Guest guest Posted August 28, 2004 Report Share Posted August 28, 2004 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: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2004 Report Share Posted August 29, 2004 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: > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2004 Report Share Posted August 29, 2004 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... - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 29, 2004 Report Share Posted August 29, 2004 , " " <@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. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.