research methodology and experimental design

[Guest guest]

See my comment to Bob about the Taoism today. Certainly, CM does have a number

of influences, I'm responding to that particular aspect that is (or isn't) the

Big S Shen.

 

As to Jeffery Yuen and you, that is fair, I shouldn't assume that everything you

say comes from him but still, you didn't respond to Bob's inquiry. I remember

that your comment were very similar to those of Jeffery's.

 

Doug

 

 

, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern

wrote:

>

> Doug wrote:

>

> " Let me be naive... when we Westerners look for sem-nyid / Shen issues in

> CM, does the medicine (tend to) default to Taoism? "

>

> I don't think we have to " default to Daoists, " though during the history of

> Chinese thought, Confuscian influences tended to exert more influence over

> ones social relations and Daoism tended to relate more to one's relations

> with the universe.

[Guest guest]

Z'ev, Steve,

 

Z'ev, I agree. The fact that standard professional Chinese medicine does not

make use of Spirit in any real clinical way is probably to its advantage. I

pointed to Tibetan medicine only as a " kissing cousin " of CM that does have the

big-S Spirit as an integral part. However, because of its religious specificity,

it's not ever going to enjoy the wide dissemination in the West that CM does.

interestingly, even within the American Tibetan Buddhist community, more people

make use of CM even when TM is available.

 

As you say, and I most definitely agree, the lack of a specific teaching and

clinical application of Spirit in CM allows each of us to approach this issue in

our own personal ways. Excellent! We have our cake and eat it too. So how 'bout

we leave things where they are and not continue to try to read large-S Spirit

into CM where it textually simply isn't there.

 

Yes, Steve, there are one or two lines here and there in the classics that can

be interpreted as large-S Spirit. But there is simply no main-line and

especially no main-line extant tradition making this an important part of its

clinical theory and practice. To say or think otherwise is simply historically

untrue. It hasn't been true for at least 1,000 years (since the Jin-Yuan). The

Tang and Song were the last Chinese dynasties where you can find large

religious-cum-medical movements.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Doug,

 

Confucianism, no. Neoconfusicianism, yes, and the famous Jin-Yuan doctors were

influenced by Neoconfucianism. However, interestingly, they weren't influenced

by that part of Neoconfucianism. As for Daoism, sure, Daoism played a role in

the development of CM, but again, not that aspect of Daoism. If one wants to be

a Daoist and a CM practitioner, great, just the same way I'm a Tibetan Buddhist

and a CM doc and Z'ev is Kabbalist and a CM doc. What is it about us that can't

let things be just like that?

 

Here's one possible answer to my last question. Z'ev, Lonnie, and I have found

our big-S Spiritual paths. However, most people have not, meaning that, for most

people, there is a vague yearning but no commitment to one pathway. Just a

suggestion, but if someone has found a big-S path and are actively moving along

it, they have no particular need to try to impose a big-S view on CM where it

doesn't really exist in any standard, professional, clinical way.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Well Bob, I'm sure my thousands of patients would be surprised to know that

I haven't been practicing clinical Chinese medicine for all these years --

since being misled by my studies with Jeffrey Yuen. I assure you they don't

believe I've been practicing " arm chair philosophy " with them for all these

years, though I don't think they'd mind my work being called " applied

clinical philosophy. "

 

You're certainly correct to point out that CM theory underwent substantial

changes early in the Song era. Indeed, the ideas I presented earlier in this

thread about the channel systems were pre-Song acupuncture theory, which

derives directly from *Lingshu*. And why not? I'm not willing to allow

political decisions made by the Imperial Academy of Medicine a thousand

years ago, which truncated and simplified acupuncture theory, to limit my

efforts to learn clinically valuable ways to practice. I'm not subject to

their suppression of the rich inquiry into the nature of human life that lay

at the core of CM. [bTW, there's another very good practical reason that

certain ideas about CM, such as discourses on the systems of channels (other

than the " primary channels " ) after the Tang era were never written --

defying the will of the Emperor was a good way to lose one's head, or at

least be sent to the tropical jungles to the south to meet an early demise.]

 

 

Relative to acupuncture theory especially, the Imperial Academy used the

newly developed technology of mechanical printing to mount a propaganda

campaign against the systems of channels (other than the primaries). Why

must we submit to their (post-Song Imperial) ideas of what is " main line " in

Chinese medicine? My patients deserve a richer theory of acupuncture -- the

classical (*Neijing*) theory, if I can discern how to use it. And I'm

certainly not the first practitioner to ever say so. Indeed, even while the

Imperial government " modernized " CM theory and practice over the centuries,

individual physicians such as Xu Dachun (Hsu Ta-ch'un) called for a return

to pre-Song (classically rooted) ideas.

 

As for there not being an " extant tradition " from which I learned -- thank

you for ascribing a much higher degree of brilliance to me than I deserve!

If I didn't learn how to study and interpret *Neijing* from an extant

tradition, I must have figured it out by myself. Of course, that's far more

than any single person could do in an entire lifetime. (Or, maybe you think

Jeffrey made it all up? Well, he's not that brilliant, either!) Your

vociferous declaration that such an historical tradition of interpreting *

Neijing* doesn't exist, fails to make it so.

 

While (capital " S " ) Spirit may not appear in modern (post-Song) clinical

theories of CM, it most certainly does in the classical inquiry into the

nature of individual human life that lay the foundation for all those

theories. Of course, the Chinese were practical people -- even in their

classical CM traditions, so they focused more on how Spirit individuates to

become an embodied spirit, and how the individual's deeply embedded

attachments are projected throughout their lives to cloud them from their

own pure Spirit, rather than pontificating about the ultimate source of

their activation -- their yang, before it has become entangled in their

individual attachments.

 

However Z'ev and Bob, recognizing Spirit as the source of yang does not

entail that I (or anyone else) to any religious doctrine or

belief. I am not now, and never have been, a " Daoist. " Yet, I can be

inspired by many ideas in my inquiry into the subtle and complex nature of

human life, and how to interact with individuals therapeutically to

stimulate their intrinsic capacity to heal. I submit that each individual's

intrinsic capacity to *heal* (in contrast to simply controlling more

effectively the manifestations of disease) comes from an individual's

willingness to release his or her personal struggles and allow (in some

greater measure) " pure " Spirit to flow through them and move/transform old

stagnation that had been generating disease. Profound healing certainly

doesn't come from an individual's attachment to (and struggle with) the

limitations and embedded conflicts of his or her personal point of view; it

comes from releasing those limitations to allow the intrinsic flow to

emerge.

 

So Bob, what should we call this source of " pure " yang -- wei qi that has *not

been conditioned* by the individual's habituated personal attachments? [bTW,

these personal attachments are projected by the channel distinctions onto

the primary channels -- yes, we're back to *Lingshu* chapter 11; after all

Huang Fumi did note (Jiayijing, Book 2 chapter 1) that superior physicians

learns to be familiar with the *jingbie*.] What shall we call this source of

activation -- this source of life, which is also the source of healing

beyond disease management?

 

When this " ultimate " source of yang becomes entangled by each individual's

personal attachments and struggles (held among other " places " in the channel

distinctions), it expresses in the individual's (small " s " ) shen guiding

one's path through life and expressing as one's individual way of

implementing their potential to live. The embodied expressions of this

limited shen include both:

 

- the suspension of unresolved pathogenic factors (which arise in large

part from the shen's attachment and projection of individual point of view)

in the channel divergences and luo

- the eventual overwhelming of that capacity to store unresolved

pathogenic factors, leading to one's eventual overt expression of disease.

 

I call the source of activation that *precedes any personal

attachments* " Spirit. " What would you like to call it?

 

Steve

CCMforHealing.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern

wrote:

Or, maybe you think

> Jeffrey made it all up? Well, he's not that brilliant, either!

 

I've heard that Jeffrey says that he " channels " his information (I heard he

claims to channel Huang Di, in fact). Is that true?

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Steve,

 

Sorry, my use of the word " clinical " was specifically in relationship to the use

of the word large-S " Spirit " within mainline Chinese medicine. I did not mean to

infer that you or anyone else was not a clinician or that you are not an

effective clinician. However, simply put, from your own description of some of

your or your teacher's theories, you are not practicing " standard professional

Chinese medicine " which is a specific, historically verifiable style which

developed based on consensus over 2,500 years, i.e., mainline professional

Chinese medicine.

 

What Jeffrey Yuen is teaching is some other version of Chinese medicine. There

is standard professional Chinese medicine, with it's fairly well-defined corpus

of literature, theories, terminology, normative values, and techniques, and

there are other, idiosyncratic, less well-known, less widely practiced styles. I

see no problem with that. If Jeffrey's style works for you, great. No one is

arguing with you about efficacy. But please don't confuse the scholarly,

semantic, and historical issues we are dealing with here.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Eric and everyone,

 

I've never actually heard Jeffrey claim to channel his information, though

he's not denied it either when others say such things. A couple of his long

time students have told me that they see him do it. As I've said several

times on this list, such claims *do not* recommend his teachings to me. I

examine them for cogency, and accept them on those grounds, and generally

also seek independent historical/philosophical and certainly clinical

confirmation of ideas before I claim them as mine.

 

I doubt that Huangdi would be " someone " he would channel, as he has clearly

stated that he doesn't consider Huangdi an historical figure. I believe that

Huangdi is generally considered a " legendary Emperor, " and also the name of

a sect of people during the Warring States period. So no, I feel quite

certain that he would not accept that claim.

 

Steve

CCMforHealing.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Eric, I have heard the same recently through this chat group. Some have even

quoted him using official transcripts; so apparently some of that is true.

However, I have been to many of his courses (about 2-3 a year for the past 3

years) and I have never heard such talk. Jeff is actually very impressive with

citing exactly what classical text the information he is talking about comes

from throughout the entire lecture.

 

This may have been common for him in the past, but I can assure you he does

nothing of the sort these days and is truly shocking to hear he once did…

 

Joey Bedrosian

Golden Needle Acupuncture, Herbal, & Medical Supply

866.222.2999 ~ Phone

828-670-8610 ~ Fax

Info ~ Email

www.GoldenNeedleOnline.com ~ Website

 

 

 

 

________________________________

smilinglotus <smilinglotus

 

Tue, February 23, 2010 2:46:41 PM

Re: Research methodology and experimental design

 

 

, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern@ ...>

wrote:

Or, maybe you think

> Jeffrey made it all up? Well, he's not that brilliant, either!

 

I've heard that Jeffrey says that he " channels " his information (I heard he

claims to channel Huang Di, in fact). Is that true?

 

Eric

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steven,

I certainly don't disagree with your points or stance. I like what Sun

Si-miao says about the Nei Jing, to quote, " if you do not read the Nei Jing you

will not know the virtue of mercy, sorrow, happiness, giving. " Clearly we are

talking about more than just point prescriptions and channels. The authors of

the Nei Jing were clearly very special people indeed, whether they were coming

from Spirit, I couldn't tell, but it is certainly a very inspired work.

 

I think we are talking about boundaries in what is taught and transmitted to

students and patients. We all agree that spiritual development in practitioners

of Chinese medicine is optimal, however, that inspiration is filtered through

the vessel of medicine. It is not my role, at least, to teach Kabbalah to PCOM

students, or prescribe Hebrew amulets to my patients. Chinese medicine is a

very flexible, almost universal medium to express compassion in a very practical

setting.

 

I think the work you are doing is ground-breaking, in investigating the

channels and networks in the full, unedited 'version' that was pre-Song dynasty.

I think this information should be available to everyone who wants it, and I'll

endorse what you do any time. .

 

 

On Feb 23, 2010, at 7:09 AM, Steven Alpern wrote:

 

> However Z'ev and Bob, recognizing Spirit as the source of yang does not

> entail that I (or anyone else) to any religious doctrine or

> belief. I am not now, and never have been, a " Daoist. " Yet, I can be

> inspired by many ideas in my inquiry into the subtle and complex nature of

> human life, and how to interact with individuals therapeutically to

> stimulate their intrinsic capacity to heal. I submit that each individual's

> intrinsic capacity to *heal* (in contrast to simply controlling more

> effectively the manifestations of disease) comes from an individual's

> willingness to release his or her personal struggles and allow (in some

> greater measure) " pure " Spirit to flow through them and move/transform old

> stagnation that had been generating disease. Profound healing certainly

> doesn't come from an individual's attachment to (and struggle with) the

> limitations and embedded conflicts of his or her personal point of view; it

> comes from releasing those limitations to allow the intrinsic flow to

> emerge.

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Joey Bedrosian <nrgcreator

wrote:

> Hi Eric, I have heard the same recently through this chat group. Some have

even quoted him using official transcripts; so apparently some of that is true.

However, I have been to many of his courses (about 2-3 a year for the past 3

years) and I have never heard such talk. Jeff is actually very impressive with

citing exactly what classical text the information he is talking about comes

from throughout the entire lecture.

 

Hi Joey, thanks for your response. I was curious because I'd heard the

channeling comments from others who attended his workshops, but I've only hear

Jeffrey lecture a few times myself so I didn't know if the stuff about

channeling was real or just rumor.

 

I have heard Jeffrey cite classical texts but I wouldn't go so far as to say

that his citations were " very impressive " because he didn't use any of the

normal Chinese academic style of referencing specific lines. If one listens to

a Chinese lecture that is delivered to other Chinese scholars, there is a

standard way of referencing quotes (Neijing Ch. X says Y, at which point the

whole room of Chinese docs nods their heads because they are familiar with the

specifics of the text). In the few times I've seen Jeffrey, he usually just

says sweeping things like " Neijing says, " which wouldn't really fly if the

audience was composed of highly educated doctors in China. In fact, the reason

I ask about the channeling thing was because a friend was telling me about a JY

lecture in NYC where a senior Chinese faculty member politely raised her hand

and said " sorry to be rude, but I happen to be a bit of a Neijing scholar

myself, and I really don't think the Neijing says that " and his response was

that he channeled Huang Di. I found that a bit hard to believe, and I didn't

want to assume that my friend's story was true without verifying it from people

that have studied in depth with him first-hand. Thanks for the clarification.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Bob, I find your assertion that shen, with a capital " S " is not an intrinsic

perspective within the medicine historically, or currently, to be baseless.

Text's can be read at many levels from the mundane to the subtle and, of course,

we bring our own culturally given values, and our own depth, to our reading of

them. There is much within the medicine that points us to Shen. For example, the

phrase " tong shen ming " that occurs in many texts points us toward Shen as a

highest virtue in the medicine. I'll go so far as to say that Shen

contextualizes the entire medicine and that nothing within CM, no movement or

stasis of qi, in any of its forms, can be understood without Shen as the

absolute reference point.

 

What exists in " standard contemporary CM " is no more of a benchmark for those

awakened to the heart of the medicine than the contents of AM top 40 radio is

for a jazz musician in pursuit of the heart of music. It's one thing for a

scholar of music to analyze the harmonic structure of a piece of music played by

John Coltrane. It's another thing entirely to be in touch with the heart of the

music from the inside out as a player. And it's a step forward again to awaken

to what Mr. Coltrane was awake to, for the sake of taking music further. That's

the highest expression of the " Buddha consciousness " we are talking about-and no

less.

 

Certainly references to Shen are not missing in " contemporary CM literature " if

my texts and the work by Heiner Fruehauf, Claude Larre, Elisabeth Rochat, and

others is taken into account. The primacy of Shen is a central thesis of my own

work and, agree or not, I've sold nearly 14,000 books that are used as standard

texts in many of the CM schools worldwide.

 

I find the notion that an ethnic Chinese has relative credibility in discerning,

or defining, what Chinese medicine is, and is not, in this global world to be an

ethnocentric anachronism best left in the past where it belongs.

 

Lastly, I don't think there is the slightest semantic problem with equating the

character shen with Spirit as long as one is clear about what one is doing and

why.

 

The question is, " is one looking at the issue we are discussing from the

relative, conditioned, separate mind or is one looking at this issue through the

eyes of the top down, absolute, perspective of " Buddha mind? " From the

perspective of consciousness itself " Shen " is an unbroken field and there is no

" inside and outside. " There is no separation between the authentically

" spiritual " and any human endeavor, and certainly not from medicine (as you

recognized in a later post). To suggest there was, is, or ever could be such a

separation is patently false on all counts. Any treatment that does not have

Shen as the absolute reference point for sanity can never aspire to be anything

more than symptomatic in nature. It is only realization of Shen, and the shift

of our self identification to that, that can ever fulfill the promise of the

medicine. Hence we are advised in several texts that " ALL treatment must be

rooted in Spirit " . Wishing you the best going forward into your retreat.

 

Warm regards, Lonny

[Guest guest]

Indeed, Lonny. I believe Spirit abounds in CM; perhaps it's in the eye of

the beholder, as we are each left to interpret " shen " in individual

instances in whatever way make most sense.

 

Also Eric, I'm not sure what happened to this post from yesterday responding

to your initial inquiry about Jeffrey Yuen channeling his information,

because it doesn't appear in the thread as I've continued to receive it.

I'll copy it here:

 

Eric and everyone,

 

I've never actually heard Jeffrey claim to channel his information, though

he's not denied it either when others say such things. A couple of his long

time students have told me that they see him do it. As I've said several

times on this list, such claims *do not* recommend his teachings to me. I

examine them for cogency, and accept them on those grounds, and generally

also seek independent historical/philosophical and certainly clinical

confirmation of ideas before I claim them as mine.

 

I doubt that Huangdi would be " someone " he would channel, as he has clearly

stated that he doesn't consider Huangdi an historical figure. I believe that

Huangdi is generally considered a " legendary Emperor, " and also the name of

a sect of people during the Warring States period. So no, I feel quite

certain that he would not accept that claim.

 

Steve

CCMforHealing.com

 

In relation to your more recent posting and other postings during the past

few days:

 

I agree that a blanket " Neijing says " is not satisfactory. I've encouraged

Jeffrey over the years to be more specific, both in references to Neijing

and for other historical references, because I want to go back and check and

see how I can understand the ideas for myself. My comments in this forum

have been very specific, whether it was Suwen chapter 42 a few weeks ago

with Gloria, or Lingshu chapter 11 (within the context of other early

chapters), and I believe that is the standard we should pursue.

 

Chinese medicine is so vast. Perhaps we could all advance our knowledge more

effectively if we used this forum to clarify our expression in the spirit of

mutual quest to understand. Jeffrey Yuen certainly has both his strengths

and weaknesses as a teacher, but my interpretations and understanding don't

belong to him, nor are they direct extensions of his. I'm certainly willing

to respond to good faith questions about his teachings to the extent that I

can, but the thoughts I express on this board and elsewhere are my own.

 

Steve

CCMforHealing.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

All,

 

I believe all Bob, Eric, Jason, and many of the others on this forum who can

actually read Chinese, have ever tried to do here in this thread, and in every

other discussion over the past several years, was to encourage us to back up our

" claims to fame " , with sound source text. Since literally thousands of texts and

commentaries of Chinese medical texts have been written over the last many

centuries, many of which being a progressive thought pattern built upon by

various preceding scholar physicians, it should be relatively easy for someone

to source their information. If they cannot, then it seems imperative to label

their thinking as their own- original thinking. Otherwise how are the majority

of us western practitioners, who are Chinese illiterate and, quite frankly,

naive, going to be able to separate out what is historically correct, and what

is someone's own idea?

 

This is particularly true for our earliest classics. If our interpretation of

them is different than the historic majority of Chinese scholars, then we need

to question our intentions, particularly if we cannot even read Chinese. How can

anyone be an authority on Classically written Chinese medicine, if they cannot

even read the original text clearly themselves? It seems a bit odd to me.

 

It reminds me of the Buddha painting course I took with a famous painter Gen la

Zoppa when I was living in Tilopa Buddhist Centre. He taught us that the

painting of Buddha's image follows strict rules of conduct. That ones goal was

to try and imitate the teachers as much as possible, so that the image of Buddha

remained in a true likeness as to one painted 2 thousand years ago. Since there

was no photographing technology way back then, one could see why it was

important to follow the rules.

 

Well one of the students in the class was an art therapist. She painted her

Buddha completely from her " feelings " of what Buddha meant to her. She showed it

to the monk, who declared, " this is not Buddha! " . She was heart broken and in

tears. Sad for her, but unfortunately she missed the point. The object was not

to try and paint Buddha from her " interpretation " , it was to try and paint

Buddha as he was painted throughout history, to ensure the survival of his true

image.

 

To me, Bob and others, are just like Gen La Zoppa, in that they want Chinese

medicine in the west to be reflective of Chinese medicine in the East, as the

majority have practiced it over the past several thousand years. How do we know

what the majority practiced? We have thousands of written works to study. Just

look at Unshulds work, whereby he shows very clearly the strict written

tradition of copying out an original piece of work, before building upon it with

ones own ideas and commentary. A reader was often able to separate out what was

original thought and what was added.

 

Just because a " contemporary " practitioner of Chinese medicine has sold over 14

000 books, does not mean that the information in those books represents

authentic Chinese medical thinking, with clearly defined classical ideas. It

only shows that western readers have an interest in the topics discussed, plain

and simple. Books are powerful, in that the author becomes an " authority " on the

that particular topic, regardless if they made it up or used source text

footnotes for every single sentence written within it. We all crave truth to the

mysterious Orient and look to anyone who seems to have an opinion.

 

We are all free to practice as we please. We are all free to have any opinion

that we please. But we should at least be clear to our audiences where the

source of our thinking comes from.

 

I applaud you Bob for your integrity and dedication to bringing Chinese medicine

to the west. You have wanted us all to open our eyes to the massive medical

tradition that exists in Asia, and to get on board and practice with the same

integrity as is displayed within the hospitals there. You have taught me greatly

about the importance of looking to Chinese sources for help in figuring out

questions to the clinical dilemmas that plague us, reminding us that there is a

massive wealth of knowledge there from which to draw upon, rather than trying to

make it up- just because it just fits into some neat little philosophers box

within our minds. You have taught to me to question the medicine that we

practice and understand it's roots- whether authentic or not, and to understand

how to tell the difference.

 

I wish you all the best in your journey within :-)

 

All the best

Trevor

 

, " Lonny " <revolution wrote:

>

> Bob, I find your assertion that shen, with a capital " S " is not an intrinsic

perspective within the medicine historically, or currently, to be baseless.

Text's can be read at many levels from the mundane to the subtle and, of course,

we bring our own culturally given values, and our own depth, to our reading of

them. There is much within the medicine that points us to Shen. For example, the

phrase " tong shen ming " that occurs in many texts points us toward Shen as a

highest virtue in the medicine. I'll go so far as to say that Shen

contextualizes the entire medicine and that nothing within CM, no movement or

stasis of qi, in any of its forms, can be understood without Shen as the

absolute reference point.

>

> What exists in " standard contemporary CM " is no more of a benchmark for those

awakened to the heart of the medicine than the contents of AM top 40 radio is

for a jazz musician in pursuit of the heart of music. It's one thing for a

scholar of music to analyze the harmonic structure of a piece of music played by

John Coltrane. It's another thing entirely to be in touch with the heart of the

music from the inside out as a player. And it's a step forward again to awaken

to what Mr. Coltrane was awake to, for the sake of taking music further. That's

the highest expression of the " Buddha consciousness " we are talking about-and no

less.

>

> Certainly references to Shen are not missing in " contemporary CM literature "

if my texts and the work by Heiner Fruehauf, Claude Larre, Elisabeth Rochat, and

others is taken into account. The primacy of Shen is a central thesis of my own

work and, agree or not, I've sold nearly 14,000 books that are used as standard

texts in many of the CM schools worldwide.

>

> I find the notion that an ethnic Chinese has relative credibility in

discerning, or defining, what Chinese medicine is, and is not, in this global

world to be an ethnocentric anachronism best left in the past where it belongs.

>

> Lastly, I don't think there is the slightest semantic problem with equating

the character shen with Spirit as long as one is clear about what one is doing

and why.

>

> The question is, " is one looking at the issue we are discussing from the

relative, conditioned, separate mind or is one looking at this issue through the

eyes of the top down, absolute, perspective of " Buddha mind? " From the

perspective of consciousness itself " Shen " is an unbroken field and there is no

" inside and outside. " There is no separation between the authentically

" spiritual " and any human endeavor, and certainly not from medicine (as you

recognized in a later post). To suggest there was, is, or ever could be such a

separation is patently false on all counts. Any treatment that does not have

Shen as the absolute reference point for sanity can never aspire to be anything

more than symptomatic in nature. It is only realization of Shen, and the shift

of our self identification to that, that can ever fulfill the promise of the

medicine. Hence we are advised in several texts that " ALL treatment must be

rooted in Spirit " . Wishing you the best going forward into your retreat.

>

> Warm regards, Lonny

>

[Guest guest]

It seems that the treads over the past years that end up with a lot of posts end

up in the same place. When people mix spiritual studies with medicine, it's

always a strange mix, one without any concrete answers or correlations. Religion

itself is a massive study as is medicine - and mixing the two takes careful

consideration and application for the relationship between the patient and

practitioner. Trying to argue 'rightness' of 'invisible' religiomedical

concepts is futile and personal, and completely different from arguing differing

'visible' medical concepts.

 

Geoff

[Guest guest]

Trevor,

 

Thank you very much for this long statement. I really appreciate your

willingness to articulate clearly your values and standards, and those of

some of the most active folks on this list. Your analogy with Gen la Zoppa

is wonderful. It certainly clarifies why you, Bob, Eric, and Jason haven't

responded to any of the points I've made. I get it now -- nothing I write is

legitimate because I don't " actually read Chinese. " Well, in addition to

extensive study of the " coming from " of western thought, which I believes

confounds the efforts of many a scholar who doesn't also embody Chinese

medicine, I've studied Chinese history and thought from very highly

respected translated sources and scholarly works. I've also been using the

five systems of channels and vessels, which are the main topic of the early

chapters of Lingshu that I've been discussing on this thread, so I have some

clinical experience of my own, which is of course the same thing that

qualifies any historical Chinese source to write on this topic.

 

Perhaps the challenge of interpreting Neijing is not in the language, but in

the thinking process. Perhaps it doesn't matter that I use translations,

because the many " thought experiments " posed in Neijing to stimulate the

student to learn to see and understand the dynamic responsive nature of

human life are patently clear in the English translations. The limiting

factor is not language, but the willingness to actively engage a process of

thinking. Challenge me on the substance of my thinking process, if you find

fault with it, but I don't understand your grounds for denying the

legitimacy of my doing it.

 

Perhaps while you've been learning to actually read Chinese, I've been

learning to actually think. Might there be a thinking process that the

inspired authors of Neijing had discerned and encoded into those classics,

which can allow students who figure it out to penetrate into the dynamic and

responsive nature of the embodied spirit? Might it not be about scholarship

alone, but about embodiment and contemplation?

 

For instance, the six divisions of yin and yang aren't just names of paired

channels or " stages " of penetration of shanghan or zhongfeng. They are the

canonical movements of post-natal life. All movements consist of

combinations of those six primal movements, and SHL is not about stages of

penetration, but about the prioritization of responses from the embodied

spirit to the challenge of those external pathogenic factors. There is SO

MUCH to think about in actually learning to use that seemingly simple idea.

Might that be worth exploring?

 

If you want to look at the original Chinese for the points I've discussed,

be my guest. I was very specific exactly what passages I was talking about.

No one challenged, or even commented on, my exegesis of Suwen chapter 42 on

perverse wind several weeks ago. That one picked out points throughout the

chapter and also discussed the sequence of its arrangement. On this thread,

I was also specific about referring to the first few lines of Lingshu

chapter 11. Yet, this discussion would also soon spread to other early

chapters of Lingshu, as I warned, as the jingbie are best discussed relative

to the " primary channels " and the other systems as they are presented

throughout those early chapters of Lingshu.

 

Why this staunch loyalty to your idea of how CM was practiced historically,

based on the writing of scholar-physicians? Of course, it's worth reading

them, and I'm glad that we have a growing number and variety of translations

available. If any of you are working on projects that you make public, thank

you. Yet, scholar-physicians have never been the only source for Chinese

medical wisdom. For one thing many of the best physicians through history

were illiterate. That's why famous literate scholar-physicians, such as Li

Shizhen, travelled so much to gather information from knowledgable

illiterates.

 

There are also substantial cultural differences between the

modern/post-modern west and historical China, and others between historical

China and contemporary China. Why would one think that we should just

transplant Chinese medicine " as is? " I'd venture to say that most of our

patients are more willing to discuss the sources and patterns of their

internal pathogenic factors (unresolved emotional conflicts) than most

Chinese have been over the centuries or continue to be. This is a cultural

difference, but it has bearing on how we practice medicine. Perhaps,

historically Chinese were more willing to discuss their core struggles in

life with their priest. Might it be worthwhile to consider that stream of

Chinese medicine, even though Imperial (literate) medicine has attempted to

suppress it for the past thousand years?

 

Believe it or not, I also honor Bob's contribution to our profession. I just

think he fell victim a bit to " believing his own press " as he became more of

a recognized expert. I met Bob about twenty years ago. We happened to sit

next to each other among a group having lunch during a conference break in

San Francisco. I was several years out of acupuncture school, and filled

with passion about the need to improve CM education. I'd read some of his

early books; I recall specifically " Turtle Tails and Other Tender Mercies, "

so I'm sure I showed him the requisite esteem. In any case, by the end of

lunch, he told me that my understanding of CM was already worthy to join to

public conversation about the profession. I demurred, thinking instead that

I had a lot to learn about CM, because it was patently clear to me that the

Chinese medicine I'd learned in school reeked of modernization. At the time,

I had no idea of the extent and wide variety of historical influences that

contributed to the doctrine I'd learned. I wanted to uncover something

deeper, something that seemed more akin to the Chinese thought and

literature that interested me most. Perhaps I have found something true (and

deeply " Chinese " ) in my quest to find meaning in CM. You and others will

only know if you're willing to consider my work, rather than simply

rejecting it out of hand for spurious reasons. I welcome discussion of, and

even challenges to, the merits of my ideas. Yet, Bob's (and perhaps your)

dismissal of my work during the discussion on this thread has been premature

and inaccurate.

 

Steve

CCMforHealing.com

 

On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:40 PM, trevor_erikson <trevor_eriksonwrote:

 

>

>

> All,

>

> I believe all Bob, Eric, Jason, and many of the others on this forum who

> can actually read Chinese, have ever tried to do here in this thread, and in

> every other discussion over the past several years, was to encourage us to

> back up our " claims to fame " , with sound source text. Since literally

> thousands of texts and commentaries of Chinese medical texts have been

> written over the last many centuries, many of which being a progressive

> thought pattern built upon by various preceding scholar physicians, it

> should be relatively easy for someone to source their information. If they

> cannot, then it seems imperative to label their thinking as their own-

> original thinking. Otherwise how are the majority of us western

> practitioners, who are Chinese illiterate and, quite frankly, naive, going

> to be able to separate out what is historically correct, and what is

> someone's own idea?

>

> This is particularly true for our earliest classics. If our interpretation

> of them is different than the historic majority of Chinese scholars, then we

> need to question our intentions, particularly if we cannot even read

> Chinese. How can anyone be an authority on Classically written Chinese

> medicine, if they cannot even read the original text clearly themselves? It

> seems a bit odd to me.

>

> It reminds me of the Buddha painting course I took with a famous painter

> Gen la Zoppa when I was living in Tilopa Buddhist Centre. He taught us that

> the painting of Buddha's image follows strict rules of conduct. That ones

> goal was to try and imitate the teachers as much as possible, so that the

> image of Buddha remained in a true likeness as to one painted 2 thousand

> years ago. Since there was no photographing technology way back then, one

> could see why it was important to follow the rules.

>

> Well one of the students in the class was an art therapist. She painted her

> Buddha completely from her " feelings " of what Buddha meant to her. She

> showed it to the monk, who declared, " this is not Buddha! " . She was heart

> broken and in tears. Sad for her, but unfortunately she missed the point.

> The object was not to try and paint Buddha from her " interpretation " , it was

> to try and paint Buddha as he was painted throughout history, to ensure the

> survival of his true image.

>

> To me, Bob and others, are just like Gen La Zoppa, in that they want

> Chinese medicine in the west to be reflective of Chinese medicine in the

> East, as the majority have practiced it over the past several thousand

> years. How do we know what the majority practiced? We have thousands of

> written works to study. Just look at Unshulds work, whereby he shows very

> clearly the strict written tradition of copying out an original piece of

> work, before building upon it with ones own ideas and commentary. A reader

> was often able to separate out what was original thought and what was added.

>

>

> Just because a " contemporary " practitioner of Chinese medicine has sold

> over 14 000 books, does not mean that the information in those books

> represents authentic Chinese medical thinking, with clearly defined

> classical ideas. It only shows that western readers have an interest in the

> topics discussed, plain and simple. Books are powerful, in that the author

> becomes an " authority " on the that particular topic, regardless if they made

> it up or used source text footnotes for every single sentence written within

> it. We all crave truth to the mysterious Orient and look to anyone who seems

> to have an opinion.

>

> We are all free to practice as we please. We are all free to have any

> opinion that we please. But we should at least be clear to our audiences

> where the source of our thinking comes from.

>

> I applaud you Bob for your integrity and dedication to bringing Chinese

> medicine to the west. You have wanted us all to open our eyes to the massive

> medical tradition that exists in Asia, and to get on board and practice with

> the same integrity as is displayed within the hospitals there. You have

> taught me greatly about the importance of looking to Chinese sources for

> help in figuring out questions to the clinical dilemmas that plague us,

> reminding us that there is a massive wealth of knowledge there from which to

> draw upon, rather than trying to make it up- just because it just fits into

> some neat little philosophers box within our minds. You have taught to me to

> question the medicine that we practice and understand it's roots- whether

> authentic or not, and to understand how to tell the difference.

>

> I wish you all the best in your journey within :-)

>

> All the best

> Trevor

>

>

> --- In

<%40>,

> " Lonny " <revolution wrote:

> >

> > Bob, I find your assertion that shen, with a capital " S " is not an

> intrinsic perspective within the medicine historically, or currently, to be

> baseless. Text's can be read at many levels from the mundane to the subtle

> and, of course, we bring our own culturally given values, and our own depth,

> to our reading of them. There is much within the medicine that points us to

> Shen. For example, the phrase " tong shen ming " that occurs in many texts

> points us toward Shen as a highest virtue in the medicine. I'll go so far as

> to say that Shen contextualizes the entire medicine and that nothing within

> CM, no movement or stasis of qi, in any of its forms, can be understood

> without Shen as the absolute reference point.

> >

> > What exists in " standard contemporary CM " is no more of a benchmark for

> those awakened to the heart of the medicine than the contents of AM top 40

> radio is for a jazz musician in pursuit of the heart of music. It's one

> thing for a scholar of music to analyze the harmonic structure of a piece of

> music played by John Coltrane. It's another thing entirely to be in touch

> with the heart of the music from the inside out as a player. And it's a step

> forward again to awaken to what Mr. Coltrane was awake to, for the sake of

> taking music further. That's the highest expression of the " Buddha

> consciousness " we are talking about-and no less.

> >

> > Certainly references to Shen are not missing in " contemporary CM

> literature " if my texts and the work by Heiner Fruehauf, Claude Larre,

> Elisabeth Rochat, and others is taken into account. The primacy of Shen is a

> central thesis of my own work and, agree or not, I've sold nearly 14,000

> books that are used as standard texts in many of the CM schools worldwide.

> >

> > I find the notion that an ethnic Chinese has relative credibility in

> discerning, or defining, what Chinese medicine is, and is not, in this

> global world to be an ethnocentric anachronism best left in the past where

> it belongs.

> >

> > Lastly, I don't think there is the slightest semantic problem with

> equating the character shen with Spirit as long as one is clear about what

> one is doing and why.

> >

> > The question is, " is one looking at the issue we are discussing from the

> relative, conditioned, separate mind or is one looking at this issue through

> the eyes of the top down, absolute, perspective of " Buddha mind? " From the

> perspective of consciousness itself " Shen " is an unbroken field and there is

> no " inside and outside. " There is no separation between the authentically

> " spiritual " and any human endeavor, and certainly not from medicine (as you

> recognized in a later post). To suggest there was, is, or ever could be such

> a separation is patently false on all counts. Any treatment that does not

> have Shen as the absolute reference point for sanity can never aspire to be

> anything more than symptomatic in nature. It is only realization of Shen,

> and the shift of our self identification to that, that can ever fulfill the

> promise of the medicine. Hence we are advised in several texts that " ALL

> treatment must be rooted in Spirit " . Wishing you the best going forward into

> your retreat.

> >

> > Warm regards, Lonny

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steve,

 

Let me clarify a few things for you.

 

1) I do not speak or read Chinese. I would like to, but am definitely not there

yet

 

2) The gist of my thread was that I believe, as do many others, that when

someone is presenting theory, on something as profound as Chinese medicine that

it is backed up via some reliable source. And if it is not, then claimed to be

original thinking. That is a pretty simple request, no harm done.

 

3) I do not even know your work, and I have no interest in attacking it. So

defend all you wish, but there is no fight.

 

In a short conversation with Bob yesterday he made clear to me a very good

point. Chinese medicine, as we know it, has been practiced in Asia for the past

few thousand years, by literally millions of Doctors over the years. What has

emerged is an accepted consensus on medical theory, that one can see written or

talked about within the majority of the Chinese literature. When someone brings

up thinking that may be in contrast to that accepted consensus, then people's

alarm bells go off, as they want to know where the information comes from.

 

My analogy of the monk painter was in honor of those who have made Chinese

medicine more available to us Chinese illiterate westerners. We hold a lot of

trust that the information they are giving us is in fact in line with what is in

Chinese, just as we hold a lot of trust that these Buddha painters are in fact

replicating a similar image from 2000 years ago. If someone writes a book and

declares, " this is authentic Chinese medicine " , but

has no clear reference points back to anything actually Chinese, we will never

know. It is only the dedicated few, like Bob, that will try to make us more

accountable and transparent in this. This is something that I think should be

applauded, not defended.

 

The other side of all of this of course, is clinical experience, where by all

theory can fly out the window as far as I am concerned, as it is results that

matter the most. Of course it is nice when theory and clinical reality match,

but I know for myself and many others, that this is not always the case.

 

Best,

Trevor

 

 

 

 

, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern

wrote:

>

> Trevor,

>

> Thank you very much for this long statement. I really appreciate your

> willingness to articulate clearly your values and standards, and those of

> some of the most active folks on this list. Your analogy with Gen la Zoppa

> is wonderful. It certainly clarifies why you, Bob, Eric, and Jason haven't

> responded to any of the points I've made. I get it now -- nothing I write is

> legitimate because I don't " actually read Chinese. " Well, in addition to

> extensive study of the " coming from " of western thought, which I believes

> confounds the efforts of many a scholar who doesn't also embody Chinese

> medicine, I've studied Chinese history and thought from very highly

> respected translated sources and scholarly works. I've also been using the

> five systems of channels and vessels, which are the main topic of the early

> chapters of Lingshu that I've been discussing on this thread, so I have some

> clinical experience of my own, which is of course the same thing that

> qualifies any historical Chinese source to write on this topic.

>

> Perhaps the challenge of interpreting Neijing is not in the language, but in

> the thinking process. Perhaps it doesn't matter that I use translations,

> because the many " thought experiments " posed in Neijing to stimulate the

> student to learn to see and understand the dynamic responsive nature of

> human life are patently clear in the English translations. The limiting

> factor is not language, but the willingness to actively engage a process of

> thinking. Challenge me on the substance of my thinking process, if you find

> fault with it, but I don't understand your grounds for denying the

> legitimacy of my doing it.

>

> Perhaps while you've been learning to actually read Chinese, I've been

> learning to actually think. Might there be a thinking process that the

> inspired authors of Neijing had discerned and encoded into those classics,

> which can allow students who figure it out to penetrate into the dynamic and

> responsive nature of the embodied spirit? Might it not be about scholarship

> alone, but about embodiment and contemplation?

>

> For instance, the six divisions of yin and yang aren't just names of paired

> channels or " stages " of penetration of shanghan or zhongfeng. They are the

> canonical movements of post-natal life. All movements consist of

> combinations of those six primal movements, and SHL is not about stages of

> penetration, but about the prioritization of responses from the embodied

> spirit to the challenge of those external pathogenic factors. There is SO

> MUCH to think about in actually learning to use that seemingly simple idea.

> Might that be worth exploring?

>

> If you want to look at the original Chinese for the points I've discussed,

> be my guest. I was very specific exactly what passages I was talking about.

> No one challenged, or even commented on, my exegesis of Suwen chapter 42 on

> perverse wind several weeks ago. That one picked out points throughout the

> chapter and also discussed the sequence of its arrangement. On this thread,

> I was also specific about referring to the first few lines of Lingshu

> chapter 11. Yet, this discussion would also soon spread to other early

> chapters of Lingshu, as I warned, as the jingbie are best discussed relative

> to the " primary channels " and the other systems as they are presented

> throughout those early chapters of Lingshu.

>

> Why this staunch loyalty to your idea of how CM was practiced historically,

> based on the writing of scholar-physicians? Of course, it's worth reading

> them, and I'm glad that we have a growing number and variety of translations

> available. If any of you are working on projects that you make public, thank

> you. Yet, scholar-physicians have never been the only source for Chinese

> medical wisdom. For one thing many of the best physicians through history

> were illiterate. That's why famous literate scholar-physicians, such as Li

> Shizhen, travelled so much to gather information from knowledgable

> illiterates.

>

> There are also substantial cultural differences between the

> modern/post-modern west and historical China, and others between historical

> China and contemporary China. Why would one think that we should just

> transplant Chinese medicine " as is? " I'd venture to say that most of our

> patients are more willing to discuss the sources and patterns of their

> internal pathogenic factors (unresolved emotional conflicts) than most

> Chinese have been over the centuries or continue to be. This is a cultural

> difference, but it has bearing on how we practice medicine. Perhaps,

> historically Chinese were more willing to discuss their core struggles in

> life with their priest. Might it be worthwhile to consider that stream of

> Chinese medicine, even though Imperial (literate) medicine has attempted to

> suppress it for the past thousand years?

>

> Believe it or not, I also honor Bob's contribution to our profession. I just

> think he fell victim a bit to " believing his own press " as he became more of

> a recognized expert. I met Bob about twenty years ago. We happened to sit

> next to each other among a group having lunch during a conference break in

> San Francisco. I was several years out of acupuncture school, and filled

> with passion about the need to improve CM education. I'd read some of his

> early books; I recall specifically " Turtle Tails and Other Tender Mercies, "

> so I'm sure I showed him the requisite esteem. In any case, by the end of

> lunch, he told me that my understanding of CM was already worthy to join to

> public conversation about the profession. I demurred, thinking instead that

> I had a lot to learn about CM, because it was patently clear to me that the

> Chinese medicine I'd learned in school reeked of modernization. At the time,

> I had no idea of the extent and wide variety of historical influences that

> contributed to the doctrine I'd learned. I wanted to uncover something

> deeper, something that seemed more akin to the Chinese thought and

> literature that interested me most. Perhaps I have found something true (and

> deeply " Chinese " ) in my quest to find meaning in CM. You and others will

> only know if you're willing to consider my work, rather than simply

> rejecting it out of hand for spurious reasons. I welcome discussion of, and

> even challenges to, the merits of my ideas. Yet, Bob's (and perhaps your)

> dismissal of my work during the discussion on this thread has been premature

> and inaccurate.

>

> Steve

> CCMforHealing.com

>

> On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:40 PM, trevor_erikson <trevor_eriksonwrote:

>

> >

> >

> > All,

> >

> > I believe all Bob, Eric, Jason, and many of the others on this forum who

> > can actually read Chinese, have ever tried to do here in this thread, and in

> > every other discussion over the past several years, was to encourage us to

> > back up our " claims to fame " , with sound source text. Since literally

> > thousands of texts and commentaries of Chinese medical texts have been

> > written over the last many centuries, many of which being a progressive

> > thought pattern built upon by various preceding scholar physicians, it

> > should be relatively easy for someone to source their information. If they

> > cannot, then it seems imperative to label their thinking as their own-

> > original thinking. Otherwise how are the majority of us western

> > practitioners, who are Chinese illiterate and, quite frankly, naive, going

> > to be able to separate out what is historically correct, and what is

> > someone's own idea?

> >

> > This is particularly true for our earliest classics. If our interpretation

> > of them is different than the historic majority of Chinese scholars, then we

> > need to question our intentions, particularly if we cannot even read

> > Chinese. How can anyone be an authority on Classically written Chinese

> > medicine, if they cannot even read the original text clearly themselves? It

> > seems a bit odd to me.

> >

> > It reminds me of the Buddha painting course I took with a famous painter

> > Gen la Zoppa when I was living in Tilopa Buddhist Centre. He taught us that

> > the painting of Buddha's image follows strict rules of conduct. That ones

> > goal was to try and imitate the teachers as much as possible, so that the

> > image of Buddha remained in a true likeness as to one painted 2 thousand

> > years ago. Since there was no photographing technology way back then, one

> > could see why it was important to follow the rules.

> >

> > Well one of the students in the class was an art therapist. She painted her

> > Buddha completely from her " feelings " of what Buddha meant to her. She

> > showed it to the monk, who declared, " this is not Buddha! " . She was heart

> > broken and in tears. Sad for her, but unfortunately she missed the point.

> > The object was not to try and paint Buddha from her " interpretation " , it was

> > to try and paint Buddha as he was painted throughout history, to ensure the

> > survival of his true image.

> >

> > To me, Bob and others, are just like Gen La Zoppa, in that they want

> > Chinese medicine in the west to be reflective of Chinese medicine in the

> > East, as the majority have practiced it over the past several thousand

> > years. How do we know what the majority practiced? We have thousands of

> > written works to study. Just look at Unshulds work, whereby he shows very

> > clearly the strict written tradition of copying out an original piece of

> > work, before building upon it with ones own ideas and commentary. A reader

> > was often able to separate out what was original thought and what was added.

> >

> >

> > Just because a " contemporary " practitioner of Chinese medicine has sold

> > over 14 000 books, does not mean that the information in those books

> > represents authentic Chinese medical thinking, with clearly defined

> > classical ideas. It only shows that western readers have an interest in the

> > topics discussed, plain and simple. Books are powerful, in that the author

> > becomes an " authority " on the that particular topic, regardless if they made

> > it up or used source text footnotes for every single sentence written within

> > it. We all crave truth to the mysterious Orient and look to anyone who seems

> > to have an opinion.

> >

> > We are all free to practice as we please. We are all free to have any

> > opinion that we please. But we should at least be clear to our audiences

> > where the source of our thinking comes from.

> >

> > I applaud you Bob for your integrity and dedication to bringing Chinese

> > medicine to the west. You have wanted us all to open our eyes to the massive

> > medical tradition that exists in Asia, and to get on board and practice with

> > the same integrity as is displayed within the hospitals there. You have

> > taught me greatly about the importance of looking to Chinese sources for

> > help in figuring out questions to the clinical dilemmas that plague us,

> > reminding us that there is a massive wealth of knowledge there from which to

> > draw upon, rather than trying to make it up- just because it just fits into

> > some neat little philosophers box within our minds. You have taught to me to

> > question the medicine that we practice and understand it's roots- whether

> > authentic or not, and to understand how to tell the difference.

> >

> > I wish you all the best in your journey within :-)

> >

> > All the best

> > Trevor

> >

> >

> > --- In

<%40>,

> > " Lonny " <revolution@> wrote:

> > >

> > > Bob, I find your assertion that shen, with a capital " S " is not an

> > intrinsic perspective within the medicine historically, or currently, to be

> > baseless. Text's can be read at many levels from the mundane to the subtle

> > and, of course, we bring our own culturally given values, and our own depth,

> > to our reading of them. There is much within the medicine that points us to

> > Shen. For example, the phrase " tong shen ming " that occurs in many texts

> > points us toward Shen as a highest virtue in the medicine. I'll go so far as

> > to say that Shen contextualizes the entire medicine and that nothing within

> > CM, no movement or stasis of qi, in any of its forms, can be understood

> > without Shen as the absolute reference point.

> > >

> > > What exists in " standard contemporary CM " is no more of a benchmark for

> > those awakened to the heart of the medicine than the contents of AM top 40

> > radio is for a jazz musician in pursuit of the heart of music. It's one

> > thing for a scholar of music to analyze the harmonic structure of a piece of

> > music played by John Coltrane. It's another thing entirely to be in touch

> > with the heart of the music from the inside out as a player. And it's a step

> > forward again to awaken to what Mr. Coltrane was awake to, for the sake of

> > taking music further. That's the highest expression of the " Buddha

> > consciousness " we are talking about-and no less.

> > >

> > > Certainly references to Shen are not missing in " contemporary CM

> > literature " if my texts and the work by Heiner Fruehauf, Claude Larre,

> > Elisabeth Rochat, and others is taken into account. The primacy of Shen is a

> > central thesis of my own work and, agree or not, I've sold nearly 14,000

> > books that are used as standard texts in many of the CM schools worldwide.

> > >

> > > I find the notion that an ethnic Chinese has relative credibility in

> > discerning, or defining, what Chinese medicine is, and is not, in this

> > global world to be an ethnocentric anachronism best left in the past where

> > it belongs.

> > >

> > > Lastly, I don't think there is the slightest semantic problem with

> > equating the character shen with Spirit as long as one is clear about what

> > one is doing and why.

> > >

> > > The question is, " is one looking at the issue we are discussing from the

> > relative, conditioned, separate mind or is one looking at this issue through

> > the eyes of the top down, absolute, perspective of " Buddha mind? " From the

> > perspective of consciousness itself " Shen " is an unbroken field and there is

> > no " inside and outside. " There is no separation between the authentically

> > " spiritual " and any human endeavor, and certainly not from medicine (as you

> > recognized in a later post). To suggest there was, is, or ever could be such

> > a separation is patently false on all counts. Any treatment that does not

> > have Shen as the absolute reference point for sanity can never aspire to be

> > anything more than symptomatic in nature. It is only realization of Shen,

> > and the shift of our self identification to that, that can ever fulfill the

> > promise of the medicine. Hence we are advised in several texts that " ALL

> > treatment must be rooted in Spirit " . Wishing you the best going forward into

> > your retreat.

> > >

> > > Warm regards, Lonny

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks loads, all.

 

Steve

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steven,

there have been many interpretations and commentaries of the Nei jing over

the last couple thousand years....

it is written that many people have fought over the interpretation of the

written characters themselves.

 

I think that your interpretation is unique, since it's informed by your

teacher, Jeffrey Yuen

and your years of research from an American analytical-philosophical

perspective.

I'm glad that you and Ed Neal are passionate about the text and are creating

conversation around this most important text.

 

We need more voices out there, so we can create our own interpretations,

which ultimately will be decided by practice itself.

I'm interested in discussing the issues.

Which translations do you use?

 

It seems as though every translation is as different as the people who

translate them.

Because of the nature of Chinese language and the cultural context around

each character,

I'm wondering how important it really is to read the Nei jing through the

characters

and how important it is to know the culture around them..... ?

 

K

 

 

On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpernwrote:

 

>

>

> Thanks loads, all.

>

> Steve

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I am currently in Jeffrey Yuen's advanced acupuncture course in NYC; this is

a two-year course open to licensed acupuncturists. There are 80 people in

the course and a significant number of them fly in from other places each

month, some even from foreign countries. Even though it is called

" advanced " it is still more or less a survey class, not one in which lines

of the Nei Jing are analyzed line by line. He does, however, often give

specific chapter citations for the things he says. He spends a lot of time

talking about the contribution of Daoism, Buddhism, and Confuscianism to the

development of CM, and one thing he has said more than once is that, in his

opinion, if someone wants to study and understand CM it is more important to

know Chinese philosophy than it is to read the Chinese language.

 

I'll just add that Jeffrey never bashes other scholars, teachers or other

points of view. He is very open, friendly, humble. But I think it's clear

that he is on a mission to bring this " Classical " CM point of view out into

the world. Of course there will be opposition.

 

RoseAnne

 

 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 12:56 AM, <johnkokko wrote:

 

> Steven,

> there have been many interpretations and commentaries of the Nei jing over

> the last couple thousand years....

> it is written that many people have fought over the interpretation of the

> written characters themselves.

>

> I think that your interpretation is unique, since it's informed by your

> teacher, Jeffrey Yuen

> and your years of research from an American analytical-philosophical

> perspective.

> I'm glad that you and Ed Neal are passionate about the text and are

> creating

> conversation around this most important text.

>

> We need more voices out there, so we can create our own interpretations,

> which ultimately will be decided by practice itself.

> I'm interested in discussing the issues.

> Which translations do you use?

>

> It seems as though every translation is as different as the people who

> translate them.

> Because of the nature of Chinese language and the cultural context around

> each character,

> I'm wondering how important it really is to read the Nei jing through the

> characters

> and how important it is to know the culture around them..... ?

>

> K

>

>

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern

> >wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Thanks loads, all.

> >

> > Steve

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Trevor: I believe all Bob, Eric, Jason, and many of the others on this

forum who can actually read Chinese, have ever tried to do here in this thread,

and in every other discussion over the past several years, was to encourage us

to back up our " claims to fame " , with sound source text.

 

Lonny: I have published over 1300 pages of text establishing a firm basis

for there being a Spiritual, with a capital " S " , context inherent in the theory

and practice of CM. Every fact and interpretation in my work is footnoted

pointing to the source to allow readers to draw their own conclusions and I

have been wholly transparent regarding my methodology. Claude Larre spent 50

years compiling a dictionary of the Chinese language from the oracle bones

through the present. He and his protege Elisabeth Rochat have published numerous

translations establishing such a context. Heiner Freuhauf and others have done

significant work in this regard as well.

 

While Bob has expressed his opinion that shen with a

capital " S " is not integral to the practice of CM he has not provided a single

shred of evidence that this is so. He has not countered a single interpretation,

fact, or methodology in any of the above mentioned author's works with evidence.

Yet he speaks as if his conclusion is a fact and not a chosen perspective.

 

I think it's reasonable that Bob and others be held to

their own purported standards and, rather than merely provide opinions, back

them up. I will suggest that the reason they have not done so is because such

a position is, in fact, ultimately indefensible. As Steve says, " Spirit abounds

in CM " , and the interpretation of texts, and one's methdodology, comes down to

individual perspectives. While Bob may choose to impart a materialistic

interpretation such as " life span " to the character " ming " in a text such as the

Shen Nong Ben Cao, who has Proof with a capital " P " that my reading of the

character as " destiny " , with all its Spiritual and philosophical connotations,

is " wrong " or less correct?. No one. Texts can be read at many levels of depth

and they don't exist in isolation but in a cultural and memetic, context.

 

The fact that Spirit abounds in CM is obvious to anyone

with any degree of clinical experience who has ever paid a minutes worth of

serious attention in the treatment room. The fact that the ancients were aware

of this is clear within the texts which, I say, cannot be interpreted outside of

the context of the cultural milieu in which they were written. This includes

consideration of coexisting literature in fields as diverse as religion,

philosophy, vitality, poetry, and art for example. Where is the line drawn

between the physiology presented in a " vitality " text such as the Bai Wen Bian

and a " medical text " ? Who draws the line?

 

From an integral scientific perspective, the medicine cannot be understood

outside of the context of Spirit/Shen. Without this, the teachings are hollow

and incomplete and can never attain to more than symptomatic treatment

regardless of the tradition of practice be it 5E, 8P, TCM or what have you.

 

While Bob and others are certainly entitled to their

opinions, and to do their good works, to present such notions as anything more

than opinion and preference under the auspices of intellectual or scholarly

rigor, amounts to nothing more than pretense. The emphasis on safe guarding

the " true tradition " through literal interpretation of the texts comes off,

ironically as self righteously bizarre as Worsley's worst behavior and with

little more evolutionary credibility than the stance of the Roman Catholic

Church as being the only credible mediators of truth.

 

I'd say what's needed is a good dose of humility all around. Without actually

living the values espoused in the texts the most literate scholar is left empty

handed.

 

 

 

 

Most Sincerely, Lonny S. Jarrett

[Guest guest]

John,

 

Thank you for acknowledging that I've written something worth reading and

considering to this list during the past month, and that we need more (and

different) voices in the discussion of CM in the west. Of course, getting

the right characters (and even the right chapters) is important, yet I don't

think we should let the perfect be the enemy of the good. The conundrums and

" thought experiments " that I've referred to in this thread are plainly

apparent in admittedly mediocre translations, if we look into and ponder the

text rather than simply trying to identify its surface accurately (which is

almost certainly an endless and ultimately impossible task). Many seem to

think that what's written alone will provide all the answers, but there is

also a subtle and profound thinking process to discern and develop for

differentiating the dynamics of each individual's struggles, which for

various cultural (even economic) reasons was not documented. How can I make

such a bold assertion? The proof is in the pudding -- how modern Chinese

medicine has developed.

 

Let's take just one example -- symptoms (and to a somewhat lesser degree

clinical signs) are not a direct expression of pathology. Instead, they

represent the status of the embodied spirit's overt struggle with pathogenic

factors. In Neijing style medicine, the goal is to accurately " sort out " the

underlying pathogenic factors from the intrinsic (i.e. wei qi) responses,

and find ways to facilitate the embodied spirit's natural response to the

pathogenic factors, rather than simply managing the " imbalances " of their

expression. [For those who may be interested, I've written several times

about this concept in some short essays archived on my

website<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/>,

such as " Treating Patients with Chronic

Disease<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Treating-Chronic\

-Disease.pdf> "

and " Sorting Out

Symptoms<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Sorting-Out-Sym\

ptoms.pdf>. " ]

 

 

We know this in so many instances, yet in practical implementation this

profound idea is often swept away in favor of the " practical concerns " of

managing symptoms. For instance, the use of cold herbs like Yin Qiao (or

other variations, some of which are even more disturbing) for patients with

low grade fever from upper respiratory viral infections. The fever is not

part of the problem, it is part of the solution. We want to facilitate the

responsiveness of wei qi by giving spicy warm herbs, rather than suppressing

it with bitter and cold ones. This issue of an acute ailment did make it

accurately into modern TCM theory as " wind-cold, " yet our general lack of

emphasis on facilitating wei qi allows many students and practitioners to

miss the point. More disturbing, in many patients with chronic or more

complex and entangled pathogenic processes, even the highest use of modern

TCM doesn't provide practitioners the conceptual framework to sort out the

pathogenic process from the embodied spirit's response.

 

In light of this understanding, the " standard professional " approach of

classifying patients into symptom-sign complexes based on the expression of

distress is at best inadequate. In my clinical experience, it is often

ineffective in patients with complex and/or " serious " conditions and

sometimes even counter-productive. [Many years ago, I wrote up a case

example of this " Is this Excess or

Deficiency?<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Deficiency-o\

r-Excess.pdf> "

and more recently a discussion of many clinical applications of this

" non-standard " idea in " The Myth of

Deficiency<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/Myth-of-Defic\

iency.pdf> " .]

This is a profound clinical issue that impacts patient care in very

substantial ways. I know this is shocking, so I'll repeat it -- from the

perspective of Neijing, the " standard profession " methodology for practicing

Chinese medicine is inherently incomplete. Consequently, what appears to me

religious attachment to it as " the one true way " is incoherent. Bummer!

 

John, I responded a couple months ago to that question about what

translations I use, yet I understand that the nature of discussions in this

forum is that material just gets buried, so I'll repeat. I have and uses

several old translations; I compare and contrast them, and of course await

better ones. Yet, as I've said, if one looks for these issues of thought,

they are present even in mediocre translations. Anyway, I have translations

of both Suwen and Lingshu by Chamfort (who was a student of Van Nghi) and

Henry Lu; and for Lingshu, I have the one by Wu Jingnuan.

 

I'm currently in the midst of a four weekend series of seminars spread out

over a few months on the practical application of the five systems of

channels and collaterals/vessels (or whatever one wishes to call them) in

San Diego. Each seminar includes practical workshops of clinical skills to

aid participants in embarking on the journey I'm inviting them to engage.

I'm scheduled to teach the same series in the SF Bay Area this autumn ('10)

and in Albuquerque, NM next spring ('11). Interested practitioners and

students are invited to check out my work in more detail on both my

website<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/>and at one of those venues. I'll

also be teaching a one weekend seminar on

waike (external medicine), which focuses on differentiating how to

facilitate the intrinsic responsiveness of wei qi, in

Seattle<http://www.jadeinstitute.com/jade/seminar-details.php?id=8>in

October.

 

Peace and blessings,

Steve

 

 

 

>

> Steven,

> there have been many interpretations and commentaries of the Nei jing over

> the last couple thousand years....

> it is written that many people have fought over the interpretation of the

> written characters themselves.

>

> I think that your interpretation is unique, since it's informed by your

> teacher, Jeffrey Yuen

> and your years of research from an American analytical-philosophical

> perspective.

> I'm glad that you and Ed Neal are passionate about the text and are

> creating

> conversation around this most important text.

>

> We need more voices out there, so we can create our own interpretations,

> which ultimately will be decided by practice itself.

> I'm interested in discussing the issues.

> Which translations do you use?

>

> It seems as though every translation is as different as the people who

> translate them.

> Because of the nature of Chinese language and the cultural context around

> each character,

> I'm wondering how important it really is to read the Nei jing through the

> characters

> and how important it is to know the culture around them..... ?

>

> K

>

> On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:18 PM, Steven Alpern

<stevenalpern<stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> >wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Thanks loads, all.

> >

> > Steve

>

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Thank you, RoseAnne. I guess it comes down to the question of whether one

sees the challenge of learning Chinese medicine as more an issue of language

or thinking process.

 

Steve

 

On Fri, Feb 26, 2010 at 4:42 AM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

roseanne.spradlin wrote:

 

>

>

> I am currently in Jeffrey Yuen's advanced acupuncture course in NYC; this

> is

> a two-year course open to licensed acupuncturists. There are 80 people in

> the course and a significant number of them fly in from other places each

> month, some even from foreign countries. Even though it is called

> " advanced " it is still more or less a survey class, not one in which lines

> of the Nei Jing are analyzed line by line. He does, however, often give

> specific chapter citations for the things he says. He spends a lot of time

> talking about the contribution of Daoism, Buddhism, and Confuscianism to

> the

> development of CM, and one thing he has said more than once is that, in his

> opinion, if someone wants to study and understand CM it is more important

> to

> know Chinese philosophy than it is to read the Chinese language.

>

> I'll just add that Jeffrey never bashes other scholars, teachers or other

> points of view. He is very open, friendly, humble. But I think it's clear

> that he is on a mission to bring this " Classical " CM point of view out into

> the world. Of course there will be opposition.

>

> RoseAnne

>

[Guest guest]

Steve et al,

 

I think it is important to face some truths. If you don't read the original

Chinese then people who do, are not likely to take what you say very

seriously. As someone who has spent the last few years working on my Chinese

and can get through most of the basic texts without too much difficulty, I

find reading most of the Classic texts quite challenging. After nearly 20

years of studying Chinese medicine, most of it through translations, I am

now beginning to see why people like Bob have been saying for years, " If you

really want to understand Chinese medicine, learn to read Chinese " it is

really that simple, there are very few translations that are going to get

you anywhere near what you get when you actually read the original Chinese,

sorry but that is the plain truth. The Mitchel, Wiseman, Feng translation of

the Shang Han Lun is the only translation of a Classic that comes to mind as

one of these exceptions.

 

To be honest, I find what you say interesting, but knowing that you can't

read the original makes it difficult for me to take it too seriously. I am

sure you have worked very hard and perhaps have some good insight, but the

reason I started to seriously study Chinese language was exactly because

after teaching for a few years I came to the realization that anything

outside of my clinical experience was nothing more than what the students

could read in English and if I could read the original I would gain both a

vastly larger corpus of information, and likely a heck of a lot of insight.

Both have borne out to be true. And, I think if you ask anyone on this list

who has gone through a similar process I feel confident they would say their

experience is the same (or nearly so :-).

 

This is not to say that one can not practice Chinese medicine without

Chinese language skill, but to be a scholar and, in my opinion, a teacher,

you MUST be able to read the original, this is, IMHO, basic academic rigor.

I feel pretty confidant that if you went to any university and asked about

becoming a scholar in any tradition they would ALL say you MUST learn the

language of origin in order to pursue this endeavor.

 

Although Bob is no longer with us on this forum, I will take this

opportunity to thank him for all he has contributed to this field. He has

been quite a lightning rod over the years, but all-in-all he has contributed

at least as much as anyone else has to the furthering of Chinese medicine in

the West. May you find true happiness!

 

In Good Health,

Thomas

 

 

cell:

Beijing, China

Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

Practitioners Guide "

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steven said:

 

Perhaps while you've been learning to actually read Chinese, I've been

learning to actually think. Might there be a thinking process that the

inspired authors of Neijing had discerned and encoded into those classics,

which can allow students who figure it out to penetrate into the dynamic and

responsive nature of the embodied spirit? Might it not be about scholarship

alone, but about embodiment and contemplation?

 

Thomas answers:

Steven, this is one of a number of tongue lashings you have been dealing

out, and quite frankly they are both unnecessary and unprofessional. It

sounds to me like a teenager who is adamitely trying to defend a stance. To

suggest, as you do, that Trevor hasn't learned to think about as well as

embody and contemplate the Classics while learning to actually read them is

preposterous and insulting to him and, frankly, to me. To answer your last

question in this diatribe, it is all of the above! You need scholarship

along with embodiment and contemplation, plain and simple.

 

Steven said:

Perhaps the challenge of interpreting Neijing is not in the language, but in

the thinking process. Perhaps it doesn't matter that I use translations,

because the many " thought experiments " posed in Neijing to stimulate the

student to learn to see and understand the dynamic responsive nature of

human life are patently clear in the English translations. The limiting

factor is not language, but the willingness to actively engage a process of

thinking. Challenge me on the substance of my thinking process, if you find

fault with it, but I don't understand your grounds for denying the

legitimacy of my doing it.

 

Thomas says:

The key word in the beginning of your paragraphs is, " perhaps " and you may

never know because you haven't put the time and energy into learning the

Chinese, but for those of who have, we would argue that, in fact, the

language skill makes a big difference. I don't think anyone is " denying the

legitimacy " of your doing what you're doing, only, perhaps, not taking you

as seriously as you might like. I can not, yet, challenge you on the

substance of your thinking process, and I don't think there are many on this

list who can, and of those, most probably won't bother because you can't

read the original and your defensive (and sometimes insulting) attitude is a

turn off.

 

Back to the Books.............

 

To All A Happy New Year Of The Tiger (Metal)

 

In Good Health,

Thomas

 

 

cell:

Beijing, China

Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

Practitioners Guide "

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thomas,

While I agree with you in principle that Chinese language skills are

essential in understanding Chinese medicine, there are varying degrees of this

skill, and, of course, they are just one aspect of understanding the medicine.

I've observed Steve's teaching of the channel theory of Ling Shu, and I must say

he does an outstanding job in his seminars, and has both a theoretical and

technical grasp of the subject. In addition, we've have several conversations

on the subject of the classical literature, and he a very thoughtful person with

deep insights. He is not 'illiterate' in Chinese language, just not at the

level you are at, having immersed yourself (commendably) in the language by

living there for several years. Chinese language skills, as you know, are a

cumulative process, but even more basic levels of understanding can achieve a

lot.

 

Like you, I feel that the style of translation championed by Nigel, Sabine

Wilms and others is ideal (with the Chinese and pinyin), as in the Paradigm

Shang Han Lun text. However, there are other reputable translations of classics

out there, such as Sabine's " Bei Ji Qian Jin Yao Fang " gynecology text, and Paul

Unschuld's Nan Jing. There is also a new text on " Ling Shu acupuncture " out,

with Chinese language sources for quotations, that provides ample material to

work with.

 

 

On Feb 26, 2010, at 3:34 PM, wrote:

 

> Steve et al,

>

> I think it is important to face some truths. If you don't read the original

> Chinese then people who do, are not likely to take what you say very

> seriously. As someone who has spent the last few years working on my Chinese

> and can get through most of the basic texts without too much difficulty, I

> find reading most of the Classic texts quite challenging. After nearly 20

> years of studying Chinese medicine, most of it through translations, I am

> now beginning to see why people like Bob have been saying for years, " If you

> really want to understand Chinese medicine, learn to read Chinese " it is

> really that simple, there are very few translations that are going to get

> you anywhere near what you get when you actually read the original Chinese,

> sorry but that is the plain truth. The Mitchel, Wiseman, Feng translation of

> the Shang Han Lun is the only translation of a Classic that comes to mind as

> one of these exceptions.

>

> To be honest, I find what you say interesting, but knowing that you can't

> read the original makes it difficult for me to take it too seriously. I am

> sure you have worked very hard and perhaps have some good insight, but the

> reason I started to seriously study Chinese language was exactly because

> after teaching for a few years I came to the realization that anything

> outside of my clinical experience was nothing more than what the students

> could read in English and if I could read the original I would gain both a

> vastly larger corpus of information, and likely a heck of a lot of insight.

> Both have borne out to be true. And, I think if you ask anyone on this list

> who has gone through a similar process I feel confident they would say their

> experience is the same (or nearly so :-).

>

> This is not to say that one can not practice Chinese medicine without

> Chinese language skill, but to be a scholar and, in my opinion, a teacher,

> you MUST be able to read the original, this is, IMHO, basic academic rigor.

> I feel pretty confidant that if you went to any university and asked about

> becoming a scholar in any tradition they would ALL say you MUST learn the

> language of origin in order to pursue this endeavor.

>

> Although Bob is no longer with us on this forum, I will take this

> opportunity to thank him for all he has contributed to this field. He has

> been quite a lightning rod over the years, but all-in-all he has contributed

> at least as much as anyone else has to the furthering of Chinese medicine in

> the West. May you find true happiness!

>

> In Good Health,

> Thomas

>

>

> cell:

> Beijing, China

> Author of " Western Herbs According to Traditional : A

> Practitioners Guide "

>

>

>