Shamanism?

[Guest guest]

I think it's important to discern between the "roots" of Chinese medicine. The "shamanic" roots are too often misattributed as being the Daoist roots and this should be made clear. Daoist pursuits comprise the very foundation of Chinese medicine; its theory and practice. Later refinements of Daoist ideology appear in what has come to be known as the existing classics of Chinese medicine.

For example, Zhang Zhongjing's treatise elevated Chinese medical science out the dark ages of non-systematized healing practices such as superstition, shamanism, wizardry and witchcraft. This was accomplished through applying a rational approach to disease management; integrating A) theory of diseases differentiation, B) its corresponding treatment principle, C) appropriate herbal formula, and D) proper, individualized herbs, together, to treat disease (also known as li, fa, fang, yao). In the history of the development Chinese medical science, no other accomplishment out-shadows this feat except perhaps the ancient Daoist concept of observing the relationship between human beings, the heavens and earth (tian ren lian xing).

True, there is a spiritual residue left over that is often expressed in the terminology as has been pointed out (e.g. six environmental evils), but lets not confuse ourselves and others with where the real knowledge isn't.

Please don't judge me as being closed-minded on this issue. I don't close myself off from the possibility that evil or non-intentionally maliscious spirits can cause a person to suffer (although I do believe it to be exceedingly rare to see such a case). In these cases, I believe what is need is much more than needles and herbs.

 

Thaddeus Jacobs, N. D.

 

[Guest guest]

Thaddeus,

 

A few comments and questions...

 

I think it's important to discern between the "roots" of Chinese medicine.

 

Couldn't agree more with this sentiment. This thought is what motivated the

writing of Who Can Ride the Dragon?

 

The "shamanic" roots are too often misattributed as being the Daoist roots and this should be made clear.

 

Hope I didn't do this. It would be a collapse of time periods.

 

Daoist pursuits comprise the very foundation of Chinese medicine; its theory and practice. Later refinements of Daoist ideology appear in what has come to be known as the existing classics of Chinese medicine.

 

This statement is provocatively unlimited. Which Daoist pursuits? There've been a lot of Daoists

and they've pursued a lot of things and ideas. Similarly, which classics of Chinese

medicine?

 

For example, Zhang Zhongjing's treatise elevated Chinese medical science out the dark ages of non-systematized healing practices such as superstition, shamanism, wizardry and witchcraft. This was accomplished through applying a rational approach to disease management; integrating A) theory of diseases differentiation, B) its corresponding treatment principle, C) appropriate herbal formula, and D) proper, individualized herbs, together, to treat disease (also known as li, fa, fang, yao). In the history of the development Chinese medical science, no other accomplishment out-shadows this feat except perhaps the ancient Daoist concept of observing the relationship between human beings, the heavens and earth (tian ren lian xing).

 

So is this an example of Daoist pusuits? I lose the thread here.

 

True, there is a spiritual residue left over that is often expressed in the terminology as has been pointed out (e.g. six environmental evils), but lets not confuse ourselves and others with where the real knowledge isn't.

 

How does it become confusing to make note of this residue, as you call it?

What is confusing? For me, it simply helps to establish a sense of depth

so that later ideas can be seen to stand out in distinct relief to earlier ones.

Identification of such residues (I rather like that term) serves to clarify

rather than confuse, no?

 

Please don't judge me as being closed-minded on this issue. I don't close myself off from the possibility that evil or non-intentionally maliscious spirits can cause a person to suffer (although I do believe it to be exceedingly rare to see such a case). In these cases, I believe what is need is much more than needles and herbs.

 

There may even be other ways in which the influence of the wu manifests

in contemporary practice.

 

Ken

 

[Guest guest]

Cosmic Dragon LLC wrote:

Just a comment - that was SUPERB use of HTML (highlighting, font selection, etc.) - congrats!

 

Send instant messages get email alerts with Messenger.

[Guest guest]

Hi Ken,

I see two immediate interpretations to your recent reply.

 

The first interpretation is that my previously posted remark on shamanism was confusing to you due to the casual nature of my writing. In this case, I apologize for not being specific enough. I also credit you for desiring writers on the subject of Chinese medicine to be as specific as possible. I do generally believe that most practitioners in this forum have a fairly solid foundational knowledge of the fundamental roots of Chinese medicine and have read (or are, at least, aware of) such works as Science & Civilisation in China or Medicine in China: A History of Ideas. If you aren't aware of these works, I urge you to check them out.

 

The second interpretation is that I offended you by challenging your statement on the shamanic roots of Chinese medicine (which you confess is actually a remark made by the authors of Who Can Ride the Dragon). In this case, I apologize as well -for that was not my intent. I do not intend to "challenge" you or anybody in this forum. I find no benefit in repeatedly exchanging emails nit-picking the flaws presented in previous correspondences. Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you meet the criteria of my first impression, I will clarify my stance by answering the questions posted in your email (further answers can be gained from the texts mentioned above).

 

 

1.

Daoist pursuits comprise the very foundation of Chinese medicine; its theory and practice. Later refinements of Daoist ideology appear in what has come to be known as the existing classics of Chinese medicine.

 

"This statement is provocatively unlimited. Which Daoist pursuits? There've been a lot of Daoists

and they've pursued a lot of things and ideas. Similarly, which classics of Chinese

medicine?"

Absolutely, Daoists appear to have "pursued" many things. Many of the pursuits have fallen far from true Daoist ideology, however; and this has contributed to the misunderstanding of what Daoism is all about. The divergent sect of so-called Daoist individuals that unsuccessfully pursued immortality through alchemy using toxic metals to enhance their physical being is the aspect of Daoism that I intend on dropping and not addressing (as I feel it isn't a valid aspect of Daoist ideology). True Daoists are those who seek the inticacies of nature (hence, making them scientists) and traverse life in a way that does not go against nature (hence, suggesting that they are very intelligent/wise scientists). This proto-Daoist concept was popularized by the work of the famous Lao Zi.

 

The alchemical concept, however; has become an accepted and important aspect of Daoist thought. Focussing on special sexual practices and ingesting toxic concoctions are two examples that aren't in accordance with the ethical precepts of the Dao. True Daoist alchemy resides in the realm of pysical excercises such as qigong and daoyin (which involve movement, special breathing methods and special massage techniques) and mental excercises such as meditation and visualization. Modern research has recently confirmed the health-promoting effects of these kinds of life-changing, alchemical "pursuits."

 

I might add Zhang Zhongjing's complaints about witch doctors in the introduction to his book was likely aimed at the so-called Daoist immortality seekers who had literally poisoned contemporary medicine of his time. I assume he lumped this group of quacks with other sects of pseudo-medicine (i.e. witchcraft, wizardry, etc.).

 

As far as the classics are concerned, any text, in my opinion, which greatly advances medical science (a.k.a the knowledge of the nature of man and his ailments) is considered a classic. (I must concede the fact that only a handful of medical texts are considered "official" classics --i.e. Neijing; Shanghan Zabing Lun; Nanjing; .) Although Confucianism was the accepted political stance prior to and following Zhongjing's era, many practitioners and scholars from ancient times and to this day remain closet Daoists (for reasons I will not get into here).

I find it particularly unavoidable for Chinese medical practitioners to respect Daoist credo if they seek to understanding the natural world and man's role in it; especially since much of Chinese medicine theory and practice methods, from their inceptioin, are based on what is known about nature and man's role within it (the tian ren lian xing concept).

 

 

 

2.

For example, Zhang Zhongjing's treatise elevated Chinese medical science out the dark ages of non-systematized healing practices such as superstition, shamanism, wizardry and witchcraft. This was accomplished through applying a rational approach to disease management; integrating A) theory of diseases differentiation, B) its corresponding treatment principle, C) appropriate herbal formula, and D) proper, individualized herbs, together, to treat disease (also known as li, fa, fang, yao). In the history of the development Chinese medical science, no other accomplishment out-shadows this feat except perhaps the ancient Daoist concept of observing the relationship between human beings, the heavens and earth (tian ren lian xing).

 

"So is this an example of Daoist pusuits? I lose the thread here."

 

Zhonjing was a Daoist, he observed the tian ren lian xing in order to devise his methodology. Daoism too often is rendered limiting in terms of practicality due to some of the abstract ideas conveyed in the Dao De Jing. There are, in fact, very practical ideas that can be gleaned from this work. In order to live in accord with nature --to go along with the unobstructed flow of life/"the way"-- one must first understand the tendencies of the natural world. This is what a Daoist, a physician must do. Hence, most of the great Chinese physician-philosophers were Daoists and this is extremely evident even in the English translations of even the most basic Chinese medicine texts used today. (By the way, physician, the word, is from the Greek physike meaning the science/knowledge of nature + ian = one who studies the science of nature. Might we all strive to be physicians?).

 

 

 

3.

True, there is a spiritual residue left over that is often expressed in the terminology as has been pointed out (e.g. six environmental evils), but lets not confuse ourselves and others with where the real knowledge isn't.

 

How does it become confusing to make note of this residue, as you call it?

What is confusing? For me, it simply helps to establish a sense of depth

so that later ideas can be seen to stand out in distinct relief to earlier ones.

Identification of such residues (I rather like that term) serves to clarify

rather than confuse, no?

 

I agree with you here. Noting "residues" is great. I simply disagreed with the idea that shamanism is where traditional Chinese medicine came from. Spiritual practices, exorcism and demon-chasing in themselves have their own long lineage and may have had a distinct cultural impact on medical terminology, but these practices are generally considered separate from the vast majority of medical science.

 

Thaddeus Jacobs, N. D.

 

Cosmic Dragon LLC

Tuesday, May 16, 2000 10:31 AM

Re: Shamanism?

 

Thaddeus,

 

A few comments and questions...

 

I think it's important to discern between the "roots" of Chinese medicine.

 

Couldn't agree more with this sentiment. This thought is what motivated the

writing of Who Can Ride the Dragon?

 

The "shamanic" roots are too often misattributed as being the Daoist roots and this should be made clear.

 

Hope I didn't do this. It would be a collapse of time periods.

 

Daoist pursuits comprise the very foundation of Chinese medicine; its theory and practice. Later refinements of Daoist ideology appear in what has come to be known as the existing classics of Chinese medicine.

 

This statement is provocatively unlimited. Which Daoist pursuits? There've been a lot of Daoists

and they've pursued a lot of things and ideas. Similarly, which classics of Chinese

medicine?

 

For example, Zhang Zhongjing's treatise elevated Chinese medical science out the dark ages of non-systematized healing practices such as superstition, shamanism, wizardry and witchcraft. This was accomplished through applying a rational approach to disease management; integrating A) theory of diseases differentiation, B) its corresponding treatment principle, C) appropriate herbal formula, and D) proper, individualized herbs, together, to treat disease (also known as li, fa, fang, yao). In the history of the development Chinese medical science, no other accomplishment out-shadows this feat except perhaps the ancient Daoist concept of observing the relationship between human beings, the heavens and earth (tian ren lian xing).

 

So is this an example of Daoist pusuits? I lose the thread here.

 

True, there is a spiritual residue left over that is often expressed in the terminology as has been pointed out (e.g. six environmental evils), but lets not confuse ourselves and others with where the real knowledge isn't.

 

How does it become confusing to make note of this residue, as you call it?

What is confusing? For me, it simply helps to establish a sense of depth

so that later ideas can be seen to stand out in distinct relief to earlier ones.

Identification of such residues (I rather like that term) serves to clarify

rather than confuse, no?

 

Please don't judge me as being closed-minded on this issue. I don't close myself off from the possibility that evil or non-intentionally maliscious spirits can cause a person to suffer (although I do believe it to be exceedingly rare to see such a case). In these cases, I believe what is need is much more than needles and herbs.

 

There may even be other ways in which the influence of the wu manifests

in contemporary practice.

 

Ken

 

 

 

Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

Hi Thaddeus,

 

Seems like there are a few things to clarify. My current

responses are in this type face and size.

 

I see two immediate interpretations to your recent reply.

 

The first interpretation is that my previously posted remark on shamanism was confusing to you due to the casual nature of my writing. In this case, I apologize for not being specific enough. I also credit you for desiring writers on the subject of Chinese medicine to be as specific as possible.

 

Thanks. I agree it is important that we be specific, especially when communicating

in this fashion, i.e. over distance and in public.

 

I do generally believe that most practitioners in this forum have a fairly solid foundational knowledge of the fundamental roots of Chinese medicine and have read (or are, at least, aware of) such works as Science & Civilisation in China or Medicine in China: A History of Ideas. If you aren't aware of these works, I urge you to check them out.

 

I have a passing familiarity with both Needham and Unschuld's work. I frankly

am just learning who the participants in this forum are and what their backgrounds

and sensibilities are. I don't dispute and don't aim to make comments or criticisms

directed at any individuals. I rather prefer to deal with ideas.

 

The second interpretation is that I offended you by challenging your statement on the shamanic roots of Chinese medicine (which you confess is actually a remark made by the authors of Who Can Ride the Dragon). In this case, I apologize as well -for that was not my intent. I do not intend to "challenge" you or anybody in this forum.

 

You in no way offended me. Quite to the contrary, I am always honored

whenever anyone is moved to respond to something I've said or written. I do

pay close attention, as you noted. I feel somewhat justified in attributing that

statement to the authors of Who Can Ride the Dragon? since I am one of them.

Unlike yourself, I do indeed intend to challenge, not the people but the statements

that are posted here as elesewhere, whenever I find that they should be challenged.

In general I find that such exchange of challenges is woefully lacking in the field

of Chinese medicine in these parts. I think a more contentious environment would

be highly beneficial.

 

I find no benefit in repeatedly exchanging emails nit-picking the flaws presented in previous correspondences.

 

Here again we differ. I see enormous benefit in picking ideas apart. Sometimes

that's the only way I find out what I know and can separate it from what I do not

know. I learned long ago that I really cannot accomplish this sort of self knowledge

by myself, which is why I participate in these discussions, at least in part.

 

Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you meet the criteria of my first impression, I will clarify my stance by answering the questions posted in your email (further answers can be gained from the texts mentioned above).

 

Again, honored.

 

 

1.

Daoist pursuits comprise the very foundation of Chinese medicine; its theory and practice. Later refinements of Daoist ideology appear in what has come to be known as the existing classics of Chinese medicine.

 

"This statement is provocatively unlimited. Which Daoist pursuits? There've been a lot of Daoists

and they've pursued a lot of things and ideas. Similarly, which classics of Chinese

medicine?"

Absolutely, Daoists appear to have "pursued" many things. Many of the pursuits have fallen far from true Daoist ideology, however; and this has contributed to the misunderstanding of what Daoism is all about. The divergent sect of so-called Daoist individuals that unsuccessfully pursued immortality through alchemy using toxic metals to enhance their physical being is the aspect of Daoism that I intend on dropping and not addressing (as I feel it isn't a valid aspect of Daoist ideology). True Daoists are those who seek the inticacies of nature (hence, making them scientists) and traverse life in a way that does not go against nature (hence, suggesting that they are very intelligent/wise scientists). This proto-Daoist concept was popularized by the work of the famous Lao Zi.

 

You know, I've studied Daoism for more than thirty years and have still failed

to form so clear a sense of what is "true" and what is not in what continues

to appear to me as a more or less chaotic tradition. I'm curious to find out

where your sense of "true Daoist ideology" comes from. On the basis of what

standards do you arrive at the conclusion that Daoist alchemy "isn't a valid

aspect of Daoist ideology?" I'm not trying to bait you here. I am just curious

as to what you are referencing as "valid Daoist ideology."

 

The alchemical concept, however; has become an accepted and important aspect of Daoist thought. Focussing on special sexual practices and ingesting toxic concoctions are two examples that aren't in accordance with the ethical precepts of the Dao. True Daoist alchemy resides in the realm of pysical excercises such as qigong and daoyin (which involve movement, special breathing methods and special massage techniques) and mental excercises such as meditation and visualization. Modern research has recently confirmed the health-promoting effects of these kinds of life-changing, alchemical "pursuits."

 

I might add Zhang Zhongjing's complaints about witch doctors in the introduction to his book was likely aimed at the so-called Daoist immortality seekers who had literally poisoned contemporary medicine of his time. I assume he lumped this group of quacks with other sects of pseudo-medicine (i.e. witchcraft, wizardry, etc.).

 

Can you share your sources of infomation about Zhang Zhong Jing?

 

As far as the classics are concerned, any text, in my opinion, which greatly advances medical science (a.k.a the knowledge of the nature of man and his ailments) is considered a classic. (I must concede the fact that only a handful of medical texts are considered "official" classics --i.e. Neijing; Shanghan Zabing Lun; Nanjing; .)

 

Considered by whom? Whenever Chinese officials have collected and

catalogued the medical classics, the list has been considerably longer

than the one you give.

 

Although Confucianism was the accepted political stance prior to and following Zhongjing's era, many practitioners and scholars from ancient times and to this day remain closet Daoists (for reasons I will not get into here).

I find it particularly unavoidable for Chinese medical practitioners to respect Daoist credo if they seek to understanding the natural world and man's role in it; especially since much of Chinese medicine theory and practice methods, from their inceptioin, are based on what is known about nature and man's role within it (the tian ren lian xing concept).

 

We do see eye to eye on the importance of Daoism with respect

to its influence on the formation and understanding of Chinese

medical thinking. Our thoughts on the subject can be seen in

the third and fourth chapters of Who Can Ride the Dragon?

 

 

 

2.

For example, Zhang Zhongjing's treatise elevated Chinese medical science out the dark ages of non-systematized healing practices such as superstition, shamanism, wizardry and witchcraft. This was accomplished through applying a rational approach to disease management; integrating A) theory of diseases differentiation, B) its corresponding treatment principle, C) appropriate herbal formula, and D) proper, individualized herbs, together, to treat disease (also known as li, fa, fang, yao). In the history of the development Chinese medical science, no other accomplishment out-shadows this feat except perhaps the ancient Daoist concept of observing the relationship between human beings, the heavens and earth (tian ren lian xing).

 

"So is this an example of Daoist pusuits? I lose the thread here."

 

Zhonjing was a Daoist, he observed the tian ren lian xing in order to devise his methodology. Daoism too often is rendered limiting in terms of practicality due to some of the abstract ideas conveyed in the Dao De Jing. There are, in fact, very practical ideas that can be gleaned from this work. In order to live in accord with nature --to go along with the unobstructed flow of life/"the way"-- one must first understand the tendencies of the natural world. This is what a Daoist, a physician must do. Hence, most of the great Chinese physician-philosophers were Daoists

and this is extremely evident even in the English translations of even the most basic Chinese medicine texts used today.

 

Really? What is your source for these data?

 

(By the way, physician, the word, is from the Greek physike meaning the science/knowledge of nature + ian = one who studies the science of nature. Might we all strive to be physicians?).

 

 

3.

True, there is a spiritual residue left over that is often expressed in the terminology as has been pointed out (e.g. six environmental evils), but lets not confuse ourselves and others with where the real knowledge isn't.

 

How does it become confusing to make note of this residue, as you call it?

What is confusing? For me, it simply helps to establish a sense of depth

so that later ideas can be seen to stand out in distinct relief to earlier ones.

Identification of such residues (I rather like that term) serves to clarify

rather than confuse, no?

 

I agree with you here. Noting "residues" is great. I simply disagreed with the idea that shamanism is where traditional Chinese medicine came from. Spiritual practices, exorcism and demon-chasing in themselves have their own long lineage and may have had a distinct cultural impact on medical terminology, but these practices are generally considered separate from the vast majority of medical science.

 

Again, considered by whom? I don't recall making a statement that

traditional Chinese medicine came from shamanism, although I'd

say that if you look at it from an historical perspective you'd

have to conclude that the shamanistic practices came first and that

the medical practices came later and do have roots in the shamanistic

practices and so might be correctly described as coming from them.

 

I sense that this identification with shamanism is unpleasant or

unacceptable to you for some reason other than those that have

already come to view here. I'd also be interested in knowing

if this hunch is correct and if so, what is it that you find distasteful

or otherwise wrong about making this association. It is certainly

not my assertion (nor that of anyone else I know of who has pointed

this fact out) that contemporary practitioners of traditional Chinese

medicine are practicing shamanism. But it seems to me to be an

indisputable fact that Chinese medicine does indeed have strong

healthy very living roots in the ways of the ancient wu. So if that is

wrong thinking on my part, I would appreciate learning why and how

it is wrong.

 

I hope and trust that you will not yourself take offense at anything I've

said. It does seem that we have a different attitude about this kind

of discussion. As I mentioned, it's not at all offensive to me. I tend to

love and admire people who will argue with me. It's the ones who

sulk in silence that I wonder about.

 

Ken

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 5/18/00 11:06:38 AM Pacific Daylight Time,

herb-t writes:

 

<<

ideas were honed by scientists who were also prodigious letter

writers. >>

And some of you certainly ARE prodigious writers!

[Guest guest]

I agree with Ken here that what has been called " nit-picking the

flaws "

is actually honing the understanding. For some reason, I am reminded

of the way Chinese talk to each other, where the conversation

frequently pauses to clarify what character a speaker is actually

referring to. If this error of understanding is not " nitpicked " , the

thread of the discussion is lost. the flaw is not in the statement

itself, but in the exchange. This is no one's fault, but rather an

inherent obstacle to communication. The great thing about email is

that we have endless time and space to clarify in a way no realtime

conversation ever could. It hearks back to an earlier time when

great

ideas were honed by scientists who were also prodigious letter

writers.

 

, " Cosmic Dragon LLC " <

yulong@m...> wrote:

 

> I find no benefit in repeatedly exchanging emails nit-picking

the flaws presented in previous correspondences.

>

> Here again we differ. I see enormous benefit in picking ideas

apart. Sometimes

> that's the only way I find out what I know and can separate it

from what I do not

> know. I learned long ago that I really cannot accomplish this

sort of self knowledge

> by myself, which is why I participate in these discussions, at

least in part.

>

[Guest guest]

 

 

>...we have endless time and space to clarify in a way no realtime

> conversation ever could.

 

You must be a young man.

 

I admit that even in my youth I had the feeling that there just

wasn't enough time to do everything that I wanted to get done.

Now, alas, it seems that I was right. For like Marvel,

" at my back I always hear

times winged chariot hurrying near. "

 

I do agree with your assessment of the importance of conducting

this kind of correspondence and support your actions in facilitating

it. I think a great deal depends on the contexts of understanding

that we are capable of creating in the coming years.

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

>

> , " Cosmic Dragon LLC " <

> yulong@m...> wrote:

>

> > I find no benefit in repeatedly exchanging emails nit-picking

> the flaws presented in previous correspondences.

> >

> > Here again we differ. I see enormous benefit in picking ideas

> apart. Sometimes

> > that's the only way I find out what I know and can separate it

> from what I do not

> > know. I learned long ago that I really cannot accomplish this

> sort of self knowledge

> > by myself, which is why I participate in these discussions, at

> least in part.

> >

>

>

>

> ------

> Free, easy email groups PLUS

> great features like calendars and storage files

> All at eGroups for you today. Go to

> http://click./1/3939/9/_/542111/_/958673110/

> ------

>

> Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

>

[Guest guest]

"I don't recall making a statement that traditional Chinese medicine came from shamanism...."

 

Yes. That is what you implied in your original posting and that is why I've chosen to respond by saying that TCM -as it is practiced today- has very little to do with the shamanic medical practices.

You say on page 45 of your book, "Chinese medicine remains intimately linked to its most ancient roots."

I say, Wu's roots are you talking about?! (hee hee...sorry, I had to. Very much enjoy the book, by the way.)

But seriously, surely there are spiritual implications that can be found scattered throughout Chinese medical terminology, but to say that the wu (i.e. shaman, for those not familiar with the term) are responsible for this influence is, indeed, presumptuous. For one whom likes to challenge presumptions, you've certainly made a doosey, in my opinion.

 

I sense that this identification with shamanism is unpleasant or

unacceptable to you for some reason other than those that have

already come to view here. I'd also be interested in knowing

if this hunch is correct and if so, what is it that you find distasteful

or otherwise wrong about making this association. It is certainly

not my assertion (nor that of anyone else I know of who has pointed

this fact out) that contemporary practitioners of traditional Chinese

medicine are practicing shamanism. But it seems to me to be an

indisputable fact that Chinese medicine does indeed have strong

healthy very living roots in the ways of the ancient wu. So if that is

wrong thinking on my part, I would appreciate learning why and how

it is wrong.

 

Chinese medicine is a very broad field. It is my understanding that Traditional is different from Classical (which is the orientation of my training).

To illustrate the difference, Classical can be represented as, say, a piece of paper. The surface of the paper represents: all medical practices as described in ancient and classical literature; practices and skills that are passed down from generation to generation via traditional master-pupil arrangements; practices and skills unique to individuals which may not be transferrable (e.g. "supernatural" skills). TCM can be likened to a small circle on the page; a distillate of a much greater body.

So when you say, "it seems to me to be an indisputable fact that Chinese medicine does indeed have strong healthy very living roots in the ways of the ancient wu....," I'm forced to agree only somewhat, but strongly disagree in general.

"Chinese medicine" as it is predominantly practiced in the East and West is primarily TCM. I don't find it distateful to accept shamanistic activities in the realm of (Classical) Chinese medicine. However, to say that shamanism is the root of Chinese medicine as most of us know it is a stretch beyond truth.

 

Thaddeus Jacobs, N. D.

 

-

 

Cosmic Dragon LLC

Wednesday, May 17, 2000 3:53 PM

Re: Shamanism?

 

Hi Thaddeus,

 

Seems like there are a few things to clarify. My current

responses are in this type face and size.

 

I see two immediate interpretations to your recent reply.

 

The first interpretation is that my previously posted remark on shamanism was confusing to you due to the casual nature of my writing. In this case, I apologize for not being specific enough. I also credit you for desiring writers on the subject of Chinese medicine to be as specific as possible.

 

Thanks. I agree it is important that we be specific, especially when communicating

in this fashion, i.e. over distance and in public.

 

I do generally believe that most practitioners in this forum have a fairly solid foundational knowledge of the fundamental roots of Chinese medicine and have read (or are, at least, aware of) such works as Science & Civilisation in China or Medicine in China: A History of Ideas. If you aren't aware of these works, I urge you to check them out.

 

I have a passing familiarity with both Needham and Unschuld's work. I frankly

am just learning who the participants in this forum are and what their backgrounds

and sensibilities are. I don't dispute and don't aim to make comments or criticisms

directed at any individuals. I rather prefer to deal with ideas.

 

The second interpretation is that I offended you by challenging your statement on the shamanic roots of Chinese medicine (which you confess is actually a remark made by the authors of Who Can Ride the Dragon). In this case, I apologize as well -for that was not my intent. I do not intend to "challenge" you or anybody in this forum.

 

You in no way offended me. Quite to the contrary, I am always honored

whenever anyone is moved to respond to something I've said or written. I do

pay close attention, as you noted. I feel somewhat justified in attributing that

statement to the authors of Who Can Ride the Dragon? since I am one of them.

Unlike yourself, I do indeed intend to challenge, not the people but the statements

that are posted here as elesewhere, whenever I find that they should be challenged.

In general I find that such exchange of challenges is woefully lacking in the field

of Chinese medicine in these parts. I think a more contentious environment would

be highly beneficial.

 

I find no benefit in repeatedly exchanging emails nit-picking the flaws presented in previous correspondences.

 

Here again we differ. I see enormous benefit in picking ideas apart. Sometimes

that's the only way I find out what I know and can separate it from what I do not

know. I learned long ago that I really cannot accomplish this sort of self knowledge

by myself, which is why I participate in these discussions, at least in part.

 

Giving you the benefit of the doubt and assuming that you meet the criteria of my first impression, I will clarify my stance by answering the questions posted in your email (further answers can be gained from the texts mentioned above).

 

Again, honored.

 

 

1.

Daoist pursuits comprise the very foundation of Chinese medicine; its theory and practice. Later refinements of Daoist ideology appear in what has come to be known as the existing classics of Chinese medicine.

 

"This statement is provocatively unlimited. Which Daoist pursuits? There've been a lot of Daoists

and they've pursued a lot of things and ideas. Similarly, which classics of Chinese

medicine?"

Absolutely, Daoists appear to have "pursued" many things. Many of the pursuits have fallen far from true Daoist ideology, however; and this has contributed to the misunderstanding of what Daoism is all about. The divergent sect of so-called Daoist individuals that unsuccessfully pursued immortality through alchemy using toxic metals to enhance their physical being is the aspect of Daoism that I intend on dropping and not addressing (as I feel it isn't a valid aspect of Daoist ideology). True Daoists are those who seek the inticacies of nature (hence, making them scientists) and traverse life in a way that does not go against nature (hence, suggesting that they are very intelligent/wise scientists). This proto-Daoist concept was popularized by the work of the famous Lao Zi.

 

You know, I've studied Daoism for more than thirty years and have still failed

to form so clear a sense of what is "true" and what is not in what continues

to appear to me as a more or less chaotic tradition. I'm curious to find out

where your sense of "true Daoist ideology" comes from. On the basis of what

standards do you arrive at the conclusion that Daoist alchemy "isn't a valid

aspect of Daoist ideology?" I'm not trying to bait you here. I am just curious

as to what you are referencing as "valid Daoist ideology."

 

The alchemical concept, however; has become an accepted and important aspect of Daoist thought. Focussing on special sexual practices and ingesting toxic concoctions are two examples that aren't in accordance with the ethical precepts of the Dao. True Daoist alchemy resides in the realm of pysical excercises such as qigong and daoyin (which involve movement, special breathing methods and special massage techniques) and mental excercises such as meditation and visualization. Modern research has recently confirmed the health-promoting effects of these kinds of life-changing, alchemical "pursuits."

 

I might add Zhang Zhongjing's complaints about witch doctors in the introduction to his book was likely aimed at the so-called Daoist immortality seekers who had literally poisoned contemporary medicine of his time. I assume he lumped this group of quacks with other sects of pseudo-medicine (i.e. witchcraft, wizardry, etc.).

 

Can you share your sources of infomation about Zhang Zhong Jing?

 

As far as the classics are concerned, any text, in my opinion, which greatly advances medical science (a.k.a the knowledge of the nature of man and his ailments) is considered a classic. (I must concede the fact that only a handful of medical texts are considered "official" classics --i.e. Neijing; Shanghan Zabing Lun; Nanjing; .)

 

Considered by whom? Whenever Chinese officials have collected and

catalogued the medical classics, the list has been considerably longer

than the one you give.

 

Although Confucianism was the accepted political stance prior to and following Zhongjing's era, many practitioners and scholars from ancient times and to this day remain closet Daoists (for reasons I will not get into here).

I find it particularly unavoidable for Chinese medical practitioners to respect Daoist credo if they seek to understanding the natural world and man's role in it; especially since much of Chinese medicine theory and practice methods, from their inceptioin, are based on what is known about nature and man's role within it (the tian ren lian xing concept).

 

We do see eye to eye on the importance of Daoism with respect

to its influence on the formation and understanding of Chinese

medical thinking. Our thoughts on the subject can be seen in

the third and fourth chapters of Who Can Ride the Dragon?

 

 

 

2.

For example, Zhang Zhongjing's treatise elevated Chinese medical science out the dark ages of non-systematized healing practices such as superstition, shamanism, wizardry and witchcraft. This was accomplished through applying a rational approach to disease management; integrating A) theory of diseases differentiation, B) its corresponding treatment principle, C) appropriate herbal formula, and D) proper, individualized herbs, together, to treat disease (also known as li, fa, fang, yao). In the history of the development Chinese medical science, no other accomplishment out-shadows this feat except perhaps the ancient Daoist concept of observing the relationship between human beings, the heavens and earth (tian ren lian xing).

 

"So is this an example of Daoist pusuits? I lose the thread here."

 

Zhonjing was a Daoist, he observed the tian ren lian xing in order to devise his methodology. Daoism too often is rendered limiting in terms of practicality due to some of the abstract ideas conveyed in the Dao De Jing. There are, in fact, very practical ideas that can be gleaned from this work. In order to live in accord with nature --to go along with the unobstructed flow of life/"the way"-- one must first understand the tendencies of the natural world. This is what a Daoist, a physician must do. Hence, most of the great Chinese physician-philosophers were Daoists

and this is extremely evident even in the English translations of even the most basic Chinese medicine texts used today.

 

Really? What is your source for these data?

 

(By the way, physician, the word, is from the Greek physike meaning the science/knowledge of nature + ian = one who studies the science of nature. Might we all strive to be physicians?).

 

 

3.

True, there is a spiritual residue left over that is often expressed in the terminology as has been pointed out (e.g. six environmental evils), but lets not confuse ourselves and others with where the real knowledge isn't.

 

How does it become confusing to make note of this residue, as you call it?

What is confusing? For me, it simply helps to establish a sense of depth

so that later ideas can be seen to stand out in distinct relief to earlier ones.

Identification of such residues (I rather like that term) serves to clarify

rather than confuse, no?

 

I agree with you here. Noting "residues" is great. I simply disagreed with the idea that shamanism is where traditional Chinese medicine came from. Spiritual practices, exorcism and demon-chasing in themselves have their own long lineage and may have had a distinct cultural impact on medical terminology, but these practices are generally considered separate from the vast majority of medical science.

 

Again, considered by whom? I don't recall making a statement that

traditional Chinese medicine came from shamanism, although I'd

say that if you look at it from an historical perspective you'd

have to conclude that the shamanistic practices came first and that

the medical practices came later and do have roots in the shamanistic

practices and so might be correctly described as coming from them.

 

I sense that this identification with shamanism is unpleasant or

unacceptable to you for some reason other than those that have

already come to view here. I'd also be interested in knowing

if this hunch is correct and if so, what is it that you find distasteful

or otherwise wrong about making this association. It is certainly

not my assertion (nor that of anyone else I know of who has pointed

this fact out) that contemporary practitioners of traditional Chinese

medicine are practicing shamanism. But it seems to me to be an

indisputable fact that Chinese medicine does indeed have strong

healthy very living roots in the ways of the ancient wu. So if that is

wrong thinking on my part, I would appreciate learning why and how

it is wrong.

 

I hope and trust that you will not yourself take offense at anything I've

said. It does seem that we have a different attitude about this kind

of discussion. As I mentioned, it's not at all offensive to me. I tend to

love and admire people who will argue with me. It's the ones who

sulk in silence that I wonder about.

 

Ken

 

 

 

 

Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

[Guest guest]

Dear Thaddeus

 

First, I think this distinction between TCM and so-called CCM is an

artifical one. see my article at

http://www.spiritone.com/~herb-t/tcm.html

for more on this position

 

(Bob, your welcome to chime in on this one, please.)

 

Second, your statement about shamanism NOT being the root of TCM

depends upon what you mean by root. Paul Unschuld most certainly

considers modern TCM to be one branch that grew from the roots of the

Wu tradition. And the naturalistic concepts common to all forms of

chinese medicine are clearly derived from shamanism, specifically the

ideas of chasing out wind evils and the basic idea of excess and

deficiency, too.

 

Here's a quote from Michael Harner, Ph.D., one of the world's leading

authorities on shamanism, speaking in general about the common

attributes of all shamanic healing systems he has studied, " Shamanic

healing is done basically in two ways. These involve either putting

something which is lacking back into the person who is ill or

removing

something that does not belong in the person's body. " Sound familiar?

 

Like Ken, I do not suggest that anyone is (or even should be)

practicing chinese shamanism in modern china, but such ideas appear

to

be the roots of ALL traditional healing, when defined

anthropologically. I think that is hard to dispute. But please

continue to try. It is an interesting topic.

 

 

it is predominantly practiced in the East and West is primarily TCM.

I don't find it distateful to accept shamanistic activities in the

realm of (Classical) Chinese medicine. However, to say that

shamanism

is the root of Chinese medicine as most of us know it is a stretch

beyond truth.

>

> Thaddeus Jacobs

[Guest guest]

 

 

> Like Ken, I do not suggest that anyone is (or even should be)

> practicing chinese shamanism in modern china,

 

I have met people in China who practice shamanism. So if I

seemed to suggest otherwise, I apologize. There is no question

that shamanistic practices survive until the present. Just as there

is no question that such practices have had a pronounced influence

on the development of medical theorists throughout Chinese

history.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by your parenthetical remark above.

I certainly am not in a position to tell anyone what they should

or shouldn't be practicing. I remain quite interested in ferreting

out the apparent negative value that has come to be associated

with the word " shamanism " with respect to Chinese medicine

on this list.

 

Can you help?

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

Hi

It's nice to hear from you. Comments on you following statements:

 

1. The main Confucian scholars who have dominated the written literature of

for the last 1000 years were also not very keen on

psychotherapy, spiritual practice or shamanism, according to Needham, Sivin,

Unschuld and Flaws. Thus, such omissions from the TCM literature cannot be

blamed completely on the modern cultural reformers. The tendency to

downplay these areas was already inherent in the classical medical

literature when the old masters sat down to write the first textbooks of TCM

in the fifties.

 

My reply: So you agree that the vast body of what comprises TCM today is

not a reflection of shamanic practices.

 

1b. Personally, I have no doubt that yoga and shamanism were the

foundations of ancient medical practice (Needham, Flaws and Unschuld also

agree with this position).

 

My reply: Of course yoga and shamanism were the foundations of some ANCIENT

medical practices, but they are not what embodies TCM today. So has

Needham, Flaws and Unschuld all given you to OK to speak for them when it

comes to making the claim that TCM descends from shamanism? Interesting.

From an evolutionary standpoint, I see more connection between TCM and the

classics than with shamanism. I don't dispute that spritual beliefs at the

time influenced the language of the classics and that certain aspects of

shamanistic behavior can be seen in a handful of the classical treatment

protocols. However, as far as the evolution of TCM is concerned,

shamanistic aspects have literally gone extinct.

It is difficult for anyone to conjecture what medicine was like prior to the

classic works that have survived into modern times. Based on the profound

knowledge found in the classics I can assume that the Chinese had existed

many years with a sophisticated medical system prior to these classics.

Perhaps the classics we have today are the lowliest of the works that had

been written in ancient times and much of the ingenious medical that had

existed was destroyed or lost, only to be reinvented over the next seven or

so millenia (assuming that humans only existed that far back; which is also

conjecture, and I won't get into that discussion right now).

None-the-less, I give you the benefit of agreeing with you that yoga and

shamanism were the foundations of SOME ancient medical practices.

 

2. However, is it not true that TCM and what Heiner Fruehauf calls CCM

share in common the approach of bian zheng lun zhi and both rely on the

process of gathering information via the four methods, determining the

nature of disharmony according to zang-fu, six pathogens, liujing, wenbing,

wuxing, jing luo, sanjiao, etc., selecting and prioritizing treatment

principles, choosing formulae and modifying them for the patient? Is it

possible that the suposed dichotomy between these styles of practice is

actually an artifical one?

 

My reply: I see no dichotomy. Remember my illustration? TCM fits into the

greater whole of CCM. Therefore, no dichotomy exists.

 

3. I believe the main flaw of textbook TCM is the way it has apparently

reduced the therapeutic process to something akin to a computer flow chart.

Rather than understanding basic theory and evaluating each patient

individually (with reference to the classics, of course, as well as case

studies, if appropriate), the typical TCM doctor begins his evaluation

assuming a limited range of possibilities for a given disease and focuses

his questioning to differentiate between these. Such a method of practice

could actually be programmed into a normal binary computer. Thus, if one

was not taught to consider dampheat as a cause of nightsweats, for instance,

one will never arrive at that diagnosis, using the TCM shortcut method.

Countless times, I have seen patients pigeonholed into prechosen categories,

despite a preponderance of evidence contradicting their diagnoses when they

are thoroughly and openmindedly questioned. While the formulas are usually

modified to correct gross digestive upset or treat specific symptoms, the

process is still very circumscribed. If one is unable to see beyond these

TCM boxes, one may easily miss the obvious.

4. The best doctors are the ones who have broad access to the classical

archive. They may very well use textbook TCM patterns as a pivot point from

which to enter this archive. The nature of this archive is very individual

and is both learned from teachers and developed from one's own explorations

into the archive (keeping in mind that historically, most new ideas in

Chinese medicine have been rooted, at least tenuously, in older ideas. They

are not usually drawn from thin air).

5. According to Farquhar, who spent much time in China studying TCM

herself, this is the highest method of practice in TCM, but is often

eschewed by students in favor of the much easier " cookbook " method

illustrated in the basic textbooks. Thus, TCM tends to look oversimplistic

both on paper and in practice, these days.

 

My reply: So you DO believe there is a difference between TCM and CCM.

Your thesis stating that the difference is merely " artificially " labeled

seems to have collapsed on itself.

 

6. This style of practice has been called Classical by

Heiner Fruehauf, though Farquhar just calls it TCM and Flaws now rejects the

term classical altogether as being artificial? Personally, I agree with

Flaws and Farquhar. This is because my long observation suggests that the

clinical process of those who promote CCM is no different than those who

promote TCM?

 

My reply: Didn't you just mention in the above text that the clinical

process is actually different? Remember your rigid, binary analogy of TCM

and how practitioners who utilize classical science -science comes from the

word the latin word scientia, meaning knowledge- often come to different

conclusions utilizing bian zheng lun zhi methodology AND have better

results?

 

Thaddeus Jacobs, N. D.

 

-

<herb-t

 

Friday, May 19, 2000 6:49 PM

Re: Shamanism?

 

 

> Dear Thaddeus

>

> First, I think this distinction between TCM and so-called CCM is an

> artifical one. see my article at

> http://www.spiritone.com/~herb-t/tcm.html

> for more on this position

>

> (Bob, your welcome to chime in on this one, please.)

>

> Second, your statement about shamanism NOT being the root of TCM

> depends upon what you mean by root. Paul Unschuld most certainly

> considers modern TCM to be one branch that grew from the roots of the

> Wu tradition. And the naturalistic concepts common to all forms of

> chinese medicine are clearly derived from shamanism, specifically the

> ideas of chasing out wind evils and the basic idea of excess and

> deficiency, too.

>

> Here's a quote from Michael Harner, Ph.D., one of the world's leading

> authorities on shamanism, speaking in general about the common

> attributes of all shamanic healing systems he has studied, " Shamanic

> healing is done basically in two ways. These involve either putting

> something which is lacking back into the person who is ill or

> removing

> something that does not belong in the person's body. " Sound familiar?

>

> Like Ken, I do not suggest that anyone is (or even should be)

> practicing chinese shamanism in modern china, but such ideas appear

> to

> be the roots of ALL traditional healing, when defined

> anthropologically. I think that is hard to dispute. But please

> continue to try. It is an interesting topic.

>

 

>

>

> it is predominantly practiced in the East and West is primarily TCM.

> I don't find it distateful to accept shamanistic activities in the

> realm of (Classical) Chinese medicine. However, to say that

> shamanism

> is the root of Chinese medicine as most of us know it is a stretch

> beyond truth.

> >

> > Thaddeus Jacobs

>

>

> ------

> Up to 60% OFF food!

> Buy Now and Shipping is Free.

> http://click./1/4016/9/_/542111/_/958787536/

> ------

>

> Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

>

[Guest guest]

I am not suggesting they do OR don't practice shamanism in china, not

having visited myself. As for the " should " , I have no problem with

people practicing anything they have made a serious study of. I

don't

recall learning how to practice shamanic medicine in school and many

folks I see purporting to be shamans in the Portland area are self-

styled. they have not undergone any training or apprenticeship.

They

are quite likely to be avid fans of natural hallucinogens as their

primary motivation in this area. Personally, I like to experiment on

myself with herbs of all kinds to optimize body and mind and I

consider

these pursuits somewhat shamanic in nature. But I can't see

inflicting

this process on my patients without at least the same type of

discipline I have applied to TCM studies and practice.

 

, " Cosmic Dragon LLC " <

yulong@m...> wrote:

>

>

> > Like Ken, I do not suggest that anyone is (or even should be)

> > practicing chinese shamanism in modern china,

>

> I have met people in China who practice shamanism. So if I

> seemed to suggest otherwise, I apologize. There is no question

> that shamanistic practices survive until the present. Just as there

> is no question that such practices have had a pronounced influence

> on the development of medical theorists throughout Chinese

> history.

>

> I'm not sure what you mean by your parenthetical remark above.

> I certainly am not in a position to tell anyone what they should

> or shouldn't be practicing. I remain quite interested in ferreting

> out the apparent negative value that has come to be associated

> with the word " shamanism " with respect to Chinese medicine

> on this list.

>

> Can you help?

>

> Ken

[Guest guest]

Hi Thaddeus

 

No, I do not believe there is a difference between TCM and CCM and I

do

not believe that is what I stated. I think so-called CCM is nothing

other than TCM practiced at its highest level.

>

> My reply: So you DO believe there is a difference between TCM and

CCM.

> Your thesis stating that the difference is merely " artificially "

labeled

> seems to have collapsed on itself.

>

[Guest guest]

Thaddeus

 

I think you have missed my distinction. I think the process used by

American students with limited access to classics and by Chinese

doctors who just don't care is to merely prescribe cookbook style.

This is what I call textbook TCM. My argument is that TCM was never

meant to be practiced cookbook style. But that good TCM doctors from

China rely on the classics and apprenticeship to make this knowledge

dynamic and clinically useful. This more dynamic classical approach

has been called CCM, but is just advanced TCM. That is Farquhar's

point. So the clinical process of just opening a text and matching a

pattern instead of searching the classical archive is not the

artificial label difference between TCM and CCM, but rather between

simple and sophisticated TCM.

 

As for speaking for Bob Flaws, I most certainly don't, but this

article

was revised based on his comments several months ago.

 

 

>

> My reply: Didn't you just mention in the above text that the

clinical

> process is actually different?

[Guest guest]

Thaddeus,

 

For what it's worth, I also agree that the distinction between TCM and

so-called classical Chinese medicine is a spurious one. If you want to

discuss contemporary and premodern Chinese medicine, ok, no problem. I am

sorry to say that I am one of the people who introduced this dichotromy

into the English language literature 20+ years ago. At that time, I simply

did not have the knowledge or even the skills to access the knowledge I

needed to understand the realtionship of modern to premodern Chinese

medicine. Mea culpa, mea maxima culpa. Like many " converts, " I was overly

romantic and bought into the " myth of Orientalism. "

 

Bob Flaws

 

 

> [Original Message]

> <herb-t

>

> 05/19/2000 7:52:18 PM

> Re: Shamanism?

>

> Dear Thaddeus

>

> First, I think this distinction between TCM and so-called CCM is an

> artifical one. see my article at

> http://www.spiritone.com/~herb-t/tcm.html

> for more on this position

>

> (Bob, your welcome to chime in on this one, please.)

>

> Second, your statement about shamanism NOT being the root of TCM

> depends upon what you mean by root. Paul Unschuld most certainly

> considers modern TCM to be one branch that grew from the roots of the

> Wu tradition. And the naturalistic concepts common to all forms of

> chinese medicine are clearly derived from shamanism, specifically the

> ideas of chasing out wind evils and the basic idea of excess and

> deficiency, too.

>

> Here's a quote from Michael Harner, Ph.D., one of the world's leading

> authorities on shamanism, speaking in general about the common

> attributes of all shamanic healing systems he has studied, " Shamanic

> healing is done basically in two ways. These involve either putting

> something which is lacking back into the person who is ill or

> removing

> something that does not belong in the person's body. " Sound familiar?

>

> Like Ken, I do not suggest that anyone is (or even should be)

> practicing chinese shamanism in modern china, but such ideas appear

> to

> be the roots of ALL traditional healing, when defined

> anthropologically. I think that is hard to dispute. But please

> continue to try. It is an interesting topic.

>

 

>

>

> it is predominantly practiced in the East and West is primarily TCM.

> I don't find it distateful to accept shamanistic activities in the

> realm of (Classical) Chinese medicine. However, to say that

> shamanism

> is the root of Chinese medicine as most of us know it is a stretch

> beyond truth.

> >

> > Thaddeus Jacobs

>

>

> ------

> Up to 60% OFF food!

> Buy Now and Shipping is Free.

> http://click./1/4016/9/_/542111/_/958787536/

> ------

>

> Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

>

 

 

 

--- Robert Flaws

--- bobflaws

--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.

[Guest guest]

Thaddeus, and Ken,

 

I haven't been following the complete thread of your discussion on

shamanism and Chinese medicine, so forgive me if I'm repeating something

that has already been brought up. Recently, the Rhode Island Supreme Court

ruled that shamanism is not part of the scope of practice of acupuncturists

in that state. (I'm pretty sure it was RI, although it might have been

Maryland.) I find it extremely interesting that a state court has actually

had to ajudicate this question.

 

Secondly, I trained as a Central Asian shaman or sorcerer for just shy of

20 years (as a Tibetan Nyingma ngag-pa, " old school spell-caster " ). At

least that was part of my Tibetan Buddhist training -- the use of ritual

magic and entering altered states of consciousness (both while waking and

in dream) to change reality in myself and on behalf of others, including

the curing of disease, the exorcism of demons, the purgation of karma, the

blessing of medicine, the teaching of mantras and rituals, even the

changing of weather! In fact, I only began the study of Chinese medicine

when (at least at the time), there was no way to really study and practice

Tibetan medicine here in the U.S.

 

In any case, for a number of years I tried to incorporate these " shamanic "

practices in my clinical practice of acupuncture and Chinese medicine. I

even founded the Dechen Yonten Dzo Institute of Buddhist Medicine to teach

and further such practices in the U.S. Frankly, as of this writing, I have

largely abandoned attempting to use these practices as part of my clinical

practice of Chinese medicine in any overt way. Yes, I still bless may

patients' medicines and I still say mantras and do visulizations over them

when treating. However, no one but me would ever know this.

 

Based on my experience as a clinical practitioner for over 20 years in the

U.S., I believe the majority of my patients WANT a secular medicine devoid

of any specific religious affiliation or content, EVEN in Boulder, CO. We

live in a pluralistic, essentially humanistic society. At least that is the

outward community most of us operate in as practitioners of Chinese

medicine. I believe that Chinese medicine is so much more popular and

widely accepted in the U.S. and Europe than Ayurvedic medicine and Tibetan

medicine precisely because it can be practiced and experienced as a

secular, non-denominational, albeit a holistic, medicine. If one is working

within a community of like-minded believers, that is something else, but my

experience was that most of my patients were not Tibetan Buddhists and

preferred that I kept my Tibetan " gris-gris " to myself.

 

Third, it is also my experience that it is very difficult, if not

impossible, to make an " adopted " system of magic work. In Tibetan Buddhism,

there are three types of faith. The first type of faith is an in-born, born

in your bones, learned it at your mother's knee kind of faith. This is

called dang-wei dep-pa, " faith number one. " This is the faith of someone

born into a religion within their native culture. They believe because this

is the reality in which they grew up. The second kind of faith is based on

desire. One believes something because they want something in return. This

kind of faith is conditional and not very deep. It's like the person in

danger who says they'll believe if only they are saved. The third kind of

faith is based on experiential understanding. One knows something is true

or real because one has directly experienced it for themself.

 

While it is the third kind of faith that ultimately is the strongest and

most " effective, " again extrapolating from my experience with hundreds of

Americans who have tried to adopt Tibetan Buddhism, it is very hard to make

the magic work if you do not have that first kind of faith. This is similar

to our patients' relationship with Western medicine. In most American

patients, when push comes to shove, what they really believe in is Western

medicine and the biology they absorbed growing up and learned formally in

H.S. Within Tibetan Buddhist magic practices, it is " guaranteed " that, if

you follow certain magic procedures correctly step by step, you WILL

achieve certain magic results. Even though I have seen many Westerners

apply far more energy and perserverence to these practices and procedures

than their native-born Tibetan counterparts, the Tibetans tend to get

results that Americans do not. In my opinion and experience, this is

because of a profound difference in the quality of their belief. As

converts, we may WANT the magic and mystery to work, but our belief tends

to be an intellectual belief as opposed to a dyed in the wool,

unquestioning belief. In other words, in many of us, there is always a

kernel of doubt, and this doubt is the maggot of magic.

 

Therefore, from a simply practical point of view, I would caution

Westerners about trying to adopt magical and shamanic practices from

foreign cultures. Here I am talking from a totally pragmatic, nuts and

bolts perspective. Although this is only my own experience, this experience

and advice has been reiterated over the years by numerous other writers and

teachers with far more authority than me, such as Alan Watts as a first for

instance. However, having lived and practiced 24/7 as a member of a full-on

yogic community for 20 years, I have had a little experience of my own in

the issue of translating Asian shamanic practices to the U.S. and trying to

incorporate these into my medical practice.

 

Sincerely,

 

Bob

 

> [Original Message]

> <herb-t

>

> 05/20/2000 12:56:54 PM

> Re: Shamanism?

>

> I am not suggesting they do OR don't practice shamanism in china, not

> having visited myself. As for the " should " , I have no problem with

> people practicing anything they have made a serious study of. I

> don't

> recall learning how to practice shamanic medicine in school and many

> folks I see purporting to be shamans in the Portland area are self-

> styled. they have not undergone any training or apprenticeship.

> They

> are quite likely to be avid fans of natural hallucinogens as their

> primary motivation in this area. Personally, I like to experiment on

> myself with herbs of all kinds to optimize body and mind and I

> consider

> these pursuits somewhat shamanic in nature. But I can't see

> inflicting

> this process on my patients without at least the same type of

> discipline I have applied to TCM studies and practice.

>

 

>

> , " Cosmic Dragon LLC " <

> yulong@m...> wrote:

> >

> >

> > > Like Ken, I do not suggest that anyone is (or even should be)

> > > practicing chinese shamanism in modern china,

> >

> > I have met people in China who practice shamanism. So if I

> > seemed to suggest otherwise, I apologize. There is no question

> > that shamanistic practices survive until the present. Just as there

> > is no question that such practices have had a pronounced influence

> > on the development of medical theorists throughout Chinese

> > history.

> >

> > I'm not sure what you mean by your parenthetical remark above.

> > I certainly am not in a position to tell anyone what they should

> > or shouldn't be practicing. I remain quite interested in ferreting

> > out the apparent negative value that has come to be associated

> > with the word " shamanism " with respect to Chinese medicine

> > on this list.

> >

> > Can you help?

> >

> > Ken

>

>

>

> ------

> 72% off on Name brand Watches!

> Come and buy today and get free shipping!

> http://click./1/4011/9/_/542111/_/958849006/

> ------

>

> Chronic Diseases Heal - Chinese Herbs Can Help

>

 

 

 

--- Robert Flaws

--- bobflaws

--- EarthLink: It's your Internet.