarily split into two Daoisms, philosophical and religious. This version generally revears the philosophical, (though it is found to be rather impractical), and disregards the religious as fringe. However, if anyone had been paying attention to the scholarship of the last 25 years, they would realize that view is not only false, but was build on a foundation of arrogance, if not utter racism. Daoism is the native religion of China, it is a highly sophisticated liturgical tradition. We could, and probably will (though it is of very little use), debate it's relative connection with the native medicine of China for the next 25 years. But we can say with certainty that the idea of "belief" which is so central to the judeo-chrisitian religions, is and was of little or no importance to Daoism. Please see the following short book list. These are widely regarded as some of the finest works of religious scholarship on Daoism in this geration. All of these titles and more can be purchase at www.mulberrygrove.com . Have a look, Dean

TAOIST BODYKristofer Schipper

TAOISM: GROWTH OF A RELIGIONIsabelle Robinet

Yuan Dao: Tracing Dao to its SourceRoger Ames and D. C. Lau EARLY DAOIST SCRIPTURESSteven Bokenkamp

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> As I understand, most schools, colleges and

> universities were closed down for much of

> the Cultural Revolution.

 

My teacher seemed to have had access to her father's personal

collection. Apparently the control of the government was not absolute,

espeically in remote rural areas.

 

> Religion does not equal metaphysics. All systems

> of knowledge are pegged to and depend up metaphysical

> rationale, even mathematics...especially mathematics,

> the Queen of the sciences.

 

I think I should have used the word mysticism. You are using

metaphysics in its grander meaning within the study of philosophy.

However, don't get me wrong. Mysticism does interest me. I just don't

think it played a large role in the development of TCM (though perhaps

it did play a role in the foundation). Was shen nong a mystic? a

shaman? It would seem so.

 

>

> There's no reason to set a limit at the Ming.

> You can find roots of TCM in the literature

> from the Han dynasty and earlier.

 

My persoanl familiarity ends there. No other reason.

 

[Guest guest]

My definition is related to mostly westerners on this list and has nothing to do with interpretation of Daoism. I would not call my statement judeo-Christian at all, but more from the objectivism movement, which is occidental as you so strongly stated

Alon

 

-

Dean Militello

Sunday, November 04, 2001 10:26 AM

Re: Re: TCM vs. CCM

 

 

 

-

alonmarcus

Sunday, November 04, 2001 8:56 AM

Re: Re: TCM vs. CCM

 

religion

>>>>I think the main question is how somebody define religion. I for one as far as medicine see it as the strong belief in an idea without logical/factual support.

Alon

 

 

Alon,

This is exactly the sort of judeo-christian centered, misguided definition of religion that led European and American scholars to falsely conclude that China had not developed a native "religion". Hence, Daoism was mistakenly called a "philosophy" for much of the last century, or arbitrarily split into two Daoisms, philosophical and religious. This version generally revears the philosophical, (though it is found to be rather impractical), and disregards the religious as fringe. However, if anyone had been paying attention to the scholarship of the last 25 years, they would realize that view is not only false, but was build on a foundation of arrogance, if not utter racism. Daoism is the native religion of China, it is a highly sophisticated liturgical tradition. We could, and probably will (though it is of very little use), debate it's relative connection with the native medicine of China for the next 25 years. But we can say with certainty that the idea of "belief" which is so central to the judeo-chrisitian religions, is and was of little or no importance to Daoism. Please see the following short book list. These are widely regarded as some of the finest works of religious scholarship on Daoism in this geration. All of these titles and more can be purchase at www.mulberrygrove.com . Have a look, Dean

TAOIST BODYKristofer Schipper

TAOISM: GROWTH OF A RELIGIONIsabelle Robinet

Yuan Dao: Tracing Dao to its SourceRoger Ames and D. C. Lau EARLY DAOIST SCRIPTURESSteven Bokenkamp

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

>

> My teacher seemed to have had access to her father's personal

> collection. Apparently the control of the government was not

absolute,

> espeically in remote rural areas.

 

I think this is true. It was true in the past

and it'll be true from here on.

>

> > Religion does not equal metaphysics. All systems

> > of knowledge are pegged to and depend up metaphysical

> > rationale, even mathematics...especially mathematics,

> > the Queen of the sciences.

>

> I think I should have used the word mysticism. You are using

> metaphysics in its grander meaning within the study of philosophy.

> However, don't get me wrong. Mysticism does interest me. I just

don't

> think it played a large role in the development of TCM (though

perhaps

> it did play a role in the foundation). Was shen nong a mystic? a

> shaman? It would seem so.

 

Once again we come to a juncture at which

we need to pause and define some terms.

Mysticism has a couple of quite different

meanings. One concerns direct experience

of spiritual or universal phenomena, as

differentiated from the receipt of information

about such experiences from others, i.e.

a priesthood. At once, mysticism takes on

a political shade as it describes a camp

in an ongoing conflict over who shall control

people's minds. The mystics believe that

every individual is on their own in the

face of eternity. The priesthood holds that

it takes their guidance for an individual

to make it to heaven.

 

This differentiation of modes of belief and

practice can be found throughout the world

and throughout time.

 

The other sense in which mysticism is often

used is simply irrational thought.

 

The root of the word comes from ancient Greek

and also means a couple of things: 1. to induct

into a secret cult; 2. to close the eyes.

Evidently the mystics held meetings in

ancient Greece in which initiates were

inducted in some sort of ceremony or

ritual that involved closing the eyes.

That we memorialize such practices with

this particular word suggest that the closing

of the eyes holds a particular significance.

 

What do you see when your eyes are shut?

You see into the mysteries.

And if that does it for you,

then you're a mystic.

 

Was Shen Nong a mystic? If we apply the direct

experience definition then resoundingly yes.

A central theme of the myth of Shen Nong

involves the fact that he tasted the different

grasses in order to devine their nature and

effects. You see the same imagery in the story

of Sun Si Miao's dog.

 

If we understand Shen Nong to stand as a symbol

for the people who lived in the period of China's

pre-history and who developed the ideas and practices

that evolved into herbal medicine, the important

lesson here is that the methodology comes from

eating and from observing the effects that the

ingested substances produce. The widespread " folk " use of

Chinese herbal medicine still reflects these

most ancient roots. As Jeansu pointed out the

other day, it is a ubiquitous experience of

Chinese children that they all tend to have

been given herbal teas and soups to drink

at one time or another throughout their early

life. And to this day when eating with Chinese

you're quite likely to hear a running narrative

about the medicinal values of the various dishes.

 

One last comment with respect to religious

mysteries, mystics, and so on is that in

the Daoist literature we are given a helpful

clue as to an ancient Chinese attitude

about mystery. The passage I'm thinking of

is found in the Dao De Jing, the first

chapter:

 

(my own offhand translation)

Enduring without desire you come

to see indescribable marvels!

 

Enduring desires lead you to

see merest traces.

 

These two emerge together

but have different names.

Together they are called Mystery.

Mystery upon Mystery:

The gateway to the miraculous!

 

The Daoists were evidently so mystic

in their approach that they celebrated

mysteries as the portal to the dao itself.

It's significant that they did not develop

or offer an explanation of Mystery.

Mystery is Mystery. It's a mystery when

you first encounter it and it's a mystery

when you breathe your last and merge with

it.

 

All in all, I'd say that if we want to

come to terms with the roots of Chinese

medicine, we have to tackle the mystical

dimensions.

 

Sun Si Miao went so far as to warn that

if you don't read Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi

you won't know how to lead your daily life!

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

What do you see when your eyes are shut?You see into the mysteries.And if that does it for you,then you're a mystic.>>>I like this

Alon

 

-

yulong

Sunday, November 04, 2001 2:43 PM

Re: TCM vs. CCM

> > My teacher seemed to have had access to her father's personal > collection. Apparently the control of the government was not absolute, > espeically in remote rural areas.I think this is true. It was true in the pastand it'll be true from here on. > > > Religion does not equal metaphysics. All systems > > of knowledge are pegged to and depend up metaphysical> > rationale, even mathematics...especially mathematics,> > the Queen of the sciences.> > I think I should have used the word mysticism. You are using > metaphysics in its grander meaning within the study of philosophy. > However, don't get me wrong. Mysticism does interest me. I just don't > think it played a large role in the development of TCM (though perhaps > it did play a role in the foundation). Was shen nong a mystic? a > shaman? It would seem so.Once again we come to a juncture at whichwe need to pause and define some terms.Mysticism has a couple of quite differentmeanings. One concerns direct experienceof spiritual or universal phenomena, asdifferentiated from the receipt of informationabout such experiences from others, i.e.a priesthood. At once, mysticism takes ona political shade as it describes a campin an ongoing conflict over who shall controlpeople's minds. The mystics believe thatevery individual is on their own in theface of eternity. The priesthood holds thatit takes their guidance for an individualto make it to heaven.This differentiation of modes of belief andpractice can be found throughout the worldand throughout time.The other sense in which mysticism is oftenused is simply irrational thought.The root of the word comes from ancient Greekand also means a couple of things: 1. to inductinto a secret cult; 2. to close the eyes.Evidently the mystics held meetings inancient Greece in which initiates wereinducted in some sort of ceremony orritual that involved closing the eyes.That we memorialize such practices withthis particular word suggest that the closingof the eyes holds a particular significance.What do you see when your eyes are shut?You see into the mysteries.And if that does it for you,then you're a mystic.Was Shen Nong a mystic? If we apply the directexperience definition then resoundingly yes.A central theme of the myth of Shen Nonginvolves the fact that he tasted the differentgrasses in order to devine their nature andeffects. You see the same imagery in the storyof Sun Si Miao's dog.If we understand Shen Nong to stand as a symbolfor the people who lived in the period of China'spre-history and who developed the ideas and practicesthat evolved into herbal medicine, the importantlesson here is that the methodology comes fromeating and from observing the effects that theingested substances produce. The widespread "folk" use ofChinese herbal medicine still reflects thesemost ancient roots. As Jeansu pointed out theother day, it is a ubiquitous experience ofChinese children that they all tend to havebeen given herbal teas and soups to drinkat one time or another throughout their earlylife. And to this day when eating with Chineseyou're quite likely to hear a running narrativeabout the medicinal values of the various dishes.One last comment with respect to religiousmysteries, mystics, and so on is that inthe Daoist literature we are given a helpfulclue as to an ancient Chinese attitudeabout mystery. The passage I'm thinking ofis found in the Dao De Jing, the first chapter:(my own offhand translation)Enduring without desire you cometo see indescribable marvels!Enduring desires lead you to see merest traces.These two emerge togetherbut have different names.Together they are called Mystery.Mystery upon Mystery:The gateway to the miraculous!The Daoists were evidently so mysticin their approach that they celebratedmysteries as the portal to the dao itself.It's significant that they did not developor offer an explanation of Mystery.Mystery is Mystery. It's a mystery whenyou first encounter it and it's a mysterywhen you breathe your last and merge withit.All in all, I'd say that if we want tocome to terms with the roots of Chinesemedicine, we have to tackle the mysticaldimensions. Sun Si Miao went so far as to warn thatif you don't read Lao Zi and Zhuang Ziyou won't know how to lead your daily life!KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

While I can appreciate your views of Daoism, I don't buy this

" Judeo-Christian " idea at all. It oversimplifies and lumps together two

'religions' that have similar origins but a very different development.

 

There is no word for 'religion' in Hebrew. One lives one's Jewishness

as a Jew, not following a creed. There is nothing in Judaism that is

about belief. . . it is about action and deed primarily.

 

I have always found resonances from Chinese culture in Jewish culture

and visa versa.

 

I don't think it is correct to blame the misconceptions of Chinese

culture in the West on Judaism.

 

 

On Sunday, November 4, 2001, at 10:26 AM, Dean Militello wrote:

 

>  

>

> - 

>

> Alon,

> This is exactly the sort of judeo-christian centered, misguided

> definition of religion that led European and American scholars to

> falsely conclude that China had not developed a native " religion " .

> Hence, Daoism was mistakenly called a " philosophy "  for much of the last

> century, or arbitrarily split into two Daoisms, philosophical and

> religious. This version generally revears the philosophical, (though it

> is found to be rather impractical), and disregards the religious as

> fringe. However, if anyone had been paying attention to the scholarship

> of the last 25 years, they would realize that view is not only false,

> but was build on a foundation of arrogance, if not utter racism.

>  Daoism is the native religion of China, it is a highly sophisticated

> liturgical tradition. We could, and probably will (though it is of very

> little use), debate it's relative connection with the native medicine

> of China for the next 25 years. But we can say with certainty that the

> idea of " belief " which is so central to the judeo-chrisitian religions,

> is and was of little or no importance to Daoism. Please see the

> following short book list. These are widely regarded as some of the

> finest works of religious scholarship on Daoism in this geration. All

> of these titles and more can be purchase at www.mulberrygrove.com .

> Have a look, Dean

> TAOIST BODY

> Kristofer Schipper 

> TAOISM: GROWTH OF A RELIGION

> Isabelle Robinet 

> Yuan Dao: Tracing Dao to its Source

> Roger Ames and D. C. Lau

> EARLY DAOIST SCRIPTURES

> Steven Bokenkamp 

>

 

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed

> healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate

> academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety

> of professional services, including board approved online continuing

> education.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi, the Yi Jing, the Nei Jing, contain the soul of

Chinese medicine. Without it, Chinese medicine is a body without a

soul, a technique without inner life.

 

Right on, Ken.

 

 

>

> All in all, I'd say that if we want to

> come to terms with the roots of Chinese

> medicine, we have to tackle the mystical

> dimensions.

>

> Sun Si Miao went so far as to warn that

> if you don't read Lao Zi and Zhuang Zi

> you won't know how to lead your daily life!

>

> Ken

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

There is no word for 'religion' in Hebrew.

>>>>What is Dat?

There is nothing in Judaism that is about belief. . . it is about action and deed primarily.

>>>How about the belief in a creator? I am not talking about Kabala

Alon

 

-

 

Sunday, November 04, 2001 6:26 PM

Re: Re: TCM vs. CCM

While I can appreciate your views of Daoism, I don't buy this "Judeo-Christian" idea at all. It oversimplifies and lumps together two 'religions' that have similar origins but a very different development. There is no word for 'religion' in Hebrew. One lives one's Jewishness as a Jew, not following a creed. There is nothing in Judaism that is about belief. . . it is about action and deed primarily.I have always found resonances from Chinese culture in Jewish culture and visa versa. I don't think it is correct to blame the misconceptions of Chinese culture in the West on Judaism. On Sunday, November 4, 2001, at 10:26 AM, Dean Militello wrote:

- Alon,This is exactly the sort of judeo-christian centered, misguided definition of religion that led European and American scholars to falsely conclude that China had not developed a native "religion". Hence, Daoism was mistakenly called a "philosophy" for much of the last century, or arbitrarily split into two Daoisms, philosophical and religious. This version generally revears the philosophical, (though it is found to be rather impractical), and disregards the religious as fringe. However, if anyone had been paying attention to the scholarship of the last 25 years, they would realize that view is not only false, but was build on a foundation of arrogance, if not utter racism. Daoism is the native religion of China, it is a highly sophisticated liturgical tradition. We could, and probably will (though it is of very little use), debate it's relative connection with the native medicine of China for the next 25 years. But we can say with certainty that the idea of "belief" which is so central to the judeo-chrisitian religions, is and was of little or no importance to Daoism. Please see the following short book list. These are widely regarded as some of the finest works of religious scholarship on Daoism in this geration. All of these titles and more can be purchase at www.mulberrygrove.com . Have a look, DeanTAOIST BODYKristofer Schipper TAOISM: GROWTH OF A RELIGIONIsabelle Robinet Yuan Dao: Tracing Dao to its SourceRoger Ames and D. C. LauEARLY DAOIST SCRIPTURESSteven Bokenkamp

Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

As a CCM practitioner from a lineage form of Acupuncture I agree almost 100%

with your analysis.

My only point of disagreement is with

>Ear and hand acupuncture, Tong and other systems, are not

'classical', they are modern adaptations. <

 

Tong is IMO a lineage or classical system as is th Ch'en system I come out

of.

Ch'en lineage predates the TCM reality by many centuries.

 

> Ear acupuncture includes

most of its points as anatomical landmarks based on embryology, a

modern science, and was adapted from Paul Nogier's system in Paris

during the 20th century.<

 

I have my Grandfather's old ear charts that are pre 20th century and predate

Nogier's birth let alone his first published work.

They show many of the same locations but are not based at all on the embryo.

 

Doc

 

 

On 3/13/06, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Trish,

> You've asked some very good questions, and I'll like to give my

> own insights into them.

> On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, pippa258 wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > * " Why does TCM rely so heavily on treating patients with Chinese

> > herbs as opposed to acupuncture? It's because acupuncture in

> > TCM is

> > not based on authentic and complete classical Chinese medicine

> > theory. Consequently, acupuncture treatments in TCM are very

> > simplistic and often inefficacious "

>

> Chinese medicine has historically always favored internal medicine

> over acupuncture/moxabustion. An inventory of classical medical

> texts, of which there are estimates of between 30 to 80,000, shows

> that 80% or more of these texts are on internal medicine ( i.e.

> 'herbal medicine'). TCM acupuncture is as 'authentic' as any other

> kind. It is hard to simplify such a complex topic, but modern TCM

> acupuncture is largely based on internal medicine principles (viscera-

> bowel pattern differentiation), to allow a practitioner to choose

> both herbal medicine and acupuncture treatment based on the same

> diagnosis at the same time. It also adapts methods developed by Li

> Dong-yuan during the Jin-Yuan dynasty (13th century). Classically,

> however, acupuncture and moxabustion were based on channel theory

> (jing-luo), and treatments and diagnoses were based on different

> criteria than internal medicine. So more classical acupuncture

> methods were based on such texts as the Nei Jing Su Wen Ling Shu and

> the Nan Jing, which also was the source for five phase theory

> applications in acupuncture as well. Many Japanese approaches to

> acupuncture/moxabustion are based on these texts.

> > *

> >

> > Is there any truth to this? It would be very disheartening to learn

> > that

> > after many years of study that TCM is " often inefficacious " .

>

> I think that is a great over-simplification indicating bias. I think

> that Japanese, five phase, and channel-based 'styles' of acupuncture

> are more focused on the medium of acupuncture/moxabustion itself,

> whereas TCM acupuncture is designed more for herbalists doing

> acupuncture. TCM itself is a modern synthesis and adaptation, but so

> are many Japanese acupuncture styles and the Worsley style of

> treatment. They are not 'pure'.

> >

> > * " TCM acupuncture doesn't make sense- period. I go to tcm school I

> > should know. TCM herbalism is pretty good. If you look in any

> > textbook of tcm see if explains when to use a source-luo combo or

> > when to use a mu shu comb. How about the fact they put a five

> > phase

> > point selection chart in the books with no explanation of how to

> > apply it-this is plain dangerous. Tcm encourages doctors to play a

> > " guessing game " with clinical point selection on patients who are

> > real people. The points are described by functions which are based

> > on western medicine and the remnents of herbalism after mao

> > came to

> > China and Chinese medicine was banned in the 20's by that other

> > guy.

> > I study all the classical material available to me and I can get

> > better results than anyone else in my school with acupuncture I'm

> > not bragging, its just if you don't understand why the point

> > you are

> > needling works then you can't heal people well. This is why a

> > normal

> > course of treatment in China is 20 treatments, and that may not

> > even

> > get a result. Its really sad but true. I am thinking of a lawsuit

> > against the nccaom because their exam is based on sham

> > acupuncture.*

>

> This is clearly very extreme. TCM acupuncture is the result of the

> attempt to develop a national medical system in China that could be

> taught by a standardized school cirriculum. But such

> oversimplifications of history are wrong-headed and slanderous. If

> China did not take these steps, all of Chinese medicine may have gone

> underground or disappeared. Remember, the Guomingdang (Nationalist

> government) almost banned Chinese medicine, just as Japan did at one

> point! However, in Japan, herbal medicine could only be practiced by

> M.D.'s until now.

>

> One can practice zang-fu pattern differentiation with acupuncture, so

> it is not a hit or miss proposition at all. I think judging the

> Chinese practice of acupuncture is foolish without sufficent data.

> It is a huge country with over 100,000 practitioners, many different

> treatment styles, clinics and hospitals.

> >

> > **

> >

> > *The problem is you can't study CCM acupuncture and herbs at the

> > same school- you have to make a choice- I chose to go to the best

> > school I could find which I could learn herbs too, some people

> > like

> > the other CCM fans on this site dropped out of tcm school to go

> > to a

> > real ccm school- the choice is up to you...And ear points are

> > based

> > on classical imaging just as hand acupuncture and other systems

> > such

> > as Master Tongs. If you study ccm you don't need to worry " one of

> > 'ems got to work " - you know if it will, and local points are as

> > classical as any other point " (*This student studies at Oshio but

> > hightly recommends Jung Tao school)

>

> Ear and hand acupuncture, Tong and other systems, are not

> 'classical', they are modern adaptations. Ear acupuncture includes

> most of its points as anatomical landmarks based on embryology, a

> modern science, and was adapted from Paul Nogier's system in Paris

> during the 20th century.

>

>

> > *

> > *

> >

> > I pasted these quotes from the TCMStudent board here because they

> > are in

> > depth and I just don't have the knowledge re: these issues. I am not

> > intending to stir up hurt feelings here but would honestly like to

> > know

> > how current practitioners of TCM feel about this and how this has

> > panned

> > out in their practices.

> >

> > * " Classical Chinese acupuncture restores at the level of energy;

> > while, Chinese herbology restores at the level of mass. Since, a

> > shift in mass is always proceeded by a change in energy, classical

> > Chinese acupuncture treats the root (i.e., the underlying

> > energetic

> > cause) of an illness; while, Chinese herbology treats the branch

> > (s)

> > (i.e., the signs and symptoms) of an illness... "

>

> The idea of 'energy' versus 'mass' is based on a false understanding

> of qi. Qi is not some form of energy. Again, it is an

> oversimplification to say that herbal medicine treats only branches,

> and acupuncture the root. Either form of treatment can treat both

> root and branch. Sometimes the root, such as a malfunctioning

> thyroid, may require western medical treatment! For goodness sakes,

> let's avoid dogma and deal with reality!

> >

> > Many thanks,

> > Trish

> >

> > *

> >

>

>

> Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times

> http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

>

> Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click,

> http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145

>

>

> and adjust

> accordingly.

>

> Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the group

> requires prior permission from the author.

>

> Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

> necessary.

>

[Guest guest]

Thank you all for your enlightening responses. It is most helpful to

hear the voices of actual practitioners as the quotes I posted earlier

were from TCM students. I am very glad to hear that their posts were

actually quite extreme as the response to their posts on the TCM Student

board did not support this.

 

As I am not yet studying TCM, it was difficult for me to distinguish

what was extreme and what was not. I did not even realize there were

such a thing as CCM before I read the message boards last night.

 

Z'ev - thanks for your very in depth explanation. It was most appreciated!

 

Thanks again,

Trish

[Guest guest]

The idea of 'energy' versus 'mass' is based on a false understanding

of qi. Qi is not some form of energy. Again, it is an

oversimplification to say that herbal medicine treats only branches,

and acupuncture the root. Either form of treatment can treat both

root and branch. Sometimes the root, such as a malfunctioning

thyroid, may require western medical treatment! For goodness sakes,

let's avoid dogma and deal with reality!

>

>>>>>>>>>

AMEN

 

 

 

 

Oakland, CA 94609

 

 

-

" " <zrosenbe

<Chinese Medicine >

Monday, March 13, 2006 4:25 PM

Re: TCM vs. CCM

 

 

Trish,

You've asked some very good questions, and I'll like to give my

own insights into them.

On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, pippa258 wrote:

 

>

>

> * " Why does TCM rely so heavily on treating patients with Chinese

> herbs as opposed to acupuncture? It’s because acupuncture in

> TCM is

> not based on authentic and complete classical Chinese medicine

> theory. Consequently, acupuncture treatments in TCM are very

> simplistic and often inefficacious "

 

Chinese medicine has historically always favored internal medicine

over acupuncture/moxabustion. An inventory of classical medical

texts, of which there are estimates of between 30 to 80,000, shows

that 80% or more of these texts are on internal medicine ( i.e.

'herbal medicine'). TCM acupuncture is as 'authentic' as any other

kind. It is hard to simplify such a complex topic, but modern TCM

acupuncture is largely based on internal medicine principles (viscera-

bowel pattern differentiation), to allow a practitioner to choose

both herbal medicine and acupuncture treatment based on the same

diagnosis at the same time. It also adapts methods developed by Li

Dong-yuan during the Jin-Yuan dynasty (13th century). Classically,

however, acupuncture and moxabustion were based on channel theory

(jing-luo), and treatments and diagnoses were based on different

criteria than internal medicine. So more classical acupuncture

methods were based on such texts as the Nei Jing Su Wen Ling Shu and

the Nan Jing, which also was the source for five phase theory

applications in acupuncture as well. Many Japanese approaches to

acupuncture/moxabustion are based on these texts.

> *

>

> Is there any truth to this? It would be very disheartening to learn

> that

> after many years of study that TCM is " often inefficacious " .

 

I think that is a great over-simplification indicating bias. I think

that Japanese, five phase, and channel-based 'styles' of acupuncture

are more focused on the medium of acupuncture/moxabustion itself,

whereas TCM acupuncture is designed more for herbalists doing

acupuncture. TCM itself is a modern synthesis and adaptation, but so

are many Japanese acupuncture styles and the Worsley style of

treatment. They are not 'pure'.

>

> * " TCM acupuncture doesn't make sense- period. I go to tcm school I

> should know. TCM herbalism is pretty good. If you look in any

> textbook of tcm see if explains when to use a source-luo combo or

> when to use a mu shu comb. How about the fact they put a five

> phase

> point selection chart in the books with no explanation of how to

> apply it-this is plain dangerous. Tcm encourages doctors to play a

> " guessing game " with clinical point selection on patients who are

> real people. The points are described by functions which are based

> on western medicine and the remnents of herbalism after mao

> came to

> China and Chinese medicine was banned in the 20's by that other

> guy.

> I study all the classical material available to me and I can get

> better results than anyone else in my school with acupuncture I'm

> not bragging, its just if you don't understand why the point

> you are

> needling works then you can't heal people well. This is why a

> normal

> course of treatment in China is 20 treatments, and that may not

> even

> get a result. Its really sad but true. I am thinking of a lawsuit

> against the nccaom because their exam is based on sham

> acupuncture.*

 

This is clearly very extreme. TCM acupuncture is the result of the

attempt to develop a national medical system in China that could be

taught by a standardized school cirriculum. But such

oversimplifications of history are wrong-headed and slanderous. If

China did not take these steps, all of Chinese medicine may have gone

underground or disappeared. Remember, the Guomingdang (Nationalist

government) almost banned Chinese medicine, just as Japan did at one

point! However, in Japan, herbal medicine could only be practiced by

M.D.'s until now.

 

One can practice zang-fu pattern differentiation with acupuncture, so

it is not a hit or miss proposition at all. I think judging the

Chinese practice of acupuncture is foolish without sufficent data.

It is a huge country with over 100,000 practitioners, many different

treatment styles, clinics and hospitals.

>

> **

>

> *The problem is you can't study CCM acupuncture and herbs at the

> same school- you have to make a choice- I chose to go to the best

> school I could find which I could learn herbs too, some people

> like

> the other CCM fans on this site dropped out of tcm school to go

> to a

> real ccm school- the choice is up to you...And ear points are

> based

> on classical imaging just as hand acupuncture and other systems

> such

> as Master Tongs. If you study ccm you don't need to worry " one of

> 'ems got to work " - you know if it will, and local points are as

> classical as any other point " (*This student studies at Oshio but

> hightly recommends Jung Tao school)

 

Ear and hand acupuncture, Tong and other systems, are not

'classical', they are modern adaptations. Ear acupuncture includes

most of its points as anatomical landmarks based on embryology, a

modern science, and was adapted from Paul Nogier's system in Paris

during the 20th century.

 

 

> *

> *

>

> I pasted these quotes from the TCMStudent board here because they

> are in

> depth and I just don't have the knowledge re: these issues. I am not

> intending to stir up hurt feelings here but would honestly like to

> know

> how current practitioners of TCM feel about this and how this has

> panned

> out in their practices.

>

> * " Classical Chinese acupuncture restores at the level of energy;

> while, Chinese herbology restores at the level of mass. Since, a

> shift in mass is always proceeded by a change in energy, classical

> Chinese acupuncture treats the root (i.e., the underlying

> energetic

> cause) of an illness; while, Chinese herbology treats the branch

> (s)

> (i.e., the signs and symptoms) of an illness... "

 

The idea of 'energy' versus 'mass' is based on a false understanding

of qi. Qi is not some form of energy. Again, it is an

oversimplification to say that herbal medicine treats only branches,

and acupuncture the root. Either form of treatment can treat both

root and branch. Sometimes the root, such as a malfunctioning

thyroid, may require western medical treatment! For goodness sakes,

let's avoid dogma and deal with reality!

>

> Many thanks,

> Trish

>

> *

>

 

 

Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at Times

http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

 

Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click,

http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145

 

 

and adjust

accordingly.

 

 

 

Please consider the environment and only print this message if absolutely

necessary.

 

[Guest guest]

You are right. I shouldn't have lumped Tong style together with the

other methods. Wrote too fast.

 

Happy Purim,

 

Z'ev

On Mar 13, 2006, at 5:40 PM, Colorado Healthcare Associates wrote:

 

> Tong is IMO a lineage or classical system as is th Ch'en system I

> come out

> of.

> Ch'en lineage predates the TCM reality by many centuries.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Would you be interested in sharing these charts? I would love to compare

them with some of the newer ones.

 

 

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

 

 

 

 

> " Colorado Healthcare Associates " <yorkstreet.clinic

>Chinese Medicine

>Chinese Medicine

>Re: TCM vs. CCM

>Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:40:08 -0700

>

>Z'ev,

>As a CCM practitioner from a lineage form of Acupuncture I agree almost

>100%

>with your analysis.

>My only point of disagreement is with

> >Ear and hand acupuncture, Tong and other systems, are not

>'classical', they are modern adaptations. <

>

>Tong is IMO a lineage or classical system as is th Ch'en system I come out

>of.

>Ch'en lineage predates the TCM reality by many centuries.

>

> > Ear acupuncture includes

>most of its points as anatomical landmarks based on embryology, a

>modern science, and was adapted from Paul Nogier's system in Paris

>during the 20th century.<

>

>I have my Grandfather's old ear charts that are pre 20th century and

>predate

>Nogier's birth let alone his first published work.

>They show many of the same locations but are not based at all on the

>embryo.

>

>Doc

>

>

>On 3/13/06, <zrosenbe wrote:

> >

> > Trish,

> > You've asked some very good questions, and I'll like to give my

> > own insights into them.

> > On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, pippa258 wrote:

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > * " Why does TCM rely so heavily on treating patients with Chinese

> > > herbs as opposed to acupuncture? It's because acupuncture in

> > > TCM is

> > > not based on authentic and complete classical Chinese medicine

> > > theory. Consequently, acupuncture treatments in TCM are very

> > > simplistic and often inefficacious "

> >

> > Chinese medicine has historically always favored internal medicine

> > over acupuncture/moxabustion. An inventory of classical medical

> > texts, of which there are estimates of between 30 to 80,000, shows

> > that 80% or more of these texts are on internal medicine ( i.e.

> > 'herbal medicine'). TCM acupuncture is as 'authentic' as any other

> > kind. It is hard to simplify such a complex topic, but modern TCM

> > acupuncture is largely based on internal medicine principles (viscera-

> > bowel pattern differentiation), to allow a practitioner to choose

> > both herbal medicine and acupuncture treatment based on the same

> > diagnosis at the same time. It also adapts methods developed by Li

> > Dong-yuan during the Jin-Yuan dynasty (13th century). Classically,

> > however, acupuncture and moxabustion were based on channel theory

> > (jing-luo), and treatments and diagnoses were based on different

> > criteria than internal medicine. So more classical acupuncture

> > methods were based on such texts as the Nei Jing Su Wen Ling Shu and

> > the Nan Jing, which also was the source for five phase theory

> > applications in acupuncture as well. Many Japanese approaches to

> > acupuncture/moxabustion are based on these texts.

> > > *

> > >

> > > Is there any truth to this? It would be very disheartening to learn

> > > that

> > > after many years of study that TCM is " often inefficacious " .

> >

> > I think that is a great over-simplification indicating bias. I think

> > that Japanese, five phase, and channel-based 'styles' of acupuncture

> > are more focused on the medium of acupuncture/moxabustion itself,

> > whereas TCM acupuncture is designed more for herbalists doing

> > acupuncture. TCM itself is a modern synthesis and adaptation, but so

> > are many Japanese acupuncture styles and the Worsley style of

> > treatment. They are not 'pure'.

> > >

> > > * " TCM acupuncture doesn't make sense- period. I go to tcm school I

> > > should know. TCM herbalism is pretty good. If you look in any

> > > textbook of tcm see if explains when to use a source-luo combo or

> > > when to use a mu shu comb. How about the fact they put a five

> > > phase

> > > point selection chart in the books with no explanation of how to

> > > apply it-this is plain dangerous. Tcm encourages doctors to play a

> > > " guessing game " with clinical point selection on patients who are

> > > real people. The points are described by functions which are based

> > > on western medicine and the remnents of herbalism after mao

> > > came to

> > > China and Chinese medicine was banned in the 20's by that other

> > > guy.

> > > I study all the classical material available to me and I can get

> > > better results than anyone else in my school with acupuncture I'm

> > > not bragging, its just if you don't understand why the point

> > > you are

> > > needling works then you can't heal people well. This is why a

> > > normal

> > > course of treatment in China is 20 treatments, and that may not

> > > even

> > > get a result. Its really sad but true. I am thinking of a lawsuit

> > > against the nccaom because their exam is based on sham

> > > acupuncture.*

> >

> > This is clearly very extreme. TCM acupuncture is the result of the

> > attempt to develop a national medical system in China that could be

> > taught by a standardized school cirriculum. But such

> > oversimplifications of history are wrong-headed and slanderous. If

> > China did not take these steps, all of Chinese medicine may have gone

> > underground or disappeared. Remember, the Guomingdang (Nationalist

> > government) almost banned Chinese medicine, just as Japan did at one

> > point! However, in Japan, herbal medicine could only be practiced by

> > M.D.'s until now.

> >

> > One can practice zang-fu pattern differentiation with acupuncture, so

> > it is not a hit or miss proposition at all. I think judging the

> > Chinese practice of acupuncture is foolish without sufficent data.

> > It is a huge country with over 100,000 practitioners, many different

> > treatment styles, clinics and hospitals.

> > >

> > > **

> > >

> > > *The problem is you can't study CCM acupuncture and herbs at the

> > > same school- you have to make a choice- I chose to go to the best

> > > school I could find which I could learn herbs too, some people

> > > like

> > > the other CCM fans on this site dropped out of tcm school to go

> > > to a

> > > real ccm school- the choice is up to you...And ear points are

> > > based

> > > on classical imaging just as hand acupuncture and other systems

> > > such

> > > as Master Tongs. If you study ccm you don't need to worry " one of

> > > 'ems got to work " - you know if it will, and local points are as

> > > classical as any other point " (*This student studies at Oshio but

> > > hightly recommends Jung Tao school)

> >

> > Ear and hand acupuncture, Tong and other systems, are not

> > 'classical', they are modern adaptations. Ear acupuncture includes

> > most of its points as anatomical landmarks based on embryology, a

> > modern science, and was adapted from Paul Nogier's system in Paris

> > during the 20th century.

> >

> >

> > > *

> > > *

> > >

> > > I pasted these quotes from the TCMStudent board here because they

> > > are in

> > > depth and I just don't have the knowledge re: these issues. I am not

> > > intending to stir up hurt feelings here but would honestly like to

> > > know

> > > how current practitioners of TCM feel about this and how this has

> > > panned

> > > out in their practices.

> > >

> > > * " Classical Chinese acupuncture restores at the level of energy;

> > > while, Chinese herbology restores at the level of mass. Since, a

> > > shift in mass is always proceeded by a change in energy, classical

> > > Chinese acupuncture treats the root (i.e., the underlying

> > > energetic

> > > cause) of an illness; while, Chinese herbology treats the branch

> > > (s)

> > > (i.e., the signs and symptoms) of an illness... "

> >

> > The idea of 'energy' versus 'mass' is based on a false understanding

> > of qi. Qi is not some form of energy. Again, it is an

> > oversimplification to say that herbal medicine treats only branches,

> > and acupuncture the root. Either form of treatment can treat both

> > root and branch. Sometimes the root, such as a malfunctioning

> > thyroid, may require western medical treatment! For goodness sakes,

> > let's avoid dogma and deal with reality!

> > >

> > > Many thanks,

> > > Trish

> > >

> > > *

> > >

> >

> >

> > Subscribe to the new FREE online journal for TCM at

>Times

> > http://www.chinesemedicinetimes.com

> >

> > Download the all new TCM Forum Toolbar, click,

> > http://toolbar.thebizplace.com/LandingPage.aspx/CT145145

> >

> >

> > and

>adjust

> > accordingly.

> >

> > Messages are the property of the author. Any duplication outside the

>group

> > requires prior permission from the author.

> >

> > Please consider the environment and only print this message if

>absolutely

> > necessary.

> >

[Guest guest]

I generally agree with Zev's assessment of the issue. Here's my own

perspective, in an article written several years ago:

 

http://www.rmhiherbal.org/review/2004-2.html

Why TCM Herbology needs to become an independent profession,

separate from acupuncture

 

---Roger Wicke PhD

Rocky Mountain Herbal Institute

website: www.rmhiherbal.org

email: www.rmhiherbal.org/contact/

 

 

 

> " " <zrosenbe

> Re: TCM vs. CCM

>

> Trish,

> You've asked some very good questions, and I'll like to give my

> own insights into them.

> On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, pippa258 wrote:

>

>>

>>

>> * " Why does TCM rely so heavily on treating patients with Chinese

>> herbs as opposed to acupuncture? It’s because acupuncture in

>> TCM is

>> not based on authentic and complete classical Chinese medicine

>> theory. Consequently, acupuncture treatments in TCM are very

>> simplistic and often inefficacious "

>

> Chinese medicine has historically always favored internal medicine

> over acupuncture/moxabustion. An inventory of classical medical

> texts, of which there are estimates of between 30 to 80,000, shows

> that 80% or more of these texts are on internal medicine ( i.e.

> 'herbal medicine')...

[Guest guest]

As with many things I learned through apprenticeships I was given the right

ro share my Grandfathers Charts with my oldest son and one aprentice only.

This is also true for several of my lineage Dieh Dah formulas.

I gave my son Ari all of this on his 21st birthday (Z'ev I still remember

our 2 Ari's Upsheren on Lag B'Omer) and I passed the formulas along to an

apprentice a while ago.

I did not impose any restrictions on my son.

It will be up to him to decide how to pass this info along and he long ago

quit this list when something he wrote was edited without his permission.

 

On 3/14/06, mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 wrote:

>

> Would you be interested in sharing these charts? I would love to compare

> them with some of the newer ones.

>

>

> Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

>

>

>

>

>

> > " Colorado Healthcare Associates " <yorkstreet.clinic

> >Chinese Medicine

> >Chinese Medicine

> >Re: TCM vs. CCM

> >Mon, 13 Mar 2006 18:40:08 -0700

> >

> >Z'ev,

> >As a CCM practitioner from a lineage form of Acupuncture I agree almost

> >100%

> >with your analysis.

> >My only point of disagreement is with

> > >Ear and hand acupuncture, Tong and other systems, are not

> >'classical', they are modern adaptations. <

> >

> >Tong is IMO a lineage or classical system as is th Ch'en system I come

> out

> >of.

> >Ch'en lineage predates the TCM reality by many centuries.

> >

> > > Ear acupuncture includes

> >most of its points as anatomical landmarks based on embryology, a

> >modern science, and was adapted from Paul Nogier's system in Paris

> >during the 20th century.<

> >

> >I have my Grandfather's old ear charts that are pre 20th century and

> >predate

> >Nogier's birth let alone his first published work.

> >They show many of the same locations but are not based at all on the

> >embryo.

> >

> >Doc

> >

> >

> >On 3/13/06, <zrosenbe wrote:

> > >

> > > Trish,

> > > You've asked some very good questions, and I'll like to give my

> > > own insights into them.

> > > On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, pippa258 wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > * " Why does TCM rely so heavily on treating patients with Chinese

> > > > herbs as opposed to acupuncture? It's because acupuncture in

> > > > TCM is

> > > > not based on authentic and complete classical Chinese medicine

> > > > theory. Consequently, acupuncture treatments in TCM are very

> > > > simplistic and often inefficacious "

> > >

> > > Chinese medicine has historically always favored internal medicine

> > > over acupuncture/moxabustion. An inventory of classical medical

> > > texts, of which there are estimates of between 30 to 80,000, shows

> > > that 80% or more of these texts are on internal medicine ( i.e.

> > > 'herbal medicine'). TCM acupuncture is as 'authentic' as any other

> > > kind. It is hard to simplify such a complex topic, but modern TCM

> > > acupuncture is largely based on internal medicine principles (viscera-

> > > bowel pattern differentiation), to allow a practitioner to choose

> > > both herbal medicine and acupuncture treatment based on the same

> > > diagnosis at the same time. It also adapts methods developed by Li

> > > Dong-yuan during the Jin-Yuan dynasty (13th century). Classically,

> > > however, acupuncture and moxabustion were based on channel theory

> > > (jing-luo), and treatments and diagnoses were based on different

> > > criteria than internal medicine. So more classical acupuncture

> > > methods were based on such texts as the Nei Jing Su Wen Ling Shu and

> > > the Nan Jing, which also was the source for five phase theory

> > > applications in acupuncture as well. Many Japanese approaches to

> > > acupuncture/moxabustion are based on these texts.

> > > > *

> > > >

> > > > Is there any truth to this? It would be very disheartening to learn

> > > > that

> > > > after many years of study that TCM is " often inefficacious " .

> > >

> > > I think that is a great over-simplification indicating bias. I think

> > > that Japanese, five phase, and channel-based 'styles' of acupuncture

> > > are more focused on the medium of acupuncture/moxabustion itself,

> > > whereas TCM acupuncture is designed more for herbalists doing

> > > acupuncture. TCM itself is a modern synthesis and adaptation, but so

> > > are many Japanese acupuncture styles and the Worsley style of

> > > treatment. They are not 'pure'.

> > > >

> > > > * " TCM acupuncture doesn't make sense- period. I go to tcm school

> I

> > > > should know. TCM herbalism is pretty good. If you look in any

> > > > textbook of tcm see if explains when to use a source-luo combo

> or

> > > > when to use a mu shu comb. How about the fact they put a five

> > > > phase

> > > > point selection chart in the books with no explanation of how to

> > > > apply it-this is plain dangerous. Tcm encourages doctors to play

> a

> > > > " guessing game " with clinical point selection on patients who

> are

> > > > real people. The points are described by functions which are

> based

> > > > on western medicine and the remnents of herbalism after mao

> > > > came to

> > > > China and Chinese medicine was banned in the 20's by that other

> > > > guy.

> > > > I study all the classical material available to me and I can get

> > > > better results than anyone else in my school with acupuncture

> I'm

> > > > not bragging, its just if you don't understand why the point

> > > > you are

> > > > needling works then you can't heal people well. This is why a

> > > > normal

> > > > course of treatment in China is 20 treatments, and that may not

> > > > even

> > > > get a result. Its really sad but true. I am thinking of a

> lawsuit

> > > > against the nccaom because their exam is based on sham

> > > > acupuncture.*

> > >

> > > This is clearly very extreme. TCM acupuncture is the result of the

> > > attempt to develop a national medical system in China that could be

> > > taught by a standardized school cirriculum. But such

> > > oversimplifications of history are wrong-headed and slanderous. If

> > > China did not take these steps, all of Chinese medicine may have gone

> > > underground or disappeared. Remember, the Guomingdang (Nationalist

> > > government) almost banned Chinese medicine, just as Japan did at one

> > > point! However, in Japan, herbal medicine could only be practiced by

> > > M.D.'s until now.

> > >

> > > One can practice zang-fu pattern differentiation with acupuncture, so

> > > it is not a hit or miss proposition at all. I think judging the

> > > Chinese practice of acupuncture is foolish without sufficent data.

> > > It is a huge country with over 100,000 practitioners, many different

> > > treatment styles, clinics and hospitals.

> > > >

> > > > **

> > > >

> > > > *The problem is you can't study CCM acupuncture and herbs at the

> > > > same school- you have to make a choice- I chose to go to the

> best

> > > > school I could find which I could learn herbs too, some people

> > > > like

> > > > the other CCM fans on this site dropped out of tcm school to go

> > > > to a

> > > > real ccm school- the choice is up to you...And ear points are

> > > > based

> > > > on classical imaging just as hand acupuncture and other systems

> > > > such

> > > > as Master Tongs. If you study ccm you don't need to worry " one

> of

> > > > 'ems got to work " - you know if it will, and local points are as

> > > > classical as any other point " (*This student studies at Oshio

> but

> > > > hightly recommends Jung Tao school)

> > >

> > > Ear and hand acupuncture, Tong and other systems, are not

> > > 'classical', they are modern adaptations. Ear acupuncture includes

> > > most of its points as anatomical landmarks based on embryology, a

> > > modern science, and was adapted from Paul Nogier's system in Paris

> > > during the 20th century.

> > >

> > >

> > > > *

> > > > *

> > > >

> > > > I pasted these quotes from the TCMStudent board here because they

> > > > are in

> > > > depth and I just don't have the knowledge re: these issues. I am not

> > > > intending to stir up hurt feelings here but would honestly like to

> > > > know

> > > > how current practitioners of TCM feel about this and how this has

> > > > panned

> > > > out in their practices.

> > > >

> > > > * " Classical Chinese acupuncture restores at the level of energy;

> > > > while, Chinese herbology restores at the level of mass. Since, a

> > > > shift in mass is always proceeded by a change in energy,

> classical

> > > > Chinese acupuncture treats the root (i.e., the underlying

> > > > energetic

> > > > cause) of an illness; while, Chinese herbology treats the branch

> > > > (s)

> > > > (i.e., the signs and symptoms) of an illness... "

> > >

> > > The idea of 'energy' versus 'mass' is based on a false understanding

> > > of qi. Qi is not some form of energy. Again, it is an

> > > oversimplification to say that herbal medicine treats only branches,

> > > and acupuncture the root. Either form of treatment can treat both

> > > root and branch. Sometimes the root, such as a malfunctioning

> > > thyroid, may require western medical treatment! For goodness sakes,

> > > let's avoid dogma and deal with reality!

> > > >

> > > > Many thanks,

> > > > Trish

[Guest guest]

I wrote that quote you quoted about ccm, except for one part that was

someone else...A few things in response to the other posts its too

hard to quote things in these long messages- As far as Tong's style

being modern, Tong's style is said to predate the nei jing and is

based on the the human body's relationships with the bagua which are

described in I ching(the oldest book in the world), what could be

more " classic " than that? I challange anyone who thinks " tcm "

acupuncture is that great to explain when to choose a shu/mu combo

over a source/luo, explain the window of the sky points applications

in clinical practice...How do you " harmonize the shao-yang with

acupuncture?, explain the indications for " he-sea " points, jing-well

etc. points that are wrote about in tcm textbooks- for example " he

sea " points are indicated for kidney diseases in many tcm textbooks-

when do you apply that theory and why? Someone's got a problem you

pick local points and distal points- do you pick for a distal point

the xi-cleft, the fire point, the water point, the yuan point, the

jing-well point -which point is very best and when and why - and

please don't say " it depends on the doctor's personal experience or

intention or something " ...How about 8 vessels are you sure when to

use them and why...etc., etc., I am not asking for the answers I

already know these, but I sure didn't learn it in any of the 20+ tcm

acupuncture textbooks I have read. Just some food for thought,

-JB

 

Chinese Medicine , " "

<zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Trish,

> You've asked some very good questions, and I'll like to give

my

> own insights into them.

> On Mar 13, 2006, at 10:31 AM, pippa258 wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > * " Why does TCM rely so heavily on treating patients with

Chinese

> > herbs as opposed to acupuncture? It's because acupuncture in

> > TCM is

> > not based on authentic and complete classical Chinese medicine

> > theory. Consequently, acupuncture treatments in TCM are very

> > simplistic and often inefficacious "

>

> Chinese medicine has historically always favored internal medicine

> over acupuncture/moxabustion. An inventory of classical medical

> texts, of which there are estimates of between 30 to 80,000, shows

> that 80% or more of these texts are on internal medicine ( i.e.

> 'herbal medicine'). TCM acupuncture is as 'authentic' as any

other

> kind. It is hard to simplify such a complex topic, but modern TCM

> acupuncture is largely based on internal medicine principles

(viscera-

> bowel pattern differentiation), to allow a practitioner to choose

> both herbal medicine and acupuncture treatment based on the same

> diagnosis at the same time. It also adapts methods developed by

Li

> Dong-yuan during the Jin-Yuan dynasty (13th century).

Classically,

> however, acupuncture and moxabustion were based on channel theory

> (jing-luo), and treatments and diagnoses were based on different

> criteria than internal medicine. So more classical acupuncture

> methods were based on such texts as the Nei Jing Su Wen Ling Shu

and

> the Nan Jing, which also was the source for five phase theory

> applications in acupuncture as well. Many Japanese approaches to

> acupuncture/moxabustion are based on these texts.

> > *

> >

> > Is there any truth to this? It would be very disheartening to

learn

> > that

> > after many years of study that TCM is " often inefficacious " .

>

> I think that is a great over-simplification indicating bias. I

think

> that Japanese, five phase, and channel-based 'styles' of

acupuncture

> are more focused on the medium of acupuncture/moxabustion itself,

> whereas TCM acupuncture is designed more for herbalists doing

> acupuncture. TCM itself is a modern synthesis and adaptation, but

so

> are many Japanese acupuncture styles and the Worsley style of

> treatment. They are not 'pure'.

> >

> > * " TCM acupuncture doesn't make sense- period. I go to tcm

school I

> > should know. TCM herbalism is pretty good. If you look in any

> > textbook of tcm see if explains when to use a source-luo

combo or

> > when to use a mu shu comb. How about the fact they put a

five

> > phase

> > point selection chart in the books with no explanation of how

to

> > apply it-this is plain dangerous. Tcm encourages doctors to

play a

> > " guessing game " with clinical point selection on patients who

are

> > real people. The points are described by functions which are

based

> > on western medicine and the remnents of herbalism after mao

> > came to

> > China and Chinese medicine was banned in the 20's by that

other

> > guy.

> > I study all the classical material available to me and I can

get

> > better results than anyone else in my school with acupuncture

I'm

> > not bragging, its just if you don't understand why the point

> > you are

> > needling works then you can't heal people well. This is why

a

> > normal

> > course of treatment in China is 20 treatments, and that may

not

> > even

> > get a result. Its really sad but true. I am thinking of a

lawsuit

> > against the nccaom because their exam is based on sham

> > acupuncture.*

>

> This is clearly very extreme. TCM acupuncture is the result of

the

> attempt to develop a national medical system in China that could

be

> taught by a standardized school cirriculum. But such

> oversimplifications of history are wrong-headed and slanderous.

If

> China did not take these steps, all of Chinese medicine may have

gone

> underground or disappeared. Remember, the Guomingdang

(Nationalist

> government) almost banned Chinese medicine, just as Japan did at

one

> point! However, in Japan, herbal medicine could only be practiced

by

> M.D.'s until now.

>

> One can practice zang-fu pattern differentiation with acupuncture,

so

> it is not a hit or miss proposition at all. I think judging the

> Chinese practice of acupuncture is foolish without sufficent

data.

> It is a huge country with over 100,000 practitioners, many

different

> treatment styles, clinics and hospitals.

> >

> > **

> >

> > *The problem is you can't study CCM acupuncture and herbs at

the

> > same school- you have to make a choice- I chose to go to the

best

> > school I could find which I could learn herbs too, some

people

> > like

> > the other CCM fans on this site dropped out of tcm school to

go

> > to a

> > real ccm school- the choice is up to you...And ear points

are

> > based

> > on classical imaging just as hand acupuncture and other

systems

> > such

> > as Master Tongs. If you study ccm you don't need to

worry " one of

> > 'ems got to work " - you know if it will, and local points are

as

> > classical as any other point " (*This student studies at Oshio

but

> > hightly recommends Jung Tao school)

>

> Ear and hand acupuncture, Tong and other systems, are not

> 'classical', they are modern adaptations. Ear acupuncture

includes

> most of its points as anatomical landmarks based on embryology, a

> modern science, and was adapted from Paul Nogier's system in Paris

> during the 20th century.

>

>

> > *

> > *

> >

> > I pasted these quotes from the TCMStudent board here because

they

> > are in

> > depth and I just don't have the knowledge re: these issues. I am

not

> > intending to stir up hurt feelings here but would honestly like

to

> > know

> > how current practitioners of TCM feel about this and how this

has

> > panned

> > out in their practices.

> >

> > * " Classical Chinese acupuncture restores at the level of

energy;

> > while, Chinese herbology restores at the level of mass.

Since, a

> > shift in mass is always proceeded by a change in energy,

classical

> > Chinese acupuncture treats the root (i.e., the underlying

> > energetic

> > cause) of an illness; while, Chinese herbology treats the

branch

> > (s)

> > (i.e., the signs and symptoms) of an illness... "

>

> The idea of 'energy' versus 'mass' is based on a false

understanding

> of qi. Qi is not some form of energy. Again, it is an

> oversimplification to say that herbal medicine treats only

branches,

> and acupuncture the root. Either form of treatment can treat both

> root and branch. Sometimes the root, such as a malfunctioning

> thyroid, may require western medical treatment! For goodness

sakes,

> let's avoid dogma and deal with reality!

> >

> > Many thanks,

> > Trish

> >

> > *

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Jason,

As far as Tong acupuncture goes, just like Japanese acupuncture,

it is adapted from the classics, but is still an innovation. That

was my only point.

 

It may not be clear to you based on your response, but I

basically agree with your points. I generally don't practice TCM

acupuncture, I prefer a channel-based system of acupuncture and use

eight extraordinary vessel, five movements six qi, and five phase

systems as needed. However, I do practice internal (herbal) medicine

according to zang fu pattern differentiation.

 

I don't think TCM acupuncture is 'bad', just limited in

comparison with many other approaches. It has its place as well.

For a more sophisticated TCM, 'herbalized' acupuncture, check out

these two books: 1) " Sticking to the Point " Volume 2 by Bob Flaws,

and " Golden Needle Wang Le-ting " , both from Blue Poppy Press.

 

 

On Mar 26, 2006, at 5:53 PM, jasonwcom wrote:

 

> I wrote that quote you quoted about ccm, except for one part that was

> someone else...A few things in response to the other posts its too

> hard to quote things in these long messages- As far as Tong's style

> being modern, Tong's style is said to predate the nei jing and is

> based on the the human body's relationships with the bagua which are

> described in I ching(the oldest book in the world), what could be

> more " classic " than that? I challange anyone who thinks " tcm "

> acupuncture is that great to explain when to choose a shu/mu combo

> over a source/luo, explain the window of the sky points applications

> in clinical practice...How do you " harmonize the shao-yang with

> acupuncture?, explain the indications for " he-sea " points, jing-well

> etc. points that are wrote about in tcm textbooks- for example " he

> sea " points are indicated for kidney diseases in many tcm textbooks-

> when do you apply that theory and why? Someone's got a problem you

> pick local points and distal points- do you pick for a distal point

> the xi-cleft, the fire point, the water point, the yuan point, the

> jing-well point -which point is very best and when and why - and

> please don't say " it depends on the doctor's personal experience or

> intention or something " ...How about 8 vessels are you sure when to

> use them and why...etc., etc., I am not asking for the answers I

> already know these, but I sure didn't learn it in any of the 20+ tcm

> acupuncture textbooks I have read. Just some food for thought,

> -JB