The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

October 17, 2007

I guess I'll join in the melee...

When we learn western science, we learn about avenues that have been

taken by some thinkers that appeared to have reached a dead end,

thinking that is not normally used to explain things in the current era.

I've always thought that they teach this way to keep these discredited

ideas out there, churning through peoples' heads; maybe later someone

will think of a way to use these things. What does this have to do with

the conversation? As Zev says, us westerners haven't been doing this

very long. We should have an eventual understanding of the totality of

the medicine that we are learning, however weird some of it seems. If

western science doesn't discard some things that don't seem to work, it

seems we shouldn't consider discarding things we don't understand...

On a vaguely related note about cultures and disparities in thinking, I

read an article some years ago about how scientific thought in the

western world diverged during the era of Hitler's Third Reich. When the

american and german scientists got together after the war, after 12 - 13

years of no communication, they marveled at how differently they thought

about nuclear fusion and the development of the atom bomb. The article

said that the act of bringing the scientists together lead to the

creation of the hydrogen bomb. (I know; these are not nice things to

think about...) Imagine the divergence in thought between the western

world and China with thousands of years of isolation. It seems to me

that maybe we have no business making judgments on these things until we

have full understanding.

Steve

establishment_man wrote:

> Zev,

>

> There is a very clear reason why, as Steve says, *ancient Chinese

> ideas about shen/hun/po etc. need to be 'adapted to Western

> thinking'*

>

> Modern western thinking is based largely upon reason, science and a

> previously unimagined understanding of the physical realities of the

> universe. Contrast this to the world of ancient thinkers (Chinese or

> otherwise), which was largely founded on primitive notions and

> magical thinking. While it is true that many of the ideas that

> emerged from the ancient Chinese culture have withstood the test of

> time, and demonstrated their medical value, I question whether it is

> necessary to perpetuate the mystical notions of

> into the modern medical landscape, and retain those artifacts of

> magical thinking as an integral component of Modern .

>

> Must we keep the bathwater, when it is only the baby that seems to

> be currently relevant? And, if we insist on keeping the bathwater

> (to drive the metaphor a bit further), doesn't that makes us

> anthropologists rather than doctors?

>

> EM

>

> Chinese Medicine

> <Chinese Medicine%40>, " Z'ev

> Rosenberg " <zrosenbe wrote:

> >

> > Steve,

> > Why do you think that ancient Chinese ideas about shen/hun/po

> > etc. need to be 'adapted to Western thinking'? Don't you think it

> is

> > more important to enquire what the Chinese meant about these

> concepts

> > first?

> > I don't think that the evolution of Chinese medicine is as

> clear

> > cut as you say. There have been many twists and turns in the

> road,

> > and after all, you are talking about a medicine that has been

> around

> > for two thousand years, through many dynasties, and countless

> > billions of people, with over 80,000 texts.

> > A book on this subject I highly recommend is " Innovation in

> > " , edited by Elisabeth Hsu, published by the

> Needham

> > Research Institute, Cambridge Press.

> >

> > On Oct 16, 2007, at 11:51 PM, steve brinkop wrote:

> >

> > > 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

EM,

I hear what you are saying. I can appreciate healthy skepticism,

such as that offered by Paul Unschuld, the great medical

anthropologist. However, he is just as skeptical of modern medicine

as he is of Chinese medicine. At the same time, he has devoted his

life to the study of Chinese medicine and science, and has recently

completed the most complete and comprehensive translation of the Su Wen.

I am not as skeptical as Paul, because I am a clinician who has

seen its power in helping thousands of people who have come through

my practice (and also its limitations). My family has also relied on

Chinese medicine almost exclusively for over thirty years, and has

rarely needed anything else. So I am quite enthusiastic about it,

and feel strongly that as health professionals we need to have as

deep an understanding as possible of Chinese medicine.

A major difference of Chinese medicine and biomedicine is that

Chinese medicine traditionally has been based on a philosophical and

literary approach, not a data-based or empirical, scientific

approach. While these approaches are not mutually exclusive, we must

understanding the process by which Chinese medical practitioners

engage the classical texts such as the Su Wen and Shang Han Lun and

then engage them in present-day, real-time clinical situations. It

seems to have worked over the centuries, and I don't see any reason

to reject this foundational principle. Certainly, let's develop

studies, but more than that, let's continue to study and practice,

study and practice.

On Oct 17, 2007, at 12:21 PM, establishment_man wrote:

> Zev,

>

> I agree with a lot of what you've said. I think Chnese Medicine

> needs a lot more study and research.

>

> I do not *reject outright* any aspects of . However,

> I also do not accept any aspects on faith alone. What I am

> suggesting is that claims must be proven, and that the burden of

> proof lies with the person or group who makes the claim.

>

> Instead of characterizing my views as an outright rejection, I think

> a more accurate way to state my position would be an available

> skeptic. If somebody could demonstrate the existence of a " Spirit, "

> for example, or a " Ghost " as discussed in , then I

> would be very curious to understand that phenomena.

>

> It is silly to ask me to prove that they do not exist, because it is

> not my claim that they don't. Instead, it is the claim of CM

> literature that such things do exist, and is therefore the

> responsibility of the proponents to provide a compelling rationale

> for such claims.

>

> This seems to be the crux of much of the polarization on this topic.

> On the one hand is rejection of that which can not be quantified,

> and on the other hand is kind of religiosity, which purports a blind

> allegiance to the entirety of CM, despite the lack of any compellng

> rationale for many of its components.

>

> EM

>

> Chinese Medicine , " Z'ev

> Rosenberg " <zrosenbe wrote:

> >

> > EM,

> > I have to question your judgment of ancient Chinese medicine

> as

> > irrational or mystical, the Chinese are a very practical people

> for

> > the most part, and the principles of such texts as the Su Wen are

> > very practical indeed. What appears to be irrational or

> > superstitious, such as the idea of demons and ghosts, may just be

> > another way of looking at mind illusions and hallucinations. In

> one

> > system, the source of these phenomena are external forces, in

> > another, projections of an ill mind and/or brain. In other

> words,

> > there is much of value in these concepts of 'spirit' that you

> just

> > reject outright without thorough examination.

> >

> > While there are aspects of Chinese medical tradition that may

> not

> > be as relevant as other parts, I know few individuals in the West

> > with the knowledge base to decide what is relevant and what is

> not.

> > I personally would like to figure that out for myself through

> study

> > and examination, and not rely on other's opinions unless they are

> > truly experts in the field. We need access to the entire

> tradition,

> > not a pre-edited, pre-digested one. The Chinese have done much

> of

> > this editing for themselves, and we need to respect what they've

> > found works in their national medical system. But that doesn't

> mean

> > that we won't find gems that they've overlooked.

> >

> > I also don't think that the present state of what you call

> the

> > medical landscape should determine what is relevant or not, what

> > works or not. There are tremendous problems in the modern

> medical

> > landscape, and Chinese medicine may provide some insights to

> rectify

> > some of these problems.

> >

>

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

October 17, 2007

Juan,

You have certainly read much into my posts. Let me start with your

final point about the western medicine symbol of a snake and a

staff. You ask, *why not tell them to loose the symbol?*

The reason is very simple, and I believe that it speaks to the

substance of the rest of your post.

The reason that we should not tell them to lose that symbol is

precisely because it is a symbol. Everybody recognizes the symbol as

such, and acknowledges its mythological origins. I would say YES,

they should lose the symbol if the medical community related with

the symbol as a talisman, as a means of conveying actual healing

powers or providing therapy. But nobody is using the symbol

shamanically. The symbol remains an emblem, but not a tool.

This is my question about CM. Are we using symbols as tools? Are we

taking ideas that are metaphors and relating with them as actual

parts of the body or psyche?

Should we preserve their legacy as valuable historical and cultural

relics? Or continue to relate with them as possessing actual medical

value?

EM

Chinese Medicine , aramis1971

wrote:

>

> So EM, are you saying that we should discard everything that we do

not

> understand? That, in my very humble opinion, is a very sad

existance. "

> Hey, i don't understand it, forget it, it does not exist, that is

only

> rubbish " . Imagine where would we be if it weren't for those few

who had

> a wild idea, who saw the world with different eyes. No Cristopher

> Columbus, no Aristoteles, Plato, Socrates, forget about Alexander

the

> Great who founded an Alexandria everywhere he went, no ayurvedic

texts,

> no Christ, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tze or Profet Muhammed. No

Graham,

> Bell for that matter. What about those who dreamt with free

republics,

> free from opression from far away lands and kings? Where they not

in

> another level? " I don't understand freedom of speech, or thought,

or

> cult, so it does not exist, and everyone who says otherwise is a

crimial

> or a liar or a... " Are we supposed to discard everything that

makes un

> unconfortable, that makes us think, that thing that makes life a

unique

> experience? I am no robot or computer, i have my opinion as

everyone in

> this planet regardless nationality. If someone is going to " heal "

me and

> not understand me? can a doctor/therapist, whatever you call it be

able

> to really hellp me if he/she doesn't understand my background?

>

> Someone here in this post said he has never seen the shen or the

po or

> the hun. Is that person really looking at who is in front of him?

It is

> very, very common to say " do you believe in love? but you can't

see it "

> of course you can! A wise man once told me, that i can't look at

the

> mind/heart (buddhist wise man), but you CAN see it, you can look

at how

> the person acts, you can hear it, just by listening to the words a

> person is saying, you can feel it bu looking at the expression on

> someone's face, you can touch it by the way a person responds to

your

> touch, all you have to do is not be lazy and will to do it. A

woman 33

> years of age, main problems: anger and strong nightmares every

day, so

> strong, person does not want to go to sleep out of fear from her

> nightmares. As i recall, Hun is the spirit that lives in the

liver, it

> has the ability to wander, and manifests itself in oniric

activities.

> What is this person telling me? Where is the imbalance? Just by

that i

> start thinking of the liver, further conversation reveals, legs

> cramping, loss of hair due to stress. Is there here any " data "

that a

> modern-medicine doctor can use? I am not sure, my father is the

surgeon.

> But her WOOD is screaming at me. Yes, wood. Wood is wind, the Hun

> resides in wood, where there is wood there is wind, it is spring,

> movement....What did i do? just 4 needles to balance her WOOD. No

> nightmares after the first session,... " Hey but i don't understand

> that! " or " I cannot tell her it is her wood that is not harmonious

> because she will laugh at me or i won't have the respect from

M.D's " I

> couldn't care less what M.D's think of me, and if i had not tried

to

> understand what Hun was or Shen or Po, how could i really

understand

> what the problem is? Hw could i try to help spomeone if the only

> manifestations are those in the emotional realm? " Hey got to the

shrink

> and get some pills to eliminate your dreams, or some prozac for

your

> depression, or... "

>

> Someone else said in this thread words not meaning anything

anymore, and

> that is a shame, because that speaks terrible of our culture,

whichever

> it is, it speaks real bad about modern society, because we don't

care

> anymore about or lives, about our emotions, just about fast food

and a

> " quicky " , no quality time, no time to slow down and smell the

roses. I

> believe we can do much better, listening to the person or people

we have

> in front of us, not only from a " medical " point of view, but for

the

> whole life. EM, how can anyone separate him/herself from their

origins?

> I don't believe there is such a way, just the same happens with

> everything in life, including TCM, do you know hou much you're

going to

> miss out on, how much yor patients are going to miss out on? And

how

> much you have to win if you took those shamanistic origins and

worked

> with them? " Hey, forget shamans and medicine men " Those traditions

have

> been healing people since the beggining of time, how unvaluable is

all

> that oral heritage, but some " cientific people -more intelligent

than

> the rest of us mortals " say that they are not important anymore

and

> should be discarded and only believe in what they say?

>

> As a final note, western medicine has the symbol of a snake and a

staff,

> as you may well know it comes from Asclepios, The Greek God of

Medicine

> and Healing, who offended Zeus by accepting money for bringing

back the

> dead, why not tell them to loose the symbol, not take money and

treat

> all patienst as " do not resucitate " ?

>

> > Online Etymology Dictionary

> > <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/etymon.html> - Cite This

Source

> > <http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?

qh=resuscitate & ia=etymon> -

> > Share This

<http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resuscitate#sharethis>

> > resuscitate

> > 1532, earlier resuscit (c.1375), from L.L. resuscitationem, from

L.

> > resuscitatus, pp. of resuscitare " rouse again, revive, " from re-

> > " again " + suscitare " to raise, revive, " from sub " (up from)

under " +

> > citare " to summon " (see cite

> > <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cite>).

>

> Juan

> --

>

October 17, 2007

hello everyone,

So many words from everyone and none found the answer.

Dao De Jing chapter 71 depending on you translation says:

Not-knowing is true knowledge.

Presuming to know is a disease

First realize that you are sick:

then you can move toward health....

1.For people looking for an answer on the reality of Shen Hun Po see

the monkey press book by claude larre and Liz Rochat de le valle

2.For people looking to better understand Shen Hun Po see monkey press

books by same authors.

3.For people looking to better understand TCM and particularly Shen

Hun Po, i would agree with only one post on this thread. I dont

remember the author now but in essence they suggested that we look

further into the language, the culture, the history and try, just for

a moment to be Chinese.

See the monkey press books by father Larre and Liz Rochat.

" Some things exist whether we believe in them or not and despite our

belief in others, they may not exist "

And, of course Shen Hun Po have a use in clinic. Without them there is

no complete organ and there is sickness. This has been expounded for

2000Yrs. Let's not get too small minded over this and nit pick at one

another due to the inaccuracy of our futile romantic language.

This Medicine belongs to the Chinese and was born of a culture and has

attached to it a world most of us are blind to and inexperienced in.

Learn the language, read the books and get some friends (Chinese ones

that is).And remember TCM was largely borne out of religious thought

and thinkers.

Dan.

Chinese Medicine ,

" establishment_man " <establishment_man wrote:

>

> Juan,

>

> You have certainly read much into my posts. Let me start with your

> final point about the western medicine symbol of a snake and a

> staff. You ask, *why not tell them to loose the symbol?*

>

> The reason is very simple, and I believe that it speaks to the

> substance of the rest of your post.

>

> The reason that we should not tell them to lose that symbol is

> precisely because it is a symbol. Everybody recognizes the symbol as

> such, and acknowledges its mythological origins. I would say YES,

> they should lose the symbol if the medical community related with

> the symbol as a talisman, as a means of conveying actual healing

> powers or providing therapy. But nobody is using the symbol

> shamanically. The symbol remains an emblem, but not a tool.

>

> This is my question about CM. Are we using symbols as tools? Are we

> taking ideas that are metaphors and relating with them as actual

> parts of the body or psyche?

>

> Should we preserve their legacy as valuable historical and cultural

> relics? Or continue to relate with them as possessing actual medical

> value?

>

> EM

>

> Chinese Medicine , aramis1971@

> wrote:

> >

> > So EM, are you saying that we should discard everything that we do

> not

> > understand? That, in my very humble opinion, is a very sad

> existance. "

> > Hey, i don't understand it, forget it, it does not exist, that is

> only

> > rubbish " . Imagine where would we be if it weren't for those few

> who had

> > a wild idea, who saw the world with different eyes. No Cristopher

> > Columbus, no Aristoteles, Plato, Socrates, forget about Alexander

> the

> > Great who founded an Alexandria everywhere he went, no ayurvedic

> texts,

> > no Christ, Buddha, Confucius, Lao Tze or Profet Muhammed. No

> Graham,

> > Bell for that matter. What about those who dreamt with free

> republics,

> > free from opression from far away lands and kings? Where they not

> in

> > another level? " I don't understand freedom of speech, or thought,

> or

> > cult, so it does not exist, and everyone who says otherwise is a

> crimial

> > or a liar or a... " Are we supposed to discard everything that

> makes un

> > unconfortable, that makes us think, that thing that makes life a

> unique

> > experience? I am no robot or computer, i have my opinion as

> everyone in

> > this planet regardless nationality. If someone is going to " heal "

> me and

> > not understand me? can a doctor/therapist, whatever you call it be

> able

> > to really hellp me if he/she doesn't understand my background?

> >

> > Someone here in this post said he has never seen the shen or the

> po or

> > the hun. Is that person really looking at who is in front of him?

> It is

> > very, very common to say " do you believe in love? but you can't

> see it "

> > of course you can! A wise man once told me, that i can't look at

> the

> > mind/heart (buddhist wise man), but you CAN see it, you can look

> at how

> > the person acts, you can hear it, just by listening to the words a

> > person is saying, you can feel it bu looking at the expression on

> > someone's face, you can touch it by the way a person responds to

> your

> > touch, all you have to do is not be lazy and will to do it. A

> woman 33

> > years of age, main problems: anger and strong nightmares every

> day, so

> > strong, person does not want to go to sleep out of fear from her

> > nightmares. As i recall, Hun is the spirit that lives in the

> liver, it

> > has the ability to wander, and manifests itself in oniric

> activities.

> > What is this person telling me? Where is the imbalance? Just by

> that i

> > start thinking of the liver, further conversation reveals, legs

> > cramping, loss of hair due to stress. Is there here any " data "

> that a

> > modern-medicine doctor can use? I am not sure, my father is the

> surgeon.

> > But her WOOD is screaming at me. Yes, wood. Wood is wind, the Hun

> > resides in wood, where there is wood there is wind, it is spring,

> > movement....What did i do? just 4 needles to balance her WOOD. No

> > nightmares after the first session,... " Hey but i don't understand

> > that! " or " I cannot tell her it is her wood that is not harmonious

> > because she will laugh at me or i won't have the respect from

> M.D's " I

> > couldn't care less what M.D's think of me, and if i had not tried

> to

> > understand what Hun was or Shen or Po, how could i really

> understand

> > what the problem is? Hw could i try to help spomeone if the only

> > manifestations are those in the emotional realm? " Hey got to the

> shrink

> > and get some pills to eliminate your dreams, or some prozac for

> your

> > depression, or... "

> >

> > Someone else said in this thread words not meaning anything

> anymore, and

> > that is a shame, because that speaks terrible of our culture,

> whichever

> > it is, it speaks real bad about modern society, because we don't

> care

> > anymore about or lives, about our emotions, just about fast food

> and a

> > " quicky " , no quality time, no time to slow down and smell the

> roses. I

> > believe we can do much better, listening to the person or people

> we have

> > in front of us, not only from a " medical " point of view, but for

> the

> > whole life. EM, how can anyone separate him/herself from their

> origins?

> > I don't believe there is such a way, just the same happens with

> > everything in life, including TCM, do you know hou much you're

> going to

> > miss out on, how much yor patients are going to miss out on? And

> how

> > much you have to win if you took those shamanistic origins and

> worked

> > with them? " Hey, forget shamans and medicine men " Those traditions

> have

> > been healing people since the beggining of time, how unvaluable is

> all

> > that oral heritage, but some " cientific people -more intelligent

> than

> > the rest of us mortals " say that they are not important anymore

> and

> > should be discarded and only believe in what they say?

> >

> > As a final note, western medicine has the symbol of a snake and a

> staff,

> > as you may well know it comes from Asclepios, The Greek God of

> Medicine

> > and Healing, who offended Zeus by accepting money for bringing

> back the

> > dead, why not tell them to loose the symbol, not take money and

> treat

> > all patienst as " do not resucitate " ?

> >

> > > Online Etymology Dictionary

> > > <http://dictionary.reference.com/help/etymon.html> - Cite This

> Source

> > > <http://dictionary.reference.com/cite.html?

> qh=resuscitate & ia=etymon> -

> > > Share This

> <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/resuscitate#sharethis>

> > > resuscitate

> > > 1532, earlier resuscit (c.1375), from L.L. resuscitationem, from

> L.

> > > resuscitatus, pp. of resuscitare " rouse again, revive, " from re-

> > > " again " + suscitare " to raise, revive, " from sub " (up from)

> under " +

> > > citare " to summon " (see cite

> > > <http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/cite>).

> >

> > Juan

> > --

> >

October 17, 2007

Z'ev-

" However, I think judging OM as having only 'partial truth'

is the height of arrogance. "

I was referring to how OM has been practiced and how its changed, it

has always been partial to some degree precisley because its

evolving. As you state no medicine has the total truth. You say no

medicine can have total truth, yet reject my statemtn about them

ahving partial truths. Every perspective is partial, its not about

judgeing but integrating.

As far as the romanticism, if you don't see this as a mojor issues

surrounding OM you must look closer. I'm not accusing OM of

romanticism, i'm saying it is being romanticized now.

Maybe my statement wasn;'t clear. i'm saying that through its

evolution, at each stage, it has uncovered a partial and amazing

truth.

dave v

Chinese Medicine , " Z'ev

Rosenberg " <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> I am familiar with Ken Wilber's works, and he is a brilliant

thinker

> indeed. However, I think judging OM as having only 'partial

truth'

> is the height of arrogance. Who are we to judge that, coming

from

> the outside without a full knowledge of the medicine we propose

to

> study? And what medicine has the 'total truth'? And to accuse it

of

> romanticism, come on! This was and is the medicine of billions

of

> people, through epidemics, childbirth, and the full range of

human

> illness.

>

> On Oct 17, 2007, at 10:40 AM, dmvitello01 wrote:

>

> > CHA,

> >

> > For all those interested in this post, I recommend you to the

works

> > of Ken Wilber especially his book " A Breif hx of Everything " .

His

> > model clearly looks at the developmental stages of human/socities

> > that can easily be correlated to OM. This helped me out

> > dramatically with the issues posed in this post.

> >

> > Basically, each stage of OM's evolution has its " partial truths "

and

> > indeed its own problems and short comings. KW's theory also

> > maintains that as the people, sociteis, and medicines evolve,

they

> > are inherently finding more and more " truth " . He definelty finds

> > folley in romanticsim, as do I, though it is prevalent in OM. His

> > theory clearly states that the best we can do is incorporate the

> > partial truths of premodern, modern and postmodern sources, and

to

> > integrate them. This is what I believe we are all trying to do in

> > some way or another. His model will help us!

> >

> > Dave V

> >

> > Chinese Medicine , steve

brinkop

> > <littleprince_s@> wrote:

> > >

> > > 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

If I may wax phenomenological for a moment: we have our senses, and we collect

data and interpret them based on cultural bounds and inherent structures. While

there are sometimes inescapable truths present in sense data, for the most part

we distinguish based largely on what we have understanding and language to

parse. The workings of qi in the internal milieu in CM are in large part based

on several thousand years of interpretation of sensation, in a rich and

multilayered sediment of writing and oral/kinaesthetic tradition. The meditators

who developed the soft technologies embodied in qi gong, pulse diagnosis and

acupuncture were very attentive to their senses, and very focused with their

intent. I think the story of the culture hero Shen Nong is appropriate: he

ingested items and introspected on their natures to determine their qualities as

medicine, and this was enough for him to understand. I have a Vietnamese friend

who is a traditionally trained herbalist who spent a lot of time learning to

identify herbs by touch, smell and taste. The sensory realm is reality for each

one of us... science, at its best, constitutes an effort to establish a

consensual reality among all of us. Like all logical systems, it has

limitations, and like all tools it has more and less appropriate uses.

When I first studied qi gong and acupuncture I would notice sensations, later

these were confirmed as more or less appropriate, but they were often generated

by my intention, and thus one could argue them artifacts of my mind. However,

when I had practiced for some length of time I found myself with a substantial

control of deeper physiological functions... such as my body's ability to warm

itself in cold situations to an abnoraml degree. While it is theoretically

possible that I could have learned the same thing through electronic

biofeedback, it does seem likely that the traditional model I was presented with

created the effect it was intended to. To my mind, that is an effective method.

On a more disquieting note. A researcher named Felicitas Goodman spent a lot of

time observing trance phenomena and found that untrained and uninstructed people

placed in various traditional ritual postures would fairly accurately describe

their trance state experiences as similar. For example, she placed people in a

pose that shaman used to elicit a dialog with a bear spirit, and the

preponderance of people participating experienced an encounter with a bear,

though they really had no idea what to expect, and no cultural norms to follow.

The body has a lot more going on than most people care to consider.

The body-mind is a black box that is imposed on and inquired of, and depending

on the responses received we proceed to formulate a theoretical model of what is

going on. The human mind is likely as not going to compare itself to whatever is

most complicated, and most advanced. When we now talk about the mind the most

frequently used metaphors are binary computers, in fact we use a lot of binary

thinking, sorting and metaphor in our daily lives. Our application of logic and

binary thinking spring from the font of Descartes and Liebniz (who was really

quite enamored of the idea that thinking was essentially a mechanical process,

the height of rationalism, though he also had some pretty far out ideas about

the nature of matter). The ancient Chinese used a metaphorical landscape with a

government and a complex system of waterways and hydrological analogies, as

these were, to the ancient mind, the prevailing metaphors for complex systems.

Their mode of thinking is generally pragmatic and empirical, but their

empiricism allowed for the possibility that there were people who have expanded

sensory capacity (e.g., a master pulse diagnostician or a meditator) and thus

might be able to sort out some things that were otherwise unclear, or simply

people with different opinions as to the meaning or efficacy of a particular

theory or method.

If we take all that as given, then we come back to Chinese medicine and how we

in the West relate to it as inheritors of some pretty hard assed rationalism...

we are all giving the black box a shake and interpreting the thumps and rattles

inside, and while Chinese medicine is definitely a profoundly non-homogeneous

and culture bound system, it often returns one or more very rich and predictive

pictures of what is going on in the box. My personal goal with Chinese medicine

is to take it at face value, and use that rich metaphor to dig into the

obscurity, find the tools that work and discard what doesn't. If the hun-po-shen

concept doesn't strike you as useful, it is possible to ignore it and probably

still get the job done, but I would argue against it being there as a sop to

some religious sentimentality in CM writers, as they were, for the most part

pragmatic people, frequently fairly strict Confucians (meaning not inordinately

spiritually minded), and interested in good explanations.

Par Scott

October 17, 2007

EM, very intereting post! Symbols *ARE* tools, we use them everyday and

they are everywhere. When you are driving, there are traffic symbols

like arrows in may shapes, letters that have been crossed out -like no

parking-, even the traffic lights are world accepted symbols, and are

used to help the good flow of traffic. Another symbol, a heart, it

means love like she heart hims (she loves him). Symbols are used to

communicate in ships, thus the little flags, languages are symbols,

recognized by a groups of people who speach such language. A long time

ago, the white and red post outside a barbershop meaned bloodletting was

done there, the red being the blood, and the white, the cord straped

around the arm. The symbol of hazardous, recycable, poison, radioactive

material, political parties, and i could go on forever...dont worry, i

wont

Why not use these " symbols " in TCM in order to communicate with the

people who seek our help? That is what symbols are for, there is a lot

of material on symbols and their usage, but they all say that a symbol

is a tool to communicate, that's what they're for. So if you want to

communicate better, understand better the reality oif TCM, and

understand you patients in the way only a person who is knowledgeable of

deep understanding of what the ancients wanted to say and deep

communication resulting from this, why not learn them and use them as a

powerfull tool? Sometimes you cannot describe something in words,

because it is a combination of so many things put together in a specific

way, then one creates a mental image, and if this image is accepted by

many and set as a standard, then you have a symbol, do you know how many

years does that takes? how much cultural background and value it has?

Impossible to calculate!!!!! How else can you name:

>

> 1. Spirit; mind, mental faculties; consciousness. Like:

> concentrated attention; tire the mind; concentrate one's energy

> and attention. (??.?: ??; ??; ????.)

> 2. Expression, demeanor; consciousness, state of mind. (??; ??.)

>

but shen?

Juan

--

October 18, 2007

Dave,

And I was referring to the statements and work of Ken Wilbur and

friends, (the " Enlightenment " group, along with Andrew Cohen and

others), who feel that knowledge bases are evolving bodies, and

therefore imperfect. Ken has some interesting ideas, but he is not

an expert on Chinese medicine and culture, and may be applying his

theories a bit too quickly here.

On Oct 17, 2007, at 1:30 PM, dmvitello01 wrote:

> Z'ev-

>

> " However, I think judging OM as having only 'partial truth'

> is the height of arrogance. "

>

> I was referring to how OM has been practiced and how its changed, it

> has always been partial to some degree precisley because its

> evolving. As you state no medicine has the total truth. You say no

> medicine can have total truth, yet reject my statemtn about them

> ahving partial truths. Every perspective is partial, its not about

> judgeing but integrating.

>

> As far as the romanticism, if you don't see this as a mojor issues

> surrounding OM you must look closer. I'm not accusing OM of

> romanticism, i'm saying it is being romanticized now.

>

> Maybe my statement wasn;'t clear. i'm saying that through its

> evolution, at each stage, it has uncovered a partial and amazing

> truth.

>

> dave v

>

October 18, 2007

Dan,

Thanks for the reading list. Unfortunately, this is a circular

argument.

On the one hand, you quote the TTC's eschewal of cerebral knowledge,

and then provide references that support a cerebral understanding.

Hmmmmm.

I could say - For people looking to better understand Liberalism,

Read Ann Coulter. After all, she has written several books on the

subject, and appears to be an wauthority! Somehow though, I don't

think this conveys everything there is to know about liberalism.

In other words, it presents a view that is culturally biased.

It is a tricky debate. Many have argued that if we really want to

understand CM, we must *BE Chinese.* (Learn the language, read the

root texts, understand the culture, etc.)

On the other hand, it seems like sometimes the best view of a

subject is afforded from outside of the constraints of its own

cultural bias.

Electricity was *discovered* in America, but light bulbs work just

the same around the world. Coca-cola tastes just as good in mongolia

as it does in minnesota. And Galileo's telescope works just as well

in Istanbul as it did in Italy.

My point is, if something is clinically or scientifically valid. If

the thing WORKS, then it should be work anywhere. I know there are

aspects of CM that are like that - they work in Chile as well as

they do in China. But, if something is so constrained by culturethat

I have to learn a new language and adopt a new philosophy so that I

can make it work, or as Hugo pointed out earlier, I have to learn

and practice Qigong in order to relally understand it, then I

question how authentic or relevant that thing is.

I realize that this is not a popular view among Sinophiles, but I

don't think good science or good medicine should be shrouded in

cultural mysteries. Let's drag the truth of CM out into the light of

day. If it's true and it works, we keep it. If it isn't or it

doesn't, let's leave it for the historians, anthrolopologists and

mystics.

EM

Chinese Medicine , " corotcm "

<corotcm wrote:

>

> hello everyone,

> So many words from everyone and none found the answer.

> Dao De Jing chapter 71 depending on you translation says:

> Not-knowing is true knowledge.

> Presuming to know is a disease

> First realize that you are sick:

> then you can move toward health....

>

> 1.For people looking for an answer on the reality of Shen Hun Po

see

> the monkey press book by claude larre and Liz Rochat de le valle

> 2.For people looking to better understand Shen Hun Po see monkey

press

> books by same authors.

> 3.For people looking to better understand TCM and particularly Shen

> Hun Po, i would agree with only one post on this thread. I dont

> remember the author now but in essence they suggested that we look

> further into the language, the culture, the history and try, just

for

> a moment to be Chinese.

> See the monkey press books by father Larre and Liz Rochat.

>

> " Some things exist whether we believe in them or not and despite

our

> belief in others, they may not exist "

>

> And, of course Shen Hun Po have a use in clinic. Without them

there is

> no complete organ and there is sickness. This has been expounded

for

> 2000Yrs. Let's not get too small minded over this and nit pick at

one

> another due to the inaccuracy of our futile romantic language.

> This Medicine belongs to the Chinese and was born of a culture and

has

> attached to it a world most of us are blind to and inexperienced

in.

> Learn the language, read the books and get some friends (Chinese

ones

> that is).And remember TCM was largely borne out of religious

thought

> and thinkers.

> Dan.

>

October 18, 2007

Hi Everybody,

I guess I will chime in on this one as well.

I think there are a few issues to be addressed here.

First, the " Classics " . The classics are obviously not to be revered as

the word of the " almighty " - they were written by human beings.

However, the authors of the classics are the highest authorities we

have on Chinese medicine, and that is why they are necessary to read.

There are some living authorities, but they all got to be that way by

studying the classics. No great CM physician in the history of CM has

not studied the classics in depth. Period.

Second,some have suggested that CM theory can, at least to some

extent, be dispensed with. This is crazy. CM " theory " (or li3lun4 in

Chinese, as it is now called in the modern era, but was never referred

to as such in the past) is precisely the CM model of anatomy,

physiology, pathophysiology, etc., that we must study and learn well

in order to understand and practice CM. I do not see how this can be

dispensed with in any way at all.

Third, and this may touch some nerves, but I mean no offense by it, it

is as some, including Z'ev, have mentioned, the lack of understanding

of CM theory that leads to misunderstandings, etc, particularly in the

West where most CM practitioners don't know Chinese and are the

product of sub-standard educations. I would say this is what is

fueling the current debate over Hun and Po.

I don't mean to sound arrogant, or to hold myself out as an authority

on CM, but it's almost 15 years since I began to study CM, I've spent

over 5 years in China, am pretty fluent in Chinese, have read a fair

amount of classical texts, have spent a couple thousand hours in class

in China, and thousands of hours in clinic, so if I don't know

something at this point I'm an idiot.

I think we should go back and look at the " theory " of Hun and Po,

instead of having a debate about the existence of these things.

First, Po. According to Neijing Lingshu, Benshen (following are all my

funky translations): " lung stores qi, qi is the residence of Po " .

Neijing Suwen, Liu Jie Zang Xiang Lun: " Lung, the root of Qi, the

place of the Po. " Lingshu Benshen: " regarding Jing/Essence, it's

manifestation is called Po. " Zhang Jie Bing wrote, " Po's function, can

move and can walk, pain and itchiness are felt. " From this we can see

that Po is a manifestation of the Jing/Essence, is responsible for

instinctive/intrinsic movements of the body(such as reflex, ability to

walk and other motions which don't require high cognitive function)

and the ability to feel sensations such as pain and itchiness.

According to one textbook I have on Neijing, Po is responsible for

instinctive movements, basic consciousness, and the feeling of things

like pain and itchiness. It further states, that as Po is reliant on

Jing/essence, if essence is abundant the functions of Po will be

normal, and if deficient there will be deficiencies in these functions

leading to lack of basic awareness and inability to feel sensations

such as pain, etc. Lingshu, Benshen also states, " Lung, happiness or

lack of, in extreme, damages the Po, when Po is injured then craziness

follows... " .

From all this it's clear that Po is not just an abstract part of the

" soul " (I'm not even sure where that idea comes from- I've never seen

discussion of the " soul " in Chinese texts), but an important aspect of

CM physiology that is clinically relevant. I think a large part of the

original thread was based around questioning the accuracy of the

statement that Po remains in the body after death and Hun leaves the

body after death. These, in my opinion, are not the most important

aspects of Hun and Po, at least for clinicians. However in the West it

seems more people know about these aspects than the clinically

relevant aspects.

I'm running out of time here, so no time for detailed discussion of

Hun. In brief, Hun is responsible for higher cognitive functions,

higher mental functions, such as thought, abstract thought (Po being

responsible for instinctive behaviors). Neijing says " Liver stores

blood, blood is the residence of Hun " , so blood is related to these

functions. Sleep and dreams are also related to Hun, so if the blood

is insufficient, sleep is poor and dreams are copious and vivid. Also,

as Hun is the Shen of the Liver, bravery, anger, and the attributes of

the " General " are related to it.

From all this it's pretty clear that these are important and

clinically relevant parts of CM physiology, and not just a part of

some romanticized version of the " soul " in CM. I agree that

romanticism and projection are serious problems plaguing CM in the

West. Let's go beyond that and see what's really there so we can all

become better clinicians.

Respectfully,

Greg

Chinese Medicine , " "

<zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Dave,

> And I was referring to the statements and work of Ken Wilbur and

> friends, (the " Enlightenment " group, along with Andrew Cohen and

> others), who feel that knowledge bases are evolving bodies, and

> therefore imperfect. Ken has some interesting ideas, but he is not

> an expert on Chinese medicine and culture, and may be applying his

> theories a bit too quickly here.

>

> On Oct 17, 2007, at 1:30 PM, dmvitello01 wrote:

>

> > Z'ev-

> >

> > " However, I think judging OM as having only 'partial truth'

> > is the height of arrogance. "

> >

> > I was referring to how OM has been practiced and how its changed, it

> > has always been partial to some degree precisley because its

> > evolving. As you state no medicine has the total truth. You say no

> > medicine can have total truth, yet reject my statemtn about them

> > ahving partial truths. Every perspective is partial, its not about

> > judgeing but integrating.

> >

> > As far as the romanticism, if you don't see this as a mojor issues

> > surrounding OM you must look closer. I'm not accusing OM of

> > romanticism, i'm saying it is being romanticized now.

> >

> > Maybe my statement wasn;'t clear. i'm saying that through its

> > evolution, at each stage, it has uncovered a partial and amazing

> > truth.

> >

> > dave v

> >

October 18, 2007

Nicely put, Par.

Greg

Chinese Medicine , " Par Scott "

<parufus wrote:

>

> If I may wax phenomenological for a moment: we have our senses, and

we collect data and interpret them based on cultural bounds and

inherent structures. While there are sometimes inescapable truths

present in sense data, for the most part we distinguish based largely

on what we have understanding and language to parse. The workings of

qi in the internal milieu in CM are in large part based on several

thousand years of interpretation of sensation, in a rich and

multilayered sediment of writing and oral/kinaesthetic tradition. The

meditators who developed the soft technologies embodied in qi gong,

pulse diagnosis and acupuncture were very attentive to their senses,

and very focused with their intent. I think the story of the culture

hero Shen Nong is appropriate: he ingested items and introspected on

their natures to determine their qualities as medicine, and this was

enough for him to understand. I have a Vietnamese friend who is a

traditionally trained herbalist who spent a lot of time learning to

identify herbs by touch, smell and taste. The sensory realm is reality

for each one of us... science, at its best, constitutes an effort to

establish a consensual reality among all of us. Like all logical

systems, it has limitations, and like all tools it has more and less

appropriate uses.

>

> When I first studied qi gong and acupuncture I would notice

sensations, later these were confirmed as more or less appropriate,

but they were often generated by my intention, and thus one could

argue them artifacts of my mind. However, when I had practiced for

some length of time I found myself with a substantial control of

deeper physiological functions... such as my body's ability to warm

itself in cold situations to an abnoraml degree. While it is

theoretically possible that I could have learned the same thing

through electronic biofeedback, it does seem likely that the

traditional model I was presented with created the effect it was

intended to. To my mind, that is an effective method.

>

> On a more disquieting note. A researcher named Felicitas Goodman

spent a lot of time observing trance phenomena and found that

untrained and uninstructed people placed in various traditional ritual

postures would fairly accurately describe their trance state

experiences as similar. For example, she placed people in a pose that

shaman used to elicit a dialog with a bear spirit, and the

preponderance of people participating experienced an encounter with a

bear, though they really had no idea what to expect, and no cultural

norms to follow. The body has a lot more going on than most people

care to consider.

>

> The body-mind is a black box that is imposed on and inquired of, and

depending on the responses received we proceed to formulate a

theoretical model of what is going on. The human mind is likely as not

going to compare itself to whatever is most complicated, and most

advanced. When we now talk about the mind the most frequently used

metaphors are binary computers, in fact we use a lot of binary

thinking, sorting and metaphor in our daily lives. Our application of

logic and binary thinking spring from the font of Descartes and

Liebniz (who was really quite enamored of the idea that thinking was

essentially a mechanical process, the height of rationalism, though he

also had some pretty far out ideas about the nature of matter). The

ancient Chinese used a metaphorical landscape with a government and a

complex system of waterways and hydrological analogies, as these were,

to the ancient mind, the prevailing metaphors for complex systems.

Their mode of thinking is generally pragmatic and empirical, but their

empiricism allowed for the possibility that there were people who have

expanded sensory capacity (e.g., a master pulse diagnostician or a

meditator) and thus might be able to sort out some things that were

otherwise unclear, or simply people with different opinions as to the

meaning or efficacy of a particular theory or method.

>

> If we take all that as given, then we come back to Chinese medicine

and how we in the West relate to it as inheritors of some pretty hard

assed rationalism... we are all giving the black box a shake and

interpreting the thumps and rattles inside, and while Chinese medicine

is definitely a profoundly non-homogeneous and culture bound system,

it often returns one or more very rich and predictive pictures of what

is going on in the box. My personal goal with Chinese medicine is to

take it at face value, and use that rich metaphor to dig into the

obscurity, find the tools that work and discard what doesn't. If the

hun-po-shen concept doesn't strike you as useful, it is possible to

ignore it and probably still get the job done, but I would argue

against it being there as a sop to some religious sentimentality in CM

writers, as they were, for the most part pragmatic people, frequently

fairly strict Confucians (meaning not inordinately spiritually

minded), and interested in good explanations.

>

> Par Scott

>

October 18, 2007

Does anyone here know where to find reference to Hun and Po

staying/leaving the body after death in the classics? I don't recall

ever reading that in Neijing (no, I haven't read the whole thing), or

anywhere else in the Chinese literature, and I can't find any

reference to it now. There's plenty of reference to Hun and Po in

Neijing, but what I can find is all discussion of physiology- nothing

to do with whether or not these things remain after death and where

they go. Where does this idea originate?

In the end, I still think the latter is of little importance

clinically, and certainly should not negate the important role of Hun

and Po in CM physiology, and the need to understand their functions.

It should also not lead us to question the " existence " of Hun and Po,

just as we are not questioning the existence of the Five Zang and Six

Fu, or various other aspects of CM theory. In my opinion, all these

things are physiological phenomenon which do exist, and should not be

thought of as discrete physical entities.

That said, I would not readily accept the idea that Hun and Po remain

after death and go here or there. Maybe they do, maybe they don't. I'm

not clever enough to know, and am not prone to faith, so I will have

to decline to say one way or the other.

My two cents...

Greg

October 18, 2007

Greg,

Like Sami in an earlier thread, you raise a very good question.

Where do these ideas come from? Are they the oficial stance of the

CM classics, or are they misinterpretations of CM's central ideas.

You said that you are not prone to faith and reading your posts, I

get the idea that you approach things very pragmatically. But, tio

some degree, musn't we all take certain things on faith in CM?

The fact that the Hun resides in the Liver, the pshysiology of Blood

production, or even the very existence of " Qi. " Aren't these all

articles of faith to some degree since there is no reliable way to

measure or quantify such things?

Please understand that I am a practitioner of CM, and I do not mean

to invalidate its principles. My orientation is goes something like

this: *I don't know if the claims of CM are true, but when I act

like they are, I generally get good clinical results.*

Still, I often wonder Is this working for the reasons that CM texts

say it is working? Or, is there an alternative explanation that is

more easily quantified?

When something canot be seen or measured - does its acceptance not

require faith?

OK everybody - Loosen up your typing fingers and let the bashing

begin!

EM

Chinese Medicine , " Greg A.

Livingston " <drlivingston wrote:

>

> Does anyone here know where to find reference to Hun and Po

> staying/leaving the body after death in the classics? I don't

recall

> ever reading that in Neijing (no, I haven't read the whole thing),

or

> anywhere else in the Chinese literature, and I can't find any

> reference to it now. There's plenty of reference to Hun and Po in

> Neijing, but what I can find is all discussion of physiology-

nothing

> to do with whether or not these things remain after death and

where

> they go. Where does this idea originate?

>

> In the end, I still think the latter is of little importance

> clinically, and certainly should not negate the important role of

Hun

> and Po in CM physiology, and the need to understand their

functions.

> It should also not lead us to question the " existence " of Hun and

Po,

> just as we are not questioning the existence of the Five Zang and

Six

> Fu, or various other aspects of CM theory. In my opinion, all these

> things are physiological phenomenon which do exist, and should not

be

> thought of as discrete physical entities.

>

> That said, I would not readily accept the idea that Hun and Po

remain

> after death and go here or there. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

I'm

> not clever enough to know, and am not prone to faith, so I will

have

> to decline to say one way or the other.

>

> My two cents...

>

> Greg

>

October 18, 2007

Shen- the new Rossi book is very good on this discussion. I can't remember where

she got

her sources from obviously but it is very knowledgable. From what I remember, Po

is what

seeps back into bones and stays with the (decaying) body, Hun leaves the earthly

realm. Po

is what might be used in ritual.

I've found her ideas helpful in the clinic. I'll present 2 stereo types- not to

offend anyone:

Briefly, the Po centered person is the exercise addict (or Brittany Spears) who

is only

concerned with matters of the body. The person running a marathon is using Po to

achieve

the next mile. It also, according to Rossi, a component of auto immune issues,

anorexia

(but that's a complex argument).

The Hun is more like the sloppy professor type, not worried about the body,

appearance

etc... Einstein, to be most extreme. Only concerned with ideas and thought and

concepts.

A writer, with coffee and whiskey and cigarettes at his or her side is working

on Hun.

This description (and my understanding) may be simplistic to all the issues but

it has

given me an insight to a lot of my patient's patterns.

The Hun and Po reflect upon each other in an internal process.

And no it's not just a matter of needling the Lung or Liver channels.

> Chinese Medicine , " Greg A.

> Livingston " <drlivingston@> wrote:

> >

> > Does anyone here know where to find reference to Hun and Po

> > staying/leaving the body after death in the classics? I don't

> recall

> > ever reading that in Neijing (no, I haven't read the whole thing),

> or

> > anywhere else in the Chinese literature, and I can't find any

> > reference to it now. There's plenty of reference to Hun and Po in

> > Neijing, but what I can find is all discussion of physiology-

> nothing

> > to do with whether or not these things remain after death and

> where

> > they go. Where does this idea originate?

> >

> > In the end, I still think the latter is of little importance

> > clinically, and certainly should not negate the important role of

> Hun

> > and Po in CM physiology, and the need to understand their

> functions.

> > It should also not lead us to question the " existence " of Hun and

> Po,

> > just as we are not questioning the existence of the Five Zang and

> Six

> > Fu, or various other aspects of CM theory. In my opinion, all these

> > things are physiological phenomenon which do exist, and should not

> be

> > thought of as discrete physical entities.

> >

> > That said, I would not readily accept the idea that Hun and Po

> remain

> > after death and go here or there. Maybe they do, maybe they don't.

> I'm

> > not clever enough to know, and am not prone to faith, so I will

> have

> > to decline to say one way or the other.

> >

> > My two cents...

> >

> > Greg

> >

>

October 18, 2007

Hi Doug:

I believe her material is based on Worsley Five Elements and her

clinical practice. IMHO is great for a certain view, it does not

focus on the spiritual aspect, more emotional/psycholigical

viewpoint. I do recommend the book to any practioner into five

phases.

regards,

david

Chinese Medicine , " Douglas

" wrote:

>

> Shen- the new Rossi book is very good on this discussion. I can't

remember where she got

> her sources from obviously but it is very knowledgable. From what

I remember, Po is what

> seeps back into bones and stays with the (decaying) body, Hun

leaves the earthly realm. Po

> is what might be used in ritual.

>

> I've found her ideas helpful in the clinic. I'll present 2 stereo

types- not to offend anyone:

> Briefly, the Po centered person is the exercise addict (or

Brittany Spears) who is only

> concerned with matters of the body. The person running a marathon

is using Po to achieve

> the next mile. It also, according to Rossi, a component of auto

immune issues, anorexia

> (but that's a complex argument).

>

> The Hun is more like the sloppy professor type, not worried about

the body, appearance

> etc... Einstein, to be most extreme. Only concerned with ideas and

thought and concepts.

> A writer, with coffee and whiskey and cigarettes at his or her

side is working on Hun.

> This description (and my understanding) may be simplistic to all

the issues but it has

> given me an insight to a lot of my patient's patterns.

>

> The Hun and Po reflect upon each other in an internal process.

>

> And no it's not just a matter of needling the Lung or Liver

channels.

>

> > Chinese Medicine , " Greg A.

> > Livingston " <drlivingston@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Does anyone here know where to find reference to Hun and Po

> > > staying/leaving the body after death in the classics? I don't

> > recall

> > > ever reading that in Neijing (no, I haven't read the whole

thing),

> > or

> > > anywhere else in the Chinese literature, and I can't find any

> > > reference to it now. There's plenty of reference to Hun and Po

in

> > > Neijing, but what I can find is all discussion of physiology-

> > nothing

> > > to do with whether or not these things remain after death and

> > where

> > > they go. Where does this idea originate?

> > >

> > > In the end, I still think the latter is of little importance

> > > clinically, and certainly should not negate the important role

of

> > Hun

> > > and Po in CM physiology, and the need to understand their

> > functions.

> > > It should also not lead us to question the " existence " of Hun

and

> > Po,

> > > just as we are not questioning the existence of the Five Zang

and

> > Six

> > > Fu, or various other aspects of CM theory. In my opinion, all

these

> > > things are physiological phenomenon which do exist, and should

not

> > be

> > > thought of as discrete physical entities.

> > >

> > > That said, I would not readily accept the idea that Hun and Po

> > remain

> > > after death and go here or there. Maybe they do, maybe they

don't.

> > I'm

> > > not clever enough to know, and am not prone to faith, so I

will

> > have

> > > to decline to say one way or the other.

> > >

> > > My two cents...

> > >

> > > Greg

> > >

> >

>

October 18, 2007

Oh, this one's easy.

You said:

" 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. "

Once again, no one said or implied anything like this, other than you. You said

this. I realise that, in your mind, you have sidestepped this issue

successfully, but I am unimpressed.

Hugo

_________

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

now.

http://uk.answers./

October 18, 2007

Hey Steve, I'd just thought I'd drop a note in response to one point you make

below - regarding the souls and particular locations in the body: There is

something that needs to be aknowledged when we feel emotions in different parts

of our bodies, consistently. For example, anxiety in the chest. We would be

remiss to ignore this phenomena. We don't have to label the different sensations

spirits or whatever, however labelling them according to psychological states

and leaving it at that may be found to be insufficient upon close examination of

the phenomena.

Hugo

steve brinkop <littleprince_s

Chinese Medicine

Tuesday, 16 October, 2007 11:51:46 PM

Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

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 18, 2007

Hi,

Universal applicability is possible? Western medicine doesn't achieve the same

rates of success with standard procedures throughout the world, did you know

that?

Hugo

establishment_man <establishment_man

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, 17 October, 2007 9:23:52 AM

Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

Zev,

I agree with part of your post. You said

*Shen, hun and po are not easily understood because of cultural

specifics about mind and spirit that need to be studied in depth.

In studying Chinese medicine, one has to also study Chinese culture

as well, especially what Chinese medicine means by 'spirit' in the

first place.*

It seems to me that this would be true if we were scholars, or

anthropologists. But, since we are doctors it seems to me that the

medical principles being applied must be universally true, and not

culturally specific. I think that it was the translator, Thomas

Cleary who said *Qi is as much Chinese as Electricity is American.*

As non-Chinese doctors of CM, shouldn't we accept those aspects of

CM that are universally applicable, and reject those aspects that

are culturally reliant?

EM

Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " Z'ev

Rosenberg " <zrosenbe@.. .> wrote:

>

> Dr. Namnguyen,

> I must strongly disagree with you here. If engaging in the

topic

> of Chinese medicine, we must discuss all aspects of the medical

> tradition. Who cares what our WM friends 'think'? Are we so

> embarrassed by Chinese medicine that we cannot discuss its full

> details? Anyone who is truly interested in the subject should try

to

> understand it as completely as possible, not just take what 'fits

in'

> with one's preconceptions. In trying to conform to modern

Western

> expectations, the very soul of Chinese medicine is forgotten.

Shen,

> hun and po are not easily understood because of cultural

specifics

> about mind and spirit that need to be studied in depth. In

studying

> Chinese medicine, one has to also study Chinese culture as well,

> especially what Chinese medicine means by 'spirit' in the first

place.

> In my own studies and practice, I've found a gold mine of

> material on the psyche in Chinese medicine in discussions on

shen,

> hun, po, yi and zhi. Medicine is not just about the body,

divorcing

> the mind and emotions. That is post-Cartesian dualism. Medicine

> includes the entire human being as well. Western medicine's

roots,

> which one can find in the writings of such physicians as Sir

William

> Osler, the great Oxford physician includes these ideas as well.

>

> Z " ev Rosenberg

> On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:15 AM, dr_namnguyen58 wrote:

>

> > Steve,

> > I think your are right about Soul, Hun, and Po. We should not

> > mention these terms to our WM friends. It does mean nothing to

them

> > and it does make us look stupid. It does not convince me either

for I

> > do not even know or ever seen them. What do they looklike, smell

or

> > feel? Nothing can describe them?

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

>

October 18, 2007

Hugo,

What is an example (documented please) of Western medicine not

achieving the same rates of success with standard procedures

throughout the world?

EM

Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro

<subincor wrote:

>

> Hi,

> Universal applicability is possible? Western medicine doesn't

achieve the same rates of success with standard procedures

throughout the world, did you know that?

>

> Hugo

>

> establishment_man <establishment_man

> Chinese Medicine

> Wednesday, 17 October, 2007 9:23:52 AM

> Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

>

Zev,

>

> I agree with part of your post. You said

>

> *Shen, hun and po are not easily understood because of cultural

>

> specifics about mind and spirit that need to be studied in

depth.

>

> In studying Chinese medicine, one has to also study Chinese

culture

>

> as well, especially what Chinese medicine means by 'spirit' in the

>

> first place.*

>

> It seems to me that this would be true if we were scholars, or

>

> anthropologists. But, since we are doctors it seems to me that the

>

> medical principles being applied must be universally true, and not

>

> culturally specific. I think that it was the translator, Thomas

>

> Cleary who said *Qi is as much Chinese as Electricity is American.*

>

> As non-Chinese doctors of CM, shouldn't we accept those aspects of

>

> CM that are universally applicable, and reject those aspects that

>

> are culturally reliant?

>

> EM

>

> EM

>

> Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , " Z'ev

>

> Rosenberg " <zrosenbe@ .> wrote:

>

> >

>

> > Dr. Namnguyen,

>

> > I must strongly disagree with you here. If engaging in the

>

> topic

>

> > of Chinese medicine, we must discuss all aspects of the medical

>

> > tradition. Who cares what our WM friends 'think'? Are we so

>

> > embarrassed by Chinese medicine that we cannot discuss its full

>

> > details? Anyone who is truly interested in the subject should

try

>

> to

>

> > understand it as completely as possible, not just take

what 'fits

>

> in'

>

> > with one's preconceptions. In trying to conform to modern

>

> Western

>

> > expectations, the very soul of Chinese medicine is forgotten.

>

> Shen,

>

> > hun and po are not easily understood because of cultural

>

> specifics

>

> > about mind and spirit that need to be studied in depth. In

>

> studying

>

> > Chinese medicine, one has to also study Chinese culture as

well,

>

> > especially what Chinese medicine means by 'spirit' in the first

>

> place.

>

> > In my own studies and practice, I've found a gold mine of

>

> > material on the psyche in Chinese medicine in discussions on

>

> shen,

>

> > hun, po, yi and zhi. Medicine is not just about the body,

>

> divorcing

>

> > the mind and emotions. That is post-Cartesian dualism.

Medicine

>

> > includes the entire human being as well. Western medicine's

>

> roots,

>

> > which one can find in the writings of such physicians as Sir

>

> William

>

> > Osler, the great Oxford physician includes these ideas as well.

>

> >

>

> > Z " ev Rosenberg

>

> > On Oct 17, 2007, at 6:15 AM, dr_namnguyen58 wrote:

>

> >

>

> > > Steve,

>

> > > I think your are right about Soul, Hun, and Po. We should not

>

> > > mention these terms to our WM friends. It does mean nothing to

>

> them

>

> > > and it does make us look stupid. It does not convince me

either

>

> for I

>

> > > do not even know or ever seen them. What do they looklike,

smell

>

> or

>

> > > feel? Nothing can describe them?

>

> >

>

> >

>

> > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

>

> > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

>

> > San Diego, Ca. 92122

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

>

> >

October 18, 2007

Hi Dave. Yeah, I've read quite a bit of his stuff. If he's right...in my

opinion what he has is a model which nicely fits in to the leading edge of

western thinking. For me, that's all it is. It does, I admit, to me, smack of

the common western paternalism.

Hugo

dmvitello01 <dmvitello

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, 17 October, 2007 10:40:54 AM

Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

CHA,

For all those interested in this post, I recommend you to the works

of Ken Wilber especially his book " A Breif hx of Everything " . His

model clearly looks at the developmental stages of human/socities

that can easily be correlated to OM. This helped me out

dramatically with the issues posed in this post.

Basically, each stage of OM's evolution has its " partial truths " and

indeed its own problems and short comings. KW's theory also

maintains that as the people, sociteis, and medicines evolve, they

are inherently finding more and more " truth " . He definelty finds

folley in romanticsim, as do I, though it is prevalent in OM. His

theory clearly states that the best we can do is incorporate the

partial truths of premodern, modern and postmodern sources, and to

integrate them. This is what I believe we are all trying to do in

some way or another. His model will help us!

Dave V

Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , steve brinkop

<littleprince_ s wrote:

>

> 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 18, 2007

Hi Stephen,

" TempOro-Centrism " , if I may correct your typo. In some philosophical circles

it is referred to as " the arrogance of the present " .

As far as " ethnocentrism " call it what it is - it is racism and that very

primal " fear of the other " . It was only very recently, just over a century ago,

that Canada was imposing a head-tax on chinese and essentially forcing them to

work as human canaries in mines. Barbaric and racist.

I was at an (all-chinese) association meeting a few years ago, and I remember

the anger that these usually polite and reserved individuals had on this topic.

They felt fully that these sorts of ideas were racist in part. At that same

meeting, a nurse from the public health department came to teach us about

cleanliness and the importance of wearing gloves while needling. She made snide

remarks that she " understood " that there were fine sensations to be felt

throughout the needling, and that yet neurosurgeons had no problems wearing

gloves. Not only did she engage in nothing more than a " my penis is bigger than

your penis " game, but she totally sidestepped the issue of why the needles are

preferred to be metallic. A very gentle old doctor tried to make this point, but

while she did seem to appreciate his kind demeanour, I believe she could not

intellectually understand him.

I was seriously offended by her presentation, and made some points about

cleanliness and infection and re-infection rates at hospitals when I had my

turn. Not that it made any difference.

Hugo

stephen woodley <learntcm

Chinese Medicine ;

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, 17 October, 2007 11:36:56 AM

Re: Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

We need to be very careful with succumbing to Ethnocentrism… forgive my

judgment, but I have interpreted some posts in this way.

Is there such a thing as “Tempro-centrism” ?

I think that our society has a powerful bias of superiority…not only do

we find it difficult to validate the experiences of other individuals,

but also people of other cultures and maybe to the greatest extent,

people of another time.

We, as modern Westerners, think that new knowledge is somehow always

superior to wisdom knowledge…we seem to think that the solutions are

always in the future…are they?

Why does the Nei Jing Su Wen start with the admonishment of not being

hung up on the small things in life? Why did they tell us that this

action would make our lives shorter and less fulfilling?

Finally…I forget who posted this idea…but I must say that it might be

the most important point…

Maybe we need to spend a couple hundred years trying to truly learn and

understand the real essence of this medicine before we start fixing it,

modifying it and using “cut and paste” mentalities toward it….

Just a liver qi point of view

Stephen Woodley LAc

--

http://www.fastmail .fm - A no graphics, no pop-ups email service

<!--

#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:upp\

ercase;}

#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-ri\

ght:.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;}

-->

_________

Want ideas for reducing your carbon footprint? Visit For Good

http://uk.promotions./forgood/environment.html

October 18, 2007

Hi Par,

I enjoyed your post: one comment:

I felt you put too fine a point on the issue I quoted below. I personally don't

buy the delusion that there is a system...somewhere...that is truly standardised

or /not/ culturally bound. All systems are culturally bound and impossible to

standardise.

For example, western medicine as practiced by Russians, Western Europeans and

North Americans are three very distinct schools. i.e., not standardised to the

degree they're supposed to be. Europeans regularly refer to the second kidney

(taking both " actual " kidneys to be the " first " kidney) - a concept (and

_organ_) that is not recognised at all in North America.

Standardisation practices always involve, to some degree or another,

procrustean bed scenarios.

Hugo

Par Scott <parufus

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, 17 October, 2007 1:37:24 PM

Re: Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

inside, and while Chinese medicine is definitely a profoundly

non-homogeneous and culture bound system,

October 18, 2007

Hi Greg,

Thank you for the information,

" However in the West it seems more people know about these aspects than the

clinically

relevant aspects. "

You are right to say that the aspect of survival after death and so on is not

clinically important in most cases, however, it is of vital importance in order

to progress beyond basic stages of Qi Gong training. If I ever made a big show

of it, it is because of Qi Gong development. As you might be implying for

yourself, I rarely think of this issue in clinic.

" I agree that romanticism and projection are serious problems plaguing CM in the

West. Let's go beyond that and see what's really there so we can all become

better clinicians. "

I will continue to beat my drum, at no great risk to myself, and say that

projection (and perhaps romanticism and it's opposing force cynicism) remains

one of the greatest problems of human kind, perhaps especially in modern

culture, though I could be wrong about the " especially " part.

One of the great challenges of our modern times is growing up past our

romanticism regarding western science as the one true clear beacon of truth,

reason and all good things. And furthermore, the only one that has ever existed

(!!). Hubris, is the word.

Hugo

Greg A. Livingston <drlivingston

Chinese Medicine

Wednesday, 17 October, 2007 6:24:18 PM

Re: The Soul / Shen / Hun etc.

aspects of Hun and Po, at least for clinicians.