Guest guest Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:07:32 –0000, " crisbearak " <crisbearak wrote: >> It [possession] is a part of early Chinese healing and some forms of acupuncture whether we chose to believe it or not. Ted Kaptchuk has pointed out that discussions of this are found throughout the literature of CM, across the whole 2000+ years. That is, until TCM. We're just not told about that. When Ted set out to study this area, he says he hired some immigrant TCM doctors to help him, having them read through classical texts and high-light (with marker pens) all the passages which, to their (modern) training, were just the old " superstitions " . Turns out there's often more of that stuff than things we would recognize from TCM. Similarly, though we rarely hear of it, the " great masters " of early science, like Newton, wrote more about things like astrology and alchemy than what they're known for today. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Chris, I think that anything that smacks of 'demonology' rings in ghosts of voodoo and sticks in the craw of those who want to modernize and scientize the Chinese healing arts. I remember a large section of material on demonology in a book on " Tibetan Medicine and Psychiatry " by Terry Clifford. Basically it is a section on the treatment of serious emotional/psychological disorders. There is a newer book, " China's Tibetan Medicine " , which is basically about the 'cleaned up' version of Tibetan medicine that has most of the spiritual references expunged, including demonology. There is a lot of valuable material in the classical literature that we should be free to examine. I don't want a pre-digested TCM to be the only option out there. For myself, the only issue raised by demonology is whether one feels that evils that effect consciousness arise from external malevolent forces, or from within oneself. Even what we call 'demons' can be malevolent influences from media, brainwashing, toxic people, or family dynamics, as much as disembodied entities 'floating in the ether'. Much of the imagination and thought patterns of modern humanity was altered by the embrace and immersion in technology, when nature became less of an influence on day to day life. But even here, look at our movies! Vampires, evil spirits, dragons and alien beings still abound! I would say that our imagination is still alive and well, and that the fact that these images are so universal, means that they have some level of reality to them. Having said all this, I still wonder if the 'demons treatment' is an accurate translation and/or transmission of Chinese concepts. It makes it much easier to study these things if we know if they are original ideas from modern authors, or traditions from classical sources. On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:06 AM, chris_macie wrote: > Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:07:32 –0000, " crisbearak " <crisbearak > wrote: > > >> It [possession] is a part of early Chinese healing and some forms > of acupuncture whether we chose to believe it or not. > > Ted Kaptchuk has pointed out that discussions of this are found > throughout the literature of CM, across the whole 2000+ years. That > is, until TCM. We're just not told about that. When Ted set out to > study this area, he says he hired some immigrant TCM doctors to help > him, having them read through classical texts and high-light (with > marker pens) all the passages which, to their (modern) training, were > just the old " superstitions " . Turns out there's often more of that > stuff than things we would recognize from TCM. > > Similarly, though we rarely hear of it, the " great masters " of early > science, like Newton, wrote more about things like astrology and > alchemy than what they're known for today. > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Zev, This discussion and many others have stimulated a question about what makes a classical usage or idea any more/less rellevent then a modern one. There seems to be a tendency to sometimes give to much credit for classical ideas and little or none to many modern ones. What can we do to bring up some balance between this two? Mike W. Bowser, L Ac ------- > Chinese Medicine > zrosenbe > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 08:02:34 -0800 > Re: getting rid of demons > > Chris, > I think that anything that smacks of 'demonology' rings in ghosts > of voodoo and sticks in the craw of those who want to modernize and > scientize the Chinese healing arts. I remember a large section of > material on demonology in a book on " Tibetan Medicine and Psychiatry " > by Terry Clifford. Basically it is a section on the treatment of > serious emotional/psychological disorders. There is a newer book, > " China's Tibetan Medicine " , which is basically about the 'cleaned up' > version of Tibetan medicine that has most of the spiritual references > expunged, including demonology. > > There is a lot of valuable material in the classical literature > that we should be free to examine. I don't want a pre-digested TCM > to be the only option out there. For myself, the only issue raised > by demonology is whether one feels that evils that effect > consciousness arise from external malevolent forces, or from within > oneself. Even what we call 'demons' can be malevolent influences > from media, brainwashing, toxic people, or family dynamics, as much > as disembodied entities 'floating in the ether'. > > Much of the imagination and thought patterns of modern humanity > was altered by the embrace and immersion in technology, when nature > became less of an influence on day to day life. But even here, look > at our movies! Vampires, evil spirits, dragons and alien beings > still abound! I would say that our imagination is still alive and > well, and that the fact that these images are so universal, means > that they have some level of reality to them. > > Having said all this, I still wonder if the 'demons treatment' is > an accurate translation and/or transmission of Chinese concepts. It > makes it much easier to study these things if we know if they are > original ideas from modern authors, or traditions from classical > sources. > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 3:06 AM, chris_macie wrote: > > > Tue, 06 Feb 2007 16:07:32 –0000, " crisbearak " > > wrote: > > > > >> It [possession] is a part of early Chinese healing and some forms > > of acupuncture whether we chose to believe it or not. > > > > Ted Kaptchuk has pointed out that discussions of this are found > > throughout the literature of CM, across the whole 2000+ years. That > > is, until TCM. We're just not told about that. When Ted set out to > > study this area, he says he hired some immigrant TCM doctors to help > > him, having them read through classical texts and high-light (with > > marker pens) all the passages which, to their (modern) training, were > > just the old " superstitions " . Turns out there's often more of that > > stuff than things we would recognize from TCM. > > > > Similarly, though we rarely hear of it, the " great masters " of early > > science, like Newton, wrote more about things like astrology and > > alchemy than what they're known for today. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Mike, You are asking a very good question. For me, the answer is to maintain the balance between continuity of tradition and innovation. Chinese medicine does that by constant reference to the classics, counterbalanced by commentaries and refreshing the traditional teachings for each generation. A great book on this subject I can recommend is " Innovation In " , edited by Elizabeth Hsu, Cambridge University Press. Have a look, it's one of my favorite books. On Feb 7, 2007, at 9:51 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > Zev, > > This discussion and many others have stimulated a question about > what makes a classical usage or idea any more/less rellevent then > a modern one. There seems to be a tendency to sometimes give > to much credit for classical ideas and little or none to many modern > ones. What can we do to bring up some balance between this two? > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Zev, Thanks for the book recommendation. It is one of the few texts in my school library and one that I have been drawn too more recently. One aside to what I had mentioned is that of changing perceptions or meanings and how do we know what is accurate (culturally, clinically or even biologically). For example, I learned one way of thinking about yin/yang in school and then another while learning about macrobiotics. After several years of internal debate, I bought a text by Roy Collins, " Fire Over Heaven " where some historical perspective about this and what Fu Xi had envisioned was discussed. The Bagua and Yi Jing seem to make more sense as well. So, how much validity or willingness to change our perceptions do we put into this? Am I making some sense? What about newer treatment options (ie ion pumping cords, gold/silver needles, etc) and theory to explain them. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac ________________________________ > Chinese Medicine > zrosenbe > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:22:42 -0800 > Re: getting rid of demons > > Mike, > You are asking a very good question. For me, the answer is to > maintain the balance between continuity of tradition and innovation. > Chinese medicine does that by constant reference to the classics, > counterbalanced by commentaries and refreshing the traditional > teachings for each generation. > A great book on this subject I can recommend is " Innovation In > " , edited by Elizabeth Hsu, Cambridge University > Press. Have a look, it's one of my favorite books. > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 9:51 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > > Zev, > > > > This discussion and many others have stimulated a question about > > what makes a classical usage or idea any more/less rellevent then > > a modern one. There seems to be a tendency to sometimes give > > to much credit for classical ideas and little or none to many modern > > ones. What can we do to bring up some balance between this two? > > > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 7, 2007 Report Share Posted February 7, 2007 Mike, You are right, there are different yin/yang schemes. In my studies of Shang Han Lun, I discovered that Zhang Ji accepted the ancient Yi Jing perspective that yin follows yang, so that one supplements and mobilizes yang to nourish yin. This is different than the more modern notion of balancing yin and yang as the basis of therapy. I personally have no problem with ion pumping cords or gold/ silver needle treatments. I think Dr. Manaka ( " Chasing the Dragons' Tail " ) does a great job in explaining these methods according to traditional theory. On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:39 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > Zev, > > Thanks for the book recommendation. It is one of the few texts > in my school library and one that I have been drawn too more > recently. > > One aside to what I had mentioned is that of changing perceptions > or meanings and how do we know what is accurate (culturally, > clinically > or even biologically). For example, I learned one way of thinking > about > yin/yang in school and then another while learning about macrobiotics. > > After several years of internal debate, I bought a text by Roy > Collins, > " Fire Over Heaven " where some historical perspective about this and > what Fu Xi had envisioned was discussed. The Bagua and Yi Jing seem > to make more sense as well. > > So, how much validity or willingness to change our perceptions > do we put into this? Am I making some sense? What about newer > treatment options (ie ion pumping cords, gold/silver needles, etc) > and theory to explain them. > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > ________________________________ > > Chinese Medicine > > zrosenbe > > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:22:42 -0800 > > Re: getting rid of demons > > > > Mike, > > You are asking a very good question. For me, the answer is to > > maintain the balance between continuity of tradition and innovation. > > Chinese medicine does that by constant reference to the classics, > > counterbalanced by commentaries and refreshing the traditional > > teachings for each generation. > > A great book on this subject I can recommend is " Innovation In > > " , edited by Elizabeth Hsu, Cambridge University > > Press. Have a look, it's one of my favorite books. > > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 9:51 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > > > > Zev, > > > > > > This discussion and many others have stimulated a question about > > > what makes a classical usage or idea any more/less rellevent then > > > a modern one. There seems to be a tendency to sometimes give > > > to much credit for classical ideas and little or none to many > modern > > > ones. What can we do to bring up some balance between this two? > > > > > > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Zev, I had not considered this difference. Can you provide some more info on who's Shang Hun Lun translation and where it makes this statement? The ancient one tends to favor my understanding of modern Japanese moxa usage, if I understand this correctly. I was, originally, thinking of the difference with physical/meta-physical claims that had some aspects crossing the line. What do you think of Mr. Collins text? Thanks for the info. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac ________________________________ > Chinese Medicine > zrosenbe > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:57:19 -0800 > Re: getting rid of demons > > Mike, > You are right, there are different yin/yang schemes. In my > studies of Shang Han Lun, I discovered that Zhang Ji accepted the > ancient Yi Jing perspective that yin follows yang, so that one > supplements and mobilizes yang to nourish yin. This is different > than the more modern notion of balancing yin and yang as the basis of > therapy. > I personally have no problem with ion pumping cords or gold/ > silver needle treatments. I think Dr. Manaka ( " Chasing the Dragons' > Tail " ) does a great job in explaining these methods according to > traditional theory. > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:39 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > > Zev, > > > > Thanks for the book recommendation. It is one of the few texts > > in my school library and one that I have been drawn too more > > recently. > > > > One aside to what I had mentioned is that of changing perceptions > > or meanings and how do we know what is accurate (culturally, > > clinically > > or even biologically). For example, I learned one way of thinking > > about > > yin/yang in school and then another while learning about macrobiotics. > > > > After several years of internal debate, I bought a text by Roy > > Collins, > > " Fire Over Heaven " where some historical perspective about this and > > what Fu Xi had envisioned was discussed. The Bagua and Yi Jing seem > > to make more sense as well. > > > > So, how much validity or willingness to change our perceptions > > do we put into this? Am I making some sense? What about newer > > treatment options (ie ion pumping cords, gold/silver needles, etc) > > and theory to explain them. > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > ________________________________ > > > Chinese Medicine > > > zrosenbe > > > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:22:42 -0800 > > > Re: getting rid of demons > > > > > > Mike, > > > You are asking a very good question. For me, the answer is to > > > maintain the balance between continuity of tradition and innovation. > > > Chinese medicine does that by constant reference to the classics, > > > counterbalanced by commentaries and refreshing the traditional > > > teachings for each generation. > > > A great book on this subject I can recommend is " Innovation In > > > " , edited by Elizabeth Hsu, Cambridge University > > > Press. Have a look, it's one of my favorite books. > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 9:51 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > > > > > > Zev, > > > > > > > > This discussion and many others have stimulated a question about > > > > what makes a classical usage or idea any more/less rellevent then > > > > a modern one. There seems to be a tendency to sometimes give > > > > to much credit for classical ideas and little or none to many > > modern > > > > ones. What can we do to bring up some balance between this two? > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 I don't have time to get page #'s, etc., but it is in the Mitchell/ Wiseman/Ye translation. The commentaries are largely by Feng Ye, who has committed the Shang Han Lun to memory. I have not read Mr. Collins text. On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:26 PM, mike Bowser wrote: > > Zev, > > I had not considered this difference. > Can you provide some more info on who's > Shang Hun Lun translation and where it makes this > statement? The ancient one tends to favor > my understanding of modern Japanese moxa usage, > if I understand this correctly. I was, originally, > thinking of the difference with physical/meta-physical > claims that had some aspects crossing the line. > > What do you think of Mr. Collins text? > > Thanks for the info. > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > ________________________________ > > Chinese Medicine > > zrosenbe > > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:57:19 -0800 > > Re: getting rid of demons > > > > Mike, > > You are right, there are different yin/yang schemes. In my > > studies of Shang Han Lun, I discovered that Zhang Ji accepted the > > ancient Yi Jing perspective that yin follows yang, so that one > > supplements and mobilizes yang to nourish yin. This is different > > than the more modern notion of balancing yin and yang as the > basis of > > therapy. > > I personally have no problem with ion pumping cords or gold/ > > silver needle treatments. I think Dr. Manaka ( " Chasing the Dragons' > > Tail " ) does a great job in explaining these methods according to > > traditional theory. > > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:39 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > > > > Zev, > > > > > > Thanks for the book recommendation. It is one of the few texts > > > in my school library and one that I have been drawn too more > > > recently. > > > > > > One aside to what I had mentioned is that of changing perceptions > > > or meanings and how do we know what is accurate (culturally, > > > clinically > > > or even biologically). For example, I learned one way of thinking > > > about > > > yin/yang in school and then another while learning about > macrobiotics. > > > > > > After several years of internal debate, I bought a text by Roy > > > Collins, > > > " Fire Over Heaven " where some historical perspective about this > and > > > what Fu Xi had envisioned was discussed. The Bagua and Yi Jing > seem > > > to make more sense as well. > > > > > > So, how much validity or willingness to change our perceptions > > > do we put into this? Am I making some sense? What about newer > > > treatment options (ie ion pumping cords, gold/silver needles, etc) > > > and theory to explain them. > > > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > Chinese Medicine > > > > zrosenbe > > > > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:22:42 -0800 > > > > Re: getting rid of demons > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > You are asking a very good question. For me, the answer is to > > > > maintain the balance between continuity of tradition and > innovation. > > > > Chinese medicine does that by constant reference to the > classics, > > > > counterbalanced by commentaries and refreshing the traditional > > > > teachings for each generation. > > > > A great book on this subject I can recommend is " Innovation In > > > > " , edited by Elizabeth Hsu, Cambridge University > > > > Press. Have a look, it's one of my favorite books. > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 9:51 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Zev, > > > > > > > > > > This discussion and many others have stimulated a question > about > > > > > what makes a classical usage or idea any more/less > rellevent then > > > > > a modern one. There seems to be a tendency to sometimes give > > > > > to much credit for classical ideas and little or none to many > > > modern > > > > > ones. What can we do to bring up some balance between this > two? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Zev, Thanks for the info. I recently purchased a copy of this text. I will try to get to it in the near future. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac ________________________________ > Chinese Medicine > zrosenbe > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 17:54:03 -0800 > Re: getting rid of demons > > I don't have time to get page #'s, etc., but it is in the Mitchell/ > Wiseman/Ye translation. The commentaries are largely by Feng Ye, who > has committed the Shang Han Lun to memory. > I have not read Mr. Collins text. > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 4:26 PM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > > Zev, > > > > I had not considered this difference. > > Can you provide some more info on who's > > Shang Hun Lun translation and where it makes this > > statement? The ancient one tends to favor > > my understanding of modern Japanese moxa usage, > > if I understand this correctly. I was, originally, > > thinking of the difference with physical/meta-physical > > claims that had some aspects crossing the line. > > > > What do you think of Mr. Collins text? > > > > Thanks for the info. > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > ________________________________ > > > Chinese Medicine > > > zrosenbe > > > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:57:19 -0800 > > > Re: getting rid of demons > > > > > > Mike, > > > You are right, there are different yin/yang schemes. In my > > > studies of Shang Han Lun, I discovered that Zhang Ji accepted the > > > ancient Yi Jing perspective that yin follows yang, so that one > > > supplements and mobilizes yang to nourish yin. This is different > > > than the more modern notion of balancing yin and yang as the > > basis of > > > therapy. > > > I personally have no problem with ion pumping cords or gold/ > > > silver needle treatments. I think Dr. Manaka ( " Chasing the Dragons' > > > Tail " ) does a great job in explaining these methods according to > > > traditional theory. > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 10:39 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > > > > > > Zev, > > > > > > > > Thanks for the book recommendation. It is one of the few texts > > > > in my school library and one that I have been drawn too more > > > > recently. > > > > > > > > One aside to what I had mentioned is that of changing perceptions > > > > or meanings and how do we know what is accurate (culturally, > > > > clinically > > > > or even biologically). For example, I learned one way of thinking > > > > about > > > > yin/yang in school and then another while learning about > > macrobiotics. > > > > > > > > After several years of internal debate, I bought a text by Roy > > > > Collins, > > > > " Fire Over Heaven " where some historical perspective about this > > and > > > > what Fu Xi had envisioned was discussed. The Bagua and Yi Jing > > seem > > > > to make more sense as well. > > > > > > > > So, how much validity or willingness to change our perceptions > > > > do we put into this? Am I making some sense? What about newer > > > > treatment options (ie ion pumping cords, gold/silver needles, etc) > > > > and theory to explain them. > > > > > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > > > Chinese Medicine > > > > > zrosenbe > > > > > Wed, 7 Feb 2007 10:22:42 -0800 > > > > > Re: getting rid of demons > > > > > > > > > > Mike, > > > > > You are asking a very good question. For me, the answer is to > > > > > maintain the balance between continuity of tradition and > > innovation. > > > > > Chinese medicine does that by constant reference to the > > classics, > > > > > counterbalanced by commentaries and refreshing the traditional > > > > > teachings for each generation. > > > > > A great book on this subject I can recommend is " Innovation In > > > > > " , edited by Elizabeth Hsu, Cambridge University > > > > > Press. Have a look, it's one of my favorite books. > > > > > > > > > > On Feb 7, 2007, at 9:51 AM, mike Bowser wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > Zev, > > > > > > > > > > > > This discussion and many others have stimulated a question > > about > > > > > > what makes a classical usage or idea any more/less > > rellevent then > > > > > > a modern one. There seems to be a tendency to sometimes give > > > > > > to much credit for classical ideas and little or none to many > > > > modern > > > > > > ones. What can we do to bring up some balance between this > > two? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Mike W. Bowser, L Ac > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 If I may insert a comment here... The individualised " I " or " we " is merely a subset of reality, as such we cannot comprehend reality from the p.o.v. of this " I " or " we " . So what do we do? We make up partial systems to deal with certain aspects of this reality. Chinese Medical Science is no different from Western Medical Science in this regard. They are both human systems intended to help navigate reality, much like the famous " finger pointing at the moon " of buddhism. What we need to do is know ourselves, find a system which we feel at home with, and then *learn that system deeply*. Over time, that finger will take on a more appropriate meaning, and one will be able to, slowly, become more appreciative of the moon. Hugo One aside to what I had mentioned is that of changing perceptions or meanings and how do we know what is accurate (culturally, clinically or even biologically) . For example, I learned one way of thinking about yin/yang in school and then another while learning about macrobiotics. .. <!-- #ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;} #ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;} #ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;} #ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;} #ygrp-text{ font-family:Georgia; } #ygrp-text p{ margin:0 0 1em 0; } #ygrp-tpmsgs{ font-family:Arial; clear:both; } #ygrp-vitnav{ padding-top:10px; font-family:Verdana; font-size:77%; margin:0; } #ygrp-vitnav a{ padding:0 1px; } #ygrp-actbar{ clear:both; margin:25px 0; white-space:nowrap; color:#666; text-align:right; } #ygrp-actbar .left{ float:left; white-space:nowrap; } ..bld{font-weight:bold;} #ygrp-grft{ font-family:Verdana; font-size:77%; padding:15px 0; } #ygrp-ft{ font-family:verdana; font-size:77%; border-top:1px solid #666; padding:5px 0; } #ygrp-mlmsg #logo{ padding-bottom:10px; } #ygrp-vital{ background-color:#e0ecee; margin-bottom:20px; padding:2px 0 8px 8px; } #ygrp-vital #vithd{ font-size:77%; font-family:Verdana; font-weight:bold; color:#333; text-transform:uppercase; } #ygrp-vital ul{ padding:0; margin:2px 0; } #ygrp-vital ul li{ list-style-type:none; clear:both; border:1px solid #e0ecee; } #ygrp-vital ul li .ct{ font-weight:bold; color:#ff7900; float:right; width:2em; text-align:right; padding-right:.5em; } #ygrp-vital ul li .cat{ font-weight:bold; } #ygrp-vital a { text-decoration:none; } #ygrp-vital a:hover{ text-decoration:underline; } #ygrp-sponsor #hd{ color:#999; font-size:77%; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov{ padding:6px 13px; background-color:#e0ecee; margin-bottom:20px; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{ padding:0 0 0 8px; margin:0; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov li{ list-style-type:square; padding:6px 0; font-size:77%; } #ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{ text-decoration:none; font-size:130%; } #ygrp-sponsor #nc { background-color:#eee; margin-bottom:20px; padding:0 8px; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad{ padding:8px 0; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{ font-family:Arial; font-weight:bold; color:#628c2a; font-size:100%; line-height:122%; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad a{ text-decoration:none; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{ text-decoration:underline; } #ygrp-sponsor .ad p{ margin:0; } o {font-size:0;} ..MsoNormal { margin:0 0 0 0; } #ygrp-text tt{ font-size:120%; } blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;} ..replbq {margin:4;} --> _________ The all-new Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 So Hugo how would you propose dealing with learning one such system and trying to put it to usage within another and yet be able to converse? This is the million dollar question and where we are having a lot of difficulty. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac : subincor: Thu, 8 Feb 2007 18:29:36 +0000Re: getting rid of demons If I may insert a comment here...The individualised " I " or " we " is merely a subset of reality, as such we cannot comprehend reality from the p.o.v. of this " I " or " we " . So what do we do? We make up partial systems to deal with certain aspects of this reality. Chinese Medical Science is no different from Western Medical Science in this regard. They are both human systems intended to help navigate reality, much like the famous " finger pointing at the moon " of buddhism. What we need to do is know ourselves, find a system which we feel at home with, and then *learn that system deeply*. Over time, that finger will take on a more appropriate meaning, and one will be able to, slowly, become more appreciative of the moon.HugoOne aside to what I had mentioned is that of changing perceptionsor meanings and how do we know what is accurate (culturally, clinicallyor even biologically) . For example, I learned one way of thinking about yin/yang in school and then another while learning about macrobiotics. ..<!--#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px;font-family:arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}#ygrp-mlmsg table {font-size:inherit;font:100%;}#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica,clean,sans-serif;}#ygrp-mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}#ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height:1.22em;}#ygrp-text{font-family:Georgia;}#ygrp-text p{margin:0 0 1em 0;}#ygrp-tpmsgs{font-family:Arial;clear:both;}#ygrp-vitnav{padding-top:10px;font\ -family:Verdana;font-size:77%;margin:0;}#ygrp-vitnav a{padding:0 1px;}#ygrp-actbar{clear:both;margin:25px 0;white-space:nowrap;color:#666;text-align:right;}#ygrp-actbar ..left{float:left;white-space:nowrap;}.bld{font-weight:bold;}#ygrp-grft{font-fami\ ly:Verdana;font-size:77%;padding:15px 0;}#ygrp-ft{font-family:verdana;font-size:77%;border-top:1px solid #666;padding:5px 0;}#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{padding-bottom:10px;}#ygrp-vital{background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20\ px;padding:2px 0 8px 8px;}#ygrp-vital #vithd{font-size:77%;font-family:Verdana;font-weight:bold;color:#333;text-transf\ orm:uppercase;}#ygrp-vital ul{padding:0;margin:2px 0;}#ygrp-vital ul li{list-style-type:none;clear:both;border:1px solid #e0ecee;}#ygrp-vital ul li ..ct{font-weight:bold;color:#ff7900;float:right;width:2em;text-align:right;paddin\ g-right:.5em;}#ygrp-vital ul li .cat{font-weight:bold;}#ygrp-vital a {text-decoration:none;}#ygrp-vital a:hover{text-decoration:underline;}#ygrp-sponsor #hd{color:#999;font-size:77%;}#ygrp-sponsor #ov{padding:6px 13px;background-color:#e0ecee;margin-bottom:20px;}#ygrp-sponsor #ov ul{padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0;}#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{list-style-type:square;padding:6px 0;font-size:77%;}#ygrp-sponsor #ov li a{text-decoration:none;font-size:130%;}#ygrp-sponsor #nc {background-color:#eee;margin-bottom:20px;padding:0 8px;}#ygrp-sponsor ..ad{padding:8px 0;}#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{font-family:Arial;font-weight:bold;color:#628c2a;font-size:100%;line-height\ :122%;}#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{text-decoration:none;}#ygrp-sponsor .ad a:hover{text-decoration:underline;}#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{margin:0;}o {font-size:0;}.MsoNormal {margin:0 0 0 0;}#ygrp-text tt{font-size:120%;}blockquote{margin:0 0 0 4px;}.replbq {margin:4;}-->________ The all-new Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] _______________ Get the new ! http://get.live.com/messenger/overview Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Hi Z'ev and all, <zrosenbe There is a lot of valuable material in the classical literature that we should be free to examine. I don't want a pre-digested TCM to be the only option out there. For myself, the only issue raised by demonology is whether one feels that evils that effect consciousness arise from external malevolent forces, or from within oneself. Even what we call 'demons' can be malevolent influences from media, brainwashing, toxic people, or family dynamics, as much as disembodied entities 'floating in the ether'. --- It is (?) characteristic of CM to lump things together, to build relationships and dynamic systems rather than to isolate and reduce. Everything I have been taught orally, experientially, as well as what I have read, identifies " demons " as sets of influences, not as concrete, limited creatures with wings who breathe fire or whatever. The latter is a naive idea of demonology; a child's ignorant fear given limited form. If I am understanding my teacher correctly, " Demonology " relates to certain living expressions of Qi (influence, force, breath) which are malevolent, destructive and dangerous. In the end, however, they are finally self-destructive, and in one of those beautiful and heart-breaking twists of life, act as liberating, dredging and purging influences that force self-knowledge and self-responsibility to occur (i.e., my teacher's words, " if you want the good, take care of the bad " ). We can look at chapter 2 of the Tao Teh Ching for the relationship between good and evil (Legge): All in the world know the beauty of the beautiful, and in doing this they have (the idea of) what ugliness is; [...] So it is that existence and non-existence give birth the one to (the idea of) the other; that difficulty and ease produce of the one (the idea of) the other; [...]; that the musical notes and tones become harmonious through the relation of one with another; [...] Evil can take many forms, from the usury of credit card companies (bwahaha) to participation in the pecking order - what exactly _is_ it that " gets into us " when someone higher up gives us a peck and we look for the next weaker person to pass " it " on to? Evil, like good, is an influence, in a sense nothing more than us, and in another sense something quite separate and independent. The problem here may actually be our western/modern obsession with false divisions. Tao Teh Ching (Legge, chapter 1): Always without desire we must be found, If its deep mystery we would sound; But if desire always within us be, Its outer fringe is all that we shall see. Dividing so finely, we may not be able to grasp the actuality of these relationships - " where " evil is, and how it travels. Z'ev continues: makes it much easier to study these things if we know if they are original ideas from modern authors, or traditions from classical sources. What I have been able to understand is that there is not really an adequate translation for these ideas into English. However, the ancient Chinese were _not_ talking mainstream Psychology / Psychiatry, my teacher has been abundantly clear on this. I look forward to Chris's notes on this matter. I have been getting to something! We talk of demons " being " or " not being " ( " real " ), and yet the Tao Teh Ching is also explicit on this matter (Cleary this time, chapter 5): Heaven and earth are not humane; they regard all beings as straw dogs. Sages are not humane; they see all people as straw dogs. Thanks for your time, Hugo _________ New Mail is the ultimate force in competitive emailing. Find out more at the Mail Championships. Plus: play games and win prizes. http://uk.rd./evt=44106/*http://mail..net/uk Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 8, 2007 Report Share Posted February 8, 2007 Hi Mike. You're right it's the million dollar question because it's so difficult to do. Here are some suggestions (not for you necessarily) on the general process: Get yourself ready for a teacher, then a teacher " will find you " (ooo goosebumps). Get to work on cracking your head open so that following the tao teh ching becomes like following a beautiful poem and meeting an old friend rather than ball-busting intellectualism ;P . Let go of as much as you can so that you might have a chance at absorbing and integrating that old, old line of CM transmission (which is alive and well and not to be found in books). When it gets to the point of communicating what you've got, we'll have to face the fact that there is no highest mountain, and that we are simply good at what what we are good at, someone will be good at something different, we have our function to play and no on holds the whole tao. The tao hold us. Awww. Thanks, hope that wasn't too tongue in cheek. But I really think we will never find who has the " real " stuff, simply because that is too absolutist. Hugo mike Bowser <naturaldoc1 Chinese Traditional Medicine Thursday, 8 February, 2007 3:08:52 PM RE: getting rid of demons So Hugo how would you propose dealing with learning one such system and trying to put it to usage within another and yet be able to converse? This is the million dollar question and where we are having a lot of difficulty. Mike W. Bowser, L Ac subincor (AT) (DOT) comThu, 8 Feb 2007 18:29:36 +0000Re: getting rid of demons If I may insert a comment here...The individualised " I " or " we " is merely a subset of reality, as such we cannot comprehend reality from the p.o.v. of this " I " or " we " . So what do we do? We make up partial systems to deal with certain aspects of this reality. Chinese Medical Science is no different from Western Medical Science in this regard. They are both human systems intended to help navigate reality, much like the famous " finger pointing at the moon " of buddhism. What we need to do is know ourselves, find a system which we feel at home with, and then *learn that system deeply*. Over time, that finger will take on a more appropriate meaning, and one will be able to, slowly, become more appreciative of the moon.HugoOne aside to what I had mentioned is that of changing perceptionsor meanings and how do we know what is accurate (culturally, clinicallyor even biologically) . For example, I learned one way of thinking about yin/yang in school and then another while learning about macrobiotics. .<!--#ygrp-mlmsg {font-size:13px; font-family: arial,helvetica, clean,sans- serif;}#ygrp- mlmsg table {font-size:inherit; font:100% ;}#ygrp-mlmsg select, input, textarea {font:99% arial,helvetica, clean,sans- serif;}#ygrp- mlmsg pre, code {font:115% monospace;}# ygrp-mlmsg * {line-height: 1.22em;}# ygrp-text{ font-family: Georgia;} #ygrp-text p{margin:0 0 1em 0;}#ygrp-tpmsgs{ font-family: Arial;clear: both;}#ygrp- vitnav{padding- top:10px; font-family: Verdana;font- size:77%; margin:0; }#ygrp-vitnav a{padding:0 1px;}#ygrp-actbar{ clear:both; margin:25px 0;white-space: nowrap;color: #666;text- align:right; }#ygrp-actbar .left{float: left;white- space:nowrap; }.bld{font- weight:bold; }#ygrp-grft{ font-family: Verdana;font- size:77%; padding:15px 0;}#ygrp-ft{ font-family: verdana;font- size:77%; border-top: 1px solid #666;padding: 5px 0;}#ygrp-mlmsg #logo{padding- bottom:10px; }#ygrp-vital{ background- color:#e0ecee; margin-bottom: 20px;padding: 2px 0 8px 8px;}#ygrp-vital #vithd{font- size:77%; font-family: Verdana;font- weight:bold; color:#333; text-transform: uppercase; }#ygrp-vital ul{padding:0; margin:2px 0;}#ygrp-vital ul li{list-style- type:none; clear:both; border:1px solid #e0ecee;}#ygrp- vital ul li .ct{font-weight: bold;color: #ff7900;float: right;width: 2em;text- align:right; padding-right: .5em;}#ygrp- vital ul li ..cat{font-weight: bold;}#ygrp- vital a {text-decoration: none;}#ygrp- vital a:hover{text- decoration: underline; }#ygrp-sponsor #hd{color:#999; font-size: 77%;}#ygrp- sponsor #ov{padding: 6px 13px;background- color:#e0ecee; margin-bottom: 20px;}#ygrp- sponsor #ov ul{padding:0 0 0 8px;margin:0; }#ygrp-sponsor #ov li{list-style- type:square; padding:6px 0;font-size: 77%;}#ygrp- sponsor #ov li a{text-decoration: none;font- size:130% ;}#ygrp-sponsor #nc {background- color:#eee; margin-bottom: 20px;padding: 0 8px;}#ygrp-sponsor .ad{padding: 8px 0;}#ygrp-sponsor .ad #hd1{font-family: Arial;font- weight:bold; color:#628c2a; font-size: 100%;line- height:122% ;}#ygrp-sponsor .ad a{text-decoration: none;}#ygrp- sponsor .ad a:hover{text- decoration: underline; }#ygrp-sponsor .ad p{margin:0;} o {font-size:0; }.MsoNormal {margin:0 0 0 0;}#ygrp-text tt{font-size: 120%;}blockquote {margin:0 0 0 4px;}.replbq {margin:4;}- ->_______ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ ______ The all-new Mail goes wherever you go - free your email address from your Internet provider. http://uk.docs. / nowyoucan. html[Non-text portions of this message have been removed] ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _ Get the new ! http://get.live. com/messenger/ overview 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.