The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

October 15, 2007

Hi all,

This discussion is proof positive of why it is necessary to learn and practice

qi gong if one wants to have any sort of authority in the practice of CM. The

practice of (not the thinking of, not the analysis of, not the

obsessive-compulsive reduction of) Qi Gong answers so many of these questions.

My suggestion: you want understanding and answers? Practice and Do, rather than

talk. Talking about Qi and the classics are dead activities. Qi Gong opens your

eyes.

Hugo

establishment_man <establishment_man

Chinese Medicine

Saturday, 13 October, 2007 1:48:18 PM

Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

Tymothy,

This is part of the question I am raising. Are the 'classics'

intrinsicly correct. We know (more or less) what they say, but does

their very existence render them correct?

If we look at your average pre-industrial science or medical textbook

from one or two thousand years ago, how reliable should we assume

that data to be?

Much of the material of the classics holds up in clinical practice

to this day, but I am not so sure about all of the mechanisms and

assumptions that underly the theories of CM.

And I am especially apprehensive about accepting these ideas as fact

simply because they were written down a long time ago by people in a

far away land. This type of acceptence seems to me to border on

religious faith, and blurs the line between medicine and religion.

EM

Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " miracles28 "

<jellyphish@ ...> wrote:

>

> One only has to read the classics to know that this IS chinese

> medicine. The materialists pulled much of the spiritual

connotations

> out, but the fact is that any practitioner of chinese medicine

> throughout history would have utilised these concepts to one

degree or

> another depending on their own development.

> The concept of the little Dao applies, you do not treat people

just to

> get them well, you do it because you have the opportunity to do it,

> because you understand that it is more than you. If you are not

> cultivating yourself, you are not, as far as the classics indicate,

> truly practicing chinese medicine. These concepts give focus to how

> one can go about becoming not only a better practitioner but a

better

> human.

> Tymothy

>

> Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " Z'ev

Rosenberg "

> <zrosenbe@> wrote:

> >

> > I think these notions are very difficult to understand outside

of

> > their cultural context, but they can be applied at different

levels,

> > such as emotional and consciousness connections with the five

yin

> > viscera. I think we should simply keep an open mind to all

> > possibilities within the Chinese medical tradition and not

dismiss

> > them until they are fully understood and integrated in our own

> > minds. We are still at a very early stage of adaption of

Chinese

> > medical and philosophical ideas, and should be careful not to

reject

> > anything outright.

> >

> > On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:20 AM, establishment_ man wrote:

> >

> > > Z'ev,

> > >

> > > In this discussion, it seems to have those same 'spiritual'

> > > concepts. I have seen posts that talk about a consciousness

that

> > > survives death. This strikes me as similar to the ideas of a

soul in

> > > Christian theology. This would be an example of the 'spiritual

> > > theories' of CM. Such and such Spirit does X, and another type

of

> > > Soul does Y. You know........ .the whole five spirits and the Po

> > > merges with the elements and the Hun is ethereal and survives

death,

> > > etc.

> > >

> > > I just wonder if acupuncturists to these

philosophical

> > > notions, and if they find it important in terms of applying

Chinese

> > > Medicine.

> >

> > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> > San Diego, Ca. 92122

> >

October 16, 2007

Hugo,

Interesting response. I was just thinking that this conversation

is " proof " that people are willing to make all kinds of radical

assumptions taht have no real basis other than personal longing,

subjective perceptions, or claims made in ancient literature.

Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims

without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should

practice it. And in so doing, it may become easier to adhere to the

some of the esoteric and (possibly superstitious)claims made in the

literature of OM.

EM

Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro

<subincor wrote:

>

> Hi all,

> This discussion is proof positive of why it is necessary to learn

and practice qi gong if one wants to have any sort of authority in

the practice of CM. The practice of (not the thinking of, not the

analysis of, not the obsessive-compulsive reduction of) Qi Gong

answers so many of these questions.

> My suggestion: you want understanding and answers? Practice and

Do, rather than talk. Talking about Qi and the classics are dead

activities. Qi Gong opens your eyes.

>

> Hugo

>

> establishment_man <establishment_man

> Chinese Medicine

> Saturday, 13 October, 2007 1:48:18 PM

> Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

>

Tymothy,

>

> This is part of the question I am raising. Are the 'classics'

>

> intrinsicly correct. We know (more or less) what they say, but

does

>

> their very existence render them correct?

>

> If we look at your average pre-industrial science or medical

textbook

>

> from one or two thousand years ago, how reliable should we assume

>

> that data to be?

>

> Much of the material of the classics holds up in clinical practice

>

> to this day, but I am not so sure about all of the mechanisms and

>

> assumptions that underly the theories of CM.

>

> And I am especially apprehensive about accepting these ideas as

fact

>

> simply because they were written down a long time ago by people in

a

>

> far away land. This type of acceptence seems to me to border on

>

> religious faith, and blurs the line between medicine and religion.

>

> EM

>

> Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine @.

com, " miracles28 "

>

> <jellyphish@ ...> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > One only has to read the classics to know that this IS chinese

>

> > medicine. The materialists pulled much of the spiritual

>

> connotations

>

> > out, but the fact is that any practitioner of chinese medicine

>

> > throughout history would have utilised these concepts to one

>

> degree or

>

> > another depending on their own development.

>

> > The concept of the little Dao applies, you do not treat people

>

> just to

>

> > get them well, you do it because you have the opportunity to do

it,

>

> > because you understand that it is more than you. If you are not

>

> > cultivating yourself, you are not, as far as the classics

indicate,

>

> > truly practicing chinese medicine. These concepts give focus to

how

>

> > one can go about becoming not only a better practitioner but a

>

> better

>

> > human.

>

> > Tymothy

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " Z'ev

>

> Rosenberg "

>

> > <zrosenbe@> wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > I think these notions are very difficult to understand outside

>

> of

>

> > > their cultural context, but they can be applied at different

>

> levels,

>

> > > such as emotional and consciousness connections with the five

>

> yin

>

> > > viscera. I think we should simply keep an open mind to all

>

> > > possibilities within the Chinese medical tradition and not

>

> dismiss

>

> > > them until they are fully understood and integrated in our

own

>

> > > minds. We are still at a very early stage of adaption of

>

> Chinese

>

> > > medical and philosophical ideas, and should be careful not to

>

> reject

>

> > > anything outright.

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > On Oct 12, 2007, at 11:20 AM, establishment_ man wrote:

>

> > >

>

> > > > Z'ev,

>

> > > >

>

> > > > In this discussion, it seems to have those same 'spiritual'

>

> > > > concepts. I have seen posts that talk about a consciousness

>

> that

>

> > > > survives death. This strikes me as similar to the ideas of a

>

> soul in

>

> > > > Christian theology. This would be an example of

the 'spiritual

>

> > > > theories' of CM. Such and such Spirit does X, and another

type

>

> of

>

> > > > Soul does Y. You know........ .the whole five spirits and

the Po

>

> > > > merges with the elements and the Hun is ethereal and

survives

>

> death,

>

> > > > etc.

>

> > > >

>

> > > > I just wonder if acupuncturists to these

>

> philosophical

>

> > > > notions, and if they find it important in terms of applying

>

> Chinese

>

> > > > Medicine.

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

>

> > > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

>

> > > San Diego, Ca. 92122

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

>

> > >

October 16, 2007

EM,

Your response is typical of those that attempt to delegitimize

direct experience of human beings as to the perception of reality, as

opposed to 'data' from studies. I believe that studies designed

according to the criteria of Chinese medicine can be very useful, but

not the type of 'evidence-based' criteria you mention. The idea of a

bias free scientific study is a modern myth, based on the dogma that

somehow the observer can be objective and separate from the phenomena

being studied. The whole 'evidence-based' medicine phenomenon has

opponents within the biomedical world as well, as it is being used as

a political sledgehammer to delegitimize even biomedical treatments,

not just 'alternative' ones. The 'evidence' in Chinese medicine is

in centuries of use. For example the prescriptions AND theory of the

Shang Han Lun/Cold Damage Treatise and Wen Bing Xue/Warm Disease

theory was developed to treat epidemic diseases, and the

prescriptions survive because they saved lives.

On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:38 PM, establishment_man wrote:

> Hugo,

>

> Interesting response. I was just thinking that this conversation

> is " proof " that people are willing to make all kinds of radical

> assumptions taht have no real basis other than personal longing,

> subjective perceptions, or claims made in ancient literature.

>

> Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims

> without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should

> practice it. And in so doing, it may become easier to adhere to the

> some of the esoteric and (possibly superstitious)claims made in the

> literature of OM.

>

> EM

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

October 16, 2007

Hey EM, you think you could give us your real first name?

I remember, back in school, my teacher always told us, " don't worry about the

theory, it's just theory, reality is the important thing " . The Buddhist

tradition, as well, warns that " when pointing at the moon, don't look at the

finger " . Unfortunately, these are not lessons generally learned by western

scientists. Of course, there are enlightened scientists who try to keep the

flock from going astray, but their words are often lost in the, um, data. Sir

Arthur Eddington once made a point that science led to a world of shadow

symbols, and did not actually touch upon reality:

" We have learnt that the exploration of the external world by the method of

physical science leads not to a concrete reality but to a shadow world of

symbols, beneath which those methods are unadapted for penetrating. "

The physical sciences are only ever the shadows in the cave (if you are

unfamiliar w the reference, em, let me know, it is an important point). Using

more mundane words we could say that the physical sciences can only ever give us

an approximation(A.E. Whitehead: " Exactness is a fake " ). This is no different

from saying that the physical sciences can't ever touch reality, only barely

provide a facsimile. The subset cannot describe the superset. This is a familiar

concept to CM, since it is stated in the root classics that reality cannot be

spoken of. Then of course there's the old joke that the old teacher goes on for

another few hundred words trying to describe the indescribable.

When we claim that X is Y ( " some parts of CM are superstitious " ), we should

keep in mind that story about the pot and the kettle. Why should we do this?

Well, because, as Nietzche wrote, " he who fights with monsters should take care

lest he thereby become a monster. "

I was at a grand rounds recently (on the topic of what to do about patients

taking, or " doing " , alternative medicine), and, astoundingly, the presenter said

(remember, this is a scientist talking), " of course, we do know that

conventional medicine has limits...for now. " I think their logic lobe must have

been resected and a sponge left in place.

In case you don't catch what I am saying, em, I am saying that it might be

enlightening for you to examine, closely, what superstition means, and then to

look at those who wouldn't be caught with their pants down uttering something

like " there's wind in the body " , unless, of course, they were to say " run, I am

about to break wind " , in which case everyone would understand what they meant

without having to get into a conversation about how superstitious it is to be

saying that wind could be broken, much less that they had wind in their body

/to/ break.

What's most interesting to me here is how modern people have so little

sensibility left. I know that in clinic I spend most of my time trying to

(sounds so fluffy) get people back in their bodies, essentially, to help them

feel again. I imagine how easy it must be to believe " data " when one has

filtered and screened out most of one's Sense. It's nonsensical! Part of the

problem with people not paying attention to their bodies is that, as a

consequence, they have very little understanding or insight into themselves.

Even the use of language becomes automatic, without repercussion or impact -

words lose their sense and meaning, and, of course, the trend becomes to use

words which are less and less poetic and meaningful, and more and more

technical, cold and //restricted in meaning//. I was in the local hospital once

doing a treatment for a lady with cancer and nausea (as will become obvious in a

moment), when I happened to run into her attending doctor as

I was leaving. I received a guarded, mostly emotionless, glance from this

doctor, and then she proceeded to rattle off a string of toneless words- " Some.

studies. have. demonstrated. that. acupuncture. may. have. some. efficacy. in.

the. treatment. of. nausea " . I looked her in the eyes and poured every ounce of

energy I had into preventing my jaw from dropping. I managed to gurgle at her as

I made my escape, but what I really wanted to do was to do some really good

popping and locking (search " pop n lock " or " robot dance " on youtube) while I

said, in a strained, robotic voice, " I. will. only. speak. to. humans. "

I mentioned earlier about words becoming more and more " restricted in meaning " .

I don't know if it is a peculiarity of english that it has become so unpoetic,

but even spanish, which I also speak fluently, is far more poetic, and looser,

if you will. But the chinese language goes far beyond that even - one really

needs to study it or speak it in order to get an idea of what things mean, in

order to understand how to take them. To pronounce judgements from the shelter

of ignorance - because really, to judge a culture's language contructs without

speaking that language is preposterous - is, I'll say it again, preposterous.

I feel it important to restate the main theme of my post, and I really do feel

it is the most interesting aspect of this whole situation: People, in our modern

world, place so little worth on knowing themselves. It has almost no essential

value. We will often fight for self-knowledge, but rather blindly, and with no

real staying power. This is why the physical sciences, not the humanities, stand

as the peak of our civilisation- I mean, technologisation. It is perhaps too

stupid or evident a question to ask of an intelligent, modern, advanced, human

being, however I still feel compelled: why are the humanities not important?

(unnecessary referrals to the emperor with no clothes omitted )

Hugo

establishment_man <establishment_man

Chinese Medicine

Saturday, 13 October, 2007 1:03:49 PM

Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

Hugo,

I think that we could agree that these two aspects of CM maintain

characteristics of religion.

Many of the aspects of TCM's 'spirits' seem like rich metaphors to

explain the behavior of the body's systems and the interaction of

the body with pathogens. But, are we to take these things literally?

Do practitioners out there believe that these spirits literally

exist? And that some of them may transport an individual's

consciousness from this world to another? Or from this body to

another body?

Or, are the spirits more metaphoric - akin to the CM idea of " Wind, "

which is a useful image to describe the interaction of the body with

a pathogen, but not necessarily meant as the literal presence of

wind inside of the body.

What say you TCM community? Are the " spirits " actual entities, or

metaphoric descriptions of natural phenomena?

EM

Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , Hugo Ramiro

<subincor@.. .> wrote:

>

> Hi all... I believe we are on the western dualism thing now. CM is

> explicit in its statements regarding the spirit, emotions and body

and

> the place of all of these in the world. Can anyone show us the

dividing

> lines? CM says there are none.

> All of this is one thing, choosing

> what to communicate to a px on a case-by-case basis is something

else.

> And let's not throw " religion " into the mix

> because /that/ would certainly be projecting western values onto

CM.

> Hugo

>

> ____________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _________ _

> Switch an email account to Mail, you could win FIFA World

Cup tickets. http://uk.mail.

>

October 16, 2007

Just as an aside, pot calling the kettle black and such - " claims without

evidence " . Would you like to share with the group on the basis of which study or

research you claim that Qi Gong constitutes errm, to be blunt, mind control?

Just in case you try pass it off to me, no one in this conversation, except for

you, said or implied that Qi Gong might " somehow make people more willing to

accept claims without evidence " .

I am assuming that it was a baseless assertion. If in fact this assertion has

no basis in research, or other types of evidence, then on what basis do you make

this assertion?

I am wondering if you will adhere to your standard.

Hugo

establishment_man <establishment_man

Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims

without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should

practice it. And in so doing, it may become easier to adhere to the

some of the esoteric and (possibly superstitious) claims made in the

literature of OM.

EM

_________

Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the answer. Try it

now.

http://uk.answers./

October 17, 2007

Zev,

Thank you for noticing! I intend to de-legitimize direct experience

of human being as to the perception of reality. This is because human

perceptions are so intrinsically fallible and our assumptions about

reality are so fundmentally contaminated by bias.

By no means am I dismissing the theory and practice of Chinese

Medicine. I just think there are certain aspects to it that require a

leap of faith by virtue of the fact that there is no other rationale

that would justify their acceptance. And, I prefer to keep faith-

based initiatives out of my medicine wherever possible.

EM

Chinese Medicine , " "

<zrosenbe wrote:

>

> EM,

> Your response is typical of those that attempt to delegitimize

> direct experience of human beings as to the perception of reality,

as

> opposed to 'data' from studies. I believe that studies designed

> according to the criteria of Chinese medicine can be very useful,

but

> not the type of 'evidence-based' criteria you mention. The idea of

a

> bias free scientific study is a modern myth, based on the dogma

that

> somehow the observer can be objective and separate from the

phenomena

> being studied. The whole 'evidence-based' medicine phenomenon has

> opponents within the biomedical world as well, as it is being used

as

> a political sledgehammer to delegitimize even biomedical

treatments,

> not just 'alternative' ones. The 'evidence' in Chinese medicine

is

> in centuries of use. For example the prescriptions AND theory of

the

> Shang Han Lun/Cold Damage Treatise and Wen Bing Xue/Warm Disease

> theory was developed to treat epidemic diseases, and the

> prescriptions survive because they saved lives.

>

> On Oct 15, 2007, at 4:38 PM, establishment_man wrote:

>

> > Hugo,

> >

> > Interesting response. I was just thinking that this conversation

> > is " proof " that people are willing to make all kinds of radical

> > assumptions taht have no real basis other than personal longing,

> > subjective perceptions, or claims made in ancient literature.

> >

> > Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims

> > without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should

> > practice it. And in so doing, it may become easier to adhere to

the

> > some of the esoteric and (possibly superstitious)claims made in

the

> > literature of OM.

> >

> > EM

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

October 17, 2007

Hugo,

I do not have any study or research that claim that Qigong is mind

control. I don't believe I ever said it is.

Earlier in this thread you said that This discussion is proof

positive of why it is necessary to learn and practice qi gong if one

wants to have any sort of authority in the practice of CM.

That's why I responded with the question; Does Qigong somehow make

people more willing to accept claims without evidence? If so, maybe

you are right, everyone should practice it.

You said that Qigong *opens your eyes* and that it *answers many of

these questions.*

My question was whether or not people who practice CM believe in the

idea of an Taoist afterlife, or a soul that survives death. Or do

people think this is a primitive relic of CM's poetic past.

Does Qigong answer that question? Or open one's eyes to the existence

of an ethereal soul?

If so, I'd like to hear what your experience has revealed.

EM

Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro

<subincor wrote:

>

> Just as an aside, pot calling the kettle black and such - " claims

without evidence " . Would you like to share with the group on the

basis of which study or research you claim that Qi Gong constitutes

errm, to be blunt, mind control? Just in case you try pass it off to

me, no one in this conversation, except for you, said or implied that

Qi Gong might " somehow make people more willing to accept claims

without evidence " .

> I am assuming that it was a baseless assertion. If in fact this

assertion has no basis in research, or other types of evidence, then

on what basis do you make this assertion?

> I am wondering if you will adhere to your standard.

>

> Hugo

>

> establishment_man <establishment_man

>

Does Qigong somehow make people more willing to accept claims

>

> without evidence? If so, maybe you are right, everyone should

>

> practice it. And in so doing, it may become easier to adhere to the

>

> some of the esoteric and (possibly superstitious) claims made in

the

>

> literature of OM.

>

> EM

>

_________

> Answers - Got a question? Someone out there knows the

answer. Try it

> now.

> http://uk.answers./

>

October 17, 2007

HI All,

I think we don't have to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. I have been

reading a lot about history of TCM recently and have realized that it has

undergone great change from being shamanistic( jia gu wen) in the beginning

through changing to 'medical practice' resulting in open critic of shamanism by

doctors like Bianque to the writing of the classic of the yellow emperor and

further through history to more and more embracing more scientific approaches to

healing. For example when they found out that 'memory/or activity of the mind'

(not sure if I got the meaning fully) doesn't reside in the heart but in the

brain. However, I am trying to say, that sometimes I feel that hun, shen, po are

terms that could be looked at again and made more modern, maybe adapted to fit

more the terms of western thinking. I feel it to be akwardly hard to explain

especially hun and po in western terms, ending mostly in saying that those

reside in different parts of the body and having

different functions

(as already layed out in many other posts) and equalling the western term of

the soul.

However, I am still searching for my own answers in all that material, but end

up with more and more questions.

Cheers

Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.

October 17, 2007

Hello All,

Forgive me if I pick apart your post a bit Steve. You say that " we don't have

to stick to the 'rules' in TCM too much. " You also say that perhaps " that hun,

shen, po are terms that could be looked at again and made more modern, maybe

adapted to fit more the terms of western thinking. "

I have only loosely been following this thread, as I just became a part of this

group today, but I might ask you, based on the above quotes: What is ok to

remove, and what is ok to keep? Doesn't it seem rather arbitrary to redefine

words that we may not personally understand well, and yet keep other definitions

that we do understand well? TCM is a result of trying to bring Chinese medicine

to a Western audience, it already has lost a lot of the roots with which it was

founded on (just to get to the West), should we then strip it of other ambiguous

terms because they are not scientific enough? At what point then, does Chinese

medicine become biomedicine?

I am a person that believes, we as a community in the Western Chinese medicine

world are rather blind. Due to the majority of us not being able to read

traditional or simplified Chinese, we can neither read the Classics, nor the

modern research that is coming out of China. Another way to look at this: is

that all science, ours included, is based on a system of natural laws. These

laws were discovered by people ages ago -- like Sir Isaac Newton, who discovered

Gravity. These laws are then used to construct modern scientific thought, but

are not always referenced directly in these modern thoughts.

Our science has tried to jump directly to the place of creating modern

scientific thought -- when the majority of us don't even know what the " laws " of

the medicine are. It is a backward approach to learning, but an approach that

didn't take a lot of time or millions of dollars to implement. The result?

Many of us all over the Western world struggle with questions about our

medicine, that have already been answered in the Classics.

I can't tell you how many times I have been reading a Classical text, when a

particular case study jumped out at me, or the author of the Classic directly

answered a question that I had had about one of my own patients, a question that

when I asked my modern peers, Chinese and Western they either couldn't see what

I saw, or thought that I was wrapped up in some mystical tradition.

Obviously, I am a believer in the Classics -- not to say that their word is the

final say, but without knowing what our forefathers of medicine wrote, how can

we truly advance as a profession? Aren't we doomed to discuss the same things

that they already found answers to? Surely in the 3000 year literary tradition

of Chinese medicine, this question of Hun/ Shen / Po has been answered and

discussed a thousand times over. I myself would rather have the answer from the

Classics, then from some decision by a few modern scholars that for our times

Hun/ Shen / Po meant some modern term.

To close, I think that part of our problem as a community is that not enough of

us know, understand, and truly value " the rules, " enough to begin jumping off

into abstract forms of thought on Chinese medicine. I am all for the collective

darkness being collectively lifted, and not each of us making up our own way to

the light of knowledge.

Sincerely,

L.Ac.

The Database

Chinese Medicine

steve brinkop <littleprince_s wrote: