heart without flesh

[Guest guest]

does anyone know why the character for heart (xin) does not include the

flesh radical (pronounced rou, but same in appearance as yue - moon - as

found in yin)?

 

all other zang organ characters and the zang character itself includes this

radical in some form.

 

what is special about xin? I suppose a lot since its the heart and

sovereign, with all that connotates. but does anyone know if there is a

scholarly opinion on this.

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds " --

Albert Einstein

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Ken,

 

I'm perplexed. You encourage everyone to study and read Chinese, and then

when Todd poses an interesting question that you might be able to shed light

on, you seem to belittle his query -- why?

 

Julie

 

-

" kenrose2008 " <kenrose2008

 

Sunday, October 26, 2003 5:35 PM

Re: heart without flesh

 

 

>

>

> Why?

>

> Does it matter?

>

> Ken

>

> ,

> wrote:

> > does anyone know why the character for heart (xin) does not

> include the

> > flesh radical (pronounced rou, but same in appearance as yue

> - moon - as

> > found in yin)?

> >

> > all other zang organ characters and the zang character itself

> includes this

> > radical in some form.

> >

> > what is special about xin? I suppose a lot since its the heart

> and

> > sovereign, with all that connotates. but does anyone know if

> there is a

> > scholarly opinion on this.

> >

> >

> > Chinese Herbs

> >

> > voice:

> > fax:

[Guest guest]

Ken, maybe only when Todd receives the answer will he, or we, know if it

matters or not to the practice of medicine.

 

Julie

 

> Frankly, if Todd says it's just an idle

> curiosity that has no relevance to the

> study or practice of medicine, I'm

> disinclined to engage in the discussion.

>

> But if we could discuss and explore

> the implications, for example of the

> Chinese concept of the heart on the

> models of anatomy and physiology

> that developed over centuries and in

> different places in China, giving rise

> to different basis for medical strategy

> and decision making...well, then I'd

> find that of some interest and would

> be willing to roll up my sleeves and

> even get one or two other people to

> flex some linguistic muscle and see

> what we could find.

>

> So, does it matter or doesn't it?

>

> Ken

>

>

>

> 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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " kenrose2008 " <

kenrose2008> wrote:

 

> > when Todd poses an interesting question that you might be

> able to shed light

> > on, you seem to belittle his query -- why?

> >

> > Julie

 

>

> You really think I'm just trying to

> give him a hard time?

>

> I think Todd will agree that he has

> changed his mind about the relevance

> and importance of studying words

> to the understanding and practice of

> medicine.

 

 

Actually my mind has not changed iota on this matter despite your consistent

characterization otherwise. I do agree we once shared a simlar position or so

we thought. However, I believe it is you have moved towards your more

extreme position over the last few years. I consider the understanding of

words central to the practice of medicine. I continue to dispute that one

cannot practice effectively unless one knows the chinese words themselves. I

personally study these characters, as you well know. However I do not yet

find in my dabbling that I understand anything any better when I know the

character than when I know a properly defined translation term. and thus the

crux of my position on language. I also have always been a firm " nigelist " to

use Marnae's term. With rare exceptions, I am not interested in the works of

those who speculate or fail to provide adequate glossaries. I do give Bensky a

pass on this matter because I know him personally and respect his academic

and clinical skills; I would not give him a pass just because I liked him (I do

not give giovanni and ted such passes as I do not know them). However, since

I can only know a few people, I generally prefer the nigel standard when it

comes to most other works.

 

I have never positioned myself amongst those who believe reading chinese is

essential to practice. It would not only be hypocritical as my reading is still

slight. But I also do not believe clinical results bear out this assumption. I

thus have always staked out a middle ground, wherein I believe academic and

clinical sources should be rigorously translated according to a standardized

terminology. If not, the source should be otherwise " vetted " to the

satisfaction

of the teacher. I can assure all the readers that Bensky is so vetted in the

eyes

of every herb teacher I know, including my colleagues at PCOM who read

chinese such as Z'ev and Bob Damone. So yes, words are important, but not

everyone must read chinese to know the meaning of those words. However

one must choose sources carefully.

>

> Frankly, if Todd says it's just an idle

> curiosity that has no relevance to the

> study or practice of medicine, I'm

> disinclined to engage in the discussion.

 

I have always kept myself open to the possibility that such things are

clinically meaningful and patiently await the demonstration of such. In the

meantime, when us mere mortals are attempting to do something that does not

come easy to us, such as learning characters, it is sometime helpful to have

information about the character that will aid in its memory. I personally I

doubt that some subtle nuance of xin will be revealed to me that will

markedly improve my clinical practice, but hope I am surprised in this

regard. What I do hope is that I can recognize xin and many other characters

from chinese texts so I may extract the clinical data I seek. While it is rare

that I cannot find what I need in english, it sometimes happens and that is

unacceptable to me. thus my sole motivation inthis endeavor.

 

>

> But if we could discuss and explore

> the implications, for example of the

> Chinese concept of the heart on the

> models of anatomy and physiology

> that developed over centuries and in

> different places in China, giving rise

> to different basis for medical strategy

> and decision making...

 

if the character construction leads to a discussion of the nature of the heart

and that further leads to some clinical insights, I would be pleased. However,

even had I asked out of idle curiosity, one would think the resultant discussion

would be of value for those who are less dismissive of such ideas than I have

been labeled. All I want, as ever, is evidence that sways me, not merely

logical arguments. In fact, I have long since stipulated that the logical

argument Ken makes for learning chinese seems ironclad except for one thing.

Effective practice doesn't seem to really depend on it in the estimation of

myself and most of my colleagues, many of whom read chinese.

 

[Guest guest]

The word heart (xin) in Chinese may have a number of reasons for

lacking the rou (flesh) radical found on most other organs. As Todd

hinted at, we know that the chinese concept of heart goes beyond the

flesh and common functional physiology. Though I am no Chinese

scholar, the first thing that strikes me is the fact that the

character xin is used in a variety of vernacular situations beyond

tcm physiology. While the word pi (spleen) is not often used in

totally different contexts, the word xin (heart) has a much wider

common use. For example, xin can mean center, (as in zhong xin,

literally 'middle heart' but in functional use it indicates such

things as shopping centers, student centers, etc).

 

My vernacular dictionary translates xin as:

1)the heart 2) the mind 3) conscience, moral nature 4)intention,

idea, ambition, design 5) the core, middle, center, or inside (such

as in the herb lian zi xin) & 6) one of the 28 constellations

 

The dictionary then goes on for several pages (which is a lot for

small chinese print) translating various combination character

phrases beginning with xin. A couple examples: xin suan 'heart sour'

means heartsick, grief stricken, 'xin yi' (yi here is the same word

for the spirit of the spleen, i.e. the intellect) in combination

means ideas, opinions, decisions, intentions. 'Xin jiao' ,

(literally 'heart joining/intercouse, as in K/Ht communicating) in

vernacular refers to a close or intimate friend; " xin jing " 'heart

classic' refers to a particular buddhist sutra, 'xin xue',

literally 'heart blood' in vernacular refers to painstaking care,

effort, energy, as in 'we expended all our energy on the project.'

Check out one final example: xin xue lai chao, literally as single

words 'heart blood come tide (chao is also used for moist, humid)'

means to hit upon a sudden idea, brainstorm, whim or impulsive

moment.

 

Besides being a word with widepread application in common speech and

expressions, xin is also a primary radical for making other

characters, such as zhi (which we use as will or soul of the

kidneys). Another word with the heart radical is ren, as in ren dong

(honeysuckle, jin yin hua being it's flower), and ren is used alone

to mean endurance, tolerance, put up with, repress. Ren dong

(honeysuckle) literally means 'tolerates winter'.

 

Anyway, it seems that the chinese concept of xin is a pivotal

foundation of many concepts and words, extending far beyond the tcm

arena. The thought process & language structure of chinese is so

different from English that it is less easy to simply translate your

thoughts into Chinese. In speaking Spanish, one's mind retains its

structure, it just slows down to enjoy the sunshine & chorizo. With

Chinese it is more like emptying your mind and just starting over

from scratch with totally different building materials. Or such is

my experience.

 

Anyway, I don't know if that was a useful answer to the question

(being far from the 'scholarly opinion' that was sought), but I

learned something new from Todd's question: I always assumed that the

flesh radical in the organ words was just a moon radical, which made

sense as organs are relatively yin, but I never before noticed that

they are listed by the flesh radical, not the moon radical in the

dictionary.

 

-Eric Brand

 

 

,

wrote:

> does anyone know why the character for heart (xin) does not include

the

> flesh radical (pronounced rou, but same in appearance as yue -

moon - as

> found in yin)?

>

> all other zang organ characters and the zang character itself

includes this

> radical in some form.

>

> what is special about xin? I suppose a lot since its the heart and

> sovereign, with all that connotates. but does anyone know if there

is a

> scholarly opinion on this.

>

>

> Chinese Herbs

>

> voice:

> fax:

>

> " Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " --

> Albert Einstein

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

But if we could discuss and explore

the implications, for example of the

Chinese concept of the heart on the

models of anatomy and physiology

that developed over centuries and in

different places in China, giving rise

to different basis for medical strategy

and decision making...well, then I'd

find that of some interest and would

be willing to roll up my sleeves and

even get one or two other people to

flex some linguistic muscle and see

what we could find.

>>>>Do it

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

However I do not yet

find in my dabbling that I understand anything any better when I know the

character than when I know a properly defined translation term.

>>>And i still await a good example of one

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

 

 

This topic is addressed by claude larre / E. Rochat in their heart

(ling shu8) ( i think) & heart mater/ trible heater books. They have a

very intersting discussion on this, if I remeber correctly.,.. it was

years ago when I read it...

 

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

,

wrote:

 

 

> does anyone know why the character for heart (xin) does not include

the

 

 

> flesh radical (pronounced rou, but same in appearance as yue - moon

- as

 

 

> found in yin)?

 

 

>

 

 

> all other zang organ characters and the zang character itself

includes this

 

 

> radical in some form.

 

 

>

 

 

> what is special about xin? I suppose a lot since its the heart and

 

 

> sovereign, with all that connotates. but does anyone know if there

is a

 

 

> scholarly opinion on this.

 

 

>

 

 

>

 

 

> Chinese Herbs

 

 

>

 

 

> voice:

 

 

> fax:

 

 

>

 

 

> " Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " --

 

 

> Albert Einstein

 

 

>

 

 

>

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

Todd

 

How about being paired with the Kidney, the storehouse of essence- the material

basis of the body, the Heart is especially " fleshless " and yang in nature for a

yin organ.

 

Just a thought off the top of my head

 

Jason Robertson

 

 

 

Jason Robertson, L.Ac.

Ju Er Hu Tong 19 Hao Yuan 223 Shi

 

Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

 

home-86-010-8405-0531

cell- 86-010-13520155800

 

 

 

 

Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Jason Robertson <

kentuckyginseng> wrote:

 

>

> How about being paired with the Kidney, the storehouse of essence- the

material basis of the body, the Heart is especially " fleshless " and yang in

nature for a yin organ.

 

 

Jason

 

I thought a similar thing, but am not qualified to make such judgments. I note

in wiseman's CMC that he mentions the original character for zang did not

include the flesh radical when applied to actual places of storage in the

imperial economic system. the flesh radical signified this was the flesh

version

of the granary, i.e. the spleen, etc. So the question may be whether the heart

as sovereign really took an active role in the fleshy day to day experience of

life embodied in the other organs.

 

[Guest guest]

Todd

 

I'm thinking in the same direction as you. I'm going to ask Dr. Wang Ju Yi here

to get his take per Ken's request. Will be back tomorrow. Have a good night

there you guys.

 

jdr

 

 

 

Jason Robertson, L.Ac.

Ju Er Hu Tong 19 Hao Yuan 223 Shi

 

Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

 

home-86-010-8405-0531

cell- 86-010-13520155800

 

 

 

 

Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears

 

 

[Guest guest]

Anyway, I don't know if that was a useful answer to the question

(being far from the 'scholarly opinion' that was sought), but I

learned something new from Todd's question: I always assumed that the

flesh radical in the organ words was just a moon radical, which made

sense as organs are relatively yin, but I never before noticed that

they are listed by the flesh radical, not the moon radical in the

dictionary.

>>>>>Fascinating

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

But the language is a bear, and if you

could only convince me that it doesn't

do any good to know what the words all

mean, I would drop the whole thing like

a hot rock and spend my time doing something

useful.

>>>>Ken you again miss the point. No one is saying that it is not good and

needed to know the meaning of the words, the argument and question is can you

only learn their meaning through the study of Chinese or can somebody explain

these meanings. As i said to me its a question of risk and reward. In the small

time i spent trying to study the Chinese i found that i can learn much more from

English translations, even the bad ones. May be they have caused some confused

times for me in the past, but with time most have been elucidated. The amount

materials in English is very large and hard to keep up with, as it is. I am

doing my best.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " Alon Marcus "

<alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> But the language is a bear, and if you

> could only convince me that it doesn't

> do any good to know what the words all

> mean, I would drop the whole thing like

> a hot rock and spend my time doing something

> useful.

> >>>>Ken you again miss the point. No one is saying that it is not

good and needed to know the meaning of the words, the argument and

question is can you only learn their meaning through the study of

Chinese or can somebody explain these meanings.

 

If there is any evidence that knowing the characters (and character

breakdowns) give some deeper understanding of Chinese medicine (hence

assisting in clinical results) than the Larre books are where to

look. After reviewing some of there writings I have to say that it

gives a good balance to the standard TCM style of practice. It

grounds (or expands) one practice in some of the possible original

ideas of the medicine, i.e. how the concept of spirits interact with

the being. The character breakdowns elucidate for example how the

Chinese did view the heart and triple warmer is comparison to the

other organs. This `can' help with clinical results. This type of

understanding does not give one a tangible 'new' point prescription

or new way to use an herb, increasing clinical results, but IMO opens

one up to a somewhat more esoteric view of healing and reality. Many

times I get the impression that healing has nothing to do with the

herbs or acupoints, so what then does it... call it placebo, call it

qi, call it whatever, but there is something more than what modern

TCM and WM perpetrate. I am far from the woo woo type, and mainly

use the study of Chinese Language for accessing material that is not

in English. I find clarity from this process via how the Chinese

language is written, but also because there is usually more written

that actually clarifies terms etc right on the page, as well as

supplementary material that is many times left out in English. Now,

is reading the larre books in English studying Chinese? I would say

yes. Do you have to translate texts or memorize vocab and learn

grammar to get value out of what larre says, of course not! – But

every time I do read and translate Medical Chinese I usually walk

away with some clarification or simplified way of thinking, or a more

expanded way of viewing something which sometimes makes things more

elusive than I once thought…I am curious what others say about the

Larre books, do they help one with the practice of medicine? What

does PU say about them? Just some ramblings…

 

-

 

As i said to me its a question of risk and reward. In the small time

i spent trying to study the Chinese i found that i can learn much

more from English translations, even the bad ones. May be they have

caused some confused times for me in the past, but with time most

have been elucidated. The amount materials in English is very large

and hard to keep up with, as it is. I am doing my best.

> Alon

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " " <@h...>

wrote:

 

> If there is any evidence that knowing the characters (and character

> breakdowns) give some deeper understanding of Chinese medicine (hence

> assisting in clinical results) than the Larre books are where to

> look.

 

I have read these books and would question yours and z'ev's assertions. As

flaws has pointed out, these books are written through the lens of jesuit

cathlicism and exhibit bias and interpretation NOT inherent in the chinese

texts themselves. Larre sees spirit in everything just as Deke Kendall sees

nerves and arteries. both are probably wrong. I would be curious what

Wiseman thinks of Larre. anyone know?

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

While I recognize the limitations of the Larre texts (basically they

are recorded lectures that ramble a lot) and the Jesuit-colored world

view, I find these texts quite inspirational. They were the first books

that opened up the poetry and intricacy of the Chinese characters and

their relationship to medicine. Also, if you read the introduction to

" The Way of Heaven " , " Approaching Classical Chinese Texts " , it is the

best argument for studying the classical Chinese medical literature

available. As the author states, " honesty demands that translations

pay the strictest attention to the spirit of the period in which the

texts were produced. If not, we may as well talk of Chinese-style

medicine and forget all about traditional Chinese medicine. "

 

Volker Scheid talks about 'yi', intention (I've discussed this in

previous postings), being one of the essential factors in Chinese

medicine. As you've noted, Jason, one's embodiment of how the Chinese

viewed human health and disease through Chinese language helps one

visualize the process of healing that is intrinsic to Chinese medicine.

There is something about the characters and the flow of the language

that informs the diagnostic process, which is highly logical as well as

inspirational.

 

 

On Oct 27, 2003, at 6:50 AM, wrote:

 

> …I am curious what others say about the

> Larre books, do they help one with the practice of medicine? What

> does PU say about them? Just some ramblings…

[Guest guest]

Yes, perhaps pi is a bad example, as pi qi (literally 'spleen qi' in a

different context) does mean temper, as in a bad disposition. But the

list of expressions does not go on and on to the same degree as

expressions with the xin character. Maybe a better example would be

guang (as in pang guang for the bladder), which is a more anatomical

word. Most of the combinations for fei or wei also have to do with

the lung and stomach and various medical procedures or medical terms

involving them (though pi wei 'spleen stomach' together can also refer

to disposition & temper). Remember they have fewer overall base words

than in English, and need to combine various characters to form

expressions- in fact, the poetic four character idioms are essentially

the primary curriculum for advanced but imperfect Chinese students.

 

Ideally, the more we understand the concept without trying to

compartmentalize it in English terms, the better our language use is.

All languages have expressions not easily translated into English.

What is necessary as a clinician is not to nitpick about which English

term is meant, but to understand the concept. We do not translate the

term qi, as we generally understand what it is in the lack of a

precise English equivalent. If you understand the gestalt concept of

tcm spleen, you aren't really thinking of a large lymph node in the

abdomen anyway, thus your mind grasps the concept and you have

efficacy with patients. Chinese is more useful for communication,

culture and scholarly pursuits than clinical decisions, but the idea

that one needs to break out of fixed thought structures to grasp tcm

concepts is exposed by Chinese language study.

 

Eric

, " "

wrote:

> , " smilinglotus " <

> smilinglotus> wrote:

> While the word pi (spleen) is not often used in

> > totally different contexts, the word xin (heart) has a much wider

> > common use. For example, xin can mean center, (as in zhong xin,

> > literally 'middle heart' but in functional use it indicates such

> > things as shopping centers, student centers, etc).

> >

>

> thanks Eric. that was helpful. however my wenlin dictionary says

pi is used

> in common speech to mean disposition or even bad temper. any help

here?

> perhaps this is only in the written language.

>

 

[Guest guest]

This is the use of the term pi2 that Ken was referring to - Pi2 Qi4 -

meaning temperment or disposition. To fa1 pi2 qi4 is to lose one's temper.

 

As regards the heart/flesh radical - indeed, the two radicals in the simple

characters are identical, however, in the traditional form, the radical for

flesh (radical #130) looks more like the word rou4 (as in niu2 rou4 -

beef). The rou4 radical has the variant (which is more commonly used) that

is very similar to the moon radical (radical #74). In most cases basically

indistinguishable. Interesting to note that in the traditional form, the

radical for flesh appears almost exclusively on the left or bottom of the

character while the radical for moon appears on the right or bottom of the

character. Hmmm. I am going to refer this question on to another friend

of mine who is very into etymology and see if he can shed any light on the

flesh/no flesh of the xin1 character.

 

Marnae

 

At 06:13 AM 10/27/2003 +0000, you wrote:

> , " smilinglotus " <

>smilinglotus> wrote:

> While the word pi (spleen) is not often used in

> > totally different contexts, the word xin (heart) has a much wider

> > common use. For example, xin can mean center, (as in zhong xin,

> > literally 'middle heart' but in functional use it indicates such

> > things as shopping centers, student centers, etc).

> >

>

>thanks Eric. that was helpful. however my wenlin dictionary says pi is used

>in common speech to mean disposition or even bad temper. any help here?

>perhaps this is only in the written language.

>

>Todd

>

>

>

>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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I really enjoy the Larre & Rochat books as well - but, as with any other

book, one has to keep in mind the background of the others. Remembering

that Claude Larre is a priest from the Jesuit tradition helps to explain a

lot in the books.

 

Marnae

 

At 02:50 PM 10/27/2003 +0000, you wrote:

> , " Alon Marcus "

><alonmarcus@w...> wrote:

> > But the language is a bear, and if you

> > could only convince me that it doesn't

> > do any good to know what the words all

> > mean, I would drop the whole thing like

> > a hot rock and spend my time doing something

> > useful.

> > >>>>Ken you again miss the point. No one is saying that it is not

>good and needed to know the meaning of the words, the argument and

>question is can you only learn their meaning through the study of

>Chinese or can somebody explain these meanings.

>

>If there is any evidence that knowing the characters (and character

>breakdowns) give some deeper understanding of Chinese medicine (hence

>assisting in clinical results) than the Larre books are where to

>look. After reviewing some of there writings I have to say that it

>gives a good balance to the standard TCM style of practice. It

>grounds (or expands) one practice in some of the possible original

>ideas of the medicine, i.e. how the concept of spirits interact with

>the being. The character breakdowns elucidate for example how the

>Chinese did view the heart and triple warmer is comparison to the

>other organs. This `can' help with clinical results. This type of

>understanding does not give one a tangible 'new' point prescription

>or new way to use an herb, increasing clinical results, but IMO opens

>one up to a somewhat more esoteric view of healing and reality. Many

>times I get the impression that healing has nothing to do with the

>herbs or acupoints, so what then does it... call it placebo, call it

>qi, call it whatever, but there is something more than what modern

>TCM and WM perpetrate. I am far from the woo woo type, and mainly

>use the study of Chinese Language for accessing material that is not

>in English. I find clarity from this process via how the Chinese

>language is written, but also because there is usually more written

>that actually clarifies terms etc right on the page, as well as

>supplementary material that is many times left out in English. Now,

>is reading the larre books in English studying Chinese? I would say

>yes. Do you have to translate texts or memorize vocab and learn

>grammar to get value out of what larre says, of course not! ­ But

>every time I do read and translate Medical Chinese I usually walk

>away with some clarification or simplified way of thinking, or a more

>expanded way of viewing something which sometimes makes things more

>elusive than I once thought…I am curious what others say about the

>Larre books, do they help one with the practice of medicine? What

>does PU say about them? Just some ramblings…

>

>-

>

> As i said to me its a question of risk and reward. In the small time

>i spent trying to study the Chinese i found that i can learn much

>more from English translations, even the bad ones. May be they have

>caused some confused times for me in the past, but with time most

>have been elucidated. The amount materials in English is very large

>and hard to keep up with, as it is. I am doing my best.

> > Alon

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

But the word heart in English also has a much broader meaning than the

words for other organs - i.e. the heart of the matter, etc. Which, I think

brings us back to Ken's original question about the heart and its

mental/emotional functions in medicine and its unique position in the

body/mind/heart/spirit.

 

Marnae

 

At 05:47 PM 10/27/2003 +0000, you wrote:

>Yes, perhaps pi is a bad example, as pi qi (literally 'spleen qi' in a

>different context) does mean temper, as in a bad disposition. But the

>list of expressions does not go on and on to the same degree as

>expressions with the xin character. Maybe a better example would be

>guang (as in pang guang for the bladder), which is a more anatomical

>word. Most of the combinations for fei or wei also have to do with

>the lung and stomach and various medical procedures or medical terms

>involving them (though pi wei 'spleen stomach' together can also refer

>to disposition & temper). Remember they have fewer overall base words

>than in English, and need to combine various characters to form

>expressions- in fact, the poetic four character idioms are essentially

>the primary curriculum for advanced but imperfect Chinese students.

>

>Ideally, the more we understand the concept without trying to

>compartmentalize it in English terms, the better our language use is.

> All languages have expressions not easily translated into English.

>What is necessary as a clinician is not to nitpick about which English

>term is meant, but to understand the concept. We do not translate the

>term qi, as we generally understand what it is in the lack of a

>precise English equivalent. If you understand the gestalt concept of

>tcm spleen, you aren't really thinking of a large lymph node in the

>abdomen anyway, thus your mind grasps the concept and you have

>efficacy with patients. Chinese is more useful for communication,

>culture and scholarly pursuits than clinical decisions, but the idea

>that one needs to break out of fixed thought structures to grasp tcm

>concepts is exposed by Chinese language study.

>

>Eric

> , " "

>wrote:

> > , " smilinglotus " <

> > smilinglotus> wrote:

> > While the word pi (spleen) is not often used in

> > > totally different contexts, the word xin (heart) has a much wider

> > > common use. For example, xin can mean center, (as in zhong xin,

> > > literally 'middle heart' but in functional use it indicates such

> > > things as shopping centers, student centers, etc).

> > >

> >

> > thanks Eric. that was helpful. however my wenlin dictionary says

>pi is used

> > in common speech to mean disposition or even bad temper. any help

>here?

> > perhaps this is only in the written language.

> >

>

>

>

>

>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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

 

> I have read these books and would question yours and z'ev's

assertions. As

> flaws has pointed out, these books are written through the lens of

jesuit

> cathlicism and exhibit bias and interpretation NOT inherent in the

chinese

> texts themselves. Larre sees spirit in everything just as Deke

Kendall sees

> nerves and arteries. both are probably wrong. I would be curious

what

> Wiseman thinks of Larre. anyone know?

>

 

 

Although Larre does see spirit in everything I don't necessarily see

this as a bad thing. CM, as far as I can gather, originally was a

spiritually based medicine. This is evidenced by the fact that its

roots are shamanistic. Although, this has been weeded out throughout

the ages, I still think there are some ideas that have escaped

this `distillation process.' Who not better to speak on the topic

but someone that sees things through that lens? I do not think an

atheist would be right for the job. Now things may be over

exaggerated, but the fact remains, IMO, that many of his ideas and

character etymology do have a root… I can't imagine that he made up

everything. If his `take' on the characters background gives us a

better clinical perspective, inspiration, or whatever, then this is a

good thing. Everyone has there opinion, and I do think ancient China

had many woo woo aspacts. Just look at other ideas/ writings from

the past.. i.e. the I Ching. Comparing larre's writings with modern

TCM understanding is not fair… Furthermore, everything is ancient CM

is not just projective imaginary from the political system of the

day. Ala—> Granaries and depots. I think both contain pieces of the

puzzle. Let us not forget PU and Wiseman have their biases and

agendas also. I do not think one is more or less right... Finally, it

does seem like Larre was/ is (?) not a stupid man.. He has spent much

time with the classics and his theories/ discussions seem much more

grounded than lets say BH & earth... (which is IMO, the most

influential book for the public.)

 

-JAson

[Guest guest]

You know, even though both Kendall and Larre have their lenses, I

know what their lenses are. Larre was a Jesuit priest, but he was also

obviously taken with Chinese and specifically Taoist thought.

Kendall's book is obviously influenced by his background as an

engineer. One can read critically and still gain a lot from the Larre

texts.

 

 

 

 

On Oct 27, 2003, at 7:40 AM, wrote:

 

> , " "

> <@h...>

> wrote:

>

>> If there is any evidence that knowing the characters (and character

>> breakdowns) give some deeper understanding of Chinese medicine (hence

>> assisting in clinical results) than the Larre books are where to

>> look.

>

> I have read these books and would question yours and z'ev's

> assertions. As

> flaws has pointed out, these books are written through the lens of

> jesuit

> cathlicism and exhibit bias and interpretation NOT inherent in the

> chinese

> texts themselves. Larre sees spirit in everything just as Deke

> Kendall sees

> nerves and arteries. both are probably wrong. I would be curious what

> Wiseman thinks of Larre. anyone know?

>

 

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

" I think both (the spiritist and naturalist strands of CM

[parentheses mine])contain pieces of the puzzle. "

 

Jason,

 

So what's the puzzle? What do you hope CM can do for you? What are you

looking for?

 

What I'm getting at is that I think each of us has different conscious

and unconscious needs we are hoping CM will fulfill for us in one way

or another. If we are clear about those needs, i.e., clearly conscious

of them, then my experience is that it is easier to practice/follow a

style of CM which will, probably/hopefully, fulfill those needs. A lot

of the confusion that I see on this and similar sites is that people

all have different needs and, therefore, different largely unspoken

operating assumptions.

 

So, in an attempt to make my own practice and study of CM clear to

myself and others, let me say that, at this point in my life, I study

and practice CM in order to provide remedial, secular humanist,

naturalist health care using standard professional CM pattern

discrimination and treatment based on that pattern discrimination

combined with both traditional Chinese and modern Western medical

disease diagnosis. I also study and practice CM because that is my

trade and the way I earn my living. At this point in my life, it is

easier to continue with this trade than to develop another. I

recognize I am not looking for any spiritual benefits from CM, that it

is not a big Dao for me at this time in my life, and that I am not a

psychotherapist nor a guru and do not want to be. (Been there and done

that on both counts.) I simply enjoy helping people deal with their

health problems through the application of CM, but I recongize that CM

is just a conceptual tool and do not believe that it is in any way a

metaphysical truth. It is merely the most practical method I know of

providing the treatment of disease with few if any side effects.

 

If you (or anyone else of us) were to try and write a similar

statement of need and purpose (recognizing that everything is

continually changing), I wonder if it would help you see " the puzzle "

any more clearly? Personally, I find that clearly knowing what I'm

hoping to accomplish makes the determination of how to accomplish

those ends all that much easier. Then the question simply becomes,

" What's it gonna take? "

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

At 10:23 PM 10/27/2003 +0000, you wrote:

> , " "

>wrote:

>

> > I have read these books and would question yours and z'ev's

>assertions. As

> > flaws has pointed out, these books are written through the lens of

>jesuit

> > cathlicism and exhibit bias and interpretation NOT inherent in the

>chinese

> > texts themselves. Larre sees spirit in everything just as Deke

>Kendall sees

> > nerves and arteries. both are probably wrong. I would be curious

>what

> > Wiseman thinks of Larre. anyone know?

> >

>

>

>Although Larre does see spirit in everything I don't necessarily see

>this as a bad thing. CM, as far as I can gather, originally was a

>spiritually based medicine. This is evidenced by the fact that its

>roots are shamanistic. Although, this has been weeded out throughout

>the ages, I still think there are some ideas that have escaped

>this `distillation process.' Who not better to speak on the topic

>but someone that sees things through that lens? I do not think an

>atheist would be right for the job. Now things may be over

>exaggerated, but the fact remains, IMO, that many of his ideas and

>character etymology do have a root… I can't imagine that he made up

>everything. If his `take' on the characters background gives us a

>better clinical perspective, inspiration, or whatever, then this is a

>good thing. Everyone has there opinion, and I do think ancient China

>had many woo woo aspacts. Just look at other ideas/ writings from

>the past.. i.e. the I Ching. Comparing larre's writings with modern

>TCM understanding is not fair… Furthermore, everything is ancient CM

>is not just projective imaginary from the political system of the

>day. Ala—> Granaries and depots. I think both contain pieces of the

>puzzle. Let us not forget PU and Wiseman have their biases and

>agendas also. I do not think one is more or less right... Finally, it

>does seem like Larre was/ is (?) not a stupid man.. He has spent much

>time with the classics and his theories/ discussions seem much more

>grounded than lets say BH & earth... (which is IMO, the most

>influential book for the public.)

>

>-JAson

 

Jason -

 

I think the question is not so much about seeing spirit in everything as it

is about placing the idea of the spirit as it is understood by a western

jesuit with all that that implies both in terms of current practice and

history on a medicine that is speaking about a very different

spirit. While the roots of CM may, in some very distant form, lay in

shamanism, it is my feeling that the spirit of CM is not about a diety or a

being other than oneself. Rather, it is about the spirit-mind, the shen2

zhi4 of each human being. And, I believe this is very different from the

spirit as it is understood by the judeo-christian tradition in any of its

forms.

 

I agree, Larre did not " make up everything " - but as I understand it, the

real Chinese scholar among the pair is in fact Elisabeth Rochat. Some of

the etymological discussion are quite interesting and worth

reading/thinking about, just need to be aware of the background of the

writers - as one also needs to be with PU, Wiseman, Unschuld, Sivin,

Farquhar, etc. etc.

 

Do not be an uncritical reader ever!

 

Marnae

 

 

 

>

>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.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

It's truly amazing how one of these posts evolves in just 24 hours. Yesterday

we were talking about the Chinese character for heart and the last post was an

interesting diversion into ancient Jewish thought.

 

Just for the sake of continuity, I'll follow up on the original question about

why the heart character has " no beef " (flesh radical). I asked a 70 year old

doctor here in Beijing what he thought about that ( I did mention that this and

other questions that I pose to him are from our group):

 

" Ahh. Foreigners always love to pull apart the characters. I always thought

that the heart character didn't have a flesh radical because it came along

earlier historically. Long before the more complex culture that gave rise to

Chinese medicine came about, there was a 'Chinese' civilization that wrote

things down. In that civilization, they came up with the concept of 'heart'

quite early; in fact, if my memory serves, I think that the 'heart' character is

actually a very early variation of the character for 'fire' that actually looks

quite similar. The flesh radicals that accompany the characters for all of the

other zang organs are basically just borrowings of a sound and metaphorical idea

of the basic functions of each organ. "

 

take it for what it is

 

respectfully,

Jason Robertson

 

 

 

Jason Robertson, L.Ac.

Ju Er Hu Tong 19 Hao Yuan 223 Shi

 

Beijing, Peoples Republic of China

 

home-86-010-8405-0531

cell- 86-010-13520155800

 

 

 

 

Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears