Guest guest Posted December 9, 2005 Report Share Posted December 9, 2005 Chinese Traditional Medicine , marcos <ishk18> wrote: > > Hello Vinod, > Interesting, they needled the channels in the same manner as the > Chinese? > Please, what is the difference between the srotas and the nadis? > And I (reviewing it)agree with you that MTCM is a more accurate > way to refer to what is nowadays called TCM. > May the Hun be with you,. > Marcos They did not needle the channels in the same way as the modern Chinese - but neither did the Chinese use needles in ancient times as they do now. Nadi's are the pathways of the nervous system - Srotas are the same as meridians. These channels are the energy pathways of the organs themselves and also they are the channels through which the organs and the different sides of the body communicate with each other. They are extraneous to the nervous system and perform differnt functions from the Nervous system. Nadi is nervous system and srota is meridian system - both are under the control of Vata dosha (they facilatate motion and activity). Both systems are obviously associated with Qi since they move energy - the movement is Qi and the thing moved is Qi. Many schools have recognized a system of circulation which is called by differnt names (meridian, srota, etc.)but this system is understood in slightly different ways by different schools - and the ways of minipulation of this system are differentin the different schools. As example in China today there are several schools of accupuncture - my prejudice is for the Five-Element system - although I am not an Accupucturist - still I prefer a pure Five- Element system for all diagnosis and treatment. In Tibet they have a slightly different system. I met the great Dr. Dolma who was an authority in using moxa on the head points. They perform miraculous cures treating these Points with emphasis in balancing the CNS and ANS. the Tibetan Lamas use a ssytem of manipulating head points for 'spiritual' development. I have met many Tibetan Lamas - including the Dalai Lama - they have little scar patterns on their heads from the manipulation of these points in different ways. In Ayurveda the points on the Srotas are called Marma points - there are many schools of manipulating the Marma points several books have been written in modern times on Marma therapy. Yogi's believe that the major benefits of asana practice are strengthening of the nadis, opening of the joints, and stretching of the Srota - this combined with diet therapy and mind control is considered a cure for all non-genetic disease processes. This is the system practiced by my father. The various systems of movement therapy developed in China and other countries are based on manipilation of the maridians (Chi Kung. Tai Chi, etc.). There are also several schools of massage therapy derived from these schools of thought - again I prefer the Eive- Element System of massage. In South India we have a system of martial arts called Kalari which is based on prana develpoment - this sytem has developed an elaborate system of manipulating the Marma points that cures injuries from fighting - there are several clinics here that use these theories to treat a variety of diseases - accident injuries, arthritis, paralysis, etc. Kalari is taught by a hand full of famous families and many of these families have develpoed independent schools of therapy - based on ancient theories of healing - that are actually off-shoot schools of the ancient Dravidian system that is somewhat different from Ayurveda. Southeast Asia has several schoolsof channel manipulation from the famous Thai massage system (one of the worlds best systems in the hands of a mastter) - Indonesia has it's on school, etc. Your mentioning TCM and MTCM is important to understand because there is a huge theoretical battle going on between the 'traditionalists' and the 'modern' theorists. The old school says - we are the pure unadulterated your school is an unneeded hybrid - that does not have suffecient experience behind it to be validated. The new school says the old school is primitve and needs updating to suit modern disease processes and social considerations - plus new therapies have been discovered. Actually the MTCM school is the one generally supported by the government since it is a synthasis school of Eastern and Western - therfore considered more 'modern'. I am on the side of both schools of thought - becuase I belive the old masters's were complete in their theory - but it is true that new techniques of therapy and ways of using herbs have been developed in the past century. Many out of date therapies and formulas are being revived because of their usefulness in modern times (some are being modified for modern cases)- this as an example is happening in the revival of the Central Chi formulas that we have discussed recently. Xiao Yao Wan as an example is being used in differnt ways today than in the past - most traditional physicians see Rambling Pills as a classic medicine for PMS and other blocked Qi female disorders. Yet today it is seen as an important medicine in many stagnation problems. Exmple may athletes use it to keep Qi flowing - it is frequently used nowadays for Liver stagnation (a primary theory for the development of the formula in the first place). Medicine is not static it has always been evolving and adapting to new conditions - we are nowhere near the development of a 'completed' medical system - the next years are going to see an explosion of medical thought - I for one am happy to see this development - but what we have to be careful of is to make sure that our new 'developments' are not in contradiction to the enlightened masters of the past. In fact using the framework of the great and glorious past to hang our 'new' ideas is a good starting point for a trully new and 'valid' system of improved theraputics. This is my approach. My father is a very strict traditionalist and I am a very broad ranging modernist. So far he and I do not feel that we have parted ways in our theoretical understandings. Some have wondered why I always refer to my father - this is because in my mind he is the symbol of the pure traditional way of thinking as opposed to many subjects we discuss here which I see diferently than the traditionalists - it is not that I disagree with them - it is that I think the traditional systems need to be adapted to modern lifestyle and economic situations. Example traditional medicene in traditional society is cheap - in modern society it is not - so I feel it is the responsibility of modern thinkers to help make medicine affordable and accessable to the widest number of people. Theraputics is in revolution and i agree that it needs it - but we must be careful not to throw the baby out with the bath water. Actually the signs in general look good for the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.