Guest guest Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 In my recent call for articles, I was approached by the PR director of a major acupuncture school. The school regularly promotes the profession and itself by having its PR department produce articles for various mass market publications, such as natural health or yoga journal, not to mention those more mainstream like USA today and ladies home journal. I was offered any articles that suited me to upload to CHA. Well, none of them were focused on herbology, so it ended up being a moot point. But I did notice something interesting. The department writer use certain stock passages that appear verbatim in all their articles. Now I don't blame the PR staff themselves. They are merely carrying out the agenda of their bosses and the words they write are echoed in every popular article on acupuncture I have ever seen. But the stock passage on acupuncture is telling. Note the use of the words " believe " , " meridians " , " spiritual " and " energy " . " Acupuncture is a 3,000-year-old practice that consists of the gentle insertion and stimulation of thin, disposable sterile needles at strategic points near the surface of the body. Over 2,000 acupuncture points on the human body connect with 14 major pathways, called meridians. Chinese medicine practitioners believe that these meridians conduct qi, or energy, between the surface of the body and internal organs. It is qi that regulates spiritual, emotional, mental and physical balance. When the flow of qi is disrupted through poor health habits or other circumstances, pain and/or disease can result. Acupuncture helps to keep the normal flow of this energy unblocked. " It is this type of writing that continues to be the basis for attracting new students into the field. I think there is a real disconnect between this type of recruiting and the concerns oft expressed here. We should be recruiting students by presenting acupuncture as a practice based upon observation and experimentation, grounded in rigorous classical study and confirmed by modern science. It was part of a system of thought that attempted to understand the world as a place of natural laws that could be understood by human reasoning. It was most decidedly NOT a world of mystical influences that is conceived as the basis for understanding disease in the Nei Jing. Now it remains an open question as to whether Acupuncture was based upon anatomy or something more akin to information science or was purely metaphorical in nature. But I hope we can all agree that qi is not the holy spirit or at least the chinese never conceived of it in such a way. When qi is put in the same passage with spiritual and energy and belief, it is hard not to think of it as mystical in nature. We need a new stock explanation for the media. AT should have a contest with large cash prizes. :-) I look forward to the day when there is no discussion of spiritual metaphysics at TCM school anymore. To argue that chinese metaphysics is an essential piece of TCM is no more valid than to argue that greek metaphysics is necessary to practice western medicine. While a study of chinese culture and language is essential to understand CM ideas in their proper context, one certainly need not be involved in taoist qi gong or buddhist meditation or martial arts. Certainly there is no indication that such practices were major topics in any mainstream medical texts of the past 800 years. While the health benefits of certain nonmedical practices were widely known (or believed) in chinese culture, these practices probably filled a similar role in ancient society as going to the dojo or a yoga class does today. People did these things, but more often as part of a peer group or family tradition, than upon medical advice, per se. That there was health benefit to these practice I do not doubt one bit. That the mystical ideas promulgated by adherents of these practices ever gained favor in mainstream medical circles, I strongly doubt. Even if a doctor advises someone to go to church does not mean he believes in god. It is one of the other peculiarities of american acupuncture practice that many have been drawn not only to the medicine, but to aspects of chinese society that were on the fringe even within that culture. A chinese colleague summed it up the other day when asked if she had ever seen a miracle performed by a qi gong master (like levitation or electrical discharges). She said no, but added in all earnestness that she would really like to. She was expressing the same childlike fantasy we all have, that magic is real. But she knows it is not. I wish vampire slayers came handspringing to my rescue as I walked down dark allies beset by demons. Oh well. Acupuncture has nothing to do with magic or god. the sooner we make that clear to the public, the better. Chinese Herbs FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 Ok I'll take this on in a knee jerk response at the danger of bumping knees. I don't totally diagree that the emphasis on the " spiritual " drains students energies (!) away from the task at hand... i.e. learning . I always reminded of David Chan L.Ac. who said that " acupuncture is the hyphen between mind and body " . It is this very equation that makes many think what we are doing is spiritual and the link what is missing to most Westerners. So any connection is seen as a spiritual revelation. Here in California, this spiritual foregrounding is taken to extremes where we are playing catch-up with a " dead culture " that has a buit-in schizoiphrenia about what we see as a body-mind dichotomy. Although " Acupuncture has nothing to do with magic or god. " the acupuncturist does have everything to do with both. We are able (or strive) to see the links between the patients " fate " as a body and spirit. If your interests are not in the spirtitual, thats fine. I thnk the gurus are found as much working the check-out counters as the halls of acupuncture clinics. Your patients will learn your limitations. I'm sorry I have to put it that way. What disturbs me is that you cut off that possibility. To call Asian spirituality " fringe " is to deny how the same forces in Western culture drive the " scientific " medical establishment. (Death to be feared... see the book, " About Face " ) I think your own practice is as much about healing yourself as others. (The Taoists say that. :-)) There are a number of patients who need to be " de-spiritualized " , that is to take the " fetishization " out of the spiritual. To see we are all here connected. (there I go again). I don't talk about it with my patients but it is emplicit in everything I do and say. We are all frustrated that we aren't taken seriously as Medical Practitioners. We can do so much and yet we are still seen as the spiritual fringe. I just don't think cutting that aspect off is the way to do justice to our own practice or the medicine. respectfully, doug , wrote: > In my recent call for articles, I was approached by the PR director of > a major acupuncture school. The school regularly promotes the > profession and itself by having its PR department produce articles for > various mass market publications, such as natural health or yoga > journal, not to mention those more mainstream like USA today and ladies > home journal. I was offered any articles that suited me to upload to > CHA. Well, none of them were focused on herbology, so it ended up > being a moot point. But I did notice something interesting. The > department writer use certain stock passages that appear verbatim in > all their articles. Now I don't blame the PR staff themselves. They > are merely carrying out the agenda of their bosses and the words they > write are echoed in every popular article on acupuncture I have ever > seen. But the stock passage on acupuncture is telling. Note the use > of the words " believe " , " meridians " , " spiritual " and " energy " . > > " Acupuncture is a 3,000-year-old practice that consists of the gentle > insertion and stimulation of thin, disposable sterile needles at > strategic points near the surface of the body. Over 2,000 acupuncture > points on the human body connect with 14 major pathways, called > meridians. Chinese medicine practitioners believe that these meridians > conduct qi, or energy, between the surface of the body and internal > organs. It is qi that regulates spiritual, emotional, mental and > physical balance. When the flow of qi is disrupted through poor health > habits or other circumstances, pain and/or disease can result. > Acupuncture helps to keep the normal flow of this energy unblocked. " > > It is this type of writing that continues to be the basis for > attracting new students into the field. I think there is a real > disconnect between this type of recruiting and the concerns oft > expressed here. We should be recruiting students by presenting > acupuncture as a practice based upon observation and experimentation, > grounded in rigorous classical study and confirmed by modern science. > It was part of a system of thought that attempted to understand the > world as a place of natural laws that could be understood by human > reasoning. It was most decidedly NOT a world of mystical influences > that is conceived as the basis for understanding disease in the Nei > Jing. Now it remains an open question as to whether Acupuncture was > based upon anatomy or something more akin to information science or was > purely metaphorical in nature. But I hope we can all agree that qi is > not the holy spirit or at least the chinese never conceived of it in > such a way. When qi is put in the same passage with spiritual and > energy and belief, it is hard not to think of it as mystical in nature. > We need a new stock explanation for the media. AT should have a > contest with large cash prizes. :-) > > I look forward to the day when there is no discussion of spiritual > metaphysics at TCM school anymore. To argue that chinese metaphysics > is an essential piece of TCM is no more valid than to argue that greek > metaphysics is necessary to practice western medicine. While a study > of chinese culture and language is essential to understand CM ideas in > their proper context, one certainly need not be involved in taoist qi > gong or buddhist meditation or martial arts. Certainly there is no > indication that such practices were major topics in any mainstream > medical texts of the past 800 years. While the health benefits of > certain nonmedical practices were widely known (or believed) in chinese > culture, these practices probably filled a similar role in ancient > society as going to the dojo or a yoga class does today. People did > these things, but more often as part of a peer group or family > tradition, than upon medical advice, per se. That there was health > benefit to these practice I do not doubt one bit. That the mystical > ideas promulgated by adherents of these practices ever gained favor in > mainstream medical circles, I strongly doubt. Even if a doctor advises > someone to go to church does not mean he believes in god. It is one of > the other peculiarities of american acupuncture practice that many have > been drawn not only to the medicine, but to aspects of chinese society > that were on the fringe even within that culture. A chinese colleague > summed it up the other day when asked if she had ever seen a miracle > performed by a qi gong master (like levitation or electrical > discharges). She said no, but added in all earnestness that she would > really like to. She was expressing the same childlike fantasy we all > have, that magic is real. But she knows it is not. I wish vampire > slayers came handspringing to my rescue as I walked down dark allies > beset by demons. Oh well. Acupuncture has nothing to do with magic or > god. the sooner we make that clear to the public, the better. > > > > > Chinese Herbs > > > FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 I think there is a lot of benefit to both arguments (Doug and Todd). I think semantics is an issue that clouds what is trying to be expressed, and that quotes from articles like the ones Todd dredged up suffer from a lack of familiarity with Chinese medicine and culture on the author's part. Assumptions in such articles tend to either espouse a 'new age spirituality' rut, or sublimate Chinese medicine into inadequate biomedical explanations, cut and dried like so much beef jerky. I have also seen acupuncture as a bridge between the mind and body, and a tool of education to put people back in touch with themselves, specifically experience time in a different, more 'organic' way. It helps people return to their natural rhythms, and step out of the rat race for a short while, to return more able to maintain their own poise. I think Phillipe Riviere's article on yang sheng/Nourishment of Life is the best article to be posted on the CHA site for some time. It is clear and concise, but is uncompromising in its premise that Chinese medicine is not just about needles and herbs, but about cultivation of a healthy lifestyle, and living more in touch with nature, family, community, and yes, the 'spiritual' aspect of life. In our culture, we have disembodied spirituality into something more ghostlike and removed from reality, leading to either immersion in fantasy by one faction (New Age), or aversion to anything beyond physicality in the other (Darwinism). But what if we see spirituality as an aspect of life that encompasses the hopes, dreams, and desires of human beings, the feelings, thoughts and aspirations that mark human life? I think we need to see the humanity in our patients, and practice a human medicine that doesn't reduce them to mere statistics. On Apr 19, 2004, at 2:37 PM, wrote: > Ok I'll take this on in a knee jerk response at the danger of > bumping knees. I > don't totally diagree that the emphasis on the " spiritual " drains > students energies (!) > away from the task at hand... i.e. learning . I always > reminded of > David Chan L.Ac. who said that " acupuncture is the hyphen between mind > and body " . > It is this very equation that makes many think what we are doing is > spiritual and the > link what is missing to most Westerners. So any connection is seen as > a spiritual > revelation. Here in California, this spiritual foregrounding is taken > to extremes where > we are playing catch-up with a " dead culture " that has a buit-in > schizoiphrenia about > what we see as a body-mind dichotomy. > > Although " Acupuncture has nothing to do with magic or god. " the > acupuncturist does > have everything to do with both. We are able (or strive) to see the > links between the > patients " fate " as a body and spirit. If your interests are not in > the spirtitual, thats > fine. I thnk the gurus are found as much working the check-out > counters as the halls > of acupuncture clinics. Your patients will learn your limitations. I'm > sorry I have to put > it that way. > > What disturbs me is that you cut off that possibility. To call Asian > spirituality " fringe " > is to deny how the same forces in Western culture drive the > " scientific " medical > establishment. (Death to be feared... see the book, " About Face " ) I > think your own > practice is as much about healing yourself as others. (The Taoists say > that. :-)) There > are a number of patients who need to be " de-spiritualized " , that is to > take the > " fetishization " out of the spiritual. To see we are all here > connected. (there I go again). > I don't talk about it with my patients but it is emplicit in > everything I do and say. > > We are all frustrated that we aren't taken seriously as Medical > Practitioners. We can do > so much and yet we are still seen as the spiritual fringe. I just > don't think cutting that > aspect off is the way to do justice to our own practice or the > medicine. > > respectfully, > doug > > > > , > wrote: >> In my recent call for articles, I was approached by the PR director of >> a major acupuncture school. The school regularly promotes the >> profession and itself by having its PR department produce articles for >> various mass market publications, such as natural health or yoga >> journal, not to mention those more mainstream like USA today and >> ladies >> home journal. I was offered any articles that suited me to upload to >> CHA. Well, none of them were focused on herbology, so it ended up >> being a moot point. But I did notice something interesting. The >> department writer use certain stock passages that appear verbatim in >> all their articles. Now I don't blame the PR staff themselves. They >> are merely carrying out the agenda of their bosses and the words they >> write are echoed in every popular article on acupuncture I have ever >> seen. But the stock passage on acupuncture is telling. Note the use >> of the words " believe " , " meridians " , " spiritual " and " energy " . >> >> " Acupuncture is a 3,000-year-old practice that consists of the gentle >> insertion and stimulation of thin, disposable sterile needles at >> strategic points near the surface of the body. Over 2,000 acupuncture >> points on the human body connect with 14 major pathways, called >> meridians. Chinese medicine practitioners believe that these meridians >> conduct qi, or energy, between the surface of the body and internal >> organs. It is qi that regulates spiritual, emotional, mental and >> physical balance. When the flow of qi is disrupted through poor health >> habits or other circumstances, pain and/or disease can result. >> Acupuncture helps to keep the normal flow of this energy unblocked. " >> >> It is this type of writing that continues to be the basis for >> attracting new students into the field. I think there is a real >> disconnect between this type of recruiting and the concerns oft >> expressed here. We should be recruiting students by presenting >> acupuncture as a practice based upon observation and experimentation, >> grounded in rigorous classical study and confirmed by modern science. >> It was part of a system of thought that attempted to understand the >> world as a place of natural laws that could be understood by human >> reasoning. It was most decidedly NOT a world of mystical influences >> that is conceived as the basis for understanding disease in the Nei >> Jing. Now it remains an open question as to whether Acupuncture was >> based upon anatomy or something more akin to information science or >> was >> purely metaphorical in nature. But I hope we can all agree that qi is >> not the holy spirit or at least the chinese never conceived of it in >> such a way. When qi is put in the same passage with spiritual and >> energy and belief, it is hard not to think of it as mystical in >> nature. >> We need a new stock explanation for the media. AT should have a >> contest with large cash prizes. :-) >> >> I look forward to the day when there is no discussion of spiritual >> metaphysics at TCM school anymore. To argue that chinese metaphysics >> is an essential piece of TCM is no more valid than to argue that greek >> metaphysics is necessary to practice western medicine. While a study >> of chinese culture and language is essential to understand CM ideas in >> their proper context, one certainly need not be involved in taoist qi >> gong or buddhist meditation or martial arts. Certainly there is no >> indication that such practices were major topics in any mainstream >> medical texts of the past 800 years. While the health benefits of >> certain nonmedical practices were widely known (or believed) in >> chinese >> culture, these practices probably filled a similar role in ancient >> society as going to the dojo or a yoga class does today. People did >> these things, but more often as part of a peer group or family >> tradition, than upon medical advice, per se. That there was health >> benefit to these practice I do not doubt one bit. That the mystical >> ideas promulgated by adherents of these practices ever gained favor in >> mainstream medical circles, I strongly doubt. Even if a doctor >> advises >> someone to go to church does not mean he believes in god. It is one >> of >> the other peculiarities of american acupuncture practice that many >> have >> been drawn not only to the medicine, but to aspects of chinese society >> that were on the fringe even within that culture. A chinese colleague >> summed it up the other day when asked if she had ever seen a miracle >> performed by a qi gong master (like levitation or electrical >> discharges). She said no, but added in all earnestness that she would >> really like to. She was expressing the same childlike fantasy we all >> have, that magic is real. But she knows it is not. I wish vampire >> slayers came handspringing to my rescue as I walked down dark allies >> beset by demons. Oh well. Acupuncture has nothing to do with magic >> or >> god. the sooner we make that clear to the public, the better. >> >> >> >> >> Chinese Herbs >> >> >> FAX: > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 In deference to my former professors (Todd and Zev) I hesitated in joining this thread, however I felt I could add a line to the perspective. I agree that the " magic and mystery " of is not the appropriate or realistic way to promote a very real medicine. However, western medicine treats the physical body, psychologists treat or try to treat the emotional one but there is an element of the human equation - that of the spirit, which is also an integral part of health and balance. I use the word spirit - rather than spirituality as I belive it is here as Zev points out that semantics get in the way. From my perspective it is with the spirit where acupuncture and chinese medicine sets itself apart from western medicine. CM recognizes the integration of mind, body and spirit and sees no limits as to the root cause of " dis " ease and subsequent suffering. Acupuncture treatments are not limited to treating physical ailments. Who has not experienced, or been a bystander, as a patient experiences an emotional shift during a treatment, or indeed after a series of treatments is moved to make " life-changing " decisions to address deeper issues that have suddenly become apparent. This kind of result challenges rational and logical experience (particularly for westerners) and so we tend to explain it away with a mystical or etherical reasoning. So the question is how to use these observations and treatment results and still keep Chinese Medicine on solid ground. I think we have a lot of work to do - if we are going to " recruit (ing) students by presenting acupuncture as a practice based upon observation and experimentation, grounded in rigorous classical study and " confirmed by modern science. " I would argue that it is important in the interim to continue to recruit, and expand the awareness about the medicine. It is just a question of how to present the medicine and its results - to a culture that has moved so far away from recognizing its own spirit and essence. Kayte , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > I think there is a lot of benefit to both arguments (Doug and). I > think semantics is an issue that clouds what is trying to be expressed, > and that quotes from articles like the ones Todd dredged up suffer from > a lack of familiarity with Chinese medicine and culture on the author's > part. Assumptions in such articles tend to either espouse a 'new age > spirituality' rut, or sublimate Chinese medicine into inadequate > biomedical explanations, cut and dried like so much beef jerky. > > I have also seen acupuncture as a bridge between the mind and body, and > a tool of education to put people back in touch with themselves, > specifically experience time in a different, more 'organic' way. It > helps people return to their natural rhythms, and step out of the rat > race for a short while, to return more able to maintain their own > poise. > > I think Phillipe Riviere's article on yang sheng/Nourishment of Life is > the best article to be posted on the CHA site for some time. It is > clear and concise, but is uncompromising in its premise that Chinese > medicine is not just about needles and herbs, but about cultivation of > a healthy lifestyle, and living more in touch with nature, family, > community, and yes, the 'spiritual' aspect of life. > > In our culture, we have disembodied spirituality into something more > ghostlike and removed from reality, leading to either immersion in > fantasy by one faction (New Age), or aversion to anything beyond > physicality in the other (Darwinism). But what if we see spirituality > as an aspect of life that encompasses the hopes, dreams, and desires of > human beings, the feelings, thoughts and aspirations that mark human > life? > > I think we need to see the humanity in our patients, and practice a > human medicine that doesn't reduce them to mere statistics. > > > > On Apr 19, 2004, at 2:37 PM, wrote: > > > Ok I'll take this on in a knee jerk response at the danger of > > bumping knees. I > > don't totally diagree that the emphasis on the " spiritual " drains > > students energies (!) > > away from the task at hand... i.e. learning . I always > > reminded of > > David Chan L.Ac. who said that " acupuncture is the hyphen between mind > > and body " . > > It is this very equation that makes many think what we are doing is > > spiritual and the > > link what is missing to most Westerners. So any connection is seen as > > a spiritual > > revelation. Here in California, this spiritual foregrounding is taken > > to extremes where > > we are playing catch-up with a " dead culture " that has a buit-in > > schizoiphrenia about > > what we see as a body-mind dichotomy. > > > > Although " Acupuncture has nothing to do with magic or god. " the > > acupuncturist does > > have everything to do with both. We are able (or strive) to see the > > links between the > > patients " fate " as a body and spirit. If your interests are not in > > the spirtitual, thats > > fine. I thnk the gurus are found as much working the check-out > > counters as the halls > > of acupuncture clinics. Your patients will learn your limitations. I'm > > sorry I have to put > > it that way. > > > > What disturbs me is that you cut off that possibility. To call Asian > > spirituality " fringe " > > is to deny how the same forces in Western culture drive the > > " scientific " medical > > establishment. (Death to be feared... see the book, " About Face " ) I > > think your own > > practice is as much about healing yourself as others. (The Taoists say > > that. :-)) There > > are a number of patients who need to be " de-spiritualized " , that is to > > take the > > " fetishization " out of the spiritual. To see we are all here > > connected. (there I go again). > > I don't talk about it with my patients but it is emplicit in > > everything I do and say. > > > > We are all frustrated that we aren't taken seriously as Medical > > Practitioners. We can do > > so much and yet we are still seen as the spiritual fringe. I just > > don't think cutting that > > aspect off is the way to do justice to our own practice or the > > medicine. > > > > respectfully, > > doug > > > > > > > > , > > wrote: > >> In my recent call for articles, I was approached by the PR director of > >> a major acupuncture school. The school regularly promotes the > >> profession and itself by having its PR department produce articles for > >> various mass market publications, such as natural health or yoga > >> journal, not to mention those more mainstream like USA today and > >> ladies > >> home journal. I was offered any articles that suited me to upload to > >> CHA. Well, none of them were focused on herbology, so it ended up > >> being a moot point. But I did notice something interesting. The > >> department writer use certain stock passages that appear verbatim in > >> all their articles. Now I don't blame the PR staff themselves. They > >> are merely carrying out the agenda of their bosses and the words they > >> write are echoed in every popular article on acupuncture I have ever > >> seen. But the stock passage on acupuncture is telling. Note the use > >> of the words " believe " , " meridians " , " spiritual " and " energy " . > >> > >> " Acupuncture is a 3,000-year-old practice that consists of the gentle > >> insertion and stimulation of thin, disposable sterile needles at > >> strategic points near the surface of the body. Over 2,000 acupuncture > >> points on the human body connect with 14 major pathways, called > >> meridians. Chinese medicine practitioners believe that these meridians > >> conduct qi, or energy, between the surface of the body and internal > >> organs. It is qi that regulates spiritual, emotional, mental and > >> physical balance. When the flow of qi is disrupted through poor health > >> habits or other circumstances, pain and/or disease can result. > >> Acupuncture helps to keep the normal flow of this energy unblocked. " > >> > >> It is this type of writing that continues to be the basis for > >> attracting new students into the field. I think there is a real > >> disconnect between this type of recruiting and the concerns oft > >> expressed here. We should be recruiting students by presenting > >> acupuncture as a practice based upon observation and experimentation, > >> grounded in rigorous classical study and confirmed by modern science. > >> It was part of a system of thought that attempted to understand the > >> world as a place of natural laws that could be understood by human > >> reasoning. It was most decidedly NOT a world of mystical influences > >> that is conceived as the basis for understanding disease in the Nei > >> Jing. Now it remains an open question as to whether Acupuncture was > >> based upon anatomy or something more akin to information science or > >> was > >> purely metaphorical in nature. But I hope we can all agree that qi is > >> not the holy spirit or at least the chinese never conceived of it in > >> such a way. When qi is put in the same passage with spiritual and > >> energy and belief, it is hard not to think of it as mystical in > >> nature. > >> We need a new stock explanation for the media. AT should have a > >> contest with large cash prizes. :-) > >> > >> I look forward to the day when there is no discussion of spiritual > >> metaphysics at TCM school anymore. To argue that chinese metaphysics > >> is an essential piece of TCM is no more valid than to argue that greek > >> metaphysics is necessary to practice western medicine. While a study > >> of chinese culture and language is essential to understand CM ideas in > >> their proper context, one certainly need not be involved in taoist qi > >> gong or buddhist meditation or martial arts. Certainly there is no > >> indication that such practices were major topics in any mainstream > >> medical texts of the past 800 years. While the health benefits of > >> certain nonmedical practices were widely known (or believed) in > >> chinese > >> culture, these practices probably filled a similar role in ancient > >> society as going to the dojo or a yoga class does today. People did > >> these things, but more often as part of a peer group or family > >> tradition, than upon medical advice, per se. That there was health > >> benefit to these practice I do not doubt one bit. That the mystical > >> ideas promulgated by adherents of these practices ever gained favor in > >> mainstream medical circles, I strongly doubt. Even if a doctor > >> advises > >> someone to go to church does not mean he believes in god. It is one > >> of > >> the other peculiarities of american acupuncture practice that many > >> have > >> been drawn not only to the medicine, but to aspects of chinese society > >> that were on the fringe even within that culture. A chinese colleague > >> summed it up the other day when asked if she had ever seen a miracle > >> performed by a qi gong master (like levitation or electrical > >> discharges). She said no, but added in all earnestness that she would > >> really like to. She was expressing the same childlike fantasy we all > >> have, that magic is real. But she knows it is not. I wish vampire > >> slayers came handspringing to my rescue as I walked down dark allies > >> beset by demons. Oh well. Acupuncture has nothing to do with magic > >> or > >> god. the sooner we make that clear to the public, the better. > >> > >> > >> > >> > >> Chinese Herbs > >> > >> > >> FAX: > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 Gentlemen and Kayte, , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > I have also seen acupuncture as a bridge between the mind and body, > > On Apr 19, 2004, at 2:37 PM, wrote: > " acupuncture is the hyphen between mind > > and body " . It is this very equation that makes many think what we are doing is > > spiritual and the > > link what is missing to most Westerners. I notice you both referred to body and mind. I do not deny that acupuncture affects both body and mind because I do not think there is any dividing line between the two. Every medical phenomena has both experiential (higher level perceptual) and true sensory (raw physiological) aspects, as does any perceived event, IMO. It is when you get into the spiritual that you lose me. I posted Philippe's article (and it is one of the best I've seen on the topic) because it does not get lost in new age drivel. I don't believe it would be semantics to quibble over whether he means spirit in the western sense. And Kayte, chime in all you want. Never would take anything as disrespectful from you. I think it is clear that he is translating shen and that he portrays it in its chinese context when he writes, " Spirit (Shen) which includes all the elements of the psyche (perception, knowledge and feeling) and which governs and regulates all the body organs and vital functions. " Sounds like the CNS, not anything more transcendent. I posted this article because Philippe always sticks close to the chinese tradition as he understands it from his deep studies. And I do not think this article contradicts anything I have written so far. But rather supports a view of the body that is biological in nature. article at: http://.org/articles/nourishlife.shtml Ithink it is us who interject a transcendent spirituality into chinese medicine that was never there. And by that I mean connecting the practice of medicine to the patient's spiritual development or even, god forbid, the spiritual advancement of society as a whole. The goal of spiritual development is transcendence, getting into heaven, personal experience of deity, whatever. But this goal can be anathema to health. Meditation gives you hemorrhoids and prostate swelling if you don't get up and move around. In other words, advancing spiritually does not necessarily yield health benefits. And mental repose is not the ultimate goal of meditation. Mental repose is a bodymind level phenomena. Transcendence in buddhist practice does not necessarily lead to mental repose but a state beyond duality. Such a mind can still be tormented and the body wracked with disease. If people want to be priests of qi, that's OK, but the tradition being emulated is perhaps more akin to practices within taoist temples than in mainstream chinese medical circles. According to needham, the more fringe groups advocating various magico-religious health practices were often also politically and socially motivated as well. They wanted to see mainstream anti-metaphysical confucian culture overthrown. And don't mistake my use of the word fringe. there were probably more of these folks than there were confucian scholars by a long shot. but then a lot more people watch jerry springer than watch nova. so as Joseph campbell once said, in the realm of ideas, the majority (the masses) are usually wrong. In other words, they were outside the intellectual mainstream, just like those who watch jerry springer. some may have had something of value to offer. most were probbaly crackpots. Most americans don't seem to believe in science; they believe in alternate explanations of reality (religion, UFOs, new age, etc.). So its hardly surprising that acupuncture in america has played out as a cult in the eyes of the media , with the word spirit popping up in every popular article on the subject. We should all indeed heed Philippe's words so that we can present a secular medicine to america, yet one that still rings true to chinese tradition and forms a solid foundation for any type of spiritual pursuit a patient might want to undertake. but to make cultivation of spirit in the metaphysically transcendent sense a central guiding principle of our medicine is the most harrowing path we can choose to take. I don't see why people can't see that this would be no different than making worship of the christian god a guiding premise in western healthcare. It sounds ludicrous, but as Brian Carter will tell you, the quasi-spiritual ideas espoused by some as part and parcel of TCM are considered blasphemous by a large number of christians. It does not matter how we couch them. Acupuncture is only truly nondenominational if it leaves the subject of transcendence to priests. It might seem to the more unitarian folks that nothing about taoist metaphysics is problematic, but many sectarian folks feel differently. I once cut my long hair so I wouldn't have to waste time getting past my appearance to promote chinese medicine. I don't want to waste time on selling chinese spiritual concepts to the public. I am drawn to these ideas. many are not. many consider them satanic. A good doctor does not need his patients to adopt spiritual beliefs to heal them and it disturbs me that the appearance we give to the public is sometimes the opposite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 19, 2004 Report Share Posted April 19, 2004 On Apr 19, 2004, at 8:46 PM, wrote: > > I notice you both referred to body and mind. I do not deny that > acupuncture > affects both body and mind because I do not think there is any > dividing line > between the two. Every medical phenomena has both experiential > (higher level > perceptual) and true sensory (raw physiological) aspects, as does any > perceived event, IMO. It is when you get into the spiritual that you > lose me. I > posted Philippe's article (and it is one of the best I've seen on the > topic) > because it does not get lost in new age drivel. I don't believe it > would be > semantics to quibble over whether he means spirit in the western > sense. And > Kayte, chime in all you want. Never would take anything as > disrespectful from > you. I have stated many times on CHA what I see as spiritual in medicine, and that is simply compassion and caring for people, not taking advantage of them in any manner, inspiring them to overcome disease, showing confidence and strength in the ability to help them, and seeing how health and disease are part and parcel of people's lives. These aspects of medicine are expressed in all cultures and in all eras. . . ..I am not talking about rituals, banging gongs, chanting or wearing funny outfits. > > I think it is clear that he is translating shen and that he portrays > it in its > chinese context when he writes, " Spirit (Shen) which includes all the > elements of the psyche (perception, knowledge and feeling) and which > governs > and regulates all the body organs and vital functions. " Sounds like > the CNS, > not anything more transcendent. I posted this article because > Philippe always > sticks close to the chinese tradition as he understands it from his > deep > studies. And I do not think this article contradicts anything I have > written so > far. But rather supports a view of the body that is biological in > nature. I think this article is one of the best things I've read on Chinese medicine in years. But I don't know if I'd agree that he is simply describing CNS function. > > > Ithink it is us who interject a transcendent spirituality into chinese > medicine > that was never there. And by that I mean connecting the practice of > medicine > to the patient's spiritual development or even, god forbid, the > spiritual > advancement of society as a whole. The goal of spiritual development > is > transcendence, getting into heaven, personal experience of deity, > whatever. > But this goal can be anathema to health. Meditation gives you > hemorrhoids and > prostate swelling if you don't get up and move around. In other words, > advancing spiritually does not necessarily yield health benefits. And > mental > repose is not the ultimate goal of meditation. Mental repose is a > bodymind > level phenomena. Transcendence in buddhist practice does not > necessarily > lead to mental repose but a state beyond duality. Such a mind can > still be > tormented and the body wracked with disease. > Perhaps it has to do with the fact that I am steeped in a Jewish perspective, but in my opinion the goal of 'spiritual development' is not transcendence, but to transform this world into a better place to live, and on the personal level, to transform oneself gradually into a mensch, a better human being. The role of the healer in any tradition is to relieve suffering, improve health, help people to live their lives in the best fashion possible. This to me is 'the spiritual dimension' of medicine, any medicine. From what I've read in Confucianist texts, it is also part of the traditional Chinese world view to have a harmonious society based on happy families in good health. Confucianism is also largely concerned with the ethical development of humanity, especially physicians. So while there is a biological perspective in Chinese medicine, medicine is not just biological. The scholar-physician was (and is) largely interested in self-cultivation through study, philosophy, and service to humanity. I don't see how such a credo can be a threat to any patient or any American for that manner. People respect a person who works on improving themselves and serving others. > If people want to be priests of qi, that's OK, but the tradition being > emulated > is perhaps more akin to practices within taoist temples than in > mainstream > chinese medical circles. According to needham, the more fringe groups > advocating various magico-religious health practices were often also > politically and socially motivated as well. They wanted to see > mainstream > anti-metaphysical confucian culture overthrown. And don't mistake my > use of > the word fringe. there were probably more of these folks than there > were > confucian scholars by a long shot. but then a lot more people watch > jerry > springer than watch nova. so as Joseph campbell once said, in the > realm of > ideas, the majority (the masses) are usually wrong. In other words, > they were > outside the intellectual mainstream, just like those who watch jerry > springer. > some may have had something of value to offer. most were probbaly > crackpots. I am not interested in being 'a priest of qi'. I have no interest in any agenda except people's health and well-being. However, again we are having difficulties communicating about what is 'spiritual'. To me, spirituality (and I've said this on CHA again and again) is largely about compassion and caring for other human beings and sentient beings that share the world with us. Medicine is a tool of compassion. This shouldn't be hard to understand. > > Most americans don't seem to believe in science; they believe in > alternate > explanations of reality (religion, UFOs, new age, etc.). So its > hardly surprising > that acupuncture in america has played out as a cult in the eyes of > the media , > with the word spirit popping up in every popular article on the > subject. We > should all indeed heed Philippe's words so that we can present a > secular > medicine to america, yet one that still rings true to chinese > tradition and > forms a solid foundation for any type of spiritual pursuit a patient > might want > to undertake. but to make cultivation of spirit in the metaphysically > transcendent sense a central guiding principle of our medicine is the > most > harrowing path we can choose to take. I think we simply need to present Chinese medicine in the clearest manner, as Phillipe has done in his article. Its principles are not culture-bound, there is a universal aspect to Chinese medicine that can be applied anywhere. However, Phillipe does offer that patients do have responsibility to cultivate a healthy lifestyle, harmonious with nature. > > > I don't see why people can't see that this would be no different than > making > worship of the christian god a guiding premise in western healthcare. > It > sounds ludicrous, but as Brian Carter will tell you, the > quasi-spiritual ideas > espoused by some as part and parcel of TCM are considered > blasphemous by a > large number of christians. It does not matter how we couch them. What do you consider to be the quasi-spiritual ideas that upsets Christians? I have had many Christians and Mormons as patients over the years, and I've never met one who was offended or upset about anything in Chinese medicine. > Acupuncture is only truly nondenominational if it leaves the subject > of > transcendence to priests. It might seem to the more unitarian folks > that > nothing about taoist metaphysics is problematic, but many sectarian > folks > feel differently. I once cut my long hair so I wouldn't have to > waste time > getting past my appearance to promote chinese medicine. I don't want > to > waste time on selling chinese spiritual concepts to the public. I > am drawn > to these ideas. many are not. many consider them satanic. A good > doctor does > not need his patients to adopt spiritual beliefs to heal them and it > disturbs > me that the appearance we give to the public is sometimes the opposite. I agree that our job is not to sell metaphysics or religion to people. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 I agree with what Z'ev wrote in response to Todd (especially those I've excerpted below). it's not that I think that we should push TCM as more spiritual, it is that I object to you taking the spirit out of it. You wrote: The goal of spiritual development is transcendence, getting into heaven, personal experience of deity, whatever. But this goal can be anathema to health. Meditation gives you hemorrhoids and prostate swelling if you don't get up and move around. In other words, advancing spiritually does not necessarily yield health benefits. There are a lot of people with really good bodies who are completely repungnant jerks. You're putting up the New Age practices as straw men and then saying, 'we're not them " . To this extent you're right but to say that spirit has no place in the medicine is a hard, hard place. doug , " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > > I have stated many times on CHA what I see as spiritual in medicine, > and that is simply compassion and caring for people, not taking > advantage of them in any manner, inspiring them to overcome disease, > showing confidence and strength in the ability to help them, and seeing > how health and disease are part and parcel of people's lives. These > aspects of medicine are expressed in all cultures and in all eras. . . > .I am not talking about rituals, banging gongs, chanting or wearing > funny outfits. The role of the healer in any tradition > is to relieve suffering, improve health, help people to live their > lives in the best fashion possible. This to me is 'the spiritual > dimension' of medicine, any medicine. So while there is a > biological perspective in Chinese medicine, medicine is not just > biological. The scholar-physician was (and is) largely interested in > self-cultivation through study, philosophy, and service to humanity. > > I don't see how such a credo can be a threat to any patient or any > American for that manner. People respect a person who works on > improving themselves and serving others. > > > I am not interested in being 'a priest of qi'. I have no interest in > any agenda except people's health and well-being. However, again we > are having difficulties communicating about what is 'spiritual'. To > me, spirituality (and I've said this on CHA again and again) is largely > about compassion and caring for other human beings and sentient beings > that share the world with us. Medicine is a tool of compassion. This > shouldn't be hard to understand. > > > I agree that our job is not to sell metaphysics or religion to people. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 , " " wrote: > I agree with what Z'ev wrote in response to Todd (especially those I've excerpted > below). it's not that I think that we should push TCM as more spiritual, it is that > I object to you taking the spirit out of it. you keep saying I am removing something that was there and I say I am rejecting something that never was. You object to me removing something, yet I see no evidence that spirituality as you portray it was ever there. To satisfy me, what mainstream authors of CM talked about spirit in the spiritual rather than the psychological sense. I cannot read chinese, but I am familiar with the writings of dozens of chinese scholars over the past 1,800 years. Except for sun si miao, whose work could be considered an abberation in hindsight, transcendent spirituality is conspicuously absent from the core texts. It does not come up in the wen bing texts, zhu dan xi, li dong yuan, numerous SHL commentators, numerous nanjing commentators, li shi zhen, qin bo wei, xu da chun, zhang jing yue, zhang xi chun , etc., etc. I object to something being added that was never a core part of the medicine, whatever other healing role it played in chinese culture. I do indeed say that casting ourselves as the priests of qi is a bad face to present to the public. I would indeed see this stuff out of the curriculum and leave it to each to decide how to pursue this matter upon graduation. anything else smacks of institutionalized religion and cultism to me. If this stuff has never been mainstream in china, how or why should we attempt to institutionalize it. There is no basis for deciding what version of daoism or TCM spirituality constitutes efficacious medicine. It thus can never be anything more than part of a belief system. It would be hypocritical of me to espouse my desire for an evidence base medical system, but then include a component that is based upon faith. I don't think the chinese went downthis road and neither should we (at least not any further than we already have) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 Respectfully - you are all right. IMO - the spirit aspect of TCM has to resonate with the individual treating and being treated. Maybe for Todd it has its importance in the pursuit of evidence based medicine, for Zev perhaps more in Jewish belief. For me in the ability to help reduce chronic pain and suffering. Spirit need not have religious overtones and I agree with Todd that it should not be written in to what was not in the classics. However, IMO, Spirit is meaning, direction, purpose - the pursuit of answers to why am I here?, what can I leave as my legacy? Not a religious belief but a meaning to life. In this sense it is part of Zen, Daoism, Buddhism and as such is often part of the dis-ease state and therefore part of the Diagnosis and treatment Kayte , " " wrote: > , " " wrote: > > I agree with what Z'ev wrote in response to Todd (especially those I've > excerpted > > below). it's not that I think that we should push TCM as more spiritual, > it is that > > I object to you taking the spirit out of it. > > you keep saying I am removing something that was there and I say I am > rejecting something that never was. You object to me removing something, > yet I see no evidence that spirituality as you portray it was ever there. To > satisfy me, what mainstream authors of CM talked about spirit in the > spiritual rather than the psychological sense. I cannot read chinese, but I am > familiar with the writings of dozens of chinese scholars over the past 1,800 > years. Except for sun si miao, whose work could be considered an abberation > in hindsight, transcendent spirituality is conspicuously absent from the core > texts. It does not come up in the wen bing texts, zhu dan xi, li dong yuan, > numerous SHL commentators, numerous nanjing commentators, li shi zhen, qin > bo wei, xu da chun, zhang jing yue, zhang xi chun , etc., etc. > > I object to something being added that was never a core part of the medicine, > whatever other healing role it played in chinese culture. I do indeed say that > casting ourselves as the priests of qi is a bad face to present to the public. I > would indeed see this stuff out of the curriculum and leave it to each to > decide how to pursue this matter upon graduation. anything else smacks of > institutionalized religion and cultism to me. If this stuff has never been > mainstream in china, how or why should we attempt to institutionalize it. > There is no basis for deciding what version of daoism or TCM spirituality > constitutes efficacious medicine. It thus can never be anything more than > part of a belief system. It would be hypocritical of me to espouse my desire > for an evidence base medical system, but then include a component that is > based upon faith. I don't think the chinese went downthis road and neither > should we (at least not any further than we already have) > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 A few points. I feel like we are running on parallel lines here that don't meet. You seem to be defining spirituality as something that is 'added on' to CM by westerners, I am saying that spirituality is inherent in the practice of medicine. I agree that western ideas of spirit shouldn't be read into the Chinese medical literature, but that like anyone else, the Chinese were and are spiritual people, who ask questions about life, nature, being and purpose. The modern concept of 'secular' is just that, a modern concept. While the Nei Jing corpus clearly expunged shamanic and ritualistic influences from the practice of medicine, it was not written in the tone of a modern anatomical manual. You give the example of Zhang Xi-chun. In his medical essays, he has one chapter on meditation, one on qi gong. In the meditation chapter, he says the following: " students should use the practice of meditation which is the starting point of philosophy. Not only does it promote health, it can actually immerse one's character and spirit, and benefit one's intelligence and wisdom. Medical professionals have been trusted with people's lives, therefore they must exhibit intelligence and wisdom. They must observe the intricacies of the human body, observing the qi transformations of heaven and earth. They are required to distinguish the complexities of medicinals, flexibly choosing prescriptions according to pathomechanisms in order to save lives. If one studies medicine, it is important to be careful with philosophy, immersing one's character and spirit. " Zhang Jingyue devoted a large portion of his Lei Jing/Classic of Categories to the importance of studying the Yi Jing/Book of Changes in order to practice medicine, and there is a section on emotional-psychological disorders with a somewhat 'spiritual' perspective. So while Chinese medical literature may not speak in the language of what we know today as religion in the West, or use new-agey metaphors, there is plenty that can be considered to be spiritual in Chinese medicine. On Apr 20, 2004, at 1:00 AM, wrote: > you keep saying I am removing something that was there and I say I am > rejecting something that never was. You object to me removing > something, > yet I see no evidence that spirituality as you portray it was ever > there. To > satisfy me, what mainstream authors of CM talked about spirit in the > spiritual rather than the psychological sense. I cannot read chinese, > but I am > familiar with the writings of dozens of chinese scholars over the past > 1,800 > years. Except for sun si miao, whose work could be considered an > abberation > in hindsight, transcendent spirituality is conspicuously absent from > the core > texts. It does not come up in the wen bing texts, zhu dan xi, li dong > yuan, > numerous SHL commentators, numerous nanjing commentators, li shi zhen, > qin > bo wei, xu da chun, zhang jing yue, zhang xi chun , etc., etc. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 As some on this list may know, I started my studies in Chinese medicine as part of a larger Hessian " journey to the East. " I was a professional Tibetan Buddhist yogi, having held numerous ranks and positions within the Nyingmapa hierarchy (i.e., chag-dzod, cho-pon, om-dze, lopon) and having spent 20 years in the most extreme and demanding spiritual exercises. Because, at the time, it wasn't really possible to study Tibetan medicine to the point of practice, I decided to study its kissing cousin, Chinese medicine. I preface my remarks this way to make it clear that, when I started the study and practice of Chinese medicine, I was predisposed to look for and priviledge anything within it that smacked of spiritual. Twenty-five years later, having read more than most Westerners within the Chinese medical literature, I agree with Todd that there is nothing particularly spiritual about the mainstream professional Chinese medical notion of spirit, and I am not just talking about 20th-21st century, " Maoist, revisionist " Chinese medicine. As I explain in my psych book, the Tang dynasty interest in Buddhism and religious Daoism with its consequent revival of spiritism in Chinese medicine was a temporary aberration. The whole importance of such seminal texts as the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, and Shang Han Lun/Jin Gui Yao Lue is the establishment of the naturalist world view in professional Chinese medicine, a world view that re-established its dominance in the Jin-Yuan, Ming, Qing, Republic, and current Chinese dynasties. when Todd asserts that the mainstream Chinese medical definition of spirit is a naturalist, epiphenomalist definition, as far as all my reading and research during the last 25 years suggests, he is correct. That being said, there have always been individual Chinese doctors who have conflated their personal spiritual beliefs and practices with their practice of medicine. During the 19th century, this tendency was particularly common among the martial artists/anti-Manchu revolutionaries who took refuge in Buddhist monasteries and lived within secret societies influenced by religious Daoism, viz. the Boxer Rebellion. Many of these " Boxers " also studied and practiced Chinese medicine due to the inherent liabilities of their profession. In the 70s and 80s, many of the first Western students and practitioners of Chinese medicine (such as myself), studied with students of students of these Boxers. So we were exposed to a certain amount of Chinese spiritualism as part of our overall training. This dovetailed neatly with our own goals and desires in our generation's journey to the East. As Unschuld has pointed out, we found what we were looking for. In other words, we saw what we wanted to see and privileged what we were already primed to privilege. No big deal. Ren shi ren, people are people. However, those who still hold onto those spiritist beliefs and are attached to the notion that those beliefs are part of mainstream professional Chinese medicine need to at least know that their approach has more to do with their own Baby-bommerish New-agism than with mainline Chinese medicine. In saying this, I am not criticizing spiritual-spiritist beliefs. That's completely a matter of personal choice. Whatever floats your boat and gets you through the night. But, when it comes to the history of Chinese medicine, Todd is right, you cannot substantiate these beliefs in classics such as the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Jia Yi Jing, Shan Han Lun/Jin Gui Yao Lue, Mai Jing, Yuan Hou Zhu Bing Lun, Pi Wei Lun, Ge Zhi Yu Lun, Dan Xi Xin Fa, etc., etc. Bob 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.