Guest guest Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 qi sometimes means function when referring to zang-fu spleen qi means the function of the spleen - specific things done by the spleen - examples: the spleen governs t & t, the spleen holds the blood, etc. to treat the qi is to treat the function of the organ, not the physical lesion, if one is identifiable this has nothing to do with stuff flowing in channels qi also means vitality or the general state of an organ - example: the spleen qi is strong qi also flows in vessels (jing luo, jing mai). here is really the crux of the issue. Deke says it flows only with the blood and lymph or in the context of neural impulses (transmission rather than flow). Prevailing interpretation would seem to have it that there are actually some other vessels or lines of communication (fascial electric perhaps). Or maybe something metaphysical, invisible lines carrying an invisible force. This is the point where Deke diverges from popular view. I don't think anyone disputes the first two uses of the term as correct. so it comes down to channel qi. How do we conceive of channel qi and how does that square with what has been written? We talking about supplementing and draining channels, the implication being that one adds, removes or redirects something that is flowing (channel qi). But could not one also conceive of this concept as referring to increasing or decreasing the general vitality of a channel. Supplementing could refer to increasing the function of a channel and draining to decreasing it. Not that one added or removed " stuff " or " energy " , but rather just lowered or increased the volume on a given channel or frequency. This is a more purely functional interpretation, by the way. But, to use Deke's terms in an example: supplementing (bu) the vitality (qi) of the spleen longitudinal vessel (pi jing mai) might still refer to an effect on blood vessels and nerves and not refer at all to a distinct set of conduits. What that says is that one can increase the functions associated with enhanced flow and transmission in the spleen's associated vessels and nerves. No energy - no meridians. Contrary to what many believe, Deke does not reject the idea of qi in the channels. He just asks what is meant by the idea? This is quite different than saying there is no qi. We have to ask ourselves where our conceptions came from and did our teachers have the understanding or authority to convey these accurately? Or are we all victims of a gross misconception that makes more sense when interpreted another way. Since many early teachers were either americans who did not have access to chinese language or culture or martial arts and meditation teachers who promulgated a spiritual version of TCM, the generations that followed were indeed schooled in some nonstandard ideas. Those who explored no further and accepted their teacher's words at face value did not even realize they had embraced marginal, religious sectarian versions of CM. Then the PRC version of TCM when it first gained visibility smacked of communist purging and state atheism. In fact, we know now that the PRC version is the true continuation of the confucian classical tradition and the metaphysical version is actually just trappings from various sects. An examination of important texts of the past 800 years makes this abundantly clear. Like all religions, many of the trappings were to lure tithe paying adherents (the promise of immortality and perfect health, etc.). Having said all this, Heiner Fruehauf will be lecturing pretty much the opposite at this year's CHA conference. I look forward to hearing his case. Chinese Herbs FAX: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 On Apr 20, 2004, at 10:54 AM, wrote: > Contrary to what many believe, Deke does not reject the idea of qi in > the channels. He just asks what is meant by the idea? This is quite > different than saying there is no qi. We have to ask ourselves where > our conceptions came from and did our teachers have the understanding > or authority to convey these accurately? Or are we all victims of a > gross misconception that makes more sense when interpreted another way. While Deke's book doesn't dismiss qi, many people have the impression that he does. I even got the impression in a conversation once with Deke. . .I remember him saying 'there is no such thing as qi'. I think he meant that qi was not a separate, mysterious energy that flows in the channels, but you can see how many people may misconstrue his remarks. I have no problem with the ideas presented in his book, as one interpretation of the Nei Jing corpus. My problem is with these ideas being presented as a political agenda to define the future of school degrees, cirriculi, licensure and status of the profession. This movement is happening now, and I am quite concerned about it. > Since many early teachers were either americans who did not have > access to chinese language or culture or martial arts and meditation > teachers who promulgated a spiritual version of TCM, the generations > that followed were indeed schooled in some nonstandard ideas. Those > who explored no further and accepted their teacher's words at face > value did not even realize they had embraced marginal, religious > sectarian versions of CM. Then the PRC version of TCM when it first > gained visibility smacked of communist purging and state atheism. In > fact, we know now that the PRC version is the true continuation of the > confucian classical tradition and the metaphysical version is actually > just trappings from various sects. An examination of important texts > of the past 800 years makes this abundantly clear. Like all religions, > many of the trappings were to lure tithe paying adherents (the promise > of immortality and perfect health, etc.). Having said all this, Heiner > Fruehauf will be lecturing pretty much the opposite at this year's CHA > conference. I look forward to hearing his case. In the chapter of Volker Scheid's upcoming book " Currents of Tradition " available in the latest Blue Poppy journal, he speaks about several physicians including Qin Bowei who attempted to organize and systematize the Chinese medicine corpus into a coherent, consistent body of knowledge so that it could be used as the basis for a national medical system. However, he also points out that " if the state was now committed to the modernization of Chinese medicine, then this was not in order to develop Chinese medicine but in order to marshal its resources for the purposes of socialist development. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 20, 2004 Report Share Posted April 20, 2004 define the future of school degrees, cirriculi, licensure and status of the profession. This movement is happening now, and I am quite concerned about it. >>>Or as accurate translations Alon 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.