PU and guarding essence

[Guest guest]

Unschuld says: Disease, the reader of this rhetorical

question is informed [referring to the well known passage in the nei

jing], can be avoided as long as a personal behavior serves to guard

the organism's central material and nonmaterial

constituents, that is, essence and spirit.....The advice to follow

rules or laws is linked to the promise of health. This is, of course,

in contrast to a Daoist conviction that the

material body cannot escape illness.

 

 

I am still struck by this statement. If I read it correctly, then it

must mean the confucian view (as PU dichotomizes it) is that if one

conserves essence (and this basically meant not having sex just for

fun) and spirit (and this basically means not draining one's spirit in

meaningless pursuits, such as watching TV, to name a modern example),

then one will live out one's natural lifespan without disease.

 

The daoist belief Unschuld presents in contrast (which actually sounds

very buddhist to me) is " the material body cannot escape illness " . If

the material body cannot escape illness, then is there some other

benefit derived from a healthy lifestyle in which one guard one's

essence and spirit. Just because disease is inevitable does not mean

how one lives ones life has no effect on the development of disease.

Living poorly probably leads to development of unnecessary diseases

and/or diseases earlier in life or a shorter lifespan. It may also

determine the severity of one's terminal illness, whatever it will end

up being. Ayurveda embraces this idea as it calls the body types

" defects " , noting that all manifest existence is flawed, that's why we

are here. We often hear about people dying of natural causes in their

sleep, but those people still die of cardiac or respiratory failure,

probably due to the slow ravages of time wearing out the heart and

finally taking them.

 

Those who believed they could make the physical body impervious to

illness or injury or even immortal were not the mainstream of daoism,

but a small branch that is generally regarded to have been unsuccessful

in their quest. This quest often involved sexual practices and extreme

measures of guarding essence (mantak chia's work reflects some strand

of this tradition, though I have no idea how authentic). No doubt the

entrance of buddhism into China affected the later development of

daoism. Immortality still was part of the agenda, but the emphasis

over the past 1000 years has been more of an internal alchemy that

involved deconditioning of the mind and meditative/yogic practices that

were geared towards creating an immortal vehicle for personal

consciousness. A common daoist belief in scholarly circles was that if

one did not create the " spiritual embryo " while in physical form, one

would merely dissipate upon death, no trace left of the individual.

Buddhism in its purest form also does not believe the individual

personality survives death. However buddhism and some strands of

daoism believe something survives to reincarnate. But if one want to

live forever with some semblance of one's current " self " , then one must

do certain practices.

 

Those daoist immortality practices typically include essence

conservation, but not for physical health, rather as a base substance

that can be transformed into subtle spirit (this all based upon my

reading of daoist alchemy texts, not TCM, which reflects a more

confucian bias). I think the same is largely true of indian yogic

traditions of both asceticism and tantra. Essence conservation is for

cultivation of spirit that will transcend the body in some way

(spiritual embryo, reincarnation, heaven). It was not originally

defined as health practice. Now in later ages, both ayurveda and

mainstream CM adopted the prohibitions against sexual activity and

essence loss that came from the meditative traditions. Excessive

sexual activity is often listed a prime cause of disease in texts from

the mainstream of both traditions.

 

I have suggested in the past that part of what was attributed to

essence loss may have been due to sexually transmitted diseases. I

have also suggested that this disease cause may have become overblown

in certain conservative circles. We all know what modern cultural

conservatives think about sex. Well, I think the confucian bureaucrats

and hindu brahmins who dominated their respective cultures for

millennia were definitely cultural conservatives. Sexual promiscuity

is disruptive to an orderly society whose main goal is to enrich and

empower the elite. So it may be that a combination of STDs and

cultural conservatism led to an excessive emphasis on sexual activity

as cause of illness. For a study that suggest regular ejaculation is

good for physical health (if not for escaping samsara), see:

 

http://www.nswcc.org.au/editorial.asp?pageid=1188

 

I cannot find any data confirming sex is bad for health unless you get

an STD.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

FAX:

 

 

[Guest guest]

,

wrote:

> Unschuld says: Disease, the reader of this rhetorical

> question is informed [referring to the well known passage in the

nei

> jing], can be avoided as long as a personal behavior serves to

guard

> the organism's central material and nonmaterial

> constituents, that is, essence and spirit.....The advice to

follow

> rules or laws is linked to the promise of health. This is, of

course,

> in contrast to a Daoist conviction that the

> material body cannot escape illness.

 

While I greatly admire most of Unschuld's work, and make regular use

of it, his comments regarding the relationship of CM to various

Chinese relgious and philosophical traditions are, IMO, quite off

the mark. This statement is a case in point.

 

The fundamental problem with Unschuld's analysis is that he is

confused regarding what Confucianism and Daoism actually were in

early China (say up to the end of the Han dynasty and just into the

period of disunity following it). To speak of Daoism prior to the

end of the Han dynasty is an anachronism. While the philosophical

texts which have come to be seen as the core of philosophical (and

to a lesser extent religious) Daoism were already in existence, they

were not self-consciously Daoist; that label (daojia µÀ¼Ò) was

attached by historians who were grouping the philosophical texts for

bibliographic purposes. Even the so-called Neo-Daoist movement of

the later Han did not call itself Daoist. In Chinese they called

themselves Xuanxue Ðþѧ, or the study of the obscure/mysterious.

 

As a religion Daoism really begins with the Celestial Masters

movement (Ììʦ) toward the end of the Han dynasty. This movement

believed, among other things, that all illness arose because of

transgressions against the laws of the Dao (most of which would

strike a modern reader as very Confucian). Thus, perfect health was

possible if one did not transgress. Unschuld acknowledges this, but

somehow manages to ignore the challenge it poses to his theory.

Likewise he uses quotes from philosophers who were never considered

Daoist to support his argument. A good introduction to early Daoism

is Stephen Bokenkamp's book " Early Daoist Scriptures. "

 

Confucianism, while it had more institutional reality in the Han

dynasty, is also very difficult to define. At the beginning of the

Han dynasty, it was, in fact, not in favor with the imperial family,

and in general, its hodl on Chinese thought prior to the Song

dynasty is far less strong the is popularly imagined. Much of what

we attribute to Confucianism in early China is, in fact, just a part

of the broad cultural inheritance of the Chinese literati. A key

example of this is the oft quoted Neijing passage discussing the

organs in terms of government positions. Such arguments are common

in all strains of Chinese thought and cannot be used to argue for

Confucian influence. A good discussion of the not-clearly-Confucian

nature of early Chinese culture can be found in the first few

chapters of Peter Bol's book " This Culture of Ours. "

 

All in all, I think the historical evidence indicates that

Unschuld's division of CM into Confucian-influenced acupuncture and

Daoist-influenced herbology is untenable. A much more nuanced view

is necessary if we are going to understand the real history of

Chinese medicine in relation to other strands of Chinese thought.

Donald Harper's " Early Chinese Medical Literature " --which was

mentioned in some other messages today--offers IMO a more

historically accurate view.

 

By way of introduction--since this is my first post here--my name is

Stephen Boyanton. I just received my M.A. in Chinese religions from

the University of Virginia, and I am entering PCOM this semester.

 

Hi to everynoe!

Stephen Boyanton

[Guest guest]

, " steveboyanton " <steveboyanton>

wrote:

 

> While I greatly admire most of Unschuld's work, and make regular use

> of it, his comments regarding the relationship of CM to various

> Chinese relgious and philosophical traditions are, IMO, quite off

> the mark. This statement is a case in point.

 

Steve

 

Excellent post. thanks. I am always suspicious of any thesis that uses

dichotomy as

jumping off point. My post was largely to show somewhat odd conlcusions one

might

draw if taking this to its logical extreme. However you may be too conciliatory

in your

statement above. The supposed dichotomy between daoist herbology and confucian

acupuncture is the central tenet of Unschuld's writing over the years. To

reject that is

really to reject everything he has written but the various passges from

classical texts he

has kindly translated for us. Because if the cultural influences do not break

down as he

says, then his whole case for culture being the dominant influence in CM falls

apart. His

evidence does not supprt his own thesis, in other words. I have written here

before that I

think PU is influenced by a post modern deconstructionist trend in medical

anthropology.

It is all context and metaphor to him as compared to Kendall, for whom it is all

concrete

facts. It is likely something in between and near as simpe as either man makes

it. I am

curious as to how PU is regarded in the academic circles from which you emerged?

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

I am

> curious as to how PU is regarded in the academic circles from

which you emerged?

>

 

 

 

 

My background is in religious studies, and I was the only one with

an interest in Chinese medicine there, so no one had even read

Unschuld. The critiques I presented in my first post would be

generally the character of the critiques he would receive in Chinese

religious studies circles. Personally, while I am interested in

metaphor and image, I think it is dangerous to attribute influence

on the basis of that evidence alone. Sectarianism was seldom an

issue in pre-modern China. Even the relatively bellicose Neo-

Confucians were borrowing liberally form everyone else and still

studying the whole range of Chinese literature. A lot of recent

research has been devoted to uncovering the complexity of Chinese

intellectual life and breaking down many of the arbitrary

distinctions that have been imposed on it by later scholars, both

Chinese and otherwise.

 

You are probably right that my attack on Unschuld's dichotomy

essentially is an attack on the whole thrust of his social analysis

of Chinese medicine. But I hesitate to be too critical since I

still find his bibliographical and historiographical research quite

useful. I also think he becomes much more interesting when he is

discussing late imperial medicine (Song and onwards). Though I

still think he oversimplifies the question of the impact of Neo-

Confucianism on Chinese medicine, and ignores many improtant non-

ideological influences on Chinese medicine of that era.

 

Stephen

[Guest guest]

, " steveboyanton " <steveboyanton>

wrote:

Personally, while I am interested in

> metaphor and image, I think it is dangerous to attribute influence

> on the basis of that evidence alone.

 

 

I agree that cultural imagery and metaphor are factors in the development of any

intellectual system. The question is whether they are tools or represent deep

structures.

When one studies traditional medicine cross-culturally, one finds a deep

similarity despite

superficial differences. For example, while the theory of the nei jing and

sushruta samhita

(of ayurveda) are quite different, the actual practice of herbology is quite

similar. The

point of overlap which is not appartent from a cursory study of basic texts is

the use of

treatment principles to develop formulas. Formulas move prana or dry damp or

calm

wind, etc. It is fairly easy to use ayurvedic formulas in TCM once one learns

this identity.

Similar things seem to be true of unani, gree, egyptian, mayan, and later,

mexican

medicine (an interesting mix of ancient greek, mayan, aztec and folk that

emphasizes hot

and cold, weak and strong). the eight principles basically exist in all these

medicines. So

at a deep level, books like the nei jing are not just metaphor constructed to

validate

existing power structures. Sure, the writers used that language, but probably

just due to

the limitations of expression at that time. A chinese doc didn't know ayurveda

and

definitely didn't know science. how else could he write? I would say the deep

similarities

in the practice of herbal medicine worldwide, not the theories used to explain

practice, but

the actual applications, are quite similar in all the high cultures of antiquity

(excuse my

admitted elitism). This suggests to me a validity that cannot be dismissed by

any

anthropological hypothesis. And PU has always been quite dismissive of the

validity ofCM,

despite the continued pleas of his choir to the contrary.

 

 

 

I

> still find his bibliographical and historiographical research quite

> useful.

 

 

I agree

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steve,

I was glad to see your contribution to the group.

I am back from a recent seminar I taught in Taos, N.M. at Redwing Books

warehouse, and the issue of bifurcation of medical literature came up

during the five days of discourse. One of the participants was Sabine

Wilms, a translator/researcher of Chinese medical literature, whose Ph.

D. dissertation was on Sun Simiao's " Qian jin yao fang " , chapters on

gynecology. She also disputed Paul's Taoist/Confucianist scheme,

saying that there was a lot more interaction 'on the ground' than Paul

seems to indicate in his writings.

 

However, I don't have a problem with Paul's metaphor, as he is talking

about trends in medical literature, not the behavior of a complex

historical/populace interaction. There are clear parallel courses in

the acumoxa and herbal medicine literature, development along separate

paths, which seem to meet and part historically. One of those meeting

points seemed to be the Jin/Yuan dynasty and such physicians as Li

Dongyuan.

 

We are discussing complex phenomena (Chinese medical literature,

spiritual practices of a large population centuries ago), and there are

bound to be different points of view. There cannot be simple truisms

here, just as we cannot sum up the Nei Jing as a simple acupuncture

manual with a single focus. We use metaphors to understand trends in

the development of medical literature, and hopefully learn how to apply

it to our own times and practices.

 

These issues are important to me as a practitioner of both

acumoxatherapy and herbal medicine, and the need to understand

differences between the thought processes behind the two medical

disciplines.

 

 

On Sep 1, 2004, at 4:33 PM, steveboyanton wrote:

 

>

> While I greatly admire most of Unschuld's work, and make regular use

> of it, his comments regarding the relationship of CM to various

> Chinese relgious and philosophical traditions are, IMO, quite off

> the mark. This statement is a case in point.

>

> The fundamental problem with Unschuld's analysis is that he is

> confused regarding what Confucianism and Daoism actually were in

> early China (say up to the end of the Han dynasty and just into the

> period of disunity following it). To speak of Daoism prior to the

> end of the Han dynasty is an anachronism. While the philosophical

> texts which have come to be seen as the core of philosophical (and

> to a lesser extent religious) Daoism were already in existence, they

> were not self-consciously Daoist; that label (daojia µÀ¼Ò) was

> attached by historians who were grouping the philosophical texts for

> bibliographic purposes. Even the so-called Neo-Daoist movement of

> the later Han did not call itself Daoist. In Chinese they called

> themselves Xuanxue Ðþѧ, or the study of the obscure/mysterious.

>

> As a religion Daoism really begins with the Celestial Masters

> movement (Ììʦ) toward the end of the Han dynasty. This movement

> believed, among other things, that all illness arose because of

> transgressions against the laws of the Dao (most of which would

> strike a modern reader as very Confucian). Thus, perfect health was

> possible if one did not transgress. Unschuld acknowledges this, but

> somehow manages to ignore the challenge it poses to his theory.

> Likewise he uses quotes from philosophers who were never considered

> Daoist to support his argument. A good introduction to early Daoism

> is Stephen Bokenkamp's book " Early Daoist Scriptures. "

>

> Confucianism, while it had more institutional reality in the Han

> dynasty, is also very difficult to define. At the beginning of the

> Han dynasty, it was, in fact, not in favor with the imperial family,

> and in general, its hodl on Chinese thought prior to the Song

> dynasty is far less strong the is popularly imagined. Much of what

> we attribute to Confucianism in early China is, in fact, just a part

> of the broad cultural inheritance of the Chinese literati. A key

> example of this is the oft quoted Neijing passage discussing the

> organs in terms of government positions. Such arguments are common

> in all strains of Chinese thought and cannot be used to argue for

> Confucian influence. A good discussion of the not-clearly-Confucian

> nature of early Chinese culture can be found in the first few

> chapters of Peter Bol's book " This Culture of Ours. "

>

> All in all, I think the historical evidence indicates that

> Unschuld's division of CM into Confucian-influenced acupuncture and

> Daoist-influenced herbology is untenable. A much more nuanced view

> is necessary if we are going to understand the real history of

> Chinese medicine in relation to other strands of Chinese thought.

> Donald Harper's " Early Chinese Medical Literature " --which was

> mentioned in some other messages today--offers IMO a more

> historically accurate view.

>

> By way of introduction--since this is my first post here--my name is

> Stephen Boyanton. I just received my M.A. in Chinese religions from

> the University of Virginia, and I am entering PCOM this semester.

>

> Hi to everynoe!

> Stephen Boyanton

>

>

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

There are clear parallel courses in

> the acumoxa and herbal medicine literature, development along separate

> paths, which seem to meet and part historically.

 

I am not so sure how clear things are. thus, PU's metaphors may be simplsitic

enough to

be counterproductive. certainly they are disputed by Heiner Fruehauf who

considers the

nei jing to be largely a daoist document, which he says is only clear after deep

study of the

contemporary han and earlier pre-daoist works that basically encode the nei

jing. He also

believes that systematic correspondence was applied to herbology far earlier

than

Unschuld believes. He does not consider the SHL to be the halting beginning to

this

process, but the culmination of 1000 years of development of this process in

earlier

dynasties. We know lots of books from that era were burned or lost, but Heiner

claims to

be part of a pre-daoist lineage that has preserved these works in some form.

That indeed

it was the ancestors of daoists who founded this style of thinking and practice,

not

confucians. Unschuld's thesis to some extent is built upon the lack of texts

from that era.

Arguably, so many more texts were detroyed or lost than those that were

preserved, we

really can never know if the nei jing is a representive text or not. It really

is a somewhat

futile discussion in the end analysis. that is why ultimately all that matters

to me as a

clinician is what works on patients and only research will verify any of that.

So while I

agree with Bob that not being able to read the PRC standards on my own is amajor

drawback, I continue to dispute whether I lose much by also not reading the nie

jing on my

own.

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

wrote:

 

> When one studies traditional medicine cross-culturally, one finds

a deep similarity despite

> superficial differences.

 

 

 

This is a subject that interets me greatly. My knowledge of

herbology at the moment is mostly textual, since I'm only beginning

to study CM from a clinical point of view, but I always suspected

that there ought to be such similarities. I'd love to talk about

this more with you, in particular because I have a decent foundation

in Tibetan language and I'm trying to learn as much as I can about

Tibetan medicine while continuing my CM studies.

 

Stephen

[Guest guest]

If you are going to make such a sweeping statement, you are going to

have to back it up. I've never, in my time with Paul, seen him

denigrate Chinese medicine. If anything, he takes a dispassionate

distance to medicine in general, in order to critique the phenomenon of

medicine at a distance. His recent seminars in America, and his

interactions with participants, show that his major interest is that

practitioners of Chinese medicine be well informed about their history

and literature.

 

 

On Sep 2, 2004, at 8:17 AM, wrote:

 

> And PU has always been quite dismissive of the validity ofCM,

> despite the continued pleas of his choir to the contrary.

[Guest guest]

Todd and Z'ev,

 

Just a few thoughts. Todd noted:

 

Heiner Fruehauf who considers the

> nei jing to be largely a daoist document, which he says is only

clear after deep study of the

> contemporary han and earlier pre-daoist works that basically

encode the nei jing. He also

> believes that systematic correspondence was applied to herbology

far earlier than

> Unschuld believes.

 

I am not familiar with Fruehauf's work, but I know of little

evidence that would link the Neijing with any particular religious

group. When people talk about pre-daoist works, they are often

referring to the yangsheng ÑøÉú material which stretches back into

the Warring States period, but to call such work pre-daoist is

really a misnomer. Yangsheng was a shared part of Chinese elite

culture, and really a minor concern of the first clearly Daoist

movements.

 

The same is true of systematic corresopondence which was used by all

Chinese intellectual traditions. I would agree that the application

of systematic correspondence to herbology (in some form) probably

goes back further than Unschuld argues. We know from the records of

Chunyu Yi ´¾ÓÚÒâ in the Shiji that he was diagnosing based on a form

of systematic correspondence and using herbs to cure illness. It

seems unlikely that his means of diagnosis and prescription were

completely unrelated.

 

Z'ev notes:

 

>There are clear parallel courses in

>the acumoxa and herbal medicine literature, development along

>separate

>paths, which seem to meet and part historically. One of those

>meeting

>points seemed to be the Jin/Yuan dynasty and such physicians as Li

>Dongyuan.

 

I would tend to agree, though my own knowledge of this issue is

still too limited for me to really take a stand. What I know I

disagree with is the linking of Daoism and Confucianism to herbology

and acumoxa respectively.

 

It does seem that there are two primary streams of CM, but I doubt

that they have ever been truly separate. As you noted, we're

dealing with a very complex subject here. In Chinee religions it's

quite common to see the same person working in completely different

genres and intellectual traditions. The Neo-Confucian scholar may

also compose a commentary on the Dao De Jing, send his son to become

a monk in a Buddhist monastery, sponsor local religious festivals,

etc. This doesn't mean that the distinctions between religious and

intellectual traditions are meaningless, but it does mean they are

not hard and fast and need to be taken with a large grain of salt.

Perhaps what we're looking at in CM's history is similar.

 

Stephen

[Guest guest]

She also disputed Paul's Taoist/Confucianist scheme,

saying that there was a lot more interaction 'on the ground' than Paul

seems to indicate in his writings.

 

>>>From what i understand PU claims that his views are based and restricted to

published writing. He does not pay any attention to any oral transmition, which

to me make sense as we know what happens when we even try to transmit a simple

paragraph with in two generations.

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

While I tend towards your point of view, there are many voices in our

profession who see acumoxatherapy and herbal medicine as entirely

separate disciplines with little crossover. Certainly the Chinese

medical literature is predominantly herbal in size and scope over the

ages. I would be interested in other folks ideas as to why this is so,

not from a sociological point of view but a medical one.

 

 

On Sep 2, 2004, at 1:20 PM, steveboyanton wrote:

 

> It does seem that there are two primary streams of CM, but I doubt

> that they have ever been truly separate. As you noted, we're

> dealing with a very complex subject here. In Chinee religions it's

> quite common to see the same person working in completely different

> genres and intellectual traditions. The Neo-Confucian scholar may

> also compose a commentary on the Dao De Jing, send his son to become

> a monk in a Buddhist monastery, sponsor local religious festivals,

> etc. This doesn't mean that the distinctions between religious and

> intellectual traditions are meaningless, but it does mean they are

> not hard and fast and need to be taken with a large grain of salt.

> Perhaps what we're looking at in CM's history is similar.

>

[Guest guest]

I agree that there are similar structures of systematic correspondence

underlying traditional medical systems, and this is a fascination of

mine as well. These structures survived in literate cultures, but to

some degree were also passed on orally through folk medicine structures

as well. However, I disagree that Unschuld is dismissive of these

structures. The anthropological layer is just another layer of

analysis of culture that can enlarge the picture that we see when we

examine traditional medicines.

 

 

On Sep 2, 2004, at 8:17 AM, wrote:

 

>

> I agree that cultural imagery and metaphor are factors in the

> development of any

> intellectual system. The question is whether they are tools or

> represent deep structures.

> When one studies traditional medicine cross-culturally, one finds a

> deep similarity despite

> superficial differences. For example, while the theory of the nei

> jing and sushruta samhita

> (of ayurveda) are quite different, the actual practice of herbology is

> quite similar. The

> point of overlap which is not appartent from a cursory study of basic

> texts is the use of

> treatment principles to develop formulas. Formulas move prana or dry

> damp or calm

> wind, etc. It is fairly easy to use ayurvedic formulas in TCM once

> one learns this identity.

> Similar things seem to be true of unani, gree, egyptian, mayan, and

> later, mexican

> medicine (an interesting mix of ancient greek, mayan, aztec and folk

> that emphasizes hot

> and cold, weak and strong). the eight principles basically exist in

> all these medicines. So

> at a deep level, books like the nei jing are not just metaphor

> constructed to validate

> existing power structures. Sure, the writers used that language, but

> probably just due to

> the limitations of expression at that time. A chinese doc didn't know

> ayurveda and

> definitely didn't know science. how else could he write? I would say

> the deep similarities

> in the practice of herbal medicine worldwide, not the theories used to

> explain practice, but

> the actual applications, are quite similar in all the high cultures of

> antiquity (excuse my

> admitted elitism). This suggests to me a validity that cannot be

> dismissed by any

> anthropological hypothesis. And PU has always been quite dismissive

> of the validity ofCM,

> despite the continued pleas of his choir to the contrary.

[Guest guest]

, " steveboyanton " <

>

 

> The fundamental problem with Unschuld's analysis is that he is

> confused regarding what Confucianism and Daoism actually were in

> early China (say up to the end of the Han dynasty and just into the

> period of disunity following it). To speak of Daoism prior to the

> end of the Han dynasty is an anachronism. While the philosophical

> texts which have come to be seen as the core of philosophical (and

> to a lesser extent religious) Daoism were already in existence,

they

> were not self-consciously Daoist; that label (daojia µÀ¼Ò) was

> attached by historians who were grouping the philosophical texts

for

> bibliographic purposes. Even the so-called Neo-Daoist movement of

> the later Han did not call itself Daoist. In Chinese they called

> themselves Xuanxue Ðþѧ, or the study of the obscure/mysterious.

 

 

Stephen,

I am having a difficult time understanding your point of view. I

am not sure how Unschuld's use of a convenient and often-utilized

terminology, expresses anything at all about his understanding of

Daoism and Confucianism in the Han.

 

 

 

 

>

> As a religion Daoism really begins with the Celestial Masters

> movement (Ììʦ) toward the end of the Han dynasty. This movement

> believed, among other things, that all illness arose because of

> transgressions against the laws of the Dao (most of which would

> strike a modern reader as very Confucian). Thus, perfect health

was

> possible if one did not transgress. Unschuld acknowledges this,

but

> somehow manages to ignore the challenge it poses to his theory.

> Likewise he uses quotes from philosophers who were never considered

> Daoist to support his argument.

 

Hmmm....Acupuncture and moxa use were prohibited in the early

Celestial Masters movement. Magical talismans, recitation of the

Laozi and confession of sins were the most often used methodology, in

healing the sick.

How do these facts refute Unschuld's theory?

What quotes do you refer to???

 

 

 

 

 

A good introduction to early Daoism

> is Stephen Bokenkamp's book " Early Daoist Scriptures. "

 

I own this book and I have found little if nothing in it referring

to acupuncture/moxa practice or anything professionally resembling

medical theory.

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Confucianism, while it had more institutional reality in the Han

> dynasty, is also very difficult to define. At the beginning of the

> Han dynasty, it was, in fact, not in favor with the imperial

family,

> and in general, its hodl on Chinese thought prior to the Song

> dynasty is far less strong the is popularly imagined. Much of what

> we attribute to Confucianism in early China is, in fact, just a

part

> of the broad cultural inheritance of the Chinese literati. A key

> example of this is the oft quoted Neijing passage discussing the

> organs in terms of government positions. Such arguments are common

> in all strains of Chinese thought and cannot be used to argue for

> Confucian influence.

 

A body politic representing the state was not important to Laoists

(which was Unschuld's point). Nor,was it important to early Daoist

religious movements which sought to distinguish themselves from the

imperial structure. Early Daoist community planning,in the Sichuan

valley, foremost concerned itself with astrological correspondences.

It was the strong Han Confucian influence of Dong Zhong shu and his

syncretic correlative philosophy, which led to the state-body-cosmos

metonymes.

Medical philosophy can also be found in the famous He Shang Gong

Han Daoist commentary on the Laozi. It does not, however, resemble

the Nei Jing/Su Wen in either scope, breadth or intention.

 

 

 

 

 

 

A good discussion of the not-clearly-Confucian

> nature of early Chinese culture can be found in the first few

> chapters of Peter Bol's book " This Culture of Ours. "

>

> All in all, I think the historical evidence indicates that

> Unschuld's division of CM into Confucian-influenced acupuncture and

> Daoist-influenced herbology is untenable.

 

Stephen,

I myself once, quite naively, sought to " prove " Unschuld's

theories as untenable. I was unable to find any textual evidence

linking early Daoists with a working interest in the development of

acupuncture/moxa. Have you read Unschuld's introductory work on the

Nei/Jing Su Wen? In it, he presents quite a few important points

linking the Confucain tradition with the development of this

professional literature. I am yet to hear of any criticism of these

ideas from the scholarly community. Although, Nathan Sivin has

suggested a careful eye, when approaching his work.

 

 

 

A much more nuanced view

> is necessary if we are going to understand the real history of

> Chinese medicine in relation to other strands of Chinese thought.

> Donald Harper's " Early Chinese Medical Literature " --which was

> mentioned in some other messages today--offers IMO a more

> historically accurate view.

 

I wonder why Donald Harper would put his name on the back of

Unschuld's newest book, if it wasn't historically accurate?

 

thanks for your thoughts,

matt

 

 

>

>

[Guest guest]

, " facteau8 " <facteau8> wrote:

 

>

> Stephen,

> I myself once, quite naively, sought to " prove " Unschuld's

> theories as untenable. I was unable to find any textual evidence

> linking early Daoists with a working interest in the development of

> acupuncture/moxa. Have you read Unschuld's introductory work on the

> Nei/Jing Su Wen? In it, he presents quite a few important points

> linking the Confucain tradition with the development of this

> professional literature. I am yet to hear of any criticism of these

> ideas from the scholarly community. Although, Nathan Sivin has

> suggested a careful eye, when approaching his work.

 

 

 

I wouldn't mind seeing this topic play out as long as it stays polite (which it

has so far). I

can assure everyone that Paul Unschuld couldn't care less whether anyone agrees

with him

or not. So let's not waste any time defending Paul's personal honor. He

relishes the

debate when he is present and welcomes any evidence to the contrary of his

thesis. I do

not have the scholarly depth myself to plumb this issue, so I will merely

continue to

suggest logical corrollaries or deficits of logic when they occur to me. Please

don't mistake

my musings for anything else but musings.

 

[Guest guest]

Matt,

 

> Stephen,

> I am having a difficult time understanding your point of view.

I

> am not sure how Unschuld's use of a convenient and often-utilized

> terminology, expresses anything at all about his understanding of

> Daoism and Confucianism in the Han.

 

If it doesn't then it should. Names are important and misuse of

names is one of the easiest ways to confuse oneself and others. If

there were no Daoists at all in the period being referred to, or--as

I am arguing--that the Daoists who were there didn't hold the ideas

which Unschuld attributes to them, then it is clearly wrong to use

the term Daoist to refer to those ideas.

 

If we want to argue that these ideas were part of a tradition that

later on was absorbed by Daoism, then we should say that clearly.

In fact, I do think that the tradition of the fangshi, which seems

to have contributed a great deal to Chinese herbal medicine,

especially in the period we are discussing, was laregly absorbed by

later Daoism. At the end of the Han, this had not yet happened, and

in the early to mid Han the fangshi were still known as fangshi. If

we want to say that their ideass influenced the development of early

Chinese medicine (a statement I support), then we shuold say just

that.

 

To say it was Daoism which influenced herbal medicine, on the basis

that the name " Daoism " is widely known, is to knowingly confuse the

situation. Note that I'm saying " confuse " . The picture of early

Chinese medical history which I am presenting is, I admit, more

complicated and less easily grasped than what Unschuld presents, but

I believe it is more accurate because of that complexity.

 

 

> Hmmm....Acupuncture and moxa use were prohibited in the early

> Celestial Masters movement. Magical talismans, recitation of the

> Laozi and confession of sins were the most often used methodology,

in

> healing the sick.

> How do these facts refute Unschuld's theory?

> What quotes do you refer to???

 

They undermine Unschuld's theory because he explicitly postulates

that the linkage of health and morality was a Confucian notion which

influenced the medicine of systematic correspondence (in the

Neijing) in its notion that if one behaved properly--in a socially

conservatie sense--illness could be completely avoided. I don't

personally know if any Confucians ever held this view, but the

Daoists of the Celestial Masters Daoists certainly did. Yet

according to Unschuld's theory, Daoists were not interested in

maintaining social norms, hence the appeal of herbal medicine which

held out the possibility of healing through special knowledge which

was not dependent on following social norms. See page 114 of

Medicine in China: A History of Ideas.

 

Interestingly, I think Unschuld came close to the mark in one

sense. The inheritors of the fangshi--who were not Daosits at this

point--were clearly interested in herbal medicine as yet another

form of " fang " ·½ (recipe or secret formula). Ge Hong--who it is

fairly clear did not consdier himself a Daoist (in spite of

personally knowing Daoists of his time)--is a classic example. His

Baopuzi ±§ÆÓ×Ó, the " Master who Embraces Simplicity " , became a

favorite text of Daoists, and contains sections on materia medica.

Ge Hong also wrote an influential collection of medical formulas--

the Zhouhou Beiji Fang Öâºó‚ä¼±·½, " Emergency Prescriptions to Keep

Up One's Sleeve " .

 

> A good introduction to early Daoism

> > is Stephen Bokenkamp's book " Early Daoist Scriptures. "

>

> I own this book and I have found little if nothing in it

referring

> to acupuncture/moxa practice or anything professionally resembling

> medical theory.

 

My argument is not about medical theory or clinical practice, it is

about medical history as it relates to the history of Chinese

religions. It is in the latter context that this book is extremely

informative. As I have said several times, my argument is

specifically against the association of Confucianism and Daoism with

acumoxa and herbology respectively.

 

> It was the strong Han Confucian influence of Dong Zhong shu and

his

> syncretic correlative philosophy, which led to the state-body-

cosmos

> metonymes.

 

I am aware of some of Dong Zhongshu's state as body metaphors, but I

was not aware that he was the earliest source for such ideas. Could

you provide a source for this assertion? If true it would provide

evidence that the body as empire metaphor of the Neijing does truly

reveal influence of Han dynasty Confucianism. It would not, IMO,

confirm that the entire enterprise of the Neijing and of the

medicine of systematic correspondence was primarily influenced by

Confucian thought.

 

Systematic correspondence, however, and even the medicine of

systematic correspondence predates Dong Zhongshu (195?-105? BCE).

The Shiji contains records of the practice of Chunyu Yi ´¾ÓÚÒâ, a

second century BCE physician. These records clearly indicate that

Chunyu Yi was using some form of systematic correspondence in his

medical practice. While it does not appear to be the same as that

found in the Neijing, it clearly is a medicine of systematic

correspondence. Such a system is not likely to have sprung up

overnight. That would push the date for the development of

systematic correspondence in medicine to at least the third century

BCE. The Zuozhuan, admittedly a difficult text to date¡ªbut

probably dating from the 4th century BCE and clearly pre-Han¡ª, even

includes a record, dated by the text to 541 BCE, of physician He

treating the marquis of Jin using a form of systematic

correspondence. I agree with Unschuld that the thorough use of

systematic correspondence in medicine is the most striking

characteristic of the Neijing, but systematic correspondence was

never owned exclusively by Han Confucians, and the evidence I have

presented above seems to indicate that the use of systematic

correspondence in medicine is far older than the Neijing and far

older than Confucianisms adoption of systematic correspondence (a

Han dynasty phenomenon).

 

> I myself once, quite naively, sought to " prove " Unschuld's

> theories as untenable. I was unable to find any textual evidence

> linking early Daoists with a working interest in the development

of

> acupuncture/moxa.

 

Were you na & iuml;ve or just displaying a healthy skepticism? As to

Daoists and acumoxa, I am not arguing that Daoism was a primary

influence on acumoxa or herbology I am arguing precisely that the

influence of Daoism and Confucianism on Chinese medical theory was

minimal for at least the Han through Tang dynasties. I have focused

my argument on the Han dynasty and its immediate aftermath because

this is the era in which the Neijing and Shennong Bencao Jing were

most likely composed. As a major part of my argument I am raising

questions about just who the two groups of people Unschuld

postulates¡ªDaoists and Confucians¡ªwere? I find little evidence

for the existence of two groups maintaining the points of view

Unschuld attributes to them.

 

Have you read Unschuld's introductory work on the

> Nei/Jing Su Wen? In it, he presents quite a few important points

> linking the Confucain tradition with the development of this

> professional literature. I am yet to hear of any criticism of

these

> ideas from the scholarly community. Although, Nathan Sivin has

> suggested a careful eye, when approaching his work.

 

I have not yet had a chance to study this book thoroughly, and it

may be that it contains evidence which will convince me that there

was more Confucian evidence on the Neijing than I believe there

was. Unless he has changed his fundamental thesis, I do not see how

any evidence he presents could substantially alter my view. There

is too much evidence against Unschuld's thesis for any new evidence

to contradict all of it.

 

> I wonder why Donald Harper would put his name on the back of

> Unschuld's newest book, if it wasn't historically accurate?

 

I would happily put my name on the back of one of Unschuld's book if

he asked me to do so. I would still think he was wrong on this

point, however .

 

Yours,

Stephen

[Guest guest]

, " steveboyanton " <steveboyanton@y=

....>

wrote:

 

> If we want to argue that these ideas were part of a tradition that

> later on was absorbed by Daoism, then we should say that clearly.

> In fact, I do think that the tradition of the fangshi, which seems

> to have contributed a great deal to Chinese herbal medicine,

> especially in the period we are discussing, was laregly absorbed by

> later Daoism. At the end of the Han, this had not yet happened, and

> in the early to mid Han the fangshi were still known as fangshi. If

> we want to say that their ideass influenced the development of early

> Chinese medicine (a statement I support), then we shuold say just

> that.

 

 

If this is true, then it was the fangshi who were really the original proto=

scientists of ancient

China, not the daoists. Which removes mysticism from the equation.

 

 

>

> Systematic correspondence, however, and even the medicine of

> systematic correspondence predates Dong Zhongshu (195?-105? BCE).

> The Shiji contains records of the practice of Chunyu Yi ´¾ÓÚÒâ, a

> second century BCE physician. These records clearly indicate that

> Chunyu Yi was using some form of systematic correspondence in his

> medical practice. While it does not appear to be the same as that

> found in the Neijing, it clearly is a medicine of systematic

> correspondence.

 

 

I should point out that systematic correspondence existed in Ayurveda about=

1000 years

before the nei jing. While historians indicate the main influx of indian t=

hought came much

later, I find it hard to believe that there was no cross cultural communica=

tion before time.

If one studies ayurveda, despite distinct diffrences with TCM, the use of h=

erbs according to

treatment principles is almost identical in practice and I think it likely =

that this much older

system influenced CM in some way. As some of you know, ayurveda also has a=

system of

points and channels that long predate China. While it is not clear if ther=

e was any transfer

of this knowledge, again it is interesting that these modalities and method=

s have a much

longer global pedigree than Chinese hx alone would suggest.

 

[Guest guest]

, " steveboyanton "

<steveboyanton> wrote:

 

>

> If it doesn't then it should. Names are important and misuse of

> names is one of the easiest ways to confuse oneself and others. If

> there were no Daoists at all in the period being referred to, or--

as

> I am arguing--that the Daoists who were there didn't hold the ideas

> which Unschuld attributes to them, then it is clearly wrong to use

> the term Daoist to refer to those ideas.

 

 

 

Stephen,

Paul Unschuld uses the term " Daoists " when referring to those

communities, whose philosophy adhered completely to the principles of

the Laozi. These were mystical groups. He differentiates between

Daoists and Huang-Lao thinkers in ways that are perhaps to

simplistic. Many scholars contribute the status of " Daoist " to the

Huang-Lao camp.

I have no problem with associating the term " Daoism " with certain

pre-han schools, simply because it is a widely accepted practice,

throughout Daoist scholarship. Livia Kohn has dedicated entire books

to the thesis of an almost pure continuity between early Daoist

mystical philosophy and religious practice.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> If we want to argue that these ideas were part of a tradition that

> later on was absorbed by Daoism, then we should say that clearly.

> In fact, I do think that the tradition of the fangshi, which seems

> to have contributed a great deal to Chinese herbal medicine,

 

 

What have the fangshi contributed to herbal medicine? From my

readings, they were mostly concerned with external alchemy, magic and

spirit communication. Our records of the fang-shi court attendants

during Emperor Wudi portray a troupe of warlocks promising

immortality.

 

 

 

 

> especially in the period we are discussing, was laregly absorbed by

> later Daoism. At the end of the Han, this had not yet happened,

and

> in the early to mid Han the fangshi were still known as fangshi.

If

> we want to say that their ideass influenced the development of

early

> Chinese medicine (a statement I support)

 

 

I don't think the fangshi had anything to do with the Nei Jing.

The mawangdui texts are more representative of the early Daoist

conceptions of illness.

 

 

 

 

, then we shuold say just

> that.

>

> To say it was Daoism which influenced herbal medicine, on the basis

> that the name " Daoism " is widely known, is to knowingly confuse the

> situation.

 

 

Who is doing that????

Our founding Herbal classic, the Shen Nong is full of

allusions to proto-Daoism.(Maybe you like that term better?)

Well, it can't get any more Daoist than Tao HongJing. It was from

him his family tradition and time-consuming textual work, that our

Herbal Classic came to be. Tao HongJing lived for months in a cave,

living on fu ling and honey. These are the sorts of people who were

very interested in the plants of the forest. They would often

abstain from grain, which basically is another way of saying normal

everyday food-stuff.

The continuity between immortality traditions and the beginnings

of herbalism also existed in early India. Old men would often leave

the home and wander into the forest to die at a certain ripe old age.

They often did this because of economic situations in the family.

Legend has it, many of then didn't die and learned to live of roots

and berries. They discovered which plants were poisons and which

were medicine. Sounds like Shen-Nong doesn't it!...well kinda.

 

I will be back to address the rest later. I can't hog the net all

night.

thanks for your thoughts,

matt

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Note that I'm saying " confuse " . The picture of early

> Chinese medical history which I am presenting is, I admit, more

> complicated and less easily grasped than what Unschuld presents,

but

> I believe it is more accurate because of that complexity.

>

>

> > Hmmm....Acupuncture and moxa use were prohibited in the early

> > Celestial Masters movement. Magical talismans, recitation of the

> > Laozi and confession of sins were the most often used

methodology,

> in

> > healing the sick.

> > How do these facts refute Unschuld's theory?

> > What quotes do you refer to???

>

> They undermine Unschuld's theory because he explicitly postulates

> that the linkage of health and morality was a Confucian notion

which

> influenced the medicine of systematic correspondence (in the

> Neijing) in its notion that if one behaved properly--in a socially

> conservatie sense--illness could be completely avoided. I don't

> personally know if any Confucians ever held this view, but the

> Daoists of the Celestial Masters Daoists certainly did. Yet

> according to Unschuld's theory, Daoists were not interested in

> maintaining social norms, hence the appeal of herbal medicine which

> held out the possibility of healing through special knowledge which

> was not dependent on following social norms. See page 114 of

> Medicine in China: A History of Ideas.

>

> Interestingly, I think Unschuld came close to the mark in one

> sense. The inheritors of the fangshi--who were not Daosits at this

> point--were clearly interested in herbal medicine as yet another

> form of " fang " ·½ (recipe or secret formula). Ge Hong--who it is

> fairly clear did not consdier himself a Daoist (in spite of

> personally knowing Daoists of his time)--is a classic example. His

> Baopuzi ±§ÆÓ×Ó, the " Master who Embraces Simplicity " , became a

> favorite text of Daoists, and contains sections on materia medica.

> Ge Hong also wrote an influential collection of medical formulas--

> the Zhouhou Beiji Fang Öâºó‚ä¼±·½, " Emergency Prescriptions to Keep

> Up One's Sleeve " .

>

> > A good introduction to early Daoism

> > > is Stephen Bokenkamp's book " Early Daoist Scriptures. "

> >

> > I own this book and I have found little if nothing in it

> referring

> > to acupuncture/moxa practice or anything professionally

resembling

> > medical theory.

>

> My argument is not about medical theory or clinical practice, it is

> about medical history as it relates to the history of Chinese

> religions. It is in the latter context that this book is extremely

> informative. As I have said several times, my argument is

> specifically against the association of Confucianism and Daoism

with

> acumoxa and herbology respectively.

>

> > It was the strong Han Confucian influence of Dong Zhong shu and

> his

> > syncretic correlative philosophy, which led to the state-body-

> cosmos

> > metonymes.

>

> I am aware of some of Dong Zhongshu's state as body metaphors, but

I

> was not aware that he was the earliest source for such ideas.

Could

> you provide a source for this assertion? If true it would provide

> evidence that the body as empire metaphor of the Neijing does truly

> reveal influence of Han dynasty Confucianism. It would not, IMO,

> confirm that the entire enterprise of the Neijing and of the

> medicine of systematic correspondence was primarily influenced by

> Confucian thought.

>

> Systematic correspondence, however, and even the medicine of

> systematic correspondence predates Dong Zhongshu (195?-105? BCE).

> The Shiji contains records of the practice of Chunyu Yi ´¾ÓÚÒâ, a

> second century BCE physician. These records clearly indicate that

> Chunyu Yi was using some form of systematic correspondence in his

> medical practice. While it does not appear to be the same as that

> found in the Neijing, it clearly is a medicine of systematic

> correspondence. Such a system is not likely to have sprung up

> overnight. That would push the date for the development of

> systematic correspondence in medicine to at least the third century

> BCE. The Zuozhuan, admittedly a difficult text to date¡ªbut

> probably dating from the 4th century BCE and clearly pre-Han¡ª,

even

> includes a record, dated by the text to 541 BCE, of physician He

> treating the marquis of Jin using a form of systematic

> correspondence. I agree with Unschuld that the thorough use of

> systematic correspondence in medicine is the most striking

> characteristic of the Neijing, but systematic correspondence was

> never owned exclusively by Han Confucians, and the evidence I have

> presented above seems to indicate that the use of systematic

> correspondence in medicine is far older than the Neijing and far

> older than Confucianisms adoption of systematic correspondence (a

> Han dynasty phenomenon).

>

> > I myself once, quite naively, sought to " prove " Unschuld's

> > theories as untenable. I was unable to find any textual evidence

> > linking early Daoists with a working interest in the development

> of

> > acupuncture/moxa.

>

> Were you na & iuml;ve or just displaying a healthy skepticism? As to

> Daoists and acumoxa, I am not arguing that Daoism was a primary

> influence on acumoxa or herbology I am arguing precisely that the

> influence of Daoism and Confucianism on Chinese medical theory was

> minimal for at least the Han through Tang dynasties. I have

focused

> my argument on the Han dynasty and its immediate aftermath because

> this is the era in which the Neijing and Shennong Bencao Jing were

> most likely composed. As a major part of my argument I am raising

> questions about just who the two groups of people Unschuld

> postulates¡ªDaoists and Confucians¡ªwere? I find little evidence

> for the existence of two groups maintaining the points of view

> Unschuld attributes to them.

>

> Have you read Unschuld's introductory work on the

> > Nei/Jing Su Wen? In it, he presents quite a few important points

> > linking the Confucain tradition with the development of this

> > professional literature. I am yet to hear of any criticism of

> these

> > ideas from the scholarly community. Although, Nathan Sivin has

> > suggested a careful eye, when approaching his work.

>

> I have not yet had a chance to study this book thoroughly, and it

> may be that it contains evidence which will convince me that there

> was more Confucian evidence on the Neijing than I believe there

> was. Unless he has changed his fundamental thesis, I do not see

how

> any evidence he presents could substantially alter my view. There

> is too much evidence against Unschuld's thesis for any new evidence

> to contradict all of it.

>

> > I wonder why Donald Harper would put his name on the back of

> > Unschuld's newest book, if it wasn't historically accurate?

>

> I would happily put my name on the back of one of Unschuld's book

if

> he asked me to do so. I would still think he was wrong on this

> point, however .

>

> Yours,

> Stephen

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote=

:

> , " steveboyanton " <steveboyanton=

@y=

> ...>

> wrote:

>

> > If we want to argue that these ideas were part of a tradition that

> > later on was absorbed by Daoism, then we should say that clearly.

> > In fact, I do think that the tradition of the fangshi, which seems

> > to have contributed a great deal to Chinese herbal medicine,

> > especially in the period we are discussing, was laregly absorbed by

> > later Daoism. At the end of the Han, this had not yet happened, and

> > in the early to mid Han the fangshi were still known as fangshi. If

> > we want to say that their ideass influenced the development of early

> > Chinese medicine (a statement I support), then we shuold say just

> > that.

>

>

> If this is true, then it was the fangshi who were really the original pro=

to=

> scientists of ancient

> China, not the daoists. Which removes mysticism from the equation.

>

 

 

 

The fang-shi were magical practitioners. The Nei Jing is fairly=

secular and if

anything it could be considered spiritual in certain chapters. Confucians =

were very

interested in self-cultivation, and Mencian literature contains all sorts o=

f psycho-

physiological intersts. Mencius refers to flood-like qi, which rushes his =

body when he

establishes oneness with Heaven and Earth.

While Daoism is mystical and religious, Confucianism is a spiritu=

al philosophy of

life. I think, natural Philosophers with Confucian leanings and elite prof=

essional imperial

Doctors most directly influenced the composition of the Nei Jing.

 

some thoughts,

matt

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> >

> > Systematic correspondence, however, and even the medicine of

> > systematic correspondence predates Dong Zhongshu (195?-105? BCE).

> > The Shiji contains records of the practice of Chunyu Yi ´¾ÓÚÒâ, a

> > second century BCE physician. These records clearly indicate that

> > Chunyu Yi was using some form of systematic correspondence in his

> > medical practice. While it does not appear to be the same as that

> > found in the Neijing, it clearly is a medicine of systematic

> > correspondence.

>

>

> I should point out that systematic correspondence existed in Ayurveda abo=

ut=

> 1000 years

> before the nei jing. While historians indicate the main influx of indian=

t=

> hought came much

> later, I find it hard to believe that there was no cross cultural communi=

ca=

> tion before time.

> If one studies ayurveda, despite distinct diffrences with TCM, the use of=

h=

> erbs according to

> treatment principles is almost identical in practice and I think it likel=

y =

> that this much older

> system influenced CM in some way. As some of you know, ayurveda also has=

a=

> system of

> points and channels that long predate China. While it is not clear if th=

er=

> e was any transfer

> of this knowledge, again it is interesting that these modalities and meth=

od=

> s have a much

> longer global pedigree than Chinese hx alone would suggest.

>

 

[Guest guest]

,

>

> > Hmmm....Acupuncture and moxa use were prohibited in the early

> > Celestial Masters movement. Magical talismans, recitation of the

> > Laozi and confession of sins were the most often used

methodology,

> in

> > healing the sick.

> > How do these facts refute Unschuld's theory?

> > What quotes do you refer to???

>

> They undermine Unschuld's theory because he explicitly postulates

> that the linkage of health and morality was a Confucian notion

which

> influenced the medicine of systematic correspondence (in the

> Neijing) in its notion that if one behaved properly--in a socially

> conservatie sense--illness could be completely avoided. I don't

> personally know if any Confucians ever held this view, but the

> Daoists of the Celestial Masters Daoists certainly did. Yet

> according to Unschuld's theory, Daoists were not interested in

> maintaining social norms, hence the appeal of herbal medicine

which

> held out the possibility of healing through special knowledge

which

> was not dependent on following social norms.

 

 

 

Stephen,

The Celestial Masters sect did not emphasize socio-political

correlative thought in their somatic mythography. Their views of

the body sharply contrast the physiological modeling in the Nei-

Jing. In fact, needling therapy was not considered very useful for

healing.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

See page 114 of

> Medicine in China: A History of Ideas.

>

> Interestingly, I think Unschuld came close to the mark in one

> sense. The inheritors of the fangshi--who were not Daosits at

this

> point--were clearly interested in herbal medicine as yet another

> form of " fang " ·½ (recipe or secret formula). Ge Hong--who it is

> fairly clear did not consdier himself a Daoist (in spite of

> personally knowing Daoists of his time)

 

 

Hmmm, in all my books on the history of Daoism, Ge Hong is

considered one of the foremost important historical characters in

Daoism. Ge Hong was from a family of alchemical masters. Ge Xuan-a

most famous Alchemist- was his granduncle. Ge Hong belonged to the

Gold Elixir tradition and directly recieved the highest of Daoist

honors: direct scriptural transmissions. Consider his own words in

his essay " Gold and Cinnabar " .... " These texts were originally in

the hand of Zou Fangyuan and were later transmitted to my

granduncle. They were later passed down to Zheng Yin who, in turn,

transmitted to me. No other Daoists have seen these texts. "

Ge Hong left his family and home near the end of his life with

some of his nephews an apprentices and sought out the Dao in

seclusion. He was never seen again. He was an Herbalist and his

wife was a Moxa specialist.

 

 

 

 

 

--is a classic example. His

> Baopuzi ±§ÆÓ×Ó, the " Master who Embraces Simplicity " , became a

> favorite text of Daoists, and contains sections on materia

medica.

> Ge Hong also wrote an influential collection of medical formulas--

> the Zhouhou Beiji Fang Öâºó‚ä¼±·½, " Emergency Prescriptions to

Keep

> Up One's Sleeve " .

>

> > A good introduction to early Daoism

> > > is Stephen Bokenkamp's book " Early Daoist Scriptures. "

> >

> > I own this book and I have found little if nothing in it

> referring

> > to acupuncture/moxa practice or anything professionally

resembling

> > medical theory.

>

> My argument is not about medical theory or clinical practice, it

is

> about medical history as it relates to the history of Chinese

> religions. It is in the latter context that this book is

extremely

> informative. As I have said several times, my argument is

> specifically against the association of Confucianism and Daoism

with

> acumoxa and herbology respectively.

>

> > It was the strong Han Confucian influence of Dong Zhong shu

and

> his

> > syncretic correlative philosophy, which led to the state-body-

> cosmos

> > metonymes.

>

> I am aware of some of Dong Zhongshu's state as body metaphors, but

I

> was not aware that he was the earliest source for such ideas.

Could

> you provide a source for this assertion?

 

 

Dong Zhongshu institutionalized systematic correspondence and was

the first to correlate human emotions and moral attributes with the

5 phases. He attributed 5 directions, four seasons, and the notion

of mutual production to the 5 phase system.

In the famous Han Confucian imperial meetings recorded in the

Bai Hu Tung or White Tiger Hall, a unique model of systematic

correspondence is agreed upon. It diverges from the Huainanzi in

key ways, and it became the model by which the authors of the Nei

Jing drew upon most directly.

 

more later,

matt

 

 

 

 

If true it would provide

> evidence that the body as empire metaphor of the Neijing does

truly

> reveal influence of Han dynasty Confucianism. It would not, IMO,

> confirm that the entire enterprise of the Neijing and of the

> medicine of systematic correspondence was primarily influenced by

> Confucian thought

>

> Systematic correspondence, however, and even the medicine of

> systematic correspondence predates Dong Zhongshu (195?-105?

BCE).

> The Shiji contains records of the practice of Chunyu Yi ´¾ÓÚÒâ, a

> second century BCE physician. These records clearly indicate that

> Chunyu Yi was using some form of systematic correspondence in his

> medical practice. While it does not appear to be the same as that

> found in the Neijing, it clearly is a medicine of systematic

> correspondence. Such a system is not likely to have sprung up

> overnight. That would push the date for the development of

> systematic correspondence in medicine to at least the third

century

> BCE. The Zuozhuan, admittedly a difficult text to date¡ªbut

> probably dating from the 4th century BCE and clearly pre-Han¡ª,

even

> includes a record, dated by the text to 541 BCE, of physician He

> treating the marquis of Jin using a form of systematic

> correspondence. I agree with Unschuld that the thorough use of

> systematic correspondence in medicine is the most striking

> characteristic of the Neijing, but systematic correspondence was

> never owned exclusively by Han Confucians, and the evidence I have

> presented above seems to indicate that the use of systematic

> correspondence in medicine is far older than the Neijing and far

> older than Confucianisms adoption of systematic correspondence (a

> Han dynasty phenomenon).

>

> > I myself once, quite naively, sought to " prove " Unschuld's

> > theories as untenable. I was unable to find any textual

evidence

> > linking early Daoists with a working interest in the development

> of

> > acupuncture/moxa.

>

> Were you na & iuml;ve or just displaying a healthy skepticism? As

to

> Daoists and acumoxa, I am not arguing that Daoism was a primary

> influence on acumoxa or herbology I am arguing precisely that the

> influence of Daoism and Confucianism on Chinese medical theory was

> minimal for at least the Han through Tang dynasties. I have

focused

> my argument on the Han dynasty and its immediate aftermath because

> this is the era in which the Neijing and Shennong Bencao Jing

were

> most likely composed. As a major part of my argument I am raising

> questions about just who the two groups of people Unschuld

> postulates¡ªDaoists and Confucians¡ªwere? I find little evidence

> for the existence of two groups maintaining the points of view

> Unschuld attributes to them.

>

> Have you read Unschuld's introductory work on the

> > Nei/Jing Su Wen? In it, he presents quite a few important

points

> > linking the Confucain tradition with the development of this

> > professional literature. I am yet to hear of any criticism of

> these

> > ideas from the scholarly community. Although, Nathan Sivin has

> > suggested a careful eye, when approaching his work.

>

> I have not yet had a chance to study this book thoroughly, and it

> may be that it contains evidence which will convince me that there

> was more Confucian evidence on the Neijing than I believe there

> was. Unless he has changed his fundamental thesis, I do not see

how

> any evidence he presents could substantially alter my view. There

> is too much evidence against Unschuld's thesis for any new

evidence

> to contradict all of it.

>

> > I wonder why Donald Harper would put his name on the back of

> > Unschuld's newest book, if it wasn't historically accurate?

>

> I would happily put my name on the back of one of Unschuld's book

if

> he asked me to do so. I would still think he was wrong on this

> point, however .

>

> Yours,

> Stephen