Guest guest Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Z'ev, I am sure that you know more about Jesuit thought than I and I do not mean to say that I do not value the books. I do - for the experienced reader. But again, the nature of the books is such that they appeal greatly to the student looking for " spirit " in CM because they do not understand that the spirit is in them and in the patient. And, unfortunately, I think that these books prey upon that to a certain extent. They are certainly more based in the classics and the history of CM than is a book like BH & E which also appeals to the search for the spirit, but they must be read by a discerning reader. t 06:51 PM 10/27/2003 -0800, you wrote: >Marnae, >I know something about Jesuit thought, and I can't really say that I >feel like I am reading a Jesuit text when I read the Larre/de la Valle >books. While obviously one's spiritual perspective colors one's work, >no matter what it is, one can separate the wheat from the chaff, so to >speak. > >While I agree that spirit-mind/shen zhi is what the spirit of CM is >about, I can't agree with you about the 'Judeo-Christian' spiritual >ideal, or its incompatibility with Chinese thought. Perhaps the wrong term to use - I guess that I was referring more to modern western religious thought. In every tradition there are individuals who are able to become truly spiritual, in a very broad, and encompassing sense, no matter what their religious background is, but that spirituality is always grounded in their own tradition and the history of that tradition. The history of the Jesuits in China is very complex - it is a scholarly tradition and as such gave a good deal to the western understanding of Chinaand the Chinese language, but also influenced that understanding with some of the romanticism that is continues to have today and with some of the concepts of the barabarian that continue to exist today. Is Larre a product of that history? I have not met him (although I would love to), nor have I met Elisabeth (though we know of each other's existence). I respect them both for the work that they have done, but I am always a bit concerned when my students cite their books as references because their citation always seems to show how they have misunderstood the books. Perhaps they too, like Ted, like Dan, like Harriet & Efram need to be more open about their background and the interpretive nature of their books so that the reader can contextualize what they are reading. >First of all, I don't believe in 'Judeo-Christian' thought. Deep study >of either Christianity or Judaism will show that they are very >different in emphasis and doctrine from each other. For example, in my >opinion, kabbalistic thought is very 'Eastern' in conception. Many >Jewish scholars have pointed out the similarities with Eastern thought, >particularly Confucian and Hindu/Brahmin conceptions of the world. >There are many books available on Jews and China, or Judaism and >Chinese thought. > >And, when one studies Greco-Arabic medicine, or works such as that of >the great Jewish physician, Maimonides, or the great Persian physician, >Ibn Sina, one finds great parallels with the great physicians of >Chinese medicine antiquity. Clearly, to use a term like Judeo-Christian is a broad generalization that lumps a large number of different ideas and traditions into one similar group. I agree that it was probably not the correct term. As I said before, I think that individuals like Maimonides or Ibn Sina show up in all traditions - including the tradition of CM - and in general show more similarities than differences no matter their tradition, much like religious figures such as Siddhartha, Jesus Christ, many of the prophets, and others. In anthropology we talk about both differences and similarities. Levi Strauss liked to look at the similarities by looking at the underlying structures of myth and how myths around the world resembled each other. Others, like Clifford Geertz prefer to look at the differences and how those differences make a culture or a tradition unique, despite the similarities of mankind. We have the opportunity to do both - Shigehisa Kuriyama did this with Greek and Chinese medicine. PU refers to the Greek/Chinese relationships. Has anything been written about the thought of Maimonides in relation to CM? There's a project for you Z'ev. >I think, soon, I'll follow up on Bob Flaw's imperative and give my own >'mission statement' to the group. One of the reasons I am so >interested in the work of classical Chinese physicians is that they, >like the great physician Maimonides, were ethical individuals who saw >medicine as a way to elevate their patients to live more purposeful and >meaningful lives. I look forward to hearing your mission statement. I'm not sure I'm ready to know what mine is. Marnae > > > >On Oct 27, 2003, at 5:27 PM, Marnae Ergil wrote: > > > 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Thanks for clarifying what I meant. Indeed, I was trying to differentiate the idea of a diety from the spirit-mind of each individual (patient, practitioner, person). And, as I said in an earlier ppost, this is what continues to bother me about Larre/Rochat. Marnae At 03:27 AM 10/28/2003 +0000, you wrote: >Z'ev > >-- In , " " <zrosenbe@s...> >wrote: > > > While I agree that spirit-mind/shen zhi is what the spirit of CM is > > about, I can't agree with you about the 'Judeo-Christian' spiritual > > ideal, or its incompatibility with Chinese thought. > >I believe Marnae clearly identified the concept of a deity as the point of >divergence between mainstream judaic or christian thought versus >mainstream chinese religions of buddhism and taoism. while I will certainly >not argue whether Judaism or christianity are more alike than judaism and >buddhism (I am sure both cases could be made), the term judeo-christian >thought does not refer to a monolithic identity between these religions, but >rather that both sprung from the same people, language and culture and that >one, christianity is most certainly an offshoot or later development of the >other. they also continue to use the same holy book, with many of the newly >dominant christian sects in this country actually emphasizing the old >testament, especially the first five books, amongst their congregations. > >Kabbalah is not mainstream judaism. So while I agree that it bears marked >similarities to eastern thought, so does much of christ's words in the new >testament. Some have suggested that christ studied yoga in india before >returning to the middle east. However neither mystical christianity or >kabalah >is really the point. the point is whether the chinese meant anything >similar to >spirit in the mainstream western sense. I think the answer is no. Larre >cannot help himself from entering into the realm of the judeo-christian god >when he writes and his words are thus tainted for me. Because Jesuits are >still >pretty mainstream catholic and mainstream catholic theologians still think of >spirit as deity - pure and simple. Being a non-deist myself, I feel I see >the >deism in everty word Larre writes. I don't mean to imply that either jews or >catholics or chinese are right on these matters. they are just not really >comparable at the superficial scriptural level, even if the deep >experience that >started all religions is probably essentially the same (and is thus is >embodied >in the mystical literature of all three traditions). > >Todd > > > > First of all, I don't believe in 'Judeo-Christian' thought. Deep study > > of either Christianity or Judaism will show that they are very > > different in emphasis and doctrine from each other. > > > On Oct 27, 2003, at 5:27 PM, Marnae Ergil wrote: >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. > > > >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 October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Thank you Jason!! Marnae At 03:57 AM 10/28/2003 -0800, you wrote: >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 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Marnae, I'm not going to copy your entire post, but I appreciate and agree with what you've said. I think you are talking about more of the mentality where people wax mystical about 'spirit', as in 'spirit of the point' without knowing exactly what that means. However, I am not going to condemn the sentiment outright of spirituality in medicine. While I certainly respect what Bob Flaws calls a 'secular humanist' perspective in medicine, and certainly support a grounded approach to Chinese medicine, I will humbly offer that the terms 'spirit' and 'spiritual' have been misunderstood and misused in relationship to medicine in general. (Marnae) As I said before, I think that individuals like Maimonides or Ibn Sina show up in all traditions - including the tradition of CM - and in general show more similarities than differences no matter their tradition In all medical traditions, these medical figures, sometimes mythologized, sometimes more accurately portrayed, show us that people view medicine in a more spiritual light than other professions. In Judaism, medicine is considered to be 'the most noble profession.' It requires a dedication to personal development and devotion to craft, to compassion and helping others, to constant study and reflection. It is said of Hippocrates that 'he would go without sleep for three nights before administering a purgative'. It reminds me of the Chinese physician who wouldn't give his mother bai hu tang for fear of damaging her spleen qi, so he asked another physician to take his mother's case. I think of Qian Yi, the great 12th century Chinese pediatrician, who devoted himself to treating children after his mother died and father moved far away to raise money for his family. On his journey to visit his father when he grew up, he was filled with compassion for the sick children he saw along the way and decided to practice medicine. We can thank him for such prescriptions as Dao chi san, Xie bai san, and Ren shen bai du san. What is truly 'spiritual', as I see it, is not mystical, unclear, feel-good or withdrawal from the world. It is not the poetic names of acupuncture points. It is the refinement of human nature by service, study, self-reflection and devotion to craft. " Sitting in the big black smoke " (Ray Davies) On Oct 28, 2003, at 7:17 AM, Marnae Ergil wrote: > > Z'ev, > > I am sure that you know more about Jesuit thought than I and I do not > mean > to say that I do not value the books. I do - for the experienced > reader. But again, the nature of the books is such that they appeal > greatly to the student looking for " spirit " in CM because they do not > understand that the spirit is in them and in the patient. And, > unfortunately, I think that these books prey upon that to a certain > extent. They are certainly more based in the classics and the history > of > CM than is a book like BH & E which also appeals to the search for the > spirit, but they must be read by a discerning reader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 " 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. >>>>Perhaps this is very telling Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Z'ev, " I think, soon, I'll follow up on Bob Flaw's imperative and give my own > 'mission statement' to the group. One of the reasons I am so interested in the work of classical Chinese physicians is that they, like the great physician Maimonides, were ethical individuals who saw medicine as a way to elevate their patients to live more purposeful and meaningful lives. " So you practice CM not only to remedially treat disease but to also act as a teacher or guide on a philosophical/spiritual level. If I've got that right, I can totally respect this even though I do not currently operate from that same desire. Knowing where you're coming from, I and other readers now have a better idea of why you make the judgements you make. In fact, you may also have a better idea as well. If we all asked ourselves why we practice CM (today, not some other yesterday), I think we would all become clearer in our judgements and communications. I think Ken's call for disclosure (I don't know if he meant this kind of disclosure) even just within this group could be very salutory and even time-saving for active members of it. It seems to me that most of our problems discoursing with each other come from unstated biases, desires, and agendas. Once these biases and desires are out in the open, then we can agree to disagree on certain fundamental issues and not constantly go round and round because of failing to recognize the 900 lb. gorilla in the room. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 28, 2003 Report Share Posted October 28, 2003 Marnae, Claude Larre has died on december 13 2001 at the age of 81. Alwin Marnae Ergil wrote: > > I have not met him (although I would love to), Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted October 30, 2003 Report Share Posted October 30, 2003 I did not know that. I am sorry to hear it. Marnae At 06:18 PM 10/28/2003 +0000, you wrote: >Marnae, > >Claude Larre has died on december 13 2001 at the age of 81. > >Alwin > >Marnae Ergil wrote: > > > > I have not met him (although I would love to), > > > > >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...
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.