Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

disease is inevitable?

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

from

 

An Interview With Dr. Paul Unschuld, Part Two

 

Interview by Matthew Bauer, LAc at

 

http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2004/aug/08bauerunschuld.html

 

PU: I have discussed the proximities between the Su Wen doctrines and

Confucianism, and I have pointed out why they conflict with Daoist

world views. For example, the Su Wen promises, at its very beginning in

treatise 1: “When essence and spirit are guarded internally, where

could a disease come from?” Disease, the reader of this rhetorical

question is informed, can be avoided as long as a person’s behavior

serves to guard the organism’s central material and nonmaterial

constituents, that is, essence and spirit.

 

The advice to follow “rules” or “laws” is linked to the promise of

health. This is, of course, in contrast to a Daoist conviction that the

material body cannot escape illness. A later, albeit pre-Tang

commentary introduced this notion into Su Wen treatise 68: “Without

physical appearance there is no suffering.” That is to say, the fact

that human life is tied to a physical appearance, i.e. to a body, makes

illness an unavoidable facet of life.

 

 

My comment: I have been mulling this since I first read it over a

month ago. I thought it odd that the confucian view was presented as

the one that said disease could be avoided through proper lifestyle

(i.e. following the rules). I always thought it was the confucians who

accepted the eventual decay and death of all things and the daoists who

believed that immortality is possible through certain practices.

though perhaps the daoist approach to longevity was more about breaking

the rules than following them. All things die. To live forever is to

violate nature. I think western medicine has a similar perspective.

You just take stuff and do things to endure the inevitable and maybe

prolong life (consider all the fuss about stem cells). WM is certainly

not about following certain rules. But what about diet and sex.

Weren't daoists concerned about such matters. If disease is

inevitable, why bother with rules?

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think what matters is quality of life, not quantity. Some may say

that an excess of food, sex, and drugs makes for a better quality of

life, but of course those high moments are fleeting and lead to

disease. In my youth I certainly lived the life of excess, and

suffered for it as I got older. Now I see that if you can be vital

and thriving for your age, you are capable of taking in the best that

life has to offer. I wish that I had grasped this in my youth!

 

 

 

,

wrote:

> from

>

> An Interview With Dr. Paul Unschuld, Part Two

>

> Interview by Matthew Bauer, LAc at

>

>

http://www.acupuncturetoday.com/archives2004/aug/08bauerunschuld.html

>

> PU: I have discussed the proximities between the Su Wen doctrines

and

> Confucianism, and I have pointed out why they conflict with Daoist

> world views. For example, the Su Wen promises, at its very

beginning in

> treatise 1: " When essence and spirit are guarded internally, where

> could a disease come from? " Disease, the reader of this rhetorical

> question is informed, can be avoided as long as a person's behavior

> serves to guard the organism's central material and nonmaterial

> constituents, that is, essence and spirit.

>

> The advice to follow " rules " or " laws " is linked to the promise of

> health. This is, of course, in contrast to a Daoist conviction that

the

> material body cannot escape illness. A later, albeit pre-Tang

> commentary introduced this notion into Su Wen treatise 68: " Without

> physical appearance there is no suffering. " That is to say, the

fact

> that human life is tied to a physical appearance, i.e. to a body,

makes

> illness an unavoidable facet of life.

>

>

> My comment: I have been mulling this since I first read it over a

> month ago. I thought it odd that the confucian view was presented

as

> the one that said disease could be avoided through proper lifestyle

> (i.e. following the rules). I always thought it was the confucians

who

> accepted the eventual decay and death of all things and the daoists

who

> believed that immortality is possible through certain practices.

> though perhaps the daoist approach to longevity was more about

breaking

> the rules than following them. All things die. To live forever is

to

> violate nature. I think western medicine has a similar

perspective.

> You just take stuff and do things to endure the inevitable and

maybe

> prolong life (consider all the fuss about stem cells). WM is

certainly

> not about following certain rules. But what about diet and sex.

> Weren't daoists concerned about such matters. If disease is

> inevitable, why bother with rules?

>

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

>

> FAX:

>

>

Link to comment
Share on other sites

PU: I have discussed the proximities between the Su Wen doctrines and

Confucianism, and I have pointed out why they conflict with Daoist

world views. For example, the Su Wen promises, at its very beginning in

treatise 1: " When essence and spirit are guarded internally, where

could a disease come from? " Disease, the reader of this rhetorical

question is informed, can be avoided as long as a person's behavior

serves to guard the organism's central material and nonmaterial

constituents, that is, essence and spirit.

 

The advice to follow " rules " or " laws " is linked to the promise of

health. This is, of course, in contrast to a Daoist conviction that the

material body cannot escape illness. A later, albeit pre-Tang

commentary introduced this notion into Su Wen treatise 68: " Without

physical appearance there is no suffering. " That is to say, the fact

that human life is tied to a physical appearance, i.e. to a body, makes

illness an unavoidable facet of life.

 

 

My comment: I have been mulling this since I first read it over a

month ago. I thought it odd that the confucian view was presented as

the one that said disease could be avoided through proper lifestyle

(i.e. following the rules).

 

[Jason]

I find this part to completely make sense from a political perspective. Keep

people in line with the rules. Just like, 'hey if everybody is good then

they will go to heaven.' They seem to be daggling the carrot. I don't

think they were denying death, just illness in the present. In contrast, the

daoist seem to be all about following the natural order, and if they saw

illness inevitable then maybe seeking immortality was a very non-daoist

action. I think the latter is what you are saying...

 

-

Link to comment
Share on other sites

, " " <@c...>

wrote:

In contrast, the

> daoist seem to be all about following the natural order, and if they saw

> illness inevitable then maybe seeking immortality was a very non-daoist

> action. I think the latter is what you are saying...

 

 

Perhaps. I was wondering if the English language literature is overrepresented

with the

topic of daoist immortality questing. Was this actually more of a fringe

pursuit in Chinese

culture? Another thought is what is natural? The confucian view seems to be of

a

repeating cycle, one in which order can be found. So change is embraced, but

only to a

point. Because change is only OK if you continue to cycle back to where you

have been.

And restorationof rules and rituals was a primary goal of Confucius and his

followers. Daoism is all about change, on the other hand. And also political

radicalism.

Needham writes most eloquently on this topic. Long before the beatniks or

hippies,

Needham describes a group of political radicals who went back to nature and

learned

about herbs and mysticism from local wu-shamans.

 

Daoism has been focused on transcendence of one bonds to conditioning as well as

harmoniziing one's life with the dao. But nature or earth is only part of the

dao. Heaven

or spirit is the other part. And here I am talking from a daoist perspective,

not necessarily

one embraced by most TCM writers who were more confucian. So in order to

hamrnize

with the dao, one must transcend one's bonds to nature. However, the solution

is not

escape or repression of nature. The opposite extreme of looking only inward or

upward

as some ascetics do is not transcendance, but denial. Modernists tend to be in

their heads

and not connected to nature. Pagan types tend towards the reverse. I think the

highest

form of daoism is neither of these but a transcendance of both that includes

both heaven

and earth at a higher order of integration.

 

It is the heavenly froces that allow consciousness to develop in humans. There

is a daoist

idea that precedes modern anthropology by centuries which postulates that

standing

upright gives humans a uniqe relationship to heavenand earth not found in

animals who

walk on all fours. Standing upright allows one to balance both heavenly and

earthly

forces. Animals are pinned to the earth in their posture. The human mind

evolves as a

result of this connection and the advances of the mind are passed on through

culture and

knowledge, not only genes. Thus, what is " natural " for humans is not the same

as what is

nature, per se. For example, we live a very long lifespan already that far

exceeds any

" natural " reason to do so. We don't contribute to the ecology of the planet so

we are an

extraneous species in that regard. so why are we here, then? It can't just be

about

harmonizing with nature. Nature is a guide to strengthen the physical body.

The study of

nature also informs us about the general nature of interactive dynamic systems.

 

So the question is even though disease is inevitable when following nature's

laws, is it

possible to transcend these bonds by applying heaven's laws (i.e. those of mind

and spirit)

to the equation. For example, animals and primitive humans did not understand

hygiene

and were thus often sick from infections. The fossil record proves this despite

continuing

romanticism in some circles about pristine health of native creatures. The mere

application of soap and water as necessary basically eliminated much of this

" natural "

phenomena. It was our minds that figured out soap and water and thus thwarted

nature.

 

Now we have gone too far with antibacterial everything, but that is the nature

of the mind.

Like nature, it is an unruly force that often find balance through catastrophe.

Similarly

while current livesaving techniques are not worth the suffering to squeeze out a

few more

days or weeks, this might not be true of stem cell therapy. In other words, if

the mind is

part of the dao and part of our natural heritage, then perhaps it may not be

" natural " for

humans to reproduce and die at all. Perhaps the dao of humans is to use their

minds to

discover how to transcend the bonds of nature without disrupting the

environment.

Perhaps instead of rutting pigs, we are actually meant to be immortal sages.

Perhaps a

pipe dream, but a persistent theme in both mythology and fiction for millennia.

What the

world be like if we all spent our time developing, maturing and evolving for

centuries

instead of spending all one's energy to raise children to our own level of

immaturity and

then die just so the cycle of undeveloped souls trapped in a ratrace will keep

going on

forever.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...