another thought on transmission (long)

[Guest guest]

, " kampo36 " <kampo36> wrote:

> , " dragon90405 " <yulong@m...> wrote:

> >

> > The Koreans, the Japanese, the Vietnamese,

> > to name just a few of those who have successfully

> > received, adopted, adapted and carried on

> > the lineages of traditional Chinese medicine

> > have all tended to do so by embracing not

> > only the " practice " of the medicine but

> > the broader context of its cultural

> > roots, its language, its philosophy,

> > among its many other characteristics

> > and attributes.

> >

 

A quick word on OM practice in Japan. The Japanese received acumoxa

and internal med from the Chinese through Korea by 5th century CE.

Since then, though, there have been other strong influences such

as " Dutch " medicine (Ranpo, as opposed to Kanpo which is

Chinese " Han " medicine). At one point during the Meiji period IIRC

the practice of OM was banned, only to be revived in the 20th

century. However, the practice of acumoxa in Japan is heavily neuro-

muscular in its focus; the number of practitioners who practice the

majority " classical " style (Keiraku Chiryou, in its various

incarnations, which itself really only dates back to the 1930's) only

makes up about 25% of acumoxa practitioners in Japan. AFAICT the

majority of a/m practitioners in Japan are much more bio-mechanically

oriented, and likely do not have any substantial classical training.

There is a popular series of books by Ikeda Masakazu called

the " Handbook " series, which is a simplified version of the five

classics most influential in Japan (Suwen, Lingshu, Nanjing,

Shanghanlun, Jingguiyaolue). It is popular precisely because the

students in Japan are by and large not introduced to classical

materials in school.

 

Japan itself has had periods when it has elected for whatever reason

to cut itself off, physically and psychologically, from the outside

world, including China. Internal med itself was radically

reorganized by the Kouhou school to a form where Chinese influence is

detectable but the medicine has taken on very " Japanese "

characteristics; this was done consciously because the influence of

the Li-Zhu school and others was deemed to be so overly formalized

that it was no longer useful. Now Kanpo in Japan is the province of

MDs and pharmacists, out of reach of lay practitioners, and regulated

by the government.

 

I think we can say that CM has been " received, adopted and adapted "

in Japan, but I think we cannot say that the professional landscape

there today reflects any kind of ongoing intimate relationship with

Chinese classical materials. There continues to be a healthy

minority who engage themselves in classical study (and those who

stridently chastise their colleagues to adhere to classical

principles), as well as a minority who engage in direct study in the

PRC, but for the most part Japan has settled into a " Japanese " way of

doing CM which suits them and their socioeconomic needs. Somehow I

think this will happen, even is happening now, in the Americas --

perhaps at an accelerated rate d/t information technology. Yes, we

need to become ever more familiar with the root of our practice --

CM -- but I think it is folly to think that we will produce some

faithful carbon-copy of CM in ANY other culture, China, Japan or what-

have-you. We will produce what we as a society believe we need from

our medicine.

 

</rant>

 

Robert Hayden

http://jabinet.net