What is Chinese Medicine

[Guest guest]

Good point... I have never really looked at Unschuld in his history writings

other than his recent Currents book. Is he the best English language source for

this or can anyone recommend others?

Doug

 

 

, " trevor_erikson " <trevor_erikson

wrote:

>

> Doug,

>

> Actually if you look at the last 2000 years of Chinese history, there has been

a lot disagreement of what is true Chinese medicine vrs what is not,particularly

between the Confucianists and taoists. Their view points differed greatly at

times, and I believe is why the whole " Neo-Confucianism " movement started in the

middle ages, to try and blend the two systems together.

>

> Trevor

>

> , " " <taiqi@> wrote:

> >

> > One problem in this discussion from (our?) western perspective is that

has always been part of Chinese Philosophy whereas what we

might call Philosophy comes under ethics and governance. I'm paraphrasing some

author here....

> >

> > That has meant that taoists, buddhists, qi gong practitioners, martial

artists, meditators have some and legitimate claim to the medicine. The

communists undoubtably took and take unconscionable actions against religious

movement as did each group take towards each other, just talking about the last

200 years of China's history.

> >

> > For westerners with a body and mind the psychospiritual concept is missing

only when taken from the taoist point of view or one of the other sets of

groups. I would agree that the spiritual isn't in the medicine literature but

what has been ignored by the current TCM are the side " philosophies " which

incorporate the medicine. Whether this is a concern for us that are only

involved with the medicine shouldn't matter.

> >

> > doug

> >

>

[Guest guest]

HI Doug,

 

I really enjoy Unshulds books, particularly the one dedicated to herbal

medicine, History of Pharmaceutics. He basically comments on every single known

updated version/ revision of the Ben cao over the last 2000 years, analyzing the

differences between 4 main tradition. It is a massive achievement really.

 

The Currents book you speak of is Volker Shied's, which is also excellent. His

approach is different than Unshuld's, in that Volker linked the many different

human relationships, as well as treatment styles, that made/ make up the Meng

He current as we know today. Unshuld was more interested in the relationships of

related written works.

 

Both Authors offer excellent viewpoints on a Chinese medical history, and I

would highly recommend both.

 

Best

Trevor

 

, " " wrote:

>

> Good point... I have never really looked at Unschuld in his history writings

other than his recent Currents book. Is he the best English language source for

this or can anyone recommend others?

> Doug

>

>

> , " trevor_erikson " <trevor_erikson@>

wrote:

> >

> > Doug,

> >

> > Actually if you look at the last 2000 years of Chinese history, there has

been a lot disagreement of what is true Chinese medicine vrs what is

not,particularly between the Confucianists and taoists. Their view points

differed greatly at times, and I believe is why the whole " Neo-Confucianism "

movement started in the middle ages, to try and blend the two systems together.

> >

> > Trevor

> >

> > , " " <taiqi@> wrote:

> > >

> > > One problem in this discussion from (our?) western perspective is that

has always been part of Chinese Philosophy whereas what we

might call Philosophy comes under ethics and governance. I'm paraphrasing some

author here....

> > >

> > > That has meant that taoists, buddhists, qi gong practitioners, martial

artists, meditators have some and legitimate claim to the medicine. The

communists undoubtably took and take unconscionable actions against religious

movement as did each group take towards each other, just talking about the last

200 years of China's history.

> > >

> > > For westerners with a body and mind the psychospiritual concept is missing

only when taken from the taoist point of view or one of the other sets of

groups. I would agree that the spiritual isn't in the medicine literature but

what has been ignored by the current TCM are the side " philosophies " which

incorporate the medicine. Whether this is a concern for us that are only

involved with the medicine shouldn't matter.

> > >

> > > doug

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Thanks for the recommendation and d'uhh of course i should have remembered that

it was Volker Scheid...who wrote the Currents book.

Doug

 

 

 

, " trevor_erikson " <trevor_erikson

wrote:

>

> HI Doug,

>

> I really enjoy Unshulds books, particularly the one dedicated to herbal

medicine, History of Pharmaceutics. He basically comments on every single known

updated version/ revision of the Ben cao over the last 2000 years, analyzing the

differences between 4 main tradition. It is a massive achievement really.

>

> The Currents book you speak of is Volker Shied's, which is also excellent. His

approach is different than Unshuld's, in that Volker linked the many different

human relationships, as well as treatment styles, that made/ make up the Meng

He current as we know today. Unshuld was more interested in the relationships of

related written works.

>

> Both Authors offer excellent viewpoints on a Chinese medical history, and I

would highly recommend both.

>

> Best

> Trevor

>