Guest guest Posted March 2, 2001 Report Share Posted March 2, 2001 > " Along a similar line of thought, I have heard that the best and most quoted translators---Unschuld and Mann---are not practicing clinicians and so they may not be skilled at applying theory in practice. But I >don't think that this limitation has to be interpreted as detraction from their value as authorities. And like you, I've heard some famous, published, Asian practitioners say some completely outrageous things. " ====================================================== Sounds just like any other field of medicine. Over thousands of years, OM has had everyone put their two cents in, except that the commies forced everyoe to spit up all their change, extracted what didn't fit into their thought process because of " superstition " , " religion " or other vague concepts, and came up with a standardized version that can be reasonably easily taught, while scholars still had exposure to the classic texts, if they chose, to delve further into extrapolating on why one process was picked theoretically over another. In their mind, I suspect they were just doing what Western medicine did to all the various theories around in the beginnig of this century. Is it better? In some ways yes, if you are trying to get a standardized educational process set up to take the medicine distilled to its most immediately effective form to the largest number of people, but only if there is a body of scholars and interested folks who continue to study and get involved in their specific interests, expanding on those interests and teaching them in their classes or writing about them to share. Countryside clinicians never have the same level of academic training as academics who teach them, not should they, but they should have a good grasp fo the field and an ongoing interest in advancing their knowledge. David Molony Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2001 Report Share Posted March 2, 2001 I have to pipe in on the all so common bashing of communist (i.e. that they destroyed OM.) I would like to hear what others think of the topic. I would like to see some evidence, not hearsay, that this actually occurs. From day one in my educational process I was fed this belief. It sounded very nice... originally Chinese medicine was this amazing spiritual system etc. and the Communist destroyed it, reduced it to a cookbook, took out its soul. Maciocia, in the latest symposium at PCOM addressed this issue very thoroughly. His arguments and research were very sound and well thought out. He found no evidence that supported this idea. My Chinese teachers also completely deny that the Communist destroyed Chinese medicine. They think it is completely absurd. 1) My teachers make a point that, in their education, there were no books or information that were withheld from them. They had access to all classic texts and ideas. 2) Maciocia points out that the changing of OM towards what we consider TCM today started occurring many hundred years ago, and in his lecture does a thorough job of describing the philosophies of the times and how and when these changes occurred. 3) Maciocia also pointed out that if it were true that TCM was stripped by the Communist than neighboring countries, not under this influence, would have a far different approach, incorporating all of these supposed lost ideas in their medicine. He found that this was definitely not the case and found much more similarities then differences. Supposed spiritual medicine connections were no more prevalent in these 'uninfluenced' countries than in the 'Communist TCM'. -- he made many other great points. Did anyone else get to see this lecture? my teachers and Maciocia concluded that the Communist probably actually did more for Chinese medicine than one can imagine. My personal take of the situation is this: that yes there are differences from ancient times, there is less shamanism and more science, there is less superstition and more logical thinking. This is not from a sudden change that occurred in one particular sitting (i.e. 1949) but has been occurring over many many years. But more importantly I believe that some of the more abstract 'spiritual' ideas, that many say are missing, have not been weeded out by the Communist, but by Western translations of texts. The Western Cartesian/dualistic mind trying to make sense of a complex constantly changing abstract style of thinking and medicine. To make sense of this we as a culture had to limit its scope and create what we now are starting to despise, a cookbook style medicine. Our minds and culture were probably not ready to incorporate many of these 'stranger' non-scientific ideas. Now possible with more of us reading Chinese and evolving our thinking we can.. any thoughts? - Sounds just like any other field of medicine. Over thousands of years, OM has had everyone put their two cents in, except that the commies forced everyoe to spit up all their change, extracted what didn't fit into their thought process because of " superstition " , " religion " or other vague concepts, and came up with a standardized version that can be reasonably easily taught, while scholars still had exposure to the classic texts, if they chose, to delve further into extrapolating on why one process was picked theoretically over another. In their mind, I suspect they were just doing what Western medicine did to all the various theories around in the beginnig of this century. Is it better? In some ways yes, if you are trying to get a standardized educational process set up to take the medicine distilled to its most immediately effective form to the largest number of people, but only if there is a body of scholars and interested folks who continue to study and get involved in their specific interests, expanding on those interests and teaching them in their classes or writing about them to share. Countryside clinicians never have the same level of academic training as academics who teach them, not should they, but they should have a good grasp fo the field and an ongoing interest in advancing their knowledge. David Molony Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 2, 2001 Report Share Posted March 2, 2001 , jramholz wrote: > In an ideal world, teachers who have a degree in Chinese language and > medical history should be teaching beginning students and some > master level courses; they would be the best qualified. In an ideal world. Now where is that world? I'd like to go there Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2001 Report Share Posted March 3, 2001 wrote: > , jramholz wrote: > > > In an ideal world, teachers who have a degree in Chinese language and > > medical history should be teaching beginning students and some > > master level courses; they would be the best qualified. > > In an ideal world. Now where is that world? I'd like to go there > > ................New Zealand ?!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2001 Report Share Posted March 3, 2001 If the Guo Ming Dong (sp?) remained in power, TCM would be marginalized much as Ayurveda. Maoist TCM is fine, especially if it is spiced up with lineage. Will In a message dated 3/3/01 6:28:45 AM Pacific Standard Time, tcm2 writes: I was also present for Maciocia's lecture and found it to support what I had long been growing to suspect with the reading that I had been doing after graduation. The larger point that he was also making is that Mao not only contributed to this great field by forcing secretive CM factions to share info, but also saved from certain extinction as was already clearly happening in the country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2001 Report Share Posted March 3, 2001 Jason, I was also present for Maciocia's lecture and found it to support what I had long been growing to suspect with the reading that I had been doing after graduation. The larger point that he was also making is that Mao not only contributed to this great field by forcing secretive CM factions to share info, but also saved from certain extinction as was already clearly happening in the country. Mark - " " Friday, March 02, 2001 11:53 AM RE: More about Reading and Teaching > I have to pipe in on the all so common bashing of communist (i.e. that they > destroyed OM.) I would like to hear what others think of the topic. > I would like to see some evidence, not hearsay, that this actually occurs. > From day one in my educational process I was fed this belief. It sounded > very nice... originally Chinese medicine was this amazing spiritual system > etc. and the Communist destroyed it, reduced it to a cookbook, took out its > soul. > Maciocia, in the latest symposium at PCOM addressed this issue very > thoroughly. His arguments and research were very sound and well thought > out. He found no evidence that supported this idea. My Chinese teachers > also completely deny that the Communist destroyed Chinese medicine. They > think it is completely absurd. > 1) My teachers make a point that, in their education, there were no books or > information that were withheld from them. They had access to all classic > texts and ideas. > 2) Maciocia points out that the changing of OM towards what we consider TCM > today started occurring many hundred years ago, and in his lecture does a > thorough job of describing the philosophies of the times and how and when > these changes occurred. > 3) Maciocia also pointed out that if it were true that TCM was stripped by > the Communist than neighboring countries, not under this influence, would > have a far different approach, incorporating all of these supposed lost > ideas in their medicine. He found that this was definitely not the case and > found much more similarities then differences. Supposed spiritual medicine > connections were no more prevalent in these 'uninfluenced' countries than in > the 'Communist TCM'. > -- he made many other great points. Did anyone else get to see this > lecture? > > my teachers and Maciocia concluded that the Communist probably actually did > more for Chinese medicine than one can imagine. > > My personal take of the situation is this: > that yes there are differences from ancient times, there is less shamanism > and more science, there is less superstition and more logical thinking. > This is not from a sudden change that occurred in one particular sitting > (i.e. 1949) but has been occurring over many many years. But more > importantly I believe that some of the more abstract 'spiritual' ideas, that > many say are missing, have not been weeded out by the Communist, but by > Western translations of texts. The Western Cartesian/dualistic mind trying > to make sense of a complex constantly changing abstract style of thinking > and medicine. To make sense of this we as a culture had to limit its scope > and create what we now are starting to despise, a cookbook style medicine. > Our minds and culture were probably not ready to incorporate many of these > 'stranger' non-scientific ideas. Now possible with more of us reading > Chinese and evolving our thinking we can.. any thoughts? > > - > > > Sounds just like any other field of medicine. Over thousands of years, OM > has > had everyone put their two cents in, except that the commies forced everyoe > to spit up all their change, extracted what didn't fit into their thought > process because of " superstition " , " religion " or other vague concepts, and > came up with a standardized version that can be reasonably easily taught, > while scholars still had exposure to the classic texts, if they chose, to > delve further into extrapolating on why one process was picked theoretically > over another. > In their mind, I suspect they were just doing what Western medicine did to > all the various theories around in the beginnig of this century. Is it > better? In some ways yes, if you are trying to get a standardized > educational > process set up to take the medicine distilled to its most immediately > effective form to the largest number of people, but only if there is a body > of scholars and interested folks who continue to study and get involved in > their specific interests, expanding on those interests and teaching them in > their classes or writing about them to share. Countryside clinicians never > have the same level of academic training as academics who teach them, not > should they, but they should have a good grasp fo the field and an ongoing > interest in advancing their knowledge. > David Molony > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare > practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing > in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, > including board approved online continuing education. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2001 Report Share Posted March 3, 2001 , <@o...> wrote: > I have to pipe in on the all so common bashing of communist (i.e. that they > destroyed OM.) I would like to hear what others think of the topic. > I would like to see some evidence, not hearsay, that this actually occurs. > From day one in my educational process I was fed this belief. It sounded > very nice... originally Chinese medicine was this amazing spiritual system > etc. and the Communist destroyed it, reduced it to a cookbook, took out its > soul. Jason Here, here. I think you are 100% correct. Like much of the rhetoric in the american TCM community, there is no evidence to support this position and plenty of evidence to the contrary. I also challenge anyone out there to present evidence rather than conjecture or hyperbole to support this point of view. I also had chinese teachers who learned the classics in much more depth and freedom than they are presented here in the US. Certain ideas were played down in basic textbooks, but they most certainly were not denied distribution to doctors. since many americans end their education at the basic textbooks, this is part of the misleading bias. the basic textbooks are baisc, that is why they are not all inclusive. It is completely erroneous to say they are not comprehensive due to the communist influence. Unschuld has well documented that the political environment has influenced the state's sanction of medical styles in every era of chinese history for 2 thousand years, but at no time were physicians denied access to the full body of literature. Even Heiner Fruehauf, a strong detractor of communist TCM, who has made much use of ignored gu theory texts in his practice, would be the first to admit that he was introduced to these texts by teachers of TCM in the PRC. China is a big country and the schools may have kissed the state's ass in establishing their formal curriculum on paper, but this had little or no impact on how education inthe clinic and at advanced stages actually played out. I'd like to hear Ken on this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2001 Report Share Posted March 3, 2001 Dear Jackson, In my country( Vietnam) they encourage the OMD and support them very well. So in China, I think they do the same thing. Because, the herbs has not thing to do with political and cheap for everybody, and I believe the China Government support for the Chinese herb DR and encourage the people to use them, because it is their native treatment for thousand of years, Vietnam do so. However,accept Chinese herbs, both of them do not do good in freedom or human right. I hope some day they will open more for freedom so the people can easy to enjoy their life of the " air of freedom " Nhung Ta - < Saturday, March 03, 2001 11:16 AM Re: More about Reading and Teaching > , <@o...> wrote: > > > I have to pipe in on the all so common bashing of communist (i.e. that they > > destroyed OM.) I would like to hear what others think of the topic. > > I would like to see some evidence, not hearsay, that this actually occurs. > > From day one in my educational process I was fed this belief. It sounded > > very nice... originally Chinese medicine was this amazing spiritual system > > etc. and the Communist destroyed it, reduced it to a cookbook, took out its > > soul. > > Jason > > Here, here. I think you are 100% correct. Like much of the rhetoric in > the american TCM community, there is no evidence to support this > position and plenty of evidence to the contrary. I also challenge > anyone out there to present evidence rather than conjecture or > hyperbole to support this point of view. I also had chinese teachers > who learned the classics in much more depth and freedom than they are > presented here in the US. Certain ideas were played down in basic > textbooks, but they most certainly were not denied distribution to > doctors. since many americans end their education at the basic > textbooks, this is part of the misleading bias. the basic textbooks > are baisc, that is why they are not all inclusive. It is completely > erroneous to say they are not comprehensive due to the communist > influence. Unschuld has well documented that the political environment > has influenced the state's sanction of medical styles in every era of > chinese history for 2 thousand years, but at no time were physicians > denied access to the full body of literature. Even Heiner Fruehauf, a > strong detractor of communist TCM, who has made much use of ignored gu > theory texts in his practice, would be the first to admit that he was > introduced to these texts by teachers of TCM in the PRC. China is a > big country and the schools may have kissed the state's ass in > establishing their formal curriculum on paper, but this had little or > no impact on how education inthe clinic and at advanced stages actually > played out. I'd like to hear Ken on this. > > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2001 Report Share Posted March 3, 2001 I also support this point of view, Jason and Todd. I would say, however, that while it is clear that the communists helped save TCM, where as the guo ming dang tried to ban it, that Chinese medicine was somewhat streamlined to serve as a national medical system. Also, such aspects as wu xing xue/five phase theory were downplayed. Elizabeth Hsu has an excellent book out (unfortunately, I haven't unpacked it yet) which discusses the present day school system in China, and she prints diagrams where the five phase symbols (water, fire, etc.) are replaced by their associated viscera at the center of the diagrams. on 3/3/01 8:16 AM, at wrote: > , <@o...> wrote: > >> I have to pipe in on the all so common bashing of communist (i.e. that they >> destroyed OM.) I would like to hear what others think of the topic. >> I would like to see some evidence, not hearsay, that this actually occurs. >> From day one in my educational process I was fed this belief. It sounded >> very nice... originally Chinese medicine was this amazing spiritual system >> etc. and the Communist destroyed it, reduced it to a cookbook, took out its >> soul. > > Jason > > Here, here. I think you are 100% correct. Like much of the rhetoric in > the american TCM community, there is no evidence to support this > position and plenty of evidence to the contrary. I also challenge > anyone out there to present evidence rather than conjecture or > hyperbole to support this point of view. I also had chinese teachers > who learned the classics in much more depth and freedom than they are > presented here in the US. Certain ideas were played down in basic > textbooks, but they most certainly were not denied distribution to > doctors. since many americans end their education at the basic > textbooks, this is part of the misleading bias. the basic textbooks > are baisc, that is why they are not all inclusive. It is completely > erroneous to say they are not comprehensive due to the communist > influence. Unschuld has well documented that the political environment > has influenced the state's sanction of medical styles in every era of > chinese history for 2 thousand years, but at no time were physicians > denied access to the full body of literature. Even Heiner Fruehauf, a > strong detractor of communist TCM, who has made much use of ignored gu > theory texts in his practice, would be the first to admit that he was > introduced to these texts by teachers of TCM in the PRC. China is a > big country and the schools may have kissed the state's ass in > establishing their formal curriculum on paper, but this had little or > no impact on how education inthe clinic and at advanced stages actually > played out. I'd like to hear Ken on this. > > > > I Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2001 Report Share Posted March 3, 2001 > >China is a > > big country and the schools may have kissed the state's ass in > > establishing their formal curriculum on paper, but this had little or > > no impact on how education inthe clinic and at advanced stages actually > > played out. I'd like to hear Ken on this. > > > One of the most basic factors that I find people who have little or no experience in China tend to miss is its size, particularly the size of its population. As Unschuld points out, medicine is a socio-political phenomenon. Therefore it's neither possible or useful to try and separate a large population's medical needs from its political realities. Have the Communists destroyed Chinese medicine in China? Or have they had some sort of overall negative impact on it? Have they purged it of its spiritual dimension? Based on observation of the current scene here in China, any sentient observer would have to conclude not. If there were some nefarious scheme afoot among party cadres to wipe out or despirit Chinese medicine, why on earth would they permit the publication and dissemination of so much literature, both ancient and modern, that documents and discusses virtually all aspects of the subject? As we in the West have been deprived of the vast bulk of this literature, this obvious fact may well have remained hidden from view of those who have not been here and seen it for themselves. Here the factor of knowing the Chinese language is key, as Nigel Wiseman points out in his forthcoming piece in CAOM, Language: The Neglected Key. For even if you come to China to study, even if you walk into Chinese bookstores and look at the Chinese medical sections, if you don't know what the titles mean on the books you look at, it's rather difficult to appreciate the wide range of subject matter that has been discussed in this literature. It is certainly true that during the Cultural Revolution there was a widespread and very general repression of all things associated with China's traditional past in the PRC. But the people here as well as the government have long since turned away from such practices, the current controvery over the Fa Lun Gong sect notwithstanding. As a matter of fact, the current government policies with respect to this one group demonstrate clearly that the Communist leaders today do not engage in any widespread repression of traditional beliefs or practices. If they did, how would such a group ever have grown to its current level of size and influence? Just the other night I watched a report on CCTV about how Beijing people are turning more and more to physical exercise as part of their daily regimen, and in the video tape broadcast throughout the country one could see people practicing Taijiquan, Qi Gong, as well as all sorts of other exercises in the public parks of the nation's capital. What I observe is that as China becomes more well developed, thus providing more and more people with the wherewithal to make personal decisions beyond what to eat, more and more Chinese turn to their ancient traditions as sources of inspiration. You see it everywhere from architecture to clothing and medicine, to name a few fairly obvious categories of human action. Of course you also see a growing diversity of influences that reflect China's rapid opening to Western influences. So the scene here is quite complex these days. In fact, things are changing so fast that it makes my head spin. I, too, was at Maciocia's lecture last fall at PCOM, and agree with the consensus opinion here, which he voiced that evening, that to believe that the Communists have somehow damaged traditional Chinese medicine is simply wrong. However, since we're on the subject of his talk, he did make one glaring error, namely his statement that Daoism was not a major influence on traditional Chinese medical theory. This is a point that can be discussed at length, and since he himself is not a member of this group, I'll be brief about it and state simply that, with yin/yang theory at its root, Chinese medicine reflects a deep inheritance of Daoist thought. Anyone interested in knowing our views on the subject more fully can find them in Who Can Ride the Dragon? Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2001 Report Share Posted March 4, 2001 , yulong@m... wrote: However, since we're on the subject of his > talk, he did make one glaring error, namely > his statement that Daoism was not a major > influence on traditional Chinese medical > theory. This is a point that can be discussed > at length, and since he himself is not a > member of this group, I'll be brief about it Giovanni is a member,though he does not receive emails and has not chimed in. He may not be aware of the web access option, either. I think I will send him a digest of the latest discussion, so he will have the opportunity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2001 Report Share Posted March 4, 2001 What I observe is that as China becomes morewell developed, thus providing more and morepeople with the wherewithal to make personaldecisions beyond what to eat, more and moreChinese turn to their ancient traditions assources of inspiration. You see it everywherefrom architecture to clothing and medicine,to name a few fairly obvious categories ofhuman action.>>>>>Although christianity seems to be growing very fast Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2001 Report Share Posted March 4, 2001 Giovanni is a member,though he does not receive emails and has not chimed in. He may not be aware of the web access option, either. I think I will send him a digest of the latest discussion, so he will have the opportunity >>>>It would be nice to also get his feedback on the clinical outcomes and moderns clinical publication that I have razed in the past Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2001 Report Share Posted March 4, 2001 , @i... wrote: > , jramholz wrote: > > > > In an ideal world, teachers who have a degree in Chinese language and > > medical history should be teaching beginning students and some > > master level courses; they would be the best qualified. > > In an ideal world. Now where is that world? I'd like to go there > I've just dropped in on this thread and may have some things of interest to say [apologies for missing some of the threads]. I guess that I may in some ways fit the description that Todd gives - I have a lifelong interest in China and the history of science, studied in Asia, and have bachelor's and master's degrees in Chinese language and literature. However, I have to say that I don't believe I do as good a job in communicating some of the important concepts of Chinese medicine as other teachers in our school who don't know Chinese [but have worked with the medicine for almost 20 years and have an abiding interest and good training in education]. I want to make it very clear that it is a somewhat bizzare fallacy to think that knowing an East Asian language is a prerequisite to knowing anything about Chinese medicine. It makes it a lot easier [which is why it is required at our school], but it is somewhat bigoted to say that someone is unqualified to talk about the medicine just because they don't know one of the languages. One analogy I use is a short-order cook at a restaurant I go to who has only one arm. He juggles the various implements around and does quite a credible job of cooking. Would it be easier for him to cook if he had two arms? Most probably. Should he be automatically disqualified from cooking just because he has one arm? I don't think so. In addition, as to the whole " Communist " medicine diatribes, I agree completely with Todd and Ken. There are some interesting recent dissertations on what has happened to Chinese medicine since the early twentieth century and at least one of them, by the wonderful practitioner and teacher Volker Scheid on pluralism and relationships in Chinese medicine, should be published this year by Duke University Press. Sorry for the off-the -cuff nature of these remarks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2001 Report Share Posted March 4, 2001 I want to make it very clear that it isa somewhat bizzare fallacy to think that knowing an East Asian language is a prerequisite to knowing anything about Chinese medicine. It makes it a lot easier [which is why it is required at our school], but it is somewhat bigoted to say that someone is unqualified to talk about the medicine just because they don't know one of the languages. >>>>Finley some words of wisdom Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 4, 2001 Report Share Posted March 4, 2001 Saturday, March 03, 2001 09:16 AM Re: More about Reading and Teaching , Tod wrote: " Here, here. I think you are 100% correct. Like much of the rhetoric in the American TCM community, there is no evidence to support this position and plenty of evidence to the contrary. I also challenge anyone out there to present evidence rather than conjecture or hyperbole to support this point of view. I also had Chinese teachers who learned the classics in much more depth and freedom than they are presented here in the US. Certain ideas were played down in basic textbooks, but they most certainly were not denied distribution to doctors. " Dear Tod: I accept you challenge. Your position is not tenable but you are at least in good company. I am not on line right now and so I have no access to your Bio for this group. I do not wish to presume to much but if you indeed have plenty of evidence I think you'd better get it and ask some questions as to source and context. I will give you a brief summery of what I believe to be true. If you rebut I would ask that you give your sources and label your own conjecture as yours, as you go and I will do the same here. Before I can begin let me ask, do you know what defines the discipline of medical anthropology? I believe it is the study of human beings and there culture in relation to there medical practices. It is not the study of the application of medicine directly nor is it meant to verify or refute the efficacy of a medicine. Having said this, I can't help but think of what this discipline in the past 20 years has had to say about TCM and Communism. Unchield in one of his texts defines TCM. His Definition is one of two that are commonly used in academia, it is however representative in that the dissenting view is only found in China. While the definition that Unchueld gave is used with only small variation in the rest of the discipline and the world. Unchuld wrote what follows. " What is ? Chinese medicine according to Dr. Paul Unschuld can be broadly defined in three ways. First, it can mean the historical reality of a multi-layered, dynamic medical tradition that developed over the course of three millennia from magical and religious beginnings that continuously incorporated new ideas while retaining older ideas with only minor alteration. Second, the term Chinese medicine covers the contents of the relevant literature and clinical practices of the People's Republic of China (PRC). This is a type of Chinese medicine that was developed by the PRC in the 1950 's as an alternative to " Western " medicine, and which at the same time has abandoned all of the traditional aspects of Chinese healing that appear no longer justifiable to the materialistic and " scientific criteria " of the communist government. Thirdly, about 150 years ago western medicine found its way into China and in fact dominates medicine in China today. In recent times TCM doctors have made important contributions to the development of " Western " medicine, and these contributions can be regarded as Chinese medicine. Note, that at present, no research has been conducted that addresses the following arias in a manor that can be considered authoritative to western academics. 1) The clinical practice of TCM prior to the 20th century. 2) The acceptance and application of Western medicine in China. 3) Only a few of the 13,000 TCM texts that have survived from ancient times have been translated and many of the interpretations of those texts that have been written in Chinese in modern times have been subject to communist revision and bias. 4) Only minimal attempts at defining TCM terminology have been made by Western scholars of TCM. " I would ask you to look at point 3. I would ask you to take the time to look up which classics have been changed and how they have been changed. There is much in the way of literature in the above field documenting the unreliability of Chinese University Presses in not just the fields of TCM but in other arias such as religion, history, etc. The Chinese certainly teach a rather interesting history in the universities pertaining to Tibet. Revissionist history has long been a tool of governments even ours in the US. My point is that when you speak to a Chinese trained practitioner you are speaking to someone who in fact could not read the classics in there original. What he has read is the Classics in modern characters, this is what has been edited. If you e-mail Unchiuld at the University of Munich, Institute of the History of Medicine he can provide a rather extensive list, but you will have to do it in German. I'm confident that if you look you can find the same list in English. Jurgen Kovacs in a paper derived to the University of California Department of Medical Anthropology gave an extensive list of modern printing from university presses in China that had grave monitions and " dubious translation methodologies " . These medical classics where modern printings of ancient medical texts in the old characters. Six other papers on related topics where presented at the same symposium. I would also refer you to Bob Flaws article " Thoughts on Acupuncture, Internal Medicine, and TCM in the West " ; Joseph Needium, Manfred Porkert, and Leon Hammer, have all had plenty to say that is in direct contrast to your position. I would like to take a few moments to discus how this medicine was codified in the early 50's by the communists. The information that follows can be found by reading the works of Heiner Fruehauf, and numerous other sources. Mao was very disparaging of TCM when he first came to power. It was for complex political reasons that he changed his view toward TCM. It is certain that it was not a belief in the Medicine that cause him to have a change in heart. Both the " Great Leap Forward " and the " Cultural Revolution " are in my mind ample evidence that Mao most probably had little in the way of a heart. His motivations where based on factors like the distancing of China from Russia and there reliance on Russian medical technology, the cost of western medicine, and his incessant theme of self reliance. TCM was a political toll that helped him to excuse not providing modern medicine and a tool to rash in modern medicine. In 1956 Zhou En Lai, established the first four TCM schools, Cheng Du, Beijing, Shang Hai, and Guan Zhong, the Nan Jing school was opened the following year. A committee of Five who in China are know as the " five elder " was formed at the same time to codify the medicine in order to make it easily taught in the modern university paradigm. This committee, which was made up of classically trained practitioners, set to work. The committee included Qin Bowei, Cheng Shen Wu, Ren Ying Qiu, Li Chong Ren, and Yu Dao Ji. In 1959 Mao published a decree which outlined his vision for the integration of Chinese and Western medicine. The result of which was the complete abandonment of the major aspects of the work done by the " Five Elders " . What came after still bore there name but was not there work. Remember the concept of Academic Freedom is not known in the Chinese University system. Mao's decree, the " Zhong Xi Yi jiehe " , abandons the very foundation of TCM, the reliance on synthetic logic and reasoning, in its place it puts western scientific method and the principles of reductionism. In this same time period communist party committees at the university level started reviewing university administrative structures with the aim of insuring allegiance to the party. There influence was enormous and had great impact on how the medicine of TCM developed. Kovacs has much to say of this and I feel confident you will find volumous information on this subject in doing a literature review. One of the most obvious outcomes to the outside observer was that the medicine was now in the control of western trained doctors not TCM doctors. These Doctors where in political positions and to ascribe to them the academic freedom to act as a scientist in wrong. In the mid 80's I lived in China. 11 months the first time and 7 months on my return. I lived in a Taoist monastery studding both herbs and medicine, but mostly, Taoism. I know first hand that when the Chinese government says that they leave Taoist alone to practice there religion that this is false. I saw acts of both coercion and contempt on the part of the government. In living there I came to strongly suspect that as a result of both the great leap forward and the cultural revolution that there was a large cultural difference between urban Chinese and Rural Chinese. The monks where I lived disliked the government to a man, and where vastly different in there world view then the urban Chinese I met. They where acutely aware of the cost to there culture that communism had caused. While in China I was fortunate enough to see this medicine practiced in a more traditional way. I can assure you that what I saw was substantially different from what many Chinese trained doctors tell there students. I would like to state for the record that I do not discount TCM as it is taught in China today. I think of it as a style of TCM the way I think of Whorsley as a style. I read some Chinese and have learned much from the Shang Hai and Beijing Journals of TCM. I think also that there is as Bob pointed out in an earlier post a tendency to view all that is old as good and what is new as bad. This is not good science. TCM is a science. Both the communist version and the traditional one. I would like to see the science of the traditional medicine used. After all how traditional is an article which bears the title " The study of 54 cases of Stomach Cancer using Modified Ba Wei Di Huang Wan " , the very title is almost a refutation of the Traditional Medicine. Having said this I will of course read the article and learn from it, but I will treat it as modern in approach. I will respond to you challenge as soon as I'm able. The school I teach at will be on spring brake in two week, 11-18 I think, so I may have to wait until then in that the demands of both my practice and teaching are taking up a great deal of time. Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2001 Report Share Posted March 5, 2001 , " PHILLIP REYNES " <PAReynes@m...> wrote: > > > Dear Tod: > > I accept you challenge. Your position is not tenable but you are at least > in good company. Philip Thanks for your thoughtful reply. I look forward to your further posts. However, I will allow others more knowledgeable than myself to defend the other side. I am not a scholar. I just evaluate the evidence before me. To date, I have not seen evidence that supports the the oft heard position you espouse, as Ken Rose and Dan Bensky both agree. I can really say no more than every chinese teacher I have known has had access to the full change of classical texts and does not seem to have been constrained in any way by communist dogma. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2001 Report Share Posted March 5, 2001 Phil, Very nice to read your most thoughtful post. I, too, have spent a little time in China and like you have been fortunate to have made some friends among not only urban Chinese but rural folk and Daoists and Buddhists and Confucians and Moslims and some Miao (aka Hmong) and others. I distinctly remember one day when I climbed a mountain in Western Sichuan and found myself in the home of some farmers whose ancestors had lived in that same spot for as long as anyone could remember. These were Han people, not Zhang. One of my favorite topics when I meet Chinese who want to get to know me and whom I want to get to know is to ask about their Cultural Revolution stories. So I spent a little time chatting with this family about their recollections of those days. They told me about the nightly meetings at the bottom of the mountain. " But we never went, " said the old man. When I inquired as to why or how they never went. The old man's son just answered, " Out here we don't care very much about what the government says or does. " I have always thought that I heard the voice of a large portion of Chinese roughly 1 billion peasant farmers that afternoon. So your points along this line are very well taken, by myself at least. I would have to agree with you in general that the Communists have had a significant influence and impact on the nature of Chinese medicine both in ways that we might think of as positive and as negative. I said as much in my earlier post in reply to's query, i.e. that as you point out in citing Unschuld, medicine is shaped by politics. I think Garry's point about partisan politics per se rather begs the point. Politics is politics and politics in China since 1949 have been dominated by the Communists. That is what it means to be political in China, i.e. to have and weild power. That, as I'm sure you well know, is hardly a recent or a Communist invention. Rather it is a traditional Chinese value that the leader of the country is the most powerful person in the realm. Most often this most powerful person has been a man, but China has had perhaps her highest and lowest periods under the leadership of women. I refer to Wu Zhi Tian in the Tang and The Empress Dowager who ruled over the penultimate phase of the dissolution of Imperial China. I will only add that in each and every reign that proceeded the establishment of the New Republic in 1911, the governing powers reshaped and reissued the medical literature and therefore reshaped and reestablished medicine in a new path, designed to apply the ancient principles to the solution of successive, contemporary situations. Thus the Communist initiative in revising and reissuing the medical literature must be understood, I submit, in the context of the history of which it is a part. I think this is a terribly important point for Western students of the subject to get in their minds, that the Communist revisions of the subject are, in essence, traditional in character, so far as the format of a ruling power revising the medicine goes. That is why I push so strongly for the establishment of an approach to scholarship that embraces and includes a full-scale study of the whole subject, so that we, in the present, can view such matters in clear relief. There is, after all, no reason whatsoever why we should limit our current view of the subject to any particular perspective of the past. One of the greatest mechanisms of traditional Chinese intellectual culture and therefore of traditional Chinese medicine is this very process of reevaluation and reiteration of traditional texts and materials. The work of one generation adds constantly to the accumulated mass of past scholars. It is all handed down...rather that portion of it that survives is handed down to successive generations for their review and consideration. And it is thus our very traditional responsibility to get it all into view and spread out on the table so that we can decide what is valuable and what is useful and what should be transmitted to our children and grandchildren. The implications of modern information technology applied to these ancient concerns and problems is quite startling. I am delighted to find your voice of reason and intelligence on the subject. I hope that we can continue this discussion and bring perhaps more of these important details to light. I wanted to make it clear, particularly as Todd has cited me as a corroborating source of what on the surface appears as a disagreement between yourself and him on this topic of the Communist influence on modern TCM, that I do not disagree categorically with what you have stated. I think you have stated many things that are resoundingly clear and true. I suspect that we also have plenty on which we disagree. I think we'll have to sift through things rather slowly to make sure. But, as you can see from the above, in my view these are enormously complex matters. In the past, it has tested the limits of this group' tolerance to delve too deeply into these matters. I will leave it to Todd's experienced judgment to decide whether or not we should continue to have this discussion here or whether it should be moved to the Chinese_Medicine.net list, where the group is somewhat smaller but where people are less likely to be perturbed by our pursuit of topics that must appear to many as medieval theologists enumerating the number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin. At any rate, Phil, truly a pleasure to read your post. And I do look forward to comparing notes more closely with you. Ken PS. Is your lengthy quote below from Unschuld himself or from someone writing about Unschuld? , " PHILLIP REYNES " <PAReynes@m...> wrote: > > > > @i... [@i...] > Saturday, March 03, 2001 09:16 AM > > Re: More about Reading and Teaching > > > , Tod wrote: > > > " Here, here. I think you are 100% correct. Like much of the rhetoric in > the American TCM community, there is no evidence to support this > position and plenty of evidence to the contrary. I also challenge > anyone out there to present evidence rather than conjecture or > hyperbole to support this point of view. I also had Chinese teachers > who learned the classics in much more depth and freedom than they are > presented here in the US. Certain ideas were played down in basic > textbooks, but they most certainly were not denied distribution to > doctors. " > > Dear Tod: > > I accept you challenge. Your position is not tenable but you are at least > in good company. I am not on line right now and so I have no access to your > Bio for this group. I do not wish to presume to much but if you indeed have > plenty of evidence I think you'd better get it and ask some questions as to > source and context. I will give you a brief summery of what I believe to be > true. If you rebut I would ask that you give your sources and label your > own conjecture as yours, as you go and I will do the same here. > > Before I can begin let me ask, do you know what defines the discipline of > medical anthropology? I believe it is the study of human beings and there > culture in relation to there medical practices. It is not the study of the > application of medicine directly nor is it meant to verify or refute the > efficacy of a medicine. Having said this, I can't help but think of what > this discipline in the past 20 years has had to say about TCM and Communism. > Unchield in one of his texts defines TCM. His Definition is one of two that > are commonly used in academia, it is however representative in that the > dissenting view is only found in China. While the definition that Unchueld > gave is used with only small variation in the rest of the discipline and the > world. Unchuld wrote what follows. > > " What is ? > Chinese medicine according to Dr. Paul Unschuld can be broadly defined in > three ways. First, it can mean the historical reality of a multi- layered, > dynamic medical tradition that developed over the course of three millennia > from magical and religious beginnings that continuously incorporated new > ideas while retaining older ideas with only minor alteration. > > Second, the term Chinese medicine covers the contents of the relevant > literature and clinical practices of the People's Republic of China (PRC). > This is a type of Chinese medicine that was developed by the PRC in the 1950 > 's as an alternative to " Western " medicine, and which at the same time has > abandoned all of the traditional aspects of Chinese healing that appear no > longer justifiable to the materialistic and " scientific criteria " of the > communist government. > > Thirdly, about 150 years ago western medicine found its way into China and > in fact dominates medicine in China today. In recent times TCM doctors have > made important contributions to the development of " Western " medicine, and > these contributions can be regarded as Chinese medicine. > > Note, that at present, no research has been conducted that addresses the > following arias in a manor that can be considered authoritative to western > academics. > 1) The clinical practice of TCM prior to the 20th century. > 2) The acceptance and application of Western medicine in China. > 3) Only a few of the 13,000 TCM texts that have survived from ancient times > have been translated and many of the interpretations of those texts that > have been written in Chinese in modern times have been subject to communist > revision and bias. > 4) Only minimal attempts at defining TCM terminology have been made by > Western scholars of TCM. " > > I would ask you to look at point 3. I would ask you to take the time to > look up which classics have been changed and how they have been changed. > There is much in the way of literature in the above field documenting the > unreliability of Chinese University Presses in not just the fields of TCM > but in other arias such as religion, history, etc. The Chinese certainly > teach a rather interesting history in the universities pertaining to Tibet. > Revissionist history has long been a tool of governments even ours in the > US. My point is that when you speak to a Chinese trained practitioner you > are speaking to someone who in fact could not read the classics in there > original. What he has read is the Classics in modern characters, this is > what has been edited. If you e-mail Unchiuld at the University of Munich, > Institute of the History of Medicine he can provide a rather extensive list, > but you will have to do it in German. I'm confident that if you look you > can find the same list in English. > > Jurgen Kovacs in a paper derived to the University of California Department > of Medical Anthropology gave an extensive list of modern printing from > university presses in China that had grave monitions and " dubious > translation methodologies " . These medical classics where modern printings > of ancient medical texts in the old characters. Six other papers on related > topics where presented at the same symposium. > > I would also refer you to Bob Flaws article " Thoughts on Acupuncture, > Internal Medicine, and TCM in the West " ; Joseph Needium, Manfred Porkert, > and Leon Hammer, have all had plenty to say that is in direct contrast to > your position. > > I would like to take a few moments to discus how this medicine was codified > in the early 50's by the communists. The information that follows can be > found by reading the works of Heiner Fruehauf, and numerous other sources. > > Mao was very disparaging of TCM when he first came to power. It was for > complex political reasons that he changed his view toward TCM. It is > certain that it was not a belief in the Medicine that cause him to have a > change in heart. Both the " Great Leap Forward " and the " Cultural > Revolution " are in my mind ample evidence that Mao most probably had little > in the way of a heart. > > His motivations where based on factors like the distancing of China from > Russia and there reliance on Russian medical technology, the cost of western > medicine, and his incessant theme of self reliance. TCM was a political > toll that helped him to excuse not providing modern medicine and a tool to > rash in modern medicine. > > In 1956 Zhou En Lai, established the first four TCM schools, Cheng Du, > Beijing, > Shang Hai, and Guan Zhong, the Nan Jing school was opened the following > year. > > A committee of Five who in China are know as the " five elder " was formed at > the same time to codify the medicine in order to make it easily taught in > the modern university paradigm. This committee, which was made up of > classically trained practitioners, set to work. The committee included Qin > Bowei, Cheng Shen Wu, Ren Ying Qiu, Li Chong Ren, and Yu Dao Ji. > > In 1959 Mao published a decree which outlined his vision for the integration > of Chinese and Western medicine. The result of which was the complete > abandonment of the major aspects of the work done by the " Five Elders " . > What came after still bore there name but was not there work. Remember the > concept of Academic Freedom is not known in the Chinese University system. > > Mao's decree, the " Zhong Xi Yi jiehe " , abandons the very foundation of TCM, > the reliance on synthetic logic and reasoning, in its place it puts western > scientific method and the principles of reductionism. In this same time > period communist party committees at the university level started reviewing > university administrative structures with the aim of insuring allegiance to > the party. There influence was enormous and had great impact on how the > medicine of TCM developed. Kovacs has much to say of this and I feel > confident you will find volumous information on this subject in doing a > literature review. One of the most obvious outcomes to the outside observer > was that the medicine was now in the control of western trained doctors not > TCM doctors. These Doctors where in political positions and to ascribe to > them the academic freedom to act as a scientist in wrong. > > In the mid 80's I lived in China. 11 months the first time and 7 months on > my return. I lived in a Taoist monastery studding both herbs and medicine, > but mostly, Taoism. I know first hand that when the Chinese government says > that they leave Taoist alone to practice there religion that this is false. > I saw acts of both coercion and contempt on the part of the government. In > living there I came to strongly suspect that as a result of both the great > leap forward and the cultural revolution that there was a large cultural > difference between urban Chinese and Rural Chinese. The monks where I lived > disliked the government to a man, and where vastly different in there world > view then the urban Chinese I met. They where acutely aware of the cost to > there culture that communism had caused. > > While in China I was fortunate enough to see this medicine practiced in a > more traditional way. I can assure you that what I saw was substantially > different from what many Chinese trained doctors tell there students. > > I would like to state for the record that I do not discount TCM as it is > taught in China today. I think of it as a style of TCM the way I think of > Whorsley as a style. I read some Chinese and have learned much from the > Shang Hai and Beijing Journals of TCM. I think also that there is as Bob > pointed out in an earlier post a tendency to view all that is old as good > and what is new as bad. This is not good science. TCM is a science. Both > the communist version and the traditional one. I would like to see the > science of the traditional medicine used. After all how traditional is an > article which bears the title " The study of 54 cases of Stomach Cancer using > Modified Ba Wei Di Huang Wan " , the very title is almost a refutation of the > Traditional Medicine. Having said this I will of course read the article > and learn from it, but I will treat it as modern in approach. > > I will respond to you challenge as soon as I'm able. The school I teach at > will be on spring brake in two week, 11-18 I think, so I may have to wait > until then in that the demands of both my practice and teaching are taking > up a great deal of time. > > Phil Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2001 Report Share Posted March 5, 2001 Good to have you here, Dan. I've been hoping for an opportunity to ask you a couple questions. First, let me make an observation. It seems important that we differentiate between the prerequsites for an individual's education and training to be a clinician and the requirements of an educational infrastructure that can deliver such clinical training. These are two obviously very closely related things, but they are two also very obviously different things. It seems to me that the current discussion has tended to blur this difference, and I think if we do not keep this difference clear that this blurriness will not help us understand anything about either and will, in the end, be our undoing. That said, I will move on to my questions, first, with respect to your most recent post. >I want to make it very clear that it is > a somewhat bizzare fallacy to think that knowing an East Asian > language is a prerequisite to knowing anything about Chinese > medicine. Who said this? I don't recall having read anyone saying anything like this at all. You seem to be responding to a rhetorical position that no one here has assumed. I cannot speak for anyone but myself. My point is that the profession must be in possession of adequate scholarship on the subject of the traditions of language, culture, science, philosophy, and so on that have always nurtured and supported the study and practice of medicine in China. Without such scholarship, the whole profession is weakened. I do not believe that clincians need therefore be scholars. They cleary do not. But they need the work of scholars to draw upon in order to fulfill their obligations to their patients that they be thoroughly trained in the disciplines they practice. This is the difference to which I refer above, i.e. the difference between the requirement that the profession include a comprehensive education in all aspects of the subject on which clinical education and training can be based, on the one hand, and the specific prerequisites to become a doctor of Chinese medicine on the other. Now let me add to this that the great doctors in Chinese medical history have tended to place the highest possible requirements and standards on the training of their successors. I refer, as an example, to Sun Si Miao's famous Prerequisites to the Study of Medicine, which we have translated in the front matter of Who Can Ride the Dragon? I have never figured out why these requirements should be lessened today. Do we not deserve the same level of training and committment from our doctors as Chinese of 1,300 years ago? With respect to the study of the language itself, and to matters relating to Chinese medical language and the transmission of Chinese medicine in the West, I still very much want to know what you mean when you say that translation standards cause more trouble than they solve. If students do not have standards of translation on which to draw for their study of Chinese medical texts, and if they are not to be required as part of their professional training to become familiar with the language of the originals, then how are they to gain access, let alone understanding of what the fundamental texts of the subject mean? What trouble do translation standards cause? For whom? Best, Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2001 Report Share Posted March 5, 2001 Dear Phillip, I support your though and again, we are in American, under American MD control, we have many stress from limited of law as health insurance and Government Medicare, this issue caused the Chinese traditional treatment to be limited. People need our help, they can not come to us because the Medicare and health insurance not pay for. In the other hand, we do not feel freedom in practicing Alternative in this country by many laws. Of cause, it say that you can practice, but American every thing pay by health insurance and Medicare. The people want to go TCM, they already pay for insurance payment, they do not have extra money to pay for TCM. I have lot of friend who OMD have to give up their career, some of them do not have enough money to keep up with their career, so they have to struggle very hard for their survives, this really frustrated. One of my friend OMD who name is Eric Jarman once scream loud " What is the law in this country? The MD they treat us as low than their slaves " They say that " we let you to have freedom in practicing TCM " , but the people look at the things which happening for TCM and MD. They know it is the way to limited the TCM in American. But in China and in Vietnam we have same equality respect to each other. I remember, when I practiced with my teacher, a lot of paralyze cases, the MD can not treat the patients,the MD send the patients to my teacher. The teacher that I study who is incredible DR and doesn't have license also no degree, the Tiengiang Hospital once invited her to work for them and to teach the MD DR. She has been working for them 5 years and now she retired. Even though, Vietnam is now Communist, but some how in some way they have more freedom than American, in the other hand American have more freedom than in Vietnam in different way as political. In American you can tell in the newspaper how bad Clinton is, but in Vietnam you tell how bad they are they will put you in jail. That is the different between Communism and American. Nhung Ta - " PHILLIP REYNES " <PAReynes Monday, March 05, 2001 2:54 AM RE: Re: More about Reading and Teaching > > > > > Saturday, March 03, 2001 09:16 AM > > Re: More about Reading and Teaching > > > , Tod wrote: > > > " Here, here. I think you are 100% correct. Like much of the rhetoric in > the American TCM community, there is no evidence to support this > position and plenty of evidence to the contrary. I also challenge > anyone out there to present evidence rather than conjecture or > hyperbole to support this point of view. I also had Chinese teachers > who learned the classics in much more depth and freedom than they are > presented here in the US. Certain ideas were played down in basic > textbooks, but they most certainly were not denied distribution to > doctors. " > > Dear Tod: > > I accept you challenge. Your position is not tenable but you are at least > in good company. I am not on line right now and so I have no access to your > Bio for this group. I do not wish to presume to much but if you indeed have > plenty of evidence I think you'd better get it and ask some questions as to > source and context. I will give you a brief summery of what I believe to be > true. If you rebut I would ask that you give your sources and label your > own conjecture as yours, as you go and I will do the same here. > > Before I can begin let me ask, do you know what defines the discipline of > medical anthropology? I believe it is the study of human beings and there > culture in relation to there medical practices. It is not the study of the > application of medicine directly nor is it meant to verify or refute the > efficacy of a medicine. Having said this, I can't help but think of what > this discipline in the past 20 years has had to say about TCM and Communism. > Unchield in one of his texts defines TCM. His Definition is one of two that > are commonly used in academia, it is however representative in that the > dissenting view is only found in China. While the definition that Unchueld > gave is used with only small variation in the rest of the discipline and the > world. Unchuld wrote what follows. > > " What is ? > Chinese medicine according to Dr. Paul Unschuld can be broadly defined in > three ways. First, it can mean the historical reality of a multi-layered, > dynamic medical tradition that developed over the course of three millennia > from magical and religious beginnings that continuously incorporated new > ideas while retaining older ideas with only minor alteration. > > Second, the term Chinese medicine covers the contents of the relevant > literature and clinical practices of the People's Republic of China (PRC). > This is a type of Chinese medicine that was developed by the PRC in the 1950 > 's as an alternative to " Western " medicine, and which at the same time has > abandoned all of the traditional aspects of Chinese healing that appear no > longer justifiable to the materialistic and " scientific criteria " of the > communist government. > > Thirdly, about 150 years ago western medicine found its way into China and > in fact dominates medicine in China today. In recent times TCM doctors have > made important contributions to the development of " Western " medicine, and > these contributions can be regarded as Chinese medicine. > > Note, that at present, no research has been conducted that addresses the > following arias in a manor that can be considered authoritative to western > academics. > 1) The clinical practice of TCM prior to the 20th century. > 2) The acceptance and application of Western medicine in China. > 3) Only a few of the 13,000 TCM texts that have survived from ancient times > have been translated and many of the interpretations of those texts that > have been written in Chinese in modern times have been subject to communist > revision and bias. > 4) Only minimal attempts at defining TCM terminology have been made by > Western scholars of TCM. " > > I would ask you to look at point 3. I would ask you to take the time to > look up which classics have been changed and how they have been changed. > There is much in the way of literature in the above field documenting the > unreliability of Chinese University Presses in not just the fields of TCM > but in other arias such as religion, history, etc. The Chinese certainly > teach a rather interesting history in the universities pertaining to Tibet. > Revissionist history has long been a tool of governments even ours in the > US. My point is that when you speak to a Chinese trained practitioner you > are speaking to someone who in fact could not read the classics in there > original. What he has read is the Classics in modern characters, this is > what has been edited. If you e-mail Unchiuld at the University of Munich, > Institute of the History of Medicine he can provide a rather extensive list, > but you will have to do it in German. I'm confident that if you look you > can find the same list in English. > > Jurgen Kovacs in a paper derived to the University of California Department > of Medical Anthropology gave an extensive list of modern printing from > university presses in China that had grave monitions and " dubious > translation methodologies " . These medical classics where modern printings > of ancient medical texts in the old characters. Six other papers on related > topics where presented at the same symposium. > > I would also refer you to Bob Flaws article " Thoughts on Acupuncture, > Internal Medicine, and TCM in the West " ; Joseph Needium, Manfred Porkert, > and Leon Hammer, have all had plenty to say that is in direct contrast to > your position. > > I would like to take a few moments to discus how this medicine was codified > in the early 50's by the communists. The information that follows can be > found by reading the works of Heiner Fruehauf, and numerous other sources. > > Mao was very disparaging of TCM when he first came to power. It was for > complex political reasons that he changed his view toward TCM. It is > certain that it was not a belief in the Medicine that cause him to have a > change in heart. Both the " Great Leap Forward " and the " Cultural > Revolution " are in my mind ample evidence that Mao most probably had little > in the way of a heart. > > His motivations where based on factors like the distancing of China from > Russia and there reliance on Russian medical technology, the cost of western > medicine, and his incessant theme of self reliance. TCM was a political > toll that helped him to excuse not providing modern medicine and a tool to > rash in modern medicine. > > In 1956 Zhou En Lai, established the first four TCM schools, Cheng Du, > Beijing, > Shang Hai, and Guan Zhong, the Nan Jing school was opened the following > year. > > A committee of Five who in China are know as the " five elder " was formed at > the same time to codify the medicine in order to make it easily taught in > the modern university paradigm. This committee, which was made up of > classically trained practitioners, set to work. The committee included Qin > Bowei, Cheng Shen Wu, Ren Ying Qiu, Li Chong Ren, and Yu Dao Ji. > > In 1959 Mao published a decree which outlined his vision for the integration > of Chinese and Western medicine. The result of which was the complete > abandonment of the major aspects of the work done by the " Five Elders " . > What came after still bore there name but was not there work. Remember the > concept of Academic Freedom is not known in the Chinese University system. > > Mao's decree, the " Zhong Xi Yi jiehe " , abandons the very foundation of TCM, > the reliance on synthetic logic and reasoning, in its place it puts western > scientific method and the principles of reductionism. In this same time > period communist party committees at the university level started reviewing > university administrative structures with the aim of insuring allegiance to > the party. There influence was enormous and had great impact on how the > medicine of TCM developed. Kovacs has much to say of this and I feel > confident you will find volumous information on this subject in doing a > literature review. One of the most obvious outcomes to the outside observer > was that the medicine was now in the control of western trained doctors not > TCM doctors. These Doctors where in political positions and to ascribe to > them the academic freedom to act as a scientist in wrong. > > In the mid 80's I lived in China. 11 months the first time and 7 months on > my return. I lived in a Taoist monastery studding both herbs and medicine, > but mostly, Taoism. I know first hand that when the Chinese government says > that they leave Taoist alone to practice there religion that this is false. > I saw acts of both coercion and contempt on the part of the government. In > living there I came to strongly suspect that as a result of both the great > leap forward and the cultural revolution that there was a large cultural > difference between urban Chinese and Rural Chinese. The monks where I lived > disliked the government to a man, and where vastly different in there world > view then the urban Chinese I met. They where acutely aware of the cost to > there culture that communism had caused. > > While in China I was fortunate enough to see this medicine practiced in a > more traditional way. I can assure you that what I saw was substantially > different from what many Chinese trained doctors tell there students. > > I would like to state for the record that I do not discount TCM as it is > taught in China today. I think of it as a style of TCM the way I think of > Whorsley as a style. I read some Chinese and have learned much from the > Shang Hai and Beijing Journals of TCM. I think also that there is as Bob > pointed out in an earlier post a tendency to view all that is old as good > and what is new as bad. This is not good science. TCM is a science. Both > the communist version and the traditional one. I would like to see the > science of the traditional medicine used. After all how traditional is an > article which bears the title " The study of 54 cases of Stomach Cancer using > Modified Ba Wei Di Huang Wan " , the very title is almost a refutation of the > Traditional Medicine. Having said this I will of course read the article > and learn from it, but I will treat it as modern in approach. > > I will respond to you challenge as soon as I'm able. The school I teach at > will be on spring brake in two week, 11-18 I think, so I may have to wait > until then in that the demands of both my practice and teaching are taking > up a great deal of time. > > Phil > > > > > > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2001 Report Share Posted March 5, 2001 , yulong@m... wrote: > > I wanted to make it clear, particularly as Todd > has cited me as a corroborating source of what > on the surface appears as a disagreement between > yourself and him on this topic of the Communist > influence on modern TCM, that I do not disagree > categorically with what you have stated. Phil and Ken Nor do I. My points in this regard are: 1. That china is a huge country and the while government had some impact on state sponsored textbooks, they did not monlitihcially influence the development of TCM 2. That the government has influenced the development of CM in every era. 3. that all the teachers I worked with had wide access to the classics. whether the classic have been reissued edited in a way that significantly changed their content is a question I am not qualified to answer. But others who are qualified seem to disagree with that point. Finally, I think the modern era of capitalism and reductionism has done more harm to TCM than anything in the communist era. Older research often attempted to make sense of TCM on its own terms. Almost all more recent research has emphasized disease oriented studies. And the drive to make money on traditional medicnes has likewise encouraged a reductionism in methodology and training. Nevertheless, all the classic books are still available for whomever wishes to peruse them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2001 Report Share Posted March 5, 2001 until then in that the demands of both my practice and teaching are takingup a great deal of time.Phil >>>>>Very interesting thanks AlonChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2001 Report Share Posted March 5, 2001 - I cannot speak for anyone but myself. My pointis that the profession must be in possessionof adequate scholarship on the subject of thetraditions of language, culture, science,philosophy, and so on that have always nurturedand supported the study and practice of medicinein China. Without such scholarship, the wholeprofession is weakened. >>>>>>That is correct but, I think one also as to make a differatiate between learning the practice of medicine, that is treating patients with diseases, and understanding of cultural, philosophy or martial arts etc. Although CM is embedded within all these aspects, a medical schools job is to prepare the best clinician it can. I for one, do not believe that learning much of these subjects is necessary in becoming a good clinician, and I have not seen evidence that would convince me otherwise. I have followed many practitioners in the last 18 years and found no correlation between such knowledge and patient outcomes--- Alon -- Original Message ----- yulong Monday, March 05, 2001 6:30 AM Re: More about Reading and Teaching Good to have you here, Dan. I've been hopingfor an opportunity to ask you a couplequestions.First, let me make an observation. It seemsimportant that we differentiate between theprerequsites for an individual's educationand training to be a clinician and therequirements of an educational infrastructurethat can deliver such clinical training.These are two obviously very closely relatedthings, but they are two also very obviouslydifferent things. It seems to me that thecurrent discussion has tended to blur thisdifference, and I think if we do not keepthis difference clear that this blurrinesswill not help us understand anything abouteither and will, in the end, be our undoing.That said, I will move on to my questions,first, with respect to your most recentpost.>I want to make it very clear that it is> a somewhat bizzare fallacy to think that knowing an East Asian > language is a prerequisite to knowing anything about Chinese > medicine.Who said this? I don't recall having read anyonesaying anything like this at all. You seem tobe responding to a rhetorical position thatno one here has assumed.I cannot speak for anyone but myself. My pointis that the profession must be in possessionof adequate scholarship on the subject of thetraditions of language, culture, science,philosophy, and so on that have always nurturedand supported the study and practice of medicinein China. Without such scholarship, the wholeprofession is weakened.I do not believe that clincians need thereforebe scholars. They cleary do not. But they needthe work of scholars to draw upon in order tofulfill their obligations to their patientsthat they be thoroughly trained in the disciplinesthey practice.This is the difference to which I refer above,i.e. the difference between the requirementthat the profession include a comprehensiveeducation in all aspects of the subject on whichclinical education and training can be based, onthe one hand, and the specific prerequisitesto become a doctor of Chinese medicine on theother.Now let me add to this that the great doctorsin Chinese medical history have tended to placethe highest possible requirements and standardson the training of their successors. I refer,as an example, to Sun Si Miao's famous Prerequisitesto the Study of Medicine, which we have translatedin the front matter of Who Can Ride the Dragon?I have never figured out why these requirementsshould be lessened today. Do we not deservethe same level of training and committmentfrom our doctors as Chinese of 1,300 yearsago?With respect to the study of the language itself,and to matters relating to Chinese medical languageand the transmission of Chinese medicine in theWest, I still very much want to know what youmean when you say that translation standardscause more trouble than they solve.If students do not have standards of translationon which to draw for their study of Chinesemedical texts, and if they are not to berequired as part of their professional trainingto become familiar with the language ofthe originals, then how are they to gainaccess, let alone understanding of whatthe fundamental texts of the subject mean?What trouble do translation standards cause?For whom?Best,KenChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2001 Report Share Posted March 5, 2001 happening for TCM and MD. They know it is the way to limited the TCM inAmerican. But in China and in Vietnam we have same equality respect to eachother. >>>>From what I saw in China and Japan that is not true. Western MD have a higher standing in society Alon - Nhung Ta Monday, March 05, 2001 8:42 AM Re: Re: More about Reading and Teaching Dear Phillip, I support your though and again, we are in American,under American MD control, we have many stress from limited of law as healthinsurance and Government Medicare, this issue caused the Chinese traditionaltreatment to be limited. People need our help, they can not come to usbecause the Medicare and health insurance not pay for. In the other hand,we do not feel freedom in practicing Alternative in this country by manylaws. Of cause, it say that you can practice, but American every thing payby health insurance and Medicare. The people want to go TCM, they alreadypay for insurance payment, they do not have extra money to pay for TCM. Ihave lot of friend who OMD have to give up their career, some of them do nothave enough money to keep up with their career, so they have to strugglevery hard for their survives, this really frustrated. One of my friend OMDwho name is Eric Jarman once scream loud "What is the law in this country?The MD they treat us as low than their slaves" They say that "we let you tohave freedom in practicing TCM" , but the people look at the things whichhappening for TCM and MD. They know it is the way to limited the TCM inAmerican. But in China and in Vietnam we have same equality respect to eachother. I remember, when I practiced with my teacher, a lot of paralyzecases, the MD can not treat the patients,the MD send the patients to myteacher. The teacher that I study who is incredible DR and doesn't havelicense also no degree, the Tiengiang Hospital once invited her to work forthem and to teach the MD DR. She has been working for them 5 years and nowshe retired. Even though, Vietnam is now Communist, but some how in some waythey have more freedom than American, in the other hand American have morefreedom than in Vietnam in different way as political. In American you cantell in the newspaper how bad Clinton is, but in Vietnam you tell how badthey are they will put you in jail. That is the different between Communismand American.Nhung Ta-"PHILLIP REYNES" <PAReynesMonday, March 05, 2001 2:54 AMRE: Re: More about Reading and Teaching>>> > > Saturday, March 03, 2001 09:16 AM> > Re: More about Reading and Teaching>>> , Tod wrote:>>> "Here, here. I think you are 100% correct. Like much of the rhetoric in> the American TCM community, there is no evidence to support this> position and plenty of evidence to the contrary. I also challenge> anyone out there to present evidence rather than conjecture or> hyperbole to support this point of view. I also had Chinese teachers> who learned the classics in much more depth and freedom than they are> presented here in the US. Certain ideas were played down in basic> textbooks, but they most certainly were not denied distribution to> doctors.">> Dear Tod:>> I accept you challenge. Your position is not tenable but you are at least> in good company. I am not on line right now and so I have no access toyour> Bio for this group. I do not wish to presume to much but if you indeedhave> plenty of evidence I think you'd better get it and ask some questions asto> source and context. I will give you a brief summery of what I believe tobe> true. If you rebut I would ask that you give your sources and label your> own conjecture as yours, as you go and I will do the same here.>> Before I can begin let me ask, do you know what defines the discipline of> medical anthropology? I believe it is the study of human beings and there> culture in relation to there medical practices. It is not the study ofthe> application of medicine directly nor is it meant to verify or refute the> efficacy of a medicine. Having said this, I can't help but think of what> this discipline in the past 20 years has had to say about TCM andCommunism.> Unchield in one of his texts defines TCM. His Definition is one of twothat> are commonly used in academia, it is however representative in that the> dissenting view is only found in China. While the definition thatUnchueld> gave is used with only small variation in the rest of the discipline andthe> world. Unchuld wrote what follows.>> "What is ?> Chinese medicine according to Dr. Paul Unschuld can be broadly defined in> three ways. First, it can mean the historical reality of a multi-layered,> dynamic medical tradition that developed over the course of threemillennia> from magical and religious beginnings that continuously incorporated new> ideas while retaining older ideas with only minor alteration.>> Second, the term Chinese medicine covers the contents of the relevant> literature and clinical practices of the People's Republic of China (PRC).> This is a type of Chinese medicine that was developed by the PRC in the1950> 's as an alternative to "Western" medicine, and which at the same time has> abandoned all of the traditional aspects of Chinese healing that appear no> longer justifiable to the materialistic and "scientific criteria" of the> communist government.>> Thirdly, about 150 years ago western medicine found its way into China and> in fact dominates medicine in China today. In recent times TCM doctorshave> made important contributions to the development of "Western" medicine, and> these contributions can be regarded as Chinese medicine.>> Note, that at present, no research has been conducted that addresses the> following arias in a manor that can be considered authoritative to western> academics.> 1) The clinical practice of TCM prior to the 20th century.> 2) The acceptance and application of Western medicine in China.> 3) Only a few of the 13,000 TCM texts that have survived from ancienttimes> have been translated and many of the interpretations of those texts that> have been written in Chinese in modern times have been subject tocommunist> revision and bias.> 4) Only minimal attempts at defining TCM terminology have been made by> Western scholars of TCM.">> I would ask you to look at point 3. I would ask you to take the time to> look up which classics have been changed and how they have been changed.> There is much in the way of literature in the above field documenting the> unreliability of Chinese University Presses in not just the fields of TCM> but in other arias such as religion, history, etc. The Chinese certainly> teach a rather interesting history in the universities pertaining toTibet.> Revissionist history has long been a tool of governments even ours in the> US. My point is that when you speak to a Chinese trained practitioner you> are speaking to someone who in fact could not read the classics in there> original. What he has read is the Classics in modern characters, this is> what has been edited. If you e-mail Unchiuld at the University of Munich,> Institute of the History of Medicine he can provide a rather extensivelist,> but you will have to do it in German. I'm confident that if you look you> can find the same list in English.>> Jurgen Kovacs in a paper derived to the University of CaliforniaDepartment> of Medical Anthropology gave an extensive list of modern printing from> university presses in China that had grave monitions and "dubious> translation methodologies". These medical classics where modern printings> of ancient medical texts in the old characters. Six other papers onrelated> topics where presented at the same symposium.>> I would also refer you to Bob Flaws article "Thoughts on Acupuncture,> Internal Medicine, and TCM in the West"; Joseph Needium, Manfred Porkert,> and Leon Hammer, have all had plenty to say that is in direct contrast to> your position.>> I would like to take a few moments to discus how this medicine wascodified> in the early 50's by the communists. The information that follows can be> found by reading the works of Heiner Fruehauf, and numerous other sources.>> Mao was very disparaging of TCM when he first came to power. It was for> complex political reasons that he changed his view toward TCM. It is> certain that it was not a belief in the Medicine that cause him to have a> change in heart. Both the "Great Leap Forward" and the "Cultural> Revolution" are in my mind ample evidence that Mao most probably hadlittle> in the way of a heart.>> His motivations where based on factors like the distancing of China from> Russia and there reliance on Russian medical technology, the cost ofwestern> medicine, and his incessant theme of self reliance. TCM was a political> toll that helped him to excuse not providing modern medicine and a tool to> rash in modern medicine.>> In 1956 Zhou En Lai, established the first four TCM schools, Cheng Du,> Beijing,> Shang Hai, and Guan Zhong, the Nan Jing school was opened the following> year.>> A committee of Five who in China are know as the "five elder" was formedat> the same time to codify the medicine in order to make it easily taught in> the modern university paradigm. This committee, which was made up of> classically trained practitioners, set to work. The committee includedQin> Bowei, Cheng Shen Wu, Ren Ying Qiu, Li Chong Ren, and Yu Dao Ji.>> In 1959 Mao published a decree which outlined his vision for theintegration> of Chinese and Western medicine. The result of which was the complete> abandonment of the major aspects of the work done by the "Five Elders".> What came after still bore there name but was not there work. Rememberthe> concept of Academic Freedom is not known in the Chinese University system.>> Mao's decree, the "Zhong Xi Yi jiehe", abandons the very foundation ofTCM,> the reliance on synthetic logic and reasoning, in its place it putswestern> scientific method and the principles of reductionism. In this same time> period communist party committees at the university level startedreviewing> university administrative structures with the aim of insuring allegianceto> the party. There influence was enormous and had great impact on how the> medicine of TCM developed. Kovacs has much to say of this and I feel> confident you will find volumous information on this subject in doing a> literature review. One of the most obvious outcomes to the outsideobserver> was that the medicine was now in the control of western trained doctorsnot> TCM doctors. These Doctors where in political positions and to ascribe to> them the academic freedom to act as a scientist in wrong.>> In the mid 80's I lived in China. 11 months the first time and 7 monthson> my return. I lived in a Taoist monastery studding both herbs andmedicine,> but mostly, Taoism. I know first hand that when the Chinese governmentsays> that they leave Taoist alone to practice there religion that this isfalse.> I saw acts of both coercion and contempt on the part of the government.In> living there I came to strongly suspect that as a result of both the great> leap forward and the cultural revolution that there was a large cultural> difference between urban Chinese and Rural Chinese. The monks where Ilived> disliked the government to a man, and where vastly different in thereworld> view then the urban Chinese I met. They where acutely aware of the costto> there culture that communism had caused.>> While in China I was fortunate enough to see this medicine practiced in a> more traditional way. I can assure you that what I saw was substantially> different from what many Chinese trained doctors tell there students.>> I would like to state for the record that I do not discount TCM as it is> taught in China today. I think of it as a style of TCM the way I think of> Whorsley as a style. I read some Chinese and have learned much from the> Shang Hai and Beijing Journals of TCM. I think also that there is as Bob> pointed out in an earlier post a tendency to view all that is old as good> and what is new as bad. This is not good science. TCM is a science.Both> the communist version and the traditional one. I would like to see the> science of the traditional medicine used. After all how traditional is an> article which bears the title "The study of 54 cases of Stomach Cancerusing> Modified Ba Wei Di Huang Wan", the very title is almost a refutation ofthe> Traditional Medicine. Having said this I will of course read the article> and learn from it, but I will treat it as modern in approach.>> I will respond to you challenge as soon as I'm able. The school I teachat> will be on spring brake in two week, 11-18 I think, so I may have to wait> until then in that the demands of both my practice and teaching are taking> up a great deal of time.>> Phil>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcarepractitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializingin Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services,including board approved online continuing education.>> http://www..org>> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2001 Report Share Posted March 5, 2001 on 3/5/01 2:24 PM, alonmarcus at alonmarcus wrote: - I cannot speak for anyone but myself. My point is that the profession must be in possession of adequate scholarship on the subject of the traditions of language, culture, science, philosophy, and so on that have always nurtured and supported the study and practice of medicine in China. Without such scholarship, the whole profession is weakened. >>>>>>That is correct but, I think one also as to make a differatiate between learning the practice of medicine, that is treating patients with diseases, and understanding of cultural, philosophy or martial arts etc. Although CM is embedded within all these aspects, a medical schools job is to prepare the best clinician it can. I for one, do not believe that learning much of these subjects is necessary in becoming a good clinician, and I have not seen evidence that would convince me otherwise. I have followed many practitioners in the last 18 years and found no correlation between such knowledge and patient outcomes--- Alon Alon, I don't think it is so much an either-or issue in terms of education, but the degree of emphasis. I think that all students need some background in Chinese language, culture, and history, but study of this material in depth would be difficult in a four year program. . . .but certainly the doctorate would be a good place to develop these studies further. A clinician needs practical skills, but also especially needs a basis in Chinese medical theory, again, depending on whether one practices internal medicine/nei ke or external medicine/wai ke. In traditional practice of medicine in China, philosophy and practicum are inseparable. 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.