Guest guest Posted February 13, 2010 Report Share Posted February 13, 2010 I'm wondering if we could make clear distinctions between the following terms... Jing (Channels?) Luo (Collaterals?) Mai (Blood vessels?) Did the Chinese ever talk about the anatomical " nerves " of the body? K -- "" www.tcmreview.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 17, 2010 Report Share Posted February 17, 2010 Deke Kendall talked a lot about those terms and being clear on what they mean in modern medical terms. A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his knowledge is very sound. It is based on understanding chinese language, TCM terms and TCM and western physiology. His book is called the DAO of Chinese medicine . He has done a lot of research and has good footnotes for his sources. He talks about nerves, which I think he calls Sheng mai. (don't quote me I don't have the book with me and its been a long time.) Ken Chinese Medicine , <johnkokko wrote: > > I'm wondering if we could make clear distinctions between the following > terms... > > Jing (Channels?) > Luo (Collaterals?) > Mai (Blood vessels?) > > Did the Chinese ever talk about the anatomical " nerves " of the body? > > K > > > > > -- > > > "" > > > www.tcmreview.com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 I've also studied with Deke, twenty two years ago, but I don't think it is correct to identify the various channels and vessels with specific anatomical structures as defined by modern anatomy/physiology. It ends up being overly reductive. Certainly there are interesting crossovers and interfaces between Chinese and biomedicine, but that doesn't mean that the terms mean the same things. On Feb 17, 2010, at 1:43 PM, kncherman wrote: > Deke Kendall talked a lot about those terms and being clear on what they mean in modern medical terms. A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his knowledge is very sound. It is based on understanding chinese language, TCM terms and TCM and western physiology. His book is called the DAO of Chinese medicine . He has done a lot of research and has good footnotes for his sources. > > He talks about nerves, which I think he calls Sheng mai. (don't quote me I don't have the book with me and its been a long time.) > > Ken > > Chinese Medicine , <johnkokko wrote: > > > > I'm wondering if we could make clear distinctions between the following > > terms... > > > > Jing (Channels?) > > Luo (Collaterals?) > > Mai (Blood vessels?) > > > > Did the Chinese ever talk about the anatomical " nerves " of the body? > > > > K > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > "" > > > > > > www.tcmreview.com > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Jason Totally agree with you....... this idea of TCM NOT being dead.........following as best as I can in the TCM lineage from Ding Ganren.....to Qin Bowei.....to Wu Boping. Recently received a compliment from Wu Laoshi that I contributed to the further DEVELOPMENT of TCM by combining the use of Gua Sha and Ba Guan into what he termed in 1994 as Ba Gua Fa. His words: 在2010-02-11 00:23:22，ACUDOC11 写é“： " Hi, Richard, Thanks.Yes, BA GUA FA develop TCM . My meaning is: In TCM , BA GUAN ( CUPING) & GUA SHA are independent. No TCM doctor has mixed. You did it & practice, got good result!! So I called it that you DEVELOPE TCM . DR. WU " So I take from Master Wu that TCM is far from dead or dying. It is ever expanding and will never die nor is it outdated. Richard In a message dated 2/18/2010 10:12:05 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, writes: Hugo, I just don't buy it, irrefutable?I just don't buy it, irrefutable?<WBR>??… TCM, originally developed by great physicians such as Qin Bo-Wei, which I have studied in great detail, had its main purpose in bringing together all of the diverse core ideas of CM’s past into a functioning flexible and very broad system. I have actually spent years translating the original documents that formed the beginning of TCM I have never found any evidence that this move was to destroy CM. Where do you get this idea from??? Historically this movement is what actually saved CM from the grips of Western medicine. Now what we have done with that original material is a whole other discussion, but you will have to show me something much more tangible for me to buy your argument. Maybe you could articulate your argument a little better, I'm not sure what “one of those lesser evils type things†etc. is supposed to mean. -Jason _Traditional_Traditional_<WBRTraditional_Tra_ (Chinese Medicine ) [_Traditional_Traditional_<WBRTraditional_Tra_ (Chinese Medicine ) ] On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:04 AM _Traditional_Traditional_<WBRTraditional_Tra_ (Chinese Medicine ) Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hi Jason, it is , as you know, one of those lesser evils type things. However, it is irrefutable that the idea initially was to destroy CM entirely. These same peope, when faced with too much resistance and the reality of healthcare delivery, compromised and formed TCM. TCM provided an avenue, temporarily. In some ways however, it is a dead-end. TCM is the mask that every indigenous practice, when faced by a superior force, dons. It's time to let go of the mask, and be who we are. Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Hi Ken, thansk for weighing in: --Ken- A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his knowledge is very sound. --- Your comment makes criticisms of Kendall's book sound like they are based on mere preference. For instance, it's not that I don't " like " his book. Kendall defines Qi as air, and only air. I don't understand how he could have such a major misapprehension of this fundamental concept. It seems to me that too much of Kendall's thesis is spent examining the errors of two largely irrelevant groups of people: the sources of TCM ( " we'd like to destroy CM, but can't, so let's make TCM " ), and the europenas who took too little information, added their stuff to it, and ran with it. I am suspicious of any researcher who pretends to tackle a subject but does not bring primary sources (CM lineage holders) deep into the core of his project. Books can't talk back, if you you know what I mean. And I just can't get past his definition of Qi. Maybe I am just not at the cutting edge, as has been mentioned before. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ " kncherman " <kncherman Chinese Medicine Wed, 17 February, 2010 16:43:47 Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Deke Kendall talked a lot about those terms and being clear on what they mean in modern medical terms. A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his knowledge is very sound. It is based on understanding chinese language, TCM terms and TCM and western physiology. His book is called the DAO of Chinese medicine . He has done a lot of research and has good footnotes for his sources. He talks about nerves, which I think he calls Sheng mai. (don't quote me I don't have the book with me and its been a long time.) Ken Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , <johnkokko@. ...> wrote: > > I'm wondering if we could make clear distinctions between the following > terms... > > Jing (Channels?) > Luo (Collaterals? ) > Mai (Blood vessels?) > > Did the Chinese ever talk about the anatomical " nerves " of the body? > > K > > > > > -- > > > "" > > www.turtleclinic. com > www.tcmreview. com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Ken, Practitioners that support the more modern ideas, like Mr. Kendal, have largely ignored the works of Dr. Kim Bonghan and more recently Dr. Soh. This work has been published since the 1960's and many recent peer-reviewed studies have been showing up in scientific journals. I happen to think that this work does a much better job of explaining CM, if you are looking for some anatomical correlates. I have no idea that Mr. Kendal published a product with lots of references but why not include this work? Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine kncherman Wed, 17 Feb 2010 21:43:47 +0000 Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Deke Kendall talked a lot about those terms and being clear on what they mean in modern medical terms. A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his knowledge is very sound. It is based on understanding chinese language, TCM terms and TCM and western physiology. His book is called the DAO of Chinese medicine . He has done a lot of research and has good footnotes for his sources. He talks about nerves, which I think he calls Sheng mai. (don't quote me I don't have the book with me and its been a long time.) Ken Chinese Medicine , <johnkokko wrote: > > I'm wondering if we could make clear distinctions between the following > terms... > > Jing (Channels?) > Luo (Collaterals?) > Mai (Blood vessels?) > > Did the Chinese ever talk about the anatomical " nerves " of the body? > > K > > > > > -- > > > "" > > > www.tcmreview.com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Being clear about terminology that you choose to educate your patients with is one thing but severly lacking for professional usage. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc Chinese Medicine subincor Thu, 18 Feb 2010 15:46:21 +0000 Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hi Ken, thansk for weighing in: --Ken- A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his knowledge is very sound. --- Your comment makes criticisms of Kendall's book sound like they are based on mere preference. For instance, it's not that I don't " like " his book. Kendall defines Qi as air, and only air. I don't understand how he could have such a major misapprehension of this fundamental concept. It seems to me that too much of Kendall's thesis is spent examining the errors of two largely irrelevant groups of people: the sources of TCM ( " we'd like to destroy CM, but can't, so let's make TCM " ), and the europenas who took too little information, added their stuff to it, and ran with it. I am suspicious of any researcher who pretends to tackle a subject but does not bring primary sources (CM lineage holders) deep into the core of his project. Books can't talk back, if you you know what I mean. And I just can't get past his definition of Qi. Maybe I am just not at the cutting edge, as has been mentioned before. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ " kncherman " <kncherman Chinese Medicine Wed, 17 February, 2010 16:43:47 Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Deke Kendall talked a lot about those terms and being clear on what they mean in modern medical terms. A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his knowledge is very sound. It is based on understanding chinese language, TCM terms and TCM and western physiology. His book is called the DAO of Chinese medicine . He has done a lot of research and has good footnotes for his sources. He talks about nerves, which I think he calls Sheng mai. (don't quote me I don't have the book with me and its been a long time.) Ken Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , <johnkokko@. ...> wrote: > > I'm wondering if we could make clear distinctions between the following > terms... > > Jing (Channels?) > Luo (Collaterals? ) > Mai (Blood vessels?) > > Did the Chinese ever talk about the anatomical " nerves " of the body? > > K > > > > > -- > > > "" > > www.turtleclinic. com > www.tcmreview. com > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Hugo, It seems to me that early TCM is what saved CM… -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro the sources of TCM ( " we'd like to destroy CM, but can't, so let's make TCM " ), and the europenas who took too little information, added their stuff to it, and ran with it. I am suspicious of any researcher who pretends to tackle a subject but does not bring primary sources (CM lineage holders) deep into the core of his project. Books can't talk back, if you you know what I mean. And I just can't get past his definition of Qi. Maybe I am just not at the cutting edge, as has been mentioned before. Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Hi Jason: Can you expand on this, what do you mean? thanks, david Chinese Medicine , " " wrote: > > Hugo, > > > > It seems to me that early TCM is what saved CM… > > > > -Jason > > > > Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro > > > > the sources of TCM ( " we'd like to destroy CM, but can't, so let's make TCM " ), and the europenas who took too little information, added their stuff to it, and ran with it. I am suspicious of any researcher who pretends to tackle a subject but does not bring primary sources (CM lineage holders) deep into the core of his project. Books can't talk back, if you you know what I mean. > And I just can't get past his definition of Qi. Maybe I am just not at the cutting edge, as has been mentioned before. > > Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Hi Hugo: I tried to read the book a few times, did not resonate with me. A few comments though, welcome your view. He seems to equate the vasculature system as the real channel system, we treat the arteries and veins. I am not sure this explains how these points/channels can treat organ imbalances, not just pain. Is there a usage of the secondary vessels and their unique areas of influence? thanks, david Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > Hi Ken, thansk for weighing in: > > --Ken- > A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it > essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his > knowledge is very sound. > --- > > Your comment makes criticisms of Kendall's book sound like they are based on mere preference. For instance, it's not that I don't " like " his book. Kendall defines Qi as air, and only air. I don't understand how he could have such a major misapprehension of this fundamental concept. It seems to me that too much of Kendall's thesis is spent examining the errors of two largely irrelevant groups of people: the sources of TCM ( " we'd like to destroy CM, but can't, so let's make TCM " ), and the europenas who took too little information, added their stuff to it, and ran with it. I am suspicious of any researcher who pretends to tackle a subject but does not bring primary sources (CM lineage holders) deep into the core of his project. Books can't talk back, if you you know what I mean. > And I just can't get past his definition of Qi. Maybe I am just not at the cutting edge, as has been mentioned before. > > Hugo > > ________________________________ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > http://www.middlemedicine.org > > > > > > ________________________________ > " kncherman " <kncherman > Chinese Medicine > Wed, 17 February, 2010 16:43:47 > Re: Jing / Luo / Mai > > > Deke Kendall talked a lot about those terms and being clear on what they mean in modern medical terms. A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his knowledge is very sound. It is based on understanding chinese language, TCM terms and TCM and western physiology. His book is called the DAO of Chinese medicine . He has done a lot of research and has good footnotes for his sources. > > He talks about nerves, which I think he calls Sheng mai. (don't quote me I don't have the book with me and its been a long time.) > > Ken > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , <johnkokko@ ...> wrote: > > > > I'm wondering if we could make clear distinctions between the following > > terms... > > > > Jing (Channels?) > > Luo (Collaterals? ) > > Mai (Blood vessels?) > > > > Did the Chinese ever talk about the anatomical " nerves " of the body? > > > > K > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > "" > > > > www.turtleclinic. com > > www.tcmreview. com > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Hi Jason, it is , as you know, one of those lesser evils type things. However, it is irrefutable that the idea initially was to destroy CM entirely. These same peope, when faced with too much resistance and the reality of healthcare delivery, compromised and formed TCM. TCM provided an avenue, temporarily. In some ways however, it is a dead-end. TCM is the mask that every indigenous practice, when faced by a superior force, dons. It's time to let go of the mask, and be who we are. Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ Chinese Medicine Thu, 18 February, 2010 10:59:25 RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hugo, It seems to me that early TCM is what saved CM… -Jason Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine [Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine ] On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro the sources of TCM ( " we'd like to destroy CM, but can't, so let's make TCM " ), and the europenas who took too little information, added their stuff to it, and ran with it. I am suspicious of any researcher who pretends to tackle a subject but does not bring primary sources (CM lineage holders) deep into the core of his project. Books can't talk back, if you you know what I mean. And I just can't get past his definition of Qi. Maybe I am just not at the cutting edge, as has been mentioned before. Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Hugo, I just don't buy it, irrefutable???… TCM, originally developed by great physicians such as Qin Bo-Wei, which I have studied in great detail, had its main purpose in bringing together all of the diverse core ideas of CM’s past into a functioning flexible and very broad system. I have actually spent years translating the original documents that formed the beginning of TCM and a very clear about this material. I have never found any evidence that this move was to destroy CM. Where do you get this idea from??? Historically this movement is what actually saved CM from the grips of Western medicine. Now what we have done with that original material is a whole other discussion, but you will have to show me something much more tangible for me to buy your argument. Maybe you could articulate your argument a little better, I'm not sure what “one of those lesser evils type things†etc. is supposed to mean. -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:04 AM Chinese Medicine Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hi Jason, it is , as you know, one of those lesser evils type things. However, it is irrefutable that the idea initially was to destroy CM entirely. These same peope, when faced with too much resistance and the reality of healthcare delivery, compromised and formed TCM. TCM provided an avenue, temporarily. In some ways however, it is a dead-end. TCM is the mask that every indigenous practice, when faced by a superior force, dons. It's time to let go of the mask, and be who we are. Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Hugo Different levels of discussion....YES. Additional recent comments by Dr Wu, Boping: " Dear Richard, Yes, I think so. But, China now.....all people for money, BA GUA FA can not get more money. MD, they THINK, THEY ARE THE BEST doctors. Only believe chemical test & medicine. Never thinking on TCM. DR. WU " In this sense I would agree. Richard In a message dated 2/18/2010 4:27:03 P.M. Eastern Standard Time, subincor writes: “In recent years, the unique characteristics of Chinese medicine, its advantages over Western medicine, and its standards of academic excellence have not been developed according to the wishes of the people, but have rather been tossed into a state of severe crisis and chaotic actions. Underneath the bright and cheap glitter at the surface, the essence and the characteristics of Chinese medicine are being metamorphosed and annihilated at a most perturbing rate. The primary expression of this crisis is the Westernisation of all guiding principles and methodologies of Chinese medicine.†Lü Bingkui, former director of the PRC's Ministry of TCM Administration, July 1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Essentially, CM was pretty much dying due to Western medicine and specifically antibiotics. With the creation of TCM, bringing together of traditions, institutionalizing and teaching it, it made TCM once again a dominant force in health care in China . -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of singlewhip2001 Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:30 AM Chinese Medicine Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hi Jason: Can you expand on this, what do you mean? thanks, david Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Hi Jason: First off, I believe we're speaking at different levels and about different things. I am smearing TCM with the government policies that led to the creation of TCM. The government policies that led to the creation of TCM were initially intended to eradicate Chinese medicine since CM was just a collection of " superstitious practices locked in the past " (paraphrased). This is a matter of historical record. CM was considered, by many of those in power, an embarrassment to China. Why am I smearing TCM? Well, because TCM is the result of getting dragged into the arena of the time, which was almost wholesale rejection of the indigenous culture and transplantation of all that is good and white. There was probably no way to avoid it. My comments are largely concerned with what you have framed as " what we did with those original materials " . It's a very good way of putting it. So, what I am understanding is that you may be reacting to my smear campaign of TCM rather than my broadly fired criticism of the marxist policy of scientification imposed by both ROC and PRC (marxism being heavily materialist and anti-spirit-religion, as well as already allied with biomedicine). I am going to assume that that is so, since the initial policy to exchange CM for WM is, again, a matter of historical record. So, to address what I am assuming you are reacting to: I am often very divided as to what I feel about TCM. On the one hand, I have often thought that TCM allowed (classical) to continue flourishing, and so fulfilled a purpose. On the other hand, I wonder if some of the compromises were excessive. I also wonder what TCM's potential for growth is, since in many ways it has been stagnating since at least the 80s, as proclaimed by formerly secret (now, semi-secret) groups of administrators, teachers, and old doctors in the PRC. As far as Qin Bo-Wei and other great physicians creating TCM and therefore destroying CM, I never meant that. They acted in the best interests of CM and did as much as they could with what they were given. At the same time, we can look at the after-effects of these mid-1900s policies: TCM texts have headings that are western disease entities. How is it Chinese medicine to have western disease entities heading chapters in a CM text? I, personally, find these texts useless for teaching anyone but the rankest beginners (and they can be useful for an experienced practitioner when looking up an unfamiliar western condition). Unfortunately, like my teacher (and to my constant detriment), I am interested in process and function, not data-points and factoids. For example, there is a *reason* that the classics are structured the way they are - and as far as I am concerned they are more difficult to learn from becasue they contain far more juice than the divisive TCM texts that parrot western medical tomes. So whatever the old masters meant to have happen, we have are left with unhealthy consequences. Again, having said that, I feel (I hope) TCM was a necessary and useful exploration. Far be it from me to criticise though. And yet I do. The situation, actually, is not much different to what happened with traditional wu shu as it was transformed into olympic sport-hopeful Wu Shu. And while I have the greatest respect for Wu Shu athletes and their athleticism and their often very hard life (just like I respect TCM doctors), I also happen to Know that Wu Shu is a lesser version of the real martial arts (despite the fully legitimate classical wu shu masters who created Wu Shu for the ROC/PRC). This is similar to my Knowing that TCM acupuncture is HEAVILY inferior to the acupuncture that I learned in my lineage. Then again, TCM acupuncture led to acu anesthesia and scalp acupuncture, so there is something there. And of course there's going to be great controversy over these points that I am making, like the controversy surrounding how Yang style Tai Ji is the lesser version of Chen style Tai Ji (which is the REAL version)...why? Well because when Chen tried to teach it at the imperial court he found the imperialists lazy (as they can be) and so he created a Chen style watered way down without the hard stuff (which is the good stuff) and it ended up being Yang style. Very offensive ideas. Good thing the fights will only occur in slow-motion. I'm a Chen stylist, by the way. A bottom-feeder to be clear. However, you made a point that grabbed my eye: --Jason- diverse core ideas of CM’s past into a functioning flexible and very broad system. --- TCM is clearly one of the " schools " of CM, like the blood-stasis school, or the warm diseases school. I just wonder if TCM took too many liberties. Forcing herbal theory onto acupuncture, for example. I don't know if TCM is as fully functioning as the classical schools (which schools I am unrealistically lumping together into One Solid, Standardised Mass). It is a broad system, although my teacher, whose anonymous face I have invoked far too often today, said something to the effect of 10 dull knives... you know how that one goes. In any case, I hope most of the bad misunderstandings have been cleared up. Qin Bo-Wei and company did what they had to do, did it with integrity, but it was an imperfect situation buffeted by powerful political forces. TCM did not escape unscathed. Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ Chinese Medicine Thu, 18 February, 2010 13:10:37 RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hugo, I just don't buy it, irrefutable? ??… TCM, originally developed by great physicians such as Qin Bo-Wei, which I have studied in great detail, had its main purpose in bringing together all of the diverse core ideas of CM’s past into a functioning flexible and very broad system. I have actually spent years translating the original documents that formed the beginning of TCM and a very clear about this material. I have never found any evidence that this move was to destroy CM. Where do you get this idea from??? Historically this movement is what actually saved CM from the grips of Western medicine. Now what we have done with that original material is a whole other discussion, but you will have to show me something much more tangible for me to buy your argument. Maybe you could articulate your argument a little better, I'm not sure what “one of those lesser evils type things†etc. is supposed to mean. -Jason Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine [Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine ] On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:04 AM Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hi Jason, it is , as you know, one of those lesser evils type things. However, it is irrefutable that the idea initially was to destroy CM entirely. These same peope, when faced with too much resistance and the reality of healthcare delivery, compromised and formed TCM. TCM provided an avenue, temporarily. In some ways however, it is a dead-end. TCM is the mask that every indigenous practice, when faced by a superior force, dons. It's time to let go of the mask, and be who we are. Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Richard and all: And the controversy rages on! That's why I love this group! You guys just don't know when to give up! But seriously folks; Richard, we can claim growth without it truly being there in the *profession*. And there might be growth in certain areas, while other essential areas rot. Check this quotation, which I have posted here before, I am sure: “In recent years, the unique characteristics of Chinese medicine, its advantages over Western medicine, and its standards of academic excellence have not been developed according to the wishes of the people, but have rather been tossed into a state of severe crisis and chaotic actions. Underneath the bright and cheap glitter at the surface, the essence and the characteristics of Chinese medicine are being metamorphosed and annihilated at a most perturbing rate. The primary expression of this crisis is the Westernisation of all guiding principles and methodologies of Chinese medicine.†Lü Bingkui, former director of the PRC's Ministry of TCM Administration, July 1991 Note the use of the words " crisis " , and " severe " . Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ " acudoc11 " <acudoc11 Chinese Medicine Thu, 18 February, 2010 15:13:21 Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Jason Totally agree with you....... this idea of TCM NOT being dead........ .following as best as I can in the TCM lineage from Ding Ganren.....to Qin Bowei.....to Wu Boping. Recently received a compliment from Wu Laoshi that I contributed to the further DEVELOPMENT of TCM by combining the use of Gua Sha and Ba Guan into what he termed in 1994 as Ba Gua Fa. His words: 在2010-02-11 00:23:22，ACUDOC11 (AT) aol (DOT) com 写é“： " Hi, Richard, Thanks.Yes, BA GUA FA develop TCM . My meaning is: In TCM , BA GUAN ( CUPING) & GUA SHA are independent. No TCM doctor has mixed. You did it & practice, got good result!! So I called it that you DEVELOPE TCM . DR. WU " So I take from Master Wu that TCM is far from dead or dying. It is ever expanding and will never die nor is it outdated. Richard In a message dated 2/18/2010 10:12:05 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, @chinesemed icinedoc. com writes: Hugo, I just don't buy it, irrefutable? I just don't buy it, irrefutable? <WBR>??… TCM, originally developed by great physicians such as Qin Bo-Wei, which I have studied in great detail, had its main purpose in bringing together all of the diverse core ideas of CM’s past into a functioning flexible and very broad system. I have actually spent years translating the original documents that formed the beginning of TCM I have never found any evidence that this move was to destroy CM. Where do you get this idea from??? Historically this movement is what actually saved CM from the grips of Western medicine. Now what we have done with that original material is a whole other discussion, but you will have to show me something much more tangible for me to buy your argument. Maybe you could articulate your argument a little better, I'm not sure what “one of those lesser evils type things†etc. is supposed to mean. -Jason _Traditional_ Traditional_ <WBRTraditional_ Tra_ (Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine ) [_Traditiona l_Traditional_ <WBRTraditional_ Tra_ (Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine ) ] On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:04 AM _Traditional_ Traditional_ <WBRTraditional_ Tra_ (Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine ) Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hi Jason, it is , as you know, one of those lesser evils type things. However, it is irrefutable that the idea initially was to destroy CM entirely. These same peope, when faced with too much resistance and the reality of healthcare delivery, compromised and formed TCM. TCM provided an avenue, temporarily. In some ways however, it is a dead-end. TCM is the mask that every indigenous practice, when faced by a superior force, dons. It's time to let go of the mask, and be who we are. Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 Hugo, First, my discussion is only referring to herbal medicine, I have no comment about acupuncture. For the record, the bulk of Chinese medicine written record (e.g. case studies, theory) is from an herbal perspective. Quite simply, I think you have a misunderstanding of what CM was prior to TCM. Please read some books from the early 1900s (or 1800s or earlier) and compare to the early TCM texts. Of course there were superstitious practices that were not included in TCM, for better or worse. However, there is no evidence that such practices were thriving and successful prior to TCM. Lineages that believed in these more esoteric practices of course were not forced to practice mainstream TCM and could continue to practice anyway they like. Maybe the stranger material that you prefer did not make it into TCM. I would like to hear specifics on what this exactly was and which doctors were practicing this prior to TCM. Please present this. Too often, I hear that the Communist destroyed the psycho-spiritual aspects of Chinese medicine. I've yet to find any evidence that this is true. However, I do agree with you that much of the later Western medicine additions are superficial and not helpful. However, this is a different issue. For example, much of the source material for TCM has zero mentioning of western disease names. So I stand by my original point until proven otherwise, that TCM was not designed to destroy Chinese medicine it was there to preserve it. In summary, I would like to see some evidence that shows that TCM was intended to eradicate Chinese medicine, and the presentation of the material that was weeded out. -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro Thursday, February 18, 2010 2:19 PM Chinese Medicine Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hi Jason: First off, I believe we're speaking at different levels and about different things. I am smearing TCM with the government policies that led to the creation of TCM. The government policies that led to the creation of TCM were initially intended to eradicate Chinese medicine since CM was just a collection of " superstitious practices locked in the past " (paraphrased). This is a matter of historical record. CM was considered, by many of those in power, an embarrassment to China. Why am I smearing TCM? Well, because TCM is the result of getting dragged into the arena of the time, which was almost wholesale rejection of the indigenous culture and transplantation of all that is good and white. There was probably no way to avoid it. My comments are largely concerned with what you have framed as " what we did with those original materials " . It's a very good way of putting it. So, what I am understanding is that you may be reacting to my smear campaign of TCM rather than my broadly fired criticism of the marxist policy of scientification imposed by both ROC and PRC (marxism being heavily materialist and anti-spirit-religion, as well as already allied with biomedicine). I am going to assume that that is so, since the initial policy to exchange CM for WM is, again, a matter of historical record. So, to address what I am assuming you are reacting to: I am often very divided as to what I feel about TCM. On the one hand, I have often thought that TCM allowed (classical) to continue flourishing, and so fulfilled a purpose. On the other hand, I wonder if some of the compromises were excessive. I also wonder what TCM's potential for growth is, since in many ways it has been stagnating since at least the 80s, as proclaimed by formerly secret (now, semi-secret) groups of administrators, teachers, and old doctors in the PRC. As far as Qin Bo-Wei and other great physicians creating TCM and therefore destroying CM, I never meant that. They acted in the best interests of CM and did as much as they could with what they were given. At the same time, we can look at the after-effects of these mid-1900s policies: TCM texts have headings that are western disease entities. How is it Chinese medicine to have western disease entities heading chapters in a CM text? I, personally, find these texts useless for teaching anyone but the rankest beginners (and they can be useful for an experienced practitioner when looking up an unfamiliar western condition). Unfortunately, like my teacher (and to my constant detriment), I am interested in process and function, not data-points and factoids. For example, there is a *reason* that the classics are structured the way they are - and as far as I am concerned they are more difficult to learn from becasue they contain far more juice than the divisive TCM texts that parrot western medical tomes. So whatever the old masters meant to have happen, we have are left with unhealthy consequences. Again, having said that, I feel (I hope) TCM was a necessary and useful exploration. Far be it from me to criticise though. And yet I do. The situation, actually, is not much different to what happened with traditional wu shu as it was transformed into olympic sport-hopeful Wu Shu. And while I have the greatest respect for Wu Shu athletes and their athleticism and their often very hard life (just like I respect TCM doctors), I also happen to Know that Wu Shu is a lesser version of the real martial arts (despite the fully legitimate classical wu shu masters who created Wu Shu for the ROC/PRC). This is similar to my Knowing that TCM acupuncture is HEAVILY inferior to the acupuncture that I learned in my lineage. Then again, TCM acupuncture led to acu anesthesia and scalp acupuncture, so there is something there. And of course there's going to be great controversy over these points that I am making, like the controversy surrounding how Yang style Tai Ji is the lesser version of Chen style Tai Ji (which is the REAL version)...why? Well because when Chen tried to teach it at the imperial court he found the imperialists lazy (as they can be) and so he created a Chen style watered way down without the hard stuff (which is the good stuff) and it ended up being Yang style. Very offensive ideas. Good thing the fights will only occur in slow-motion. I'm a Chen stylist, by the way. A bottom-feeder to be clear. However, you made a point that grabbed my eye: --Jason- diverse core ideas of CM’s past into a functioning flexible and very broad system. --- TCM is clearly one of the " schools " of CM, like the blood-stasis school, or the warm diseases school. I just wonder if TCM took too many liberties. Forcing herbal theory onto acupuncture, for example. I don't know if TCM is as fully functioning as the classical schools (which schools I am unrealistically lumping together into One Solid, Standardised Mass). It is a broad system, although my teacher, whose anonymous face I have invoked far too often today, said something to the effect of 10 dull knives... you know how that one goes. In any case, I hope most of the bad misunderstandings have been cleared up. Qin Bo-Wei and company did what they had to do, did it with integrity, but it was an imperfect situation buffeted by powerful political forces. TCM did not escape unscathed. Thanks, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org ________________________________ < <%40Chinese Medicine> > Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40> Thu, 18 February, 2010 13:10:37 RE: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hugo, I just don't buy it, irrefutable? ??… TCM, originally developed by great physicians such as Qin Bo-Wei, which I have studied in great detail, had its main purpose in bringing together all of the diverse core ideas of CM’s past into a functioning flexible and very broad system. I have actually spent years translating the original documents that formed the beginning of TCM and a very clear about this material. I have never found any evidence that this move was to destroy CM. Where do you get this idea from??? Historically this movement is what actually saved CM from the grips of Western medicine. Now what we have done with that original material is a whole other discussion, but you will have to show me something much more tangible for me to buy your argument. Maybe you could articulate your argument a little better, I'm not sure what “one of those lesser evils type things†etc. is supposed to mean. -Jason Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine [Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine ] On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro Thursday, February 18, 2010 10:04 AM Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hi Jason, it is , as you know, one of those lesser evils type things. However, it is irrefutable that the idea initially was to destroy CM entirely. These same peope, when faced with too much resistance and the reality of healthcare delivery, compromised and formed TCM. TCM provided an avenue, temporarily. In some ways however, it is a dead-end. TCM is the mask that every indigenous practice, when faced by a superior force, dons. It's time to let go of the mask, and be who we are. Hugo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 18, 2010 Report Share Posted February 18, 2010 I did not want to open a can of worms by specifically getting into the arguement about what is qi. I think Dr. Kendall transaltes qi as air/ vital breath and that is refering specifically to Ying Qi. He points out, what I think is correctly, that there are several types of Qi that are fundementally different things. Zheng qi, Zhong qi, yuan qi etc. Yes he believes that the qi that circulates in the blood is oxygen or hemoglobin or whatever, but I don't think he wants to limit qi to only that one idea. When he started writting his book there were only really two Chinese acupuncture textbooks available in English. I think that the level of education that people recieved in the 1970's and 1980's was very low or very basic. He was trying to point out that the Europeans who were first exposed to acupuncture did not have a concept that blood flowed in vessels and therefore they used the term meridian that implies somethng imaginary. He was also trying to dissuade people from thinking that since qi is " energy " and invisible, that you can manipulate it any way you want (i.e. voll and vega machines)and say you are doing acupuncture. He always emphasized that if you want to really practice acupuncture, learn Chinese language and concepts, and study and understand the classic texts. My previous comment about people not liking his book was really refering to the whole " what is Qi " debate. Ken Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > Hi Ken, thansk for weighing in: > > --Ken- > A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it > essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his > knowledge is very sound. > --- > > Your comment makes criticisms of Kendall's book sound like they are based on mere preference. For instance, it's not that I don't " like " his book. Kendall defines Qi as air, and only air. I don't understand how he could have such a major misapprehension of this fundamental concept. It seems to me that too much of Kendall's thesis is spent examining the errors of two largely irrelevant groups of people: the sources of TCM ( " we'd like to destroy CM, but can't, so let's make TCM " ), and the europenas who took too little information, added their stuff to it, and ran with it. I am suspicious of any researcher who pretends to tackle a subject but does not bring primary sources (CM lineage holders) deep into the core of his project. Books can't talk back, if you you know what I mean. > And I just can't get past his definition of Qi. Maybe I am just not at the cutting edge, as has been mentioned before. > > Hugo > > ________________________________ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > http://www.middlemedicine.org > > > > > > ________________________________ > " kncherman " <kncherman > Chinese Medicine > Wed, 17 February, 2010 16:43:47 > Re: Jing / Luo / Mai > > > Deke Kendall talked a lot about those terms and being clear on what they mean in modern medical terms. A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his knowledge is very sound. It is based on understanding chinese language, TCM terms and TCM and western physiology. His book is called the DAO of Chinese medicine . He has done a lot of research and has good footnotes for his sources. > > He talks about nerves, which I think he calls Sheng mai. (don't quote me I don't have the book with me and its been a long time.) > > Ken > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , <johnkokko@ ...> wrote: > > > > I'm wondering if we could make clear distinctions between the following > > terms... > > > > Jing (Channels?) > > Luo (Collaterals? ) > > Mai (Blood vessels?) > > > > Did the Chinese ever talk about the anatomical " nerves " of the body? > > > > K > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > "" > > > > www.turtleclinic. com > > www.tcmreview. com > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Hi Jason, First off I want to thank you for providing a space for me to say these things. I've been wanting to say them for a long time. I do hope you make it through, I am sincerely interested in your p.o.v.. I agree that Qin Bo-Wei and Co. was attempting to preserve CM. I don't necessarily agree that it was essential that they do so. Indigenous traditions (not always) have an ability to go underground and then make a resurgence, especially provided genocide was not carried out - this is the benefit of oral traditions: high fidelity to meaning and loyalty born out of familial / spiritual investment. I state the point again, that this preservation of CM was carried out under duress. Matter of historical record again. By the way, what written records of oral traditions are you working from? I would love to take a look, English or Chinese. It is important for the following discussion. The following incorrectly portrays my point of view. I will try to clarify below. --Jason- In summary, I would like to see some evidence that shows that TCM was intended to eradicate Chinese medicine, and the presentation of the material that was weeded out. --- My argument, distinct from yours above, is: 1. TCM was NOT intended by its direct creators to destroy CM. 2. However, the people in power who were SUPERVISORS to this process DID intend that. 3. This is a relationship which we would call COERCIVE and UNETHICAL and generative of heavy BIAS - in other words, there is a lot of reason to distrust the final product. 4. TCM was POISONED by the soil it found itself in, and has developed, therefore, in a distorted way, finally arriving at: “In recent years, the unique characteristics of Chinese medicine, its advantages over Western medicine, and its standards of academic excellence have not been developed according to the wishes of the people, but have rather been tossed into a state of severe crisis and chaotic actions. Underneath the bright and cheap glitter at the surface, the essence and the characteristics of Chinese medicine are being metamorphosed and annihilated at a most perturbing rate. The primary expression of this crisis is the Westernisation of all guiding principles and methodologies of Chinese medicine.†Lü Bingkui, former director of the PRC's Ministry of TCM Administration, July 1991 I have a couple of questions, and I hope you will take the time to answer them instead of generalising: 1. Why is the bulk of the record about herbal medicine, rather than about acu, moxa, gua sha, or even qi gong? 2. What is my misunderstanding about what CM was? You seem very clear about it but will not present specifics. 3. What is the " stranger " material that I would prefer? This one has me mystified. I hope I can answer some of your questions in turn: Some important things missing from TCM texts currently in use (please provide references for TCM source texts that contain this information): 1. An independent acupuncture theory, not the mixed herbalisation of acupuncture that is currently taught. 2. the " psycho-spiritual " notions (which you may be dismissing as superstitious). For example, the three Hun. In which standard TCM text (or any TCM text) can we find a discussion of these components? Who on this list learned in TCM school about the Tai Guang, the Shang Ling, and the Yu Jing? I ran this by a dear friend, who is also a famous TCM doctor (who was also head of gynecological surgery at a hospital, so maybe this accounts for her ignorance), and she said she didn't know about it and didn't know what to do with it. She was very interested though. But there is no space for this in communist China. CM was edited to satisfy the needs of the party. The whole *culture* was edited to satisfy the needs of the party! The character for Hun contains the radical for Gui, " earthly spirit " . At least we *know* about the Hun which supposedly reside in the Liver. Cursorily. The name is not just decoration; there are huge chunks of our medicine missing (in TCM). Ghosts and Spirits, of course, can be characterised as completely superstitious elements. Problematic case series exist involving hospital operating room out of body experiences which show that consciousness can and does exist outside of the physical vessel. Chinese energetic cultivation practices in their entirety enter into this realm. The very superstitious Tibetans have a lot of this in their medicine. 3. The I Ching. I learned that to understand medicine, one must understand the I Ching. Not in TCM. The I Ching is a direct connection to our ancestors. Not in TCM. 4. I was taught that " In order to be a true healer/doctor practicing the large dao, one must practice the internal cultivation of their spirit. One cannot simply read books. Reading books and learning through rote is small dao medicine. " This is a lineage tradition taking a dig at imperial scholars. This is not in TCM either, TCM being the latest imperial tradition. 5. The divine penetrating illumination. TCM texts don't mention it to my knowledge. And if it is mentioned, I will bet my appendix that the process for achieving the divine penetrating illumination is not taught. 6. (Sorry, acupuncture again) Energetic formations used in conjunction with needle manipulations used at the appropriate points. Not in TCM. Just get strong De Qi with the thickest needles possible. Some distorted herb theory again. 7. Where are we taught the distinction between Fang Shih (master prescribers) and true Zhong Yi (CM doctors) in TCM? The master prescriber has got the basics, while the Zhong Yi has dropped anything that looks like TCM. As in point 5, above, I would bet my appendix that this process is not taught in TCM but is allowed to develop (hopefully) ad hoc. I, myself, am far below Fang Shih, so I am only repeating stuff. Mostly I just repeat stuff. 8. In my lineage training, the family function and structure (for example, how to ensure that one's attitude towards children is *human*) and its importance for clinical work was presented as *foundational*. I did not hear one peep about that in TCM school, nor in any TCM book. 9 . I waited until magic number nine for this one: Yin Yang theory. The " Yin Yang theory " taught in TCM schools is this bloodless, withered creature that gives me pain as I witness it in stilted action in students who were cheated of the great pivot of our medicine. How many of you people reviewed " the Earth is Square and Heaven is Round " as a primary application of Yin Yang theory to perception in TCM school? How many of you have any idea how important this is? I could go on, but let me blast one more shot-that-won't-be-heard-round-the-world: In TCM school I NEVER LEARNED ABOUT THE COLOUR RED AND WHY IT WAS SO DAMN IMPORTANT TO CHINESE MEDICINE. Or its relationship to Yin Yang theory. I would be interested, Jason, if you could answer this question. I'm not drunk. In any case, from what little I can understand, and I admit I am but a paltry understander, TCM managed to preserve great swathes of the structure, but dumped a lot of the meaning - at least in practice. TCM also dumped the ground of the medicine out - its direct connection to reality (I did mention that TCM was grown in poisoned soil earlier). TCM was defined the way WM is defined: stuff you do to sick people to force them to get better. Thanks, I hope, once again, that I have been entertaining, at the least! Good night! Why are plants green? Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Does Deke Kendall talk about nerves in the " Dao of Chinese medicine " ? What about in classical literature? Is there any mention of the nerves/ lymphatic vessels? If not, why not? It seems that the aorta might be alluded to with the Chong mai (Kiiko M.)... are other specific blood vessels (arteries/ veins) mentioned in classical literature? The yin channels tend to follow blood vessels, while the yang channels tend to follow nerves ie. Lung = radial artery LI = radial nerve K On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 2:42 PM, kncherman < kncherman wrote: > > > I did not want to open a can of worms by specifically getting into the > arguement about what is qi. I think Dr. Kendall transaltes qi as air/ vital > breath and that is refering specifically to Ying Qi. He points out, what I > think is correctly, that there are several types of Qi that are > fundementally different things. Zheng qi, Zhong qi, yuan qi etc. Yes he > believes that the qi that circulates in the blood is oxygen or hemoglobin or > whatever, but I don't think he wants to limit qi to only that one idea. > > When he started writting his book there were only really two Chinese > acupuncture textbooks available in English. I think that the level of > education that people recieved in the 1970's and 1980's was very low or very > basic. He was trying to point out that the Europeans who were first exposed > to acupuncture did not have a concept that blood flowed in vessels and > therefore they used the term meridian that implies somethng imaginary. He > was also trying to dissuade people from thinking that since qi is " energy " > and invisible, that you can manipulate it any way you want (i.e. voll and > vega machines)and say you are doing acupuncture. He always emphasized that > if you want to really practice acupuncture, learn Chinese language and > concepts, and study and understand the classic texts. My previous comment > about people not liking his book was really refering to the whole " what is > Qi " debate. > > Ken > > > --- In Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com>, > Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > > > Hi Ken, thansk for weighing in: > > > > --Ken- > > A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it > > essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his > > knowledge is very sound. > > --- > > > > Your comment makes criticisms of Kendall's book sound like they are based > on mere preference. For instance, it's not that I don't " like " his book. > Kendall defines Qi as air, and only air. I don't understand how he could > have such a major misapprehension of this fundamental concept. It seems to > me that too much of Kendall's thesis is spent examining the errors of two > largely irrelevant groups of people: the sources of TCM ( " we'd like to > destroy CM, but can't, so let's make TCM " ), and the europenas who took too > little information, added their stuff to it, and ran with it. I am > suspicious of any researcher who pretends to tackle a subject but does not > bring primary sources (CM lineage holders) deep into the core of his > project. Books can't talk back, if you you know what I mean. > > And I just can't get past his definition of Qi. Maybe I am just not at > the cutting edge, as has been mentioned before. > > > > Hugo > > > > ________________________________ > > Hugo Ramiro > > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > > http://www.middlemedicine.org > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > " kncherman " <kncherman > > > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > > Wed, 17 February, 2010 16:43:47 > > Re: Jing / Luo / Mai > > > > > > Deke Kendall talked a lot about those terms and being clear on what they > mean in modern medical terms. A lot of people don't like his book or > presentation, but I find it essential reading. He was one of my early > teachers and I think his knowledge is very sound. It is based on > understanding chinese language, TCM terms and TCM and western physiology. > His book is called the DAO of Chinese medicine . He has done a lot of > research and has good footnotes for his sources. > > > > He talks about nerves, which I think he calls Sheng mai. (don't quote me > I don't have the book with me and its been a long time.) > > > > Ken > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , > <johnkokko@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > I'm wondering if we could make clear distinctions between the following > > > terms... > > > > > > Jing (Channels?) > > > Luo (Collaterals? ) > > > Mai (Blood vessels?) > > > > > > Did the Chinese ever talk about the anatomical " nerves " of the body? > > > > > > K > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > "" > > > > > > www.turtleclinic. com > > > www.tcmreview. com > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Hugo, Very well said. After gestating a while on this you let loose a well aimed cannon ball at the heretofor Elephant lurking in the corner. I too am very much a paltry understander.....the little I learn't was that in the 1915/20 period, Mao and his cronies banned acupuncture.(well documented, as you say) This lasted through the 30's and 40's. Some of the practitioners fled to Korea, Vietnam and Taiwan amongst other places and continued their old ways. Meanwhile, in China there was now a lack of medicine and Western Medicine was introduced . Then due to big demand " Barefoot doctors " were sent out after 8 weeks of training which borrowed mainly from China's rich herbal tradition, which had remained intact, such as the 8 principles and included ashi points and so on. This was due to the fact that the acupuncture teachings were lost!!! My memory is a little hazy so I won't bet my appendix on this but wasn't it so that acupuncture was kind of reinvented on the slim pickings from the past and from the herbal traditions. Hence the gaps in knowledge that you speak of. When I was in China and raised this subject my teachers flat out denid that this was so......but ......then again nor did they tell me why the colour red was so important. simon Chinese Medicine subincor Fri, 19 Feb 2010 04:44:58 +0000 Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hi Jason, First off I want to thank you for providing a space for me to say these things. I've been wanting to say them for a long time. I do hope you make it through, I am sincerely interested in your p.o.v.. I agree that Qin Bo-Wei and Co. was attempting to preserve CM. I don't necessarily agree that it was essential that they do so. Indigenous traditions (not always) have an ability to go underground and then make a resurgence, especially provided genocide was not carried out - this is the benefit of oral traditions: high fidelity to meaning and loyalty born out of familial / spiritual investment. I state the point again, that this preservation of CM was carried out under duress. Matter of historical record again. By the way, what written records of oral traditions are you working from? I would love to take a look, English or Chinese. It is important for the following discussion. The following incorrectly portrays my point of view. I will try to clarify below. --Jason- In summary, I would like to see some evidence that shows that TCM was intended to eradicate Chinese medicine, and the presentation of the material that was weeded out. --- My argument, distinct from yours above, is: 1. TCM was NOT intended by its direct creators to destroy CM. 2. However, the people in power who were SUPERVISORS to this process DID intend that. 3. This is a relationship which we would call COERCIVE and UNETHICAL and generative of heavy BIAS - in other words, there is a lot of reason to distrust the final product. 4. TCM was POISONED by the soil it found itself in, and has developed, therefore, in a distorted way, finally arriving at: “In recent years, the unique characteristics of Chinese medicine, its advantages over Western medicine, and its standards of academic excellence have not been developed according to the wishes of the people, but have rather been tossed into a state of severe crisis and chaotic actions. Underneath the bright and cheap glitter at the surface, the essence and the characteristics of Chinese medicine are being metamorphosed and annihilated at a most perturbing rate. The primary expression of this crisis is the Westernisation of all guiding principles and methodologies of Chinese medicine.” Lü Bingkui, former director of the PRC's Ministry of TCM Administration, July 1991 I have a couple of questions, and I hope you will take the time to answer them instead of generalising: 1. Why is the bulk of the record about herbal medicine, rather than about acu, moxa, gua sha, or even qi gong? 2. What is my misunderstanding about what CM was? You seem very clear about it but will not present specifics. 3. What is the " stranger " material that I would prefer? This one has me mystified. I hope I can answer some of your questions in turn: Some important things missing from TCM texts currently in use (please provide references for TCM source texts that contain this information): 1. An independent acupuncture theory, not the mixed herbalisation of acupuncture that is currently taught. 2. the " psycho-spiritual " notions (which you may be dismissing as superstitious). For example, the three Hun. In which standard TCM text (or any TCM text) can we find a discussion of these components? Who on this list learned in TCM school about the Tai Guang, the Shang Ling, and the Yu Jing? I ran this by a dear friend, who is also a famous TCM doctor (who was also head of gynecological surgery at a hospital, so maybe this accounts for her ignorance), and she said she didn't know about it and didn't know what to do with it. She was very interested though. But there is no space for this in communist China. CM was edited to satisfy the needs of the party. The whole *culture* was edited to satisfy the needs of the party! The character for Hun contains the radical for Gui, " earthly spirit " . At least we *know* about the Hun which supposedly reside in the Liver. Cursorily. The name is not just decoration; there are huge chunks of our medicine missing (in TCM). Ghosts and Spirits, of course, can be characterised as completely superstitious elements. Problematic case series exist involving hospital operating room out of body experiences which show that consciousness can and does exist outside of the physical vessel. Chinese energetic cultivation practices in their entirety enter into this realm. The very superstitious Tibetans have a lot of this in their medicine. 3. The I Ching. I learned that to understand medicine, one must understand the I Ching. Not in TCM. The I Ching is a direct connection to our ancestors. Not in TCM. 4. I was taught that " In order to be a true healer/doctor practicing the large dao, one must practice the internal cultivation of their spirit. One cannot simply read books. Reading books and learning through rote is small dao medicine. " This is a lineage tradition taking a dig at imperial scholars. This is not in TCM either, TCM being the latest imperial tradition. 5. The divine penetrating illumination. TCM texts don't mention it to my knowledge. And if it is mentioned, I will bet my appendix that the process for achieving the divine penetrating illumination is not taught. 6. (Sorry, acupuncture again) Energetic formations used in conjunction with needle manipulations used at the appropriate points. Not in TCM. Just get strong De Qi with the thickest needles possible. Some distorted herb theory again. 7. Where are we taught the distinction between Fang Shih (master prescribers) and true Zhong Yi (CM doctors) in TCM? The master prescriber has got the basics, while the Zhong Yi has dropped anything that looks like TCM. As in point 5, above, I would bet my appendix that this process is not taught in TCM but is allowed to develop (hopefully) ad hoc. I, myself, am far below Fang Shih, so I am only repeating stuff. Mostly I just repeat stuff. 8. In my lineage training, the family function and structure (for example, how to ensure that one's attitude towards children is *human*) and its importance for clinical work was presented as *foundational*. I did not hear one peep about that in TCM school, nor in any TCM book. 9 . I waited until magic number nine for this one: Yin Yang theory. The " Yin Yang theory " taught in TCM schools is this bloodless, withered creature that gives me pain as I witness it in stilted action in students who were cheated of the great pivot of our medicine. How many of you people reviewed " the Earth is Square and Heaven is Round " as a primary application of Yin Yang theory to perception in TCM school? How many of you have any idea how important this is? I could go on, but let me blast one more shot-that-won't-be-heard-round-the-world: In TCM school I NEVER LEARNED ABOUT THE COLOUR RED AND WHY IT WAS SO DAMN IMPORTANT TO CHINESE MEDICINE. Or its relationship to Yin Yang theory. I would be interested, Jason, if you could answer this question. I'm not drunk. In any case, from what little I can understand, and I admit I am but a paltry understander, TCM managed to preserve great swathes of the structure, but dumped a lot of the meaning - at least in practice. TCM also dumped the ground of the medicine out - its direct connection to reality (I did mention that TCM was grown in poisoned soil earlier). TCM was defined the way WM is defined: stuff you do to sick people to force them to get better. Thanks, I hope, once again, that I have been entertaining, at the least! Good night! Why are plants green? Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Hugo, Thanks for your lengthy discussion, unfortunately I do not have time to continue this in-depth. I will leave with a couple comments . It seems that your TCM education missed many aspects of medicine and healing. However, just because your education may have been deficient (a modern TCM education in the West?) has nothing to do with the original material and intention of TCM. One cannot compare this with the early roots of TCM. Fortunately I have had the honor to study with one of the first in the first doctors to attend the “TCM†classes in Beijing Chinese medicine University in the early 50s. The heavy focus on classical texts and his deep understanding of Chinese medicine is not only impressive but unheard of in today's time. You can do what you want with the information. The books are all there, if you can read Chinese. And doctors of that time studied deeply and did not have a focus on Western medicine diseases. Comparing this to a Western modern education in TCM is silly. Hence, I completely agree with you that modern TCM, even in China, and for some decades, has been problematic. However, this is a much different conversation and one where we stand on the same side. For now I will just have to bail out and we will have to agree to disagree on the rest of the points… -Jason Chinese Medicine Chinese Medicine On Behalf Of Hugo Ramiro Thursday, February 18, 2010 9:45 PM Chinese Medicine Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai Hi Jason, First off I want to thank you for providing a space for me to say these things. I've been wanting to say them for a long time. I do hope you make it through, I am sincerely interested in your p.o.v.. I agree that Qin Bo-Wei and Co. was attempting to preserve CM. I don't necessarily agree that it was essential that they do so. Indigenous traditions (not always) have an ability to go underground and then make a resurgence, especially provided genocide was not carried out - this is the benefit of oral traditions: high fidelity to meaning and loyalty born out of familial / spiritual investment. I state the point again, that this preservation of CM was carried out under duress. Matter of historical record again. By the way, what written records of oral traditions are you working from? I would love to take a look, English or Chinese. It is important for the following discussion. The following incorrectly portrays my point of view. I will try to clarify below. --Jason- In summary, I would like to see some evidence that shows that TCM was intended to eradicate Chinese medicine, and the presentation of the material that was weeded out. --- My argument, distinct from yours above, is: 1. TCM was NOT intended by its direct creators to destroy CM. 2. However, the people in power who were SUPERVISORS to this process DID intend that. 3. This is a relationship which we would call COERCIVE and UNETHICAL and generative of heavy BIAS - in other words, there is a lot of reason to distrust the final product. 4. TCM was POISONED by the soil it found itself in, and has developed, therefore, in a distorted way, finally arriving at: “In recent years, the unique characteristics of Chinese medicine, its advantages over Western medicine, and its standards of academic excellence have not been developed according to the wishes of the people, but have rather been tossed into a state of severe crisis and chaotic actions. Underneath the bright and cheap glitter at the surface, the essence and the characteristics of Chinese medicine are being metamorphosed and annihilated at a most perturbing rate. The primary expression of this crisis is the Westernisation of all guiding principles and methodologies of Chinese medicine.†Lü Bingkui, former director of the PRC's Ministry of TCM Administration, July 1991 I have a couple of questions, and I hope you will take the time to answer them instead of generalising: 1. Why is the bulk of the record about herbal medicine, rather than about acu, moxa, gua sha, or even qi gong? 2. What is my misunderstanding about what CM was? You seem very clear about it but will not present specifics. 3. What is the " stranger " material that I would prefer? This one has me mystified. I hope I can answer some of your questions in turn: Some important things missing from TCM texts currently in use (please provide references for TCM source texts that contain this information): 1. An independent acupuncture theory, not the mixed herbalisation of acupuncture that is currently taught. 2. the " psycho-spiritual " notions (which you may be dismissing as superstitious). For example, the three Hun. In which standard TCM text (or any TCM text) can we find a discussion of these components? Who on this list learned in TCM school about the Tai Guang, the Shang Ling, and the Yu Jing? I ran this by a dear friend, who is also a famous TCM doctor (who was also head of gynecological surgery at a hospital, so maybe this accounts for her ignorance), and she said she didn't know about it and didn't know what to do with it. She was very interested though. But there is no space for this in communist China. CM was edited to satisfy the needs of the party. The whole *culture* was edited to satisfy the needs of the party! The character for Hun contains the radical for Gui, " earthly spirit " . At least we *know* about the Hun which supposedly reside in the Liver. Cursorily. The name is not just decoration; there are huge chunks of our medicine missing (in TCM). Ghosts and Spirits, of course, can be characterised as completely superstitious elements. Problematic case series exist involving hospital operating room out of body experiences which show that consciousness can and does exist outside of the physical vessel. Chinese energetic cultivation practices in their entirety enter into this realm. The very superstitious Tibetans have a lot of this in their medicine. 3. The I Ching. I learned that to understand medicine, one must understand the I Ching. Not in TCM. The I Ching is a direct connection to our ancestors. Not in TCM. 4. I was taught that " In order to be a true healer/doctor practicing the large dao, one must practice the internal cultivation of their spirit. One cannot simply read books. Reading books and learning through rote is small dao medicine. " This is a lineage tradition taking a dig at imperial scholars. This is not in TCM either, TCM being the latest imperial tradition. 5. The divine penetrating illumination. TCM texts don't mention it to my knowledge. And if it is mentioned, I will bet my appendix that the process for achieving the divine penetrating illumination is not taught. 6. (Sorry, acupuncture again) Energetic formations used in conjunction with needle manipulations used at the appropriate points. Not in TCM. Just get strong De Qi with the thickest needles possible. Some distorted herb theory again. 7. Where are we taught the distinction between Fang Shih (master prescribers) and true Zhong Yi (CM doctors) in TCM? The master prescriber has got the basics, while the Zhong Yi has dropped anything that looks like TCM. As in point 5, above, I would bet my appendix that this process is not taught in TCM but is allowed to develop (hopefully) ad hoc. I, myself, am far below Fang Shih, so I am only repeating stuff. Mostly I just repeat stuff. 8. In my lineage training, the family function and structure (for example, how to ensure that one's attitude towards children is *human*) and its importance for clinical work was presented as *foundational*. I did not hear one peep about that in TCM school, nor in any TCM book. 9 . I waited until magic number nine for this one: Yin Yang theory. The " Yin Yang theory " taught in TCM schools is this bloodless, withered creature that gives me pain as I witness it in stilted action in students who were cheated of the great pivot of our medicine. How many of you people reviewed " the Earth is Square and Heaven is Round " as a primary application of Yin Yang theory to perception in TCM school? How many of you have any idea how important this is? I could go on, but let me blast one more shot-that-won't-be-heard-round-the-world: In TCM school I NEVER LEARNED ABOUT THE COLOUR RED AND WHY IT WAS SO DAMN IMPORTANT TO CHINESE MEDICINE. Or its relationship to Yin Yang theory. I would be interested, Jason, if you could answer this question. I'm not drunk. In any case, from what little I can understand, and I admit I am but a paltry understander, TCM managed to preserve great swathes of the structure, but dumped a lot of the meaning - at least in practice. TCM also dumped the ground of the medicine out - its direct connection to reality (I did mention that TCM was grown in poisoned soil earlier). TCM was defined the way WM is defined: stuff you do to sick people to force them to get better. Thanks, I hope, once again, that I have been entertaining, at the least! Good night! Why are plants green? Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Jason, thanks for your review of my post. I admit that my TCM education did not come from one of the founding members or their close cohort. I am not sure it has to do with modern education in the west, because colleagues who are about 50 and trained in China had no idea about the things I mentioned. Thanks to you I have a renewed interest in the first TCM texts and would appreciate it if you could provide the names of some of the particular texts you consider most important. The only reason I compare " original TCM " to western modern education is because I have had such a different experience in the two traditions I learned. One was deep, and the other not so much. Until next time, Hugo ________________________________ Hugo Ramiro http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com http://www.middlemedicine.org Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 It would appear that direction of flow does not support our channel theory and yet, Manaka has shown in study that direction of needling influences result. He did this pain along ren channel. I would also submit that the nerves/blood vessels do not really follow the channels that closely, instead they exit a common central tube, whereas, the channels appear to independently follow another course. There is certainly overlap with the different systems though. Michael W. Bowser, DC, LAc > Chinese Medicine > johnkokko > Thu, 18 Feb 2010 20:50:25 -0800 > Re: Re: Jing / Luo / Mai > > Does Deke Kendall talk about nerves in the " Dao of Chinese medicine " ? > What about in classical literature? Is there any mention of the nerves/ > lymphatic vessels? > If not, why not? > > It seems that the aorta might be alluded to with the Chong mai (Kiiko M.)... > are other specific blood vessels (arteries/ veins) mentioned in classical > literature? > > The yin channels tend to follow blood vessels, while the yang channels tend > to follow nerves ie. Lung = radial artery LI = radial nerve > > K > > > > On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 2:42 PM, kncherman < > kncherman wrote: > > > > > > > I did not want to open a can of worms by specifically getting into the > > arguement about what is qi. I think Dr. Kendall transaltes qi as air/ vital > > breath and that is refering specifically to Ying Qi. He points out, what I > > think is correctly, that there are several types of Qi that are > > fundementally different things. Zheng qi, Zhong qi, yuan qi etc. Yes he > > believes that the qi that circulates in the blood is oxygen or hemoglobin or > > whatever, but I don't think he wants to limit qi to only that one idea. > > > > When he started writting his book there were only really two Chinese > > acupuncture textbooks available in English. I think that the level of > > education that people recieved in the 1970's and 1980's was very low or very > > basic. He was trying to point out that the Europeans who were first exposed > > to acupuncture did not have a concept that blood flowed in vessels and > > therefore they used the term meridian that implies somethng imaginary. He > > was also trying to dissuade people from thinking that since qi is " energy " > > and invisible, that you can manipulate it any way you want (i.e. voll and > > vega machines)and say you are doing acupuncture. He always emphasized that > > if you want to really practice acupuncture, learn Chinese language and > > concepts, and study and understand the classic texts. My previous comment > > about people not liking his book was really refering to the whole " what is > > Qi " debate. > > > > Ken > > > > > > --- In Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com>, > > Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > > > > > Hi Ken, thansk for weighing in: > > > > > > --Ken- > > > A lot of people don't like his book or presentation, but I find it > > > essential reading. He was one of my early teachers and I think his > > > knowledge is very sound. > > > --- > > > > > > Your comment makes criticisms of Kendall's book sound like they are based > > on mere preference. For instance, it's not that I don't " like " his book. > > Kendall defines Qi as air, and only air. I don't understand how he could > > have such a major misapprehension of this fundamental concept. It seems to > > me that too much of Kendall's thesis is spent examining the errors of two > > largely irrelevant groups of people: the sources of TCM ( " we'd like to > > destroy CM, but can't, so let's make TCM " ), and the europenas who took too > > little information, added their stuff to it, and ran with it. I am > > suspicious of any researcher who pretends to tackle a subject but does not > > bring primary sources (CM lineage holders) deep into the core of his > > project. Books can't talk back, if you you know what I mean. > > > And I just can't get past his definition of Qi. Maybe I am just not at > > the cutting edge, as has been mentioned before. > > > > > > Hugo > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > Hugo Ramiro > > > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > > > http://www.middlemedicine.org > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ________________________________ > > > " kncherman " <kncherman > > > > > To: Chinese Medicine <Chinese Medicine%40yaho\ ogroups.com> > > > Wed, 17 February, 2010 16:43:47 > > > Re: Jing / Luo / Mai > > > > > > > > > Deke Kendall talked a lot about those terms and being clear on what they > > mean in modern medical terms. A lot of people don't like his book or > > presentation, but I find it essential reading. He was one of my early > > teachers and I think his knowledge is very sound. It is based on > > understanding chinese language, TCM terms and TCM and western physiology. > > His book is called the DAO of Chinese medicine . He has done a lot of > > research and has good footnotes for his sources. > > > > > > He talks about nerves, which I think he calls Sheng mai. (don't quote me > > I don't have the book with me and its been a long time.) > > > > > > Ken > > > > > > Traditional_ Chinese_Medicine , > > <johnkokko@ ..> wrote: > > > > > > > > I'm wondering if we could make clear distinctions between the following > > > > terms... > > > > > > > > Jing (Channels?) > > > > Luo (Collaterals? ) > > > > Mai (Blood vessels?) > > > > > > > > Did the Chinese ever talk about the anatomical " nerves " of the body? > > > > > > > > K > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > "" > > > > > > > > www.turtleclinic. com > > > > www.tcmreview. com > > > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 19, 2010 Report Share Posted February 19, 2010 Hi Hugo: I think its useful to distinguish between common TCM curriculum and the personal interests of practitioners/teachers, personal interests often are not part of the common educational curriculum. regards, david Chinese Medicine , Hugo Ramiro <subincor wrote: > > Jason, thanks for your review of my post. I admit that my TCM education did not come from one of the founding members or their close cohort. I am not sure it has to do with modern education in the west, because colleagues who are about 50 and trained in China had no idea about the things I mentioned. Thanks to you I have a renewed interest in the first TCM texts and would appreciate it if you could provide the names of some of the particular texts you consider most important. > > The only reason I compare " original TCM " to western modern education is because I have had such a different experience in the two traditions I learned. One was deep, and the other not so much. > > Until next time, > > Hugo > > ________________________________ > Hugo Ramiro > http://middlemedicine.wordpress.com > http://www.middlemedicine.org > > > 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.