unschuld and scholarly criticism

[Guest guest]

todd,

i have found early han dynasty cosmological

production to be for certain " eclectic " in nature. I

have trouble with Unschuld's equation of the thought

of the Su Wen and acupuncture to be a mostly confucian

invention. Considering correspondence theory developed

out of " tuchen " (charts and apocryphal texts used to

explain portents) and that at least one major huang

lao academy was the origin of the early uprising of

the daoist yellow turbans in the eastern han, i find

it hard to distinguish between the huang-lao category

of Sima Qian and daoist roots in the apocrypha

tradition. Why also would the Su wen and the Ling shu

be designated to the Daoist Canon during the Ming, if

confucian scholars believed it was their own?

I dont see as much of a distinction in traditions

between revealed texts under the auspices of Huangdi

and those under the name of Shennong. Another

important and bit later early history of the han is

the Hou Hanshu. It groups shennong and huangdi

together as mythos who have special knowledge of the

natural world and of the qualities of plants and

herbs.

It says " To accord with the alternations of the

four seasons and distinguish the benificence of the

five types of terrain.

To judge what is produced on the forested plains and

hillsides and discriminate what grows in the rivers

and springs

to cultivate the essential tasks of Shennong and

select the extraordinary memorials of Huangdi "

 

Shen nong probably became more important to the herbal

tradition because of his emphasis on practicality,

agriculture and roots. Huangdi is often portrayed as

a student of various divine or enlightened individuals

and he plays a role in the transmission of divine

knowledge. He unites heaven and earth. Im not sure you

can neccesarily create such a sharp division between

these schools, in terms of allegiance. It seems as if

the only truth is that many of the various schools

attempted to make Huang di their own. nevertheless, I

think Unschulds study is of the highest sorts, i am

learning so much from it. my only qualm and i think

others as well, is that he perhaps says too much

without enough evidence, thus creating a sort of

insiders discussion. ( I am indeed doing the same

thing, but i do acknowledge my ignorance) He indeed

though has every right to do this and his argument for

the Suwen as confucian tradition has many strong

points. I think his thoughts on the bureaucratic

aspects of the Neijing equate a strong linkage between

confucians and the SuWen, but to discount Daoist roles

in the revelation of real knowledge stiphens his

theory. He ends up arguing that the SuWen developed

not out clinical experience but instead was an

confucian invention in which medicine later came to

build on the backbone of its invented cosmos. I am

not a scholar, nor do i read chinese(yet), so my

thoughts are merely blunt opinions formed out neophyte

reading diversely in the history of China. I just find

it interesting to question some of this stuff.

Mark Csikszentmihalyi made me think deeper about

huang-lao in his essay " Traditional Taxonomies and

Revealed Texts in the Han " It is printed in a recent

study " Daoist Identity: history, lineage and ritual "

 

p.s. didn't Bian Que have wings?

matt

 

 

 

SBC DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.

[Guest guest]

Matt,

 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. Like you

I am not a scholar yet do think about these

things and find that they have some relevance

to the perception and understanding of Chinese

medical theory.

 

One important point at which such topics as

the tension between the Confucian (ru jia)

and Daoist (dao jia, huang lao, or whatever

it's called) schools...not to mention the

other so-called " schools " of thought in

ancient China all connect with Chinese

medical thought, theory and practice is

the point at which people think about what

it means to be alive, healthy, and well.

 

This point can be extended to become a line

if we add to this list of considerations

the consideration of longevity. And when

you think about the continuation of a whole

cultural sphere, well the geometry is

obvious.

 

Lin Yutang makes it clear in several places

in his published work that the Chinese have

traditionally related to these " competing "

schools of thought as hues on a cultural

palette from which the educated can select

when portraying the colors in which they seek

to paint their lives.

 

The refinement of one's self, one's sense of

well being, and one's quest for healthy longevity

is rooted in Chinese ideals that constitute the soil that

includes all of these philosophical and ideological

ingredients. It has always struck me that the

apparent conflicts and contraditions that can

be found in careful readings of the various texts

from the many different " schools " are more the

provenance and property of latter day scholars

than of those who created and used these texts

as guidebooks for living...

 

....and as foundation texts for the epistemology

and strategic thinking that developed as the

core of medical theory and practice.

 

In the end, who cares whether it's Daoist of

Confucian?

 

My taiji teacher in Chengdu always made a point

of being a member of every and all religions.

And he meant it quite sincerely. When we visited

the Buddhist temples, he was a Buddhist. In the

Daoist sanctuaries on Qing Chengu Mountain he

was a Daoist. His sister was a devout Christian

and whenever she came by, he was a follower of

Jesus.

 

Taiiji is a doctor, he told me over and over.

Laozi was a doctor. Kongzi was a doctor.

Jesus was a doctor.

 

I'm working through Unschuls'd new Nei Jing

volume and am trying to formulate a question

to ask him when I see him next. I'd appreciate

input from anyone on the list to help me

collect my thoughts.

 

Here's what I have in mind.

 

Is it possible for one who does not

have a personal practice related to

the accumulation and refinement of qi

to study, comprehend or contribute to

the traditions of Chinese medicine?

 

What about those aspects of traditional

knowledge that have always been handed

down outside the literary traditions?

 

What about the wordless teaching?

 

Naturally, there is far too much in and

among this kind of traditional material

to hold any individual accountable for

its totality.

 

But if we were to set about to constitute

a set of minimum standards...not as rules

and regulations, mind you, but merely as

benchmarks for understanding who various

authors and authorities are and what they

have to say on certain topics...what would

we need to make sure was in the mix?

 

Thanks, again, for you thoughts.

 

Ken

 

PS. What does " stiphen " mean?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 6/29/2003 6:55:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time, kenrose2008 writes:

 

I'm working through Unschuls'd new Nei Jing

volume and am trying to formulate a question

to ask him when I see him next. I'd appreciate

input from anyone on the list to help me

collect my thoughts.

 

 

Hi Ken, I will see you with Professor Unschuld at the retreat. I too am working through the Nei Jing, I find it a remarkable addition to the currently available English language materials.

 

Here's what I have in mind.

 

Is it possible for one who does not have a personal practice related to

the accumulation and refinement of qi

to study, comprehend or contribute to

the traditions of Chinese medicine?

 

 

No - next question ;-)...I think discussion could include the forms of cultivation and the ways in which they contribute to the comprehension and contributions to TCM.

What about those aspects of traditional

knowledge that have always been handed

down outside the literary traditions?

 

 

As you know this is an area of particular interst to me since I was trained in this fashion for a good portion of my career. I think an additional discussion of the impact of clandestine secrecy on the distribution of medical knowledge would interest me here. This will ultimately reflect upon ethics and distribution of medical resources.

 

 

What about the wordless teaching?

 

This is also of particular interst to me since this is how the ephemeral secrets are often revealed.

 

 

Naturally, there is far too much in and

among this kind of traditional material

to hold any individual accountable for its totality.

But if we were to set about to constitute

a set of minimum standards...not as rules

and regulations, mind you, but merely as

benchmarks for understanding who various

authors and authorities are and what they

have to say on certain topics...what would

we need to make sure was in the mix?

 

This is an interesting angle on the topic of standards. We might first enter discourse regarding criteria for authorities and topics.

 

best regards,

 

Will

 

 

 

William R. Morris, OMD

Academic Dean

Emperor's College Secretary, AAOM

310-453-8383

[Guest guest]

, WMorris116@A... wrote:

 

> > Is it possible for one who does not

> > have a personal practice related to

> > the accumulation and refinement of qi

> > to study, comprehend or contribute to

> > the traditions of Chinese medicine?

> >

>

> No - next question ;-)...I think discussion could include the forms of

> cultivation and the ways in which they contribute to the comprehension and

> contributions to TCM.

>

 

Is it true that all the great masters of TCM had such a personal practice? we

really do not know the answer about most of them. I find much insight into

the nature of qi, yin and yang from my 20 year qi gong, pranayama and yoga

practice. These studies preceded my interest in medicine and were somewhat

responsible for my initial interest in TCM. However I am not sure one needs

extensive study in this area to practice herbology. But on the other hand, I

probably take the influence of my own self cultivation practice on my studies

for granted as it was just something I always did.

 

The question is how to incorporate this into training. At a recent faculty

meeting, one professor suggested that we force all students to arrive at school

every day at 7 AM for qi gong. He was dead serious. I personally have a very

strong aversion to such group activities. I practice in private or small

carefully

chosen groups or with private instructors. What my colleague suggested is

akin to forced indoctrination in my mind. Ironically, the colleague in question

would never hear a word about any standards in other areas of the

curriculum, arguing for complete independence, MSU and eclecticism. He

thinks if we just enforced a falun gong type of cult at PCOM that everything

else would fall into place. That's scary and it is why people look at us as

cultish or religious in nature. I like OCOM's solution, which is to require

quarterly self-cultivation done optionally as independent study or group

classes. No one is forced to take a guru or sifu chosen by the school (which of

course would probably be illegal if push came to shove).

 

[Guest guest]

, WMorris116@A... wrote:

> In a message dated 6/29/2003 6:55:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,

> kenrose2008 writes:

>

> > Here's what I have in mind.

> >

> > Is it possible for one who does not

> > have a personal practice related to

> > the accumulation and refinement of qi

> > to study, comprehend or contribute to

> > the traditions of Chinese medicine?

> >

>

> No - next question ;-)...I think discussion could include the forms

of

> cultivation and the ways in which they contribute to the

comprehension and

> contributions to TCM.

>

 

when i studied with the most senior toyohari teachers in japan, the

american students would ask them if they had some kind of martial

arts or qigong practice to cultivate their almost unbelievable

palpatory sensitivity and delicate needling techniques. only one (the

sole non-blind practitioner we asked) had a martial arts practice

(iaido). everyone else said stuff like: " no, i just walk every day "

or " i like to take care of plants " . the most widely respected of

them basically cultivated his qi by treating 100+ patients per day,

six days a week. so much for mysticism.

 

robert hayden

[Guest guest]

On Tuesday, July 1, 2003, at 11:13 AM, kampo36 wrote:

 

> the most widely respected of

> them basically cultivated his qi by treating 100+ patients per day,

> six days a week. so much for mysticism.

 

One pointed mental focus, acting from your center, breathing... these

are all meditations and Qi Gong techniques.

 

" Meditation in action " is a term to describe doing what you do, but

with the awareness of your doing it. This too is a profoundly

beneficial technique and one that can be used at any time during the

day or night. Perhaps this is what this widely respected practitioner

is doing. Perhaps not. Some people are just " there " all the time even

without any particular tool.

 

I'll betcha he isn't doing insurance billing either! ; )

 

Mysticism today is mostly marketing and not needed after illusion is

understood. Truth is what remains when you abandon your beliefs.

 

--

 

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

-Adlai Stevenson

[Guest guest]

Dear All

 

I have to concur with Robert's notion of cultivation. If I see many patients,

read classics and take a moment to contemplate, elucidation often occurs - but

not always. My preferred method of cultivation is performance and recording of

ambient techno music...my practice and studies deepen whenever I make time for

musical endeavors.

 

best regards,

 

Will

[Guest guest]

Will, and all

 

Thanks for your responses. I've got another

couple of comments and questions, below.

 

>

> > > Is it possible for one who does not

> > > have a personal practice related to

> > > the accumulation and refinement of qi

> > > to study, comprehend or contribute to

> > > the traditions of Chinese medicine?

> > >

> >

> > No - next question ;-)...I think discussion could include the

forms of

> > cultivation and the ways in which they contribute to the

comprehension and

> > contributions to TCM.

> >

>

> Is it true that all the great masters of TCM had such a personal

practice? we

> really do not know the answer about most of them.

 

You ask the wrong question and then dismiss

it as unimportant because it can't be answered.

A more productive approach is to investigate

the sources of these traditions and seek to

understand how they evolved and what general

trends characterize their successful longterm

growth and development.

 

One of the things that I came to appreciate

during the years of research that went into

A Brief History of Qi is the prevalance of

what we now refer to as " qi gong " among practitioners

of virtually all of the traditional arts and

sciences in ancient China. I won't belabor

this point here, as anyone who wants to understand

this remark more fully can find evidence in

that book...and elsewhere.

 

The question in my mind really comes down to

the relationship between knowing what one is

doing and doing it. Is it useful and helpful

to know what you're doing?

 

I find much insight into

> the nature of qi, yin and yang from my 20 year qi gong, pranayama

and yoga

> practice. These studies preceded my interest in medicine and were

somewhat

> responsible for my initial interest in TCM. However I am not sure

one needs

> extensive study in this area to practice herbology. But on the

other hand, I

> probably take the influence of my own self cultivation practice on

my studies

> for granted as it was just something I always did.

 

When you practice herbology, are you doing

something aimed at influencing the patient's

qi? Is there a connection between your qi

and the patient's qi? If so, does the state

and character of your qi influence the patient's

qi?

 

>

> The question is how to incorporate this into training. At a

recent faculty

> meeting, one professor suggested that we force all students to

arrive at school

> every day at 7 AM for qi gong. He was dead serious. I personally

have a very

> strong aversion to such group activities. I practice in private

or small carefully

> chosen groups or with private instructors. What my colleague

suggested is

> akin to forced indoctrination in my mind. Ironically, the

colleague in question

> would never hear a word about any standards in other areas of the

> curriculum, arguing for complete independence, MSU and

eclecticism. He

> thinks if we just enforced a falun gong type of cult at PCOM that

everything

> else would fall into place. That's scary and it is why people

look at us as

> cultish or religious in nature. I like OCOM's solution, which is

to require

> quarterly self-cultivation done optionally as independent study or

group

> classes. No one is forced to take a guru or sifu chosen by the

school (which of

> course would probably be illegal if push came to shove).

 

I think people look at TCM as cultish or

religious...to whatever extent they do...

because they are told to do so by those

whose opinions they follow, i.e., doctors

and medical authorities. They might take

the kind of thing you're describing as

evidence to support their point of view,

but I think it's important to keep the

emphasis on the right dynamic.

 

People do what they're told for the most

part.

 

I'm confused by something you said about

OCOM, is it required or optional?

 

There's another far simpler approach that

avoids both the tyranny proposed by your

colleague and the confusions of required

options:

 

just build it into the curricula.

 

That is, if it is really necessary.

 

I don't know. I'm just asking.

 

Ken