Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 the more i think about Unschuld/s argument(that the Nei-Jing is a confucian creation), the more and more i'm finding myself agreeing with his theory. The other night, i was looking at translations of the earliest attested daoist hagiographies in Ge Hong's Immortal Biographies. Nowhere in the very detailed index is there any reference to acupuncture or related interest. Instead it is filled with a form of herbal lore emphasizing pharmeceutic value. Tao Hong Jing( editor of the Shen Nong) an eminent mao-shan daoist mentions acupuncture and moxa in his works, but it is not emphasized. His lineage were certainly herbalists. The Celestial Masters sect largely sought healing in the forgiveness of sins, adoption of precepts and only sometimes more empirical forms of medicine. While medicine certainly preoccupied much of early daoism, it seems as acupuncture wasn't widely accepted amongst daoism until later and probably before the Tang. With thinkers like Wang Shu He and Zhang Zong Jing in the han as obvious confucians, in posession of the Nei Jing/Su WEn and practicing a correspondence style of medicine, it is hard to establish strong daoist connections with the Su Wen. you just dont find much correspondence theory in early daoist medicine, at least to the level of detail inherent in the Su Wen. i know i'm completely contradicting my previous post, but thats why not thinking things through before hitting the print, is sure to catch you a foot in the mouth. matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 > > just an observation. only your perception that its a dismissal as the rest of my > post is a personal mental tug of war on this issue. the only conlcusion I draw > is that forced indoctrination is wrong for me and would have been enough to > cause me to choose another profession if I had been subjected to it. Well, I'm not talking about forcing anybody to do anything. But if you aren't arguing that the absence of demonstrable evidence of the presence of " qi gong " in the biographies and even first hand accounts of past " masters " (whatever that might be) suggests that it is not necessary, then why mention it? One of the curious and often difficult aspects of reading and understanding Chinese literature is that key concepts, ideas, even words are often intentionally left out of texts. Once again, Lin Yu Tang described this phenomenon quite lucidly in his biogrpahy of Su Tung Po, pointing out that the classical language and literature were coterie affairs that functioned through suggestion and the association of ideas. Readers and writers formed a kind of bond on the basis of knowing what was meant that was not said. The language and literature is filled with words that, when fully understood, refer to vast expanses of information. > > > > > > 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. > > yet many of the great masters who have been translated never mention it and > as Robert has pointed out his personal experience on this matter was mixed, as > was mine. the fact that qi gong is and was a common practice amongst those > who practice traditional arts does not demonstrate the essential nature of this > study. If we need to study qi gong in order to study TCM, then why didn't all > the great masters need to. Or did they and just keep it under wraps. I have no way of knowing. It is also > my understanding that taoist pursuits were accepted more or less in different > eras and sometimes elite confucian practitioners went underground to avoid > stigma. Is this true? Again, I don't see how anyone could possibly know about people who went underground. It's like asking for a list of everything that isn't there. > > > 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? > > every formula has one purpose: to restore free flow of qi. transforming > phlegm or damp or supplementing vacuity are just different ways to achieve > this goal. > > > Is there a connection between your qi > > and the patient's qi? > > as between all people who interact > > If so, does the state > > and character of your qi influence the patient's > > qi? > > > as between all people who interact So then is it your position here that some form of activity that is directed to the cultivation and refinement of qi is a necessary part of a practitioner's training? > > > > > > 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 completely disagree. I constantly hear TCM referred to as a cult or religion > as spontaneous utterances by people. What on earth is a spontaneous utterance? I'm not arguing that we are not responsible for our own public image. I'm merely pointing out that most people have the opinions that are formulated and disseminated for them to have via the media. The media has a pattern of quoting and airing " expert " opinions, and this opinion tends to be guided by an astonishingly small group of authorities. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 2, 2003 Report Share Posted July 2, 2003 I also have to agree here, everyone's cultivation will differ and I do not believe that he/she who does not practice an asian form of qi cultivation cannot be an excellent practitioner of chinese medicine. All too often I come across students and practitioners who feel that because of their cultivation practices they are somehow better than others who are much quieter about their cultivation or who have found other ways - music, motherhood, or what have you. I feel no need to talk about my methods of qi cultivation - in fact I prefer not to. And, like I really dislike the classes or the search for a guru or the forcing of particular methods on students. Especially when " my teacher " becomes the only one who has anything of value to add to a student's education or " my teacher says " is used as a way of indicating that there is really nothing more that they have to learn. Generally these are the students who are least able to learn and enrich their education and who complain the loudest about their education. The dogmatic adherence to a " tradition " without the flexibility to learn and accommodate becomes more of a blockage to learning than almost anything else. We talk about moderation in our tradition - this applies to all aspects of life - from work, to play to education to dogma. Just my opinion. Marnae At 04:35 PM 7/1/2003 -0400, you wrote: 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 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.