The spiritual tradition of CM

[Guest guest]

I have been checking in my broadcast of Heiner Fruehauf over the past

two days (how coincidentally appropriate for xmas). Heiner presents a

bonafide strain of the spiritual tradition of CM. I say bonafide as

it was passed to him by a number of teachers (several whom I have met

personally) and involves deep scholarship in the process of decoding

classical symbology. It is definitely not MSU or should I say not

21st century MSU. I have no doubt that much medicine thru history was

strongly influenced and bound up with religion, mysticism, etc. It is

human nature to look for something greater than oneself (science is

also that pursuit, BTW).

 

However, to keep things in perspective, we today also live in a world

where many critical decisions are starting to bind up with religion

again, with both the US and the middle east showing distinct

fundamentalist streaks. So for those who would question the validity

of relgious thinking in this arena, ask yourselves why it would have

been any different at any other time in history in any other area of

knowledge. Just because huge numbers of people have d to

irrational beliefs (largely responsible for most of the misery of

history) does not lend credence to those beliefs. In other words, the

existence of mystically oriented sects within CM is no surprise but

also meaningless. It is like saying any method of healing is valid

just because it exists. Circular logic. While I find Heiner's

perspective fascinating, it is more because it helps me gain insight

into the workings of the religious mind, not because it gives me any

clinical insight.

 

I would still urge people to remember that the dominant perspective

and main cultural thrust of literate chinese was rational and even

distinctly antimystical. The ideas espoused by Heiner have always

been at the margins of chinese society and in some ways reflect Joseph

Needham's characterization of early Daoists as generally motivated by

antiestablishment tendencies like 60's hippies. Now one can certainly

embrace such a philosophy (I once did), but one should know what one

is embracing. Heiner would claim that one cannot understand what he

is talking about unless one is able to decode the classics (with a

certain preconception, I must add) or to just act on faith in him or

his teachers as they guide you through personal expereinces that will

ultimately convince you on a deeply felt level. However, while I

believe all involved are well intentioned, a modern psychologist might

suggest that what is actually going on is sort of a group hypnosis.

Induce a state of high suggestibility through light diet, meditation

and qi gong and then earnestly teach your doctrines. It is no

surprise one walks away from this experience with a deeply felt sense

of whatever has been instilled. But does that make it real or

illusion and what is the difference. But, however well intentioned, it

has always struck me to be a kindler, gentler brainwashing (in fact,

teachers explicitly speak of clearing away the old and replacing it

with the new, true ideas, a common theme in my daoist i ching, BTW).

 

On this xmas day, excuse my cynicism, but it was chosen by design. My

cosmological views are influenced largely by Buddhism. And also by

the works of Ken Wilber. While I believe that there may be something

noncorporeal that is immortal, I agree with Wilber that one of the

greatest errors in thought is to confound the eyes of the flesh, mind

and spirit. In other words, the study of physics tells you nothing

about meditative states on an experiential level, but conversely

meditative states yield no real data about the nature of human

physiology or the physical universe (you might think they do, but

Wilber's proof is that most such ideas derived from insight have

turned out to be wrong - the sun does not revolve around the earth).

While certain general rules may refer to all levels of reality such as

yin and yang, there are specifics that vary greatly. God is not a

quark and health and disease are not influenced by a connection to god

(meditative techniques in atheists are just as effective as in

believers or as in prayer, demonstrating it is the state induced by

concentration and other variables, not any connection to transcendant

power that is at play here).

 

As for decoding the symbology of the nei jing or the cabala or the

vedas, all I can say is take a look around. Cabala (however you want

to spell it) is a perfect example. The jewish community is up in arms

over the hollywood embrace of cabala. The hollywood crowd is making a

big fuss about the symbology, but I would suspect that those with

deeper knowledge of Cabala than Madonna or Britney (yes indeed) might

dispute their intepretation and use (abuse?) of this tradition. The

point is that when it comes to mystical symbology, there is no limit

to possible interpetations (which is in part why mysticism has been

embraced by so many in different eras and cultures, including many

daoist sects who then put their spin on medicine, IMO, not

vice-versa). So while I also pursue a path, so to speak, my insight,

no doubt colored by my preconceptions, is that so-called mystical

symbology is a distraction and an illusion and thus has no place in

medicine.

 

My perspective is colored by secular judaism and personal study of

classical buddhist writings as well as zen and vipassana meditation. I

have found the theravada philosophy of buddhism to be quite in sync

with ideas I have expressed here previously on the topic of science

and religion, rationalism and whatever else. You can have a spiritual

perspective that rejects the intermingling of mysticism and medicine

just as you can have one that embraces it and this idea is not new. I

believe Chinese culture and the history of chinese medicine was

dominated by this perspective as many confucian docs were also daoists

or buddhists. But I think the fact that they did not generally let

that intrude on their medical thinking should be an example to us all.

This is no communist abberation. History is the unfolding of the Dao

and who are we to say it went awry. A religious romantic will always

be looking for a way to reject modernity and reinstate whatever

perceived paradise has been lost. I see no evidence that said

paradise ever existed. Myths of yearning, not tales of history.

Change is the only constant.

 

Happy Holidays

 

[Guest guest]

so what is your point?

Later

Mike W. Bowser, L Ac

 

> " " <

>

>

> The spiritual tradition of CM

>Sat, 25 Dec 2004 20:35:00 -0000

>

>

>I have been checking in my broadcast of Heiner Fruehauf over the past

>two days (how coincidentally appropriate for xmas). Heiner presents a

>bonafide strain of the spiritual tradition of CM. I say bonafide as

>it was passed to him by a number of teachers (several whom I have met

>personally) and involves deep scholarship in the process of decoding

>classical symbology. It is definitely not MSU or should I say not

>21st century MSU. I have no doubt that much medicine thru history was

>strongly influenced and bound up with religion, mysticism, etc. It is

>human nature to look for something greater than oneself (science is

>also that pursuit, BTW).

>

>However, to keep things in perspective, we today also live in a world

>where many critical decisions are starting to bind up with religion

>again, with both the US and the middle east showing distinct

>fundamentalist streaks. So for those who would question the validity

>of relgious thinking in this arena, ask yourselves why it would have

>been any different at any other time in history in any other area of

>knowledge. Just because huge numbers of people have d to

>irrational beliefs (largely responsible for most of the misery of

>history) does not lend credence to those beliefs. In other words, the

>existence of mystically oriented sects within CM is no surprise but

>also meaningless. It is like saying any method of healing is valid

>just because it exists. Circular logic. While I find Heiner's

>perspective fascinating, it is more because it helps me gain insight

>into the workings of the religious mind, not because it gives me any

>clinical insight.

>

>I would still urge people to remember that the dominant perspective

>and main cultural thrust of literate chinese was rational and even

>distinctly antimystical. The ideas espoused by Heiner have always

>been at the margins of chinese society and in some ways reflect Joseph

>Needham's characterization of early Daoists as generally motivated by

>antiestablishment tendencies like 60's hippies. Now one can certainly

>embrace such a philosophy (I once did), but one should know what one

>is embracing. Heiner would claim that one cannot understand what he

>is talking about unless one is able to decode the classics (with a

>certain preconception, I must add) or to just act on faith in him or

>his teachers as they guide you through personal expereinces that will

>ultimately convince you on a deeply felt level. However, while I

>believe all involved are well intentioned, a modern psychologist might

>suggest that what is actually going on is sort of a group hypnosis.

>Induce a state of high suggestibility through light diet, meditation

>and qi gong and then earnestly teach your doctrines. It is no

>surprise one walks away from this experience with a deeply felt sense

>of whatever has been instilled. But does that make it real or

>illusion and what is the difference. But, however well intentioned, it

>has always struck me to be a kindler, gentler brainwashing (in fact,

>teachers explicitly speak of clearing away the old and replacing it

>with the new, true ideas, a common theme in my daoist i ching, BTW).

>

>On this xmas day, excuse my cynicism, but it was chosen by design. My

>cosmological views are influenced largely by Buddhism. And also by

>the works of Ken Wilber. While I believe that there may be something

>noncorporeal that is immortal, I agree with Wilber that one of the

>greatest errors in thought is to confound the eyes of the flesh, mind

>and spirit. In other words, the study of physics tells you nothing

>about meditative states on an experiential level, but conversely

>meditative states yield no real data about the nature of human

>physiology or the physical universe (you might think they do, but

>Wilber's proof is that most such ideas derived from insight have

>turned out to be wrong - the sun does not revolve around the earth).

>While certain general rules may refer to all levels of reality such as

>yin and yang, there are specifics that vary greatly. God is not a

>quark and health and disease are not influenced by a connection to god

>(meditative techniques in atheists are just as effective as in

>believers or as in prayer, demonstrating it is the state induced by

>concentration and other variables, not any connection to transcendant

>power that is at play here).

>

>As for decoding the symbology of the nei jing or the cabala or the

>vedas, all I can say is take a look around. Cabala (however you want

>to spell it) is a perfect example. The jewish community is up in arms

>over the hollywood embrace of cabala. The hollywood crowd is making a

>big fuss about the symbology, but I would suspect that those with

>deeper knowledge of Cabala than Madonna or Britney (yes indeed) might

>dispute their intepretation and use (abuse?) of this tradition. The

>point is that when it comes to mystical symbology, there is no limit

>to possible interpetations (which is in part why mysticism has been

>embraced by so many in different eras and cultures, including many

>daoist sects who then put their spin on medicine, IMO, not

>vice-versa). So while I also pursue a path, so to speak, my insight,

>no doubt colored by my preconceptions, is that so-called mystical

>symbology is a distraction and an illusion and thus has no place in

>medicine.

>

>My perspective is colored by secular judaism and personal study of

>classical buddhist writings as well as zen and vipassana meditation. I

>have found the theravada philosophy of buddhism to be quite in sync

>with ideas I have expressed here previously on the topic of science

>and religion, rationalism and whatever else. You can have a spiritual

>perspective that rejects the intermingling of mysticism and medicine

>just as you can have one that embraces it and this idea is not new. I

>believe Chinese culture and the history of chinese medicine was

>dominated by this perspective as many confucian docs were also daoists

>or buddhists. But I think the fact that they did not generally let

>that intrude on their medical thinking should be an example to us all.

> This is no communist abberation. History is the unfolding of the Dao

>and who are we to say it went awry. A religious romantic will always

>be looking for a way to reject modernity and reinstate whatever

>perceived paradise has been lost. I see no evidence that said

>paradise ever existed. Myths of yearning, not tales of history.

>Change is the only constant.

>

>Happy Holidays

>

>Todd

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

At 8:35 PM +0000 12/25/04, wrote:

>While I find Heiner's

>perspective fascinating, it is more because it helps me gain insight

>into the workings of the religious mind, not because it gives me any

>clinical insight.

--

 

I've just watched the Fruehauf lecture, and my impression is

that, when you boil it down, all he is advocating is the deep study

of the I Ching and Huang Di Nei Jing, in order to cultivate the

practitioner's heart/shen. He suggests that this will help develop

greater insight into the medicine, and into patients with complex

diseases, and that as a consequence you will be more effective as a

doctor. This seems consistent with the recommendations in the Nei

Jing itself, and many of our most well known physicians since then.

Their seems to be agreement that if you want to understand and

practice Chinese medicine at the highest level of your abilities, you

should study the I Ching.

 

I don't know Heiner Fruehauf, so I can't say if he makes this a

religious practice, but deep study of the classics, including the

symbolism of the I Ching, doesn't seem to be necessarily religious to

me, more a means of personal development. Of course, this can be done

in a religious context, and described with religious language, but is

it necessarily a religious undertaking?

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I'll have to listen more carefully again to Heiner's talk, which I also

found inspiring. However, he clearly is influenced by the teachings

of Rudolf Steiner, which I know he has studied in the past. That is

fine with me, but we need to realize that many Western teachers color

their Chinese medicine with their particular spiritual or philosophical

perspective . I am just as 'guilty' of that as anyone. I am inspired

by my Jewish tradition, and it shows in my work. However, recently

I've come to realize that Chinese medicine needs to stand independently

of these perspectives, even as it inspires many of us. I agree with here. I think people's perspectives are unavoidably colored by

their culture and upbringing. As long as we know that, it's ok.

 

On the other hand. I agree with Rory and Heiner on the issue of

studying the classics . Those physicians who study the Yi Jing and

other classics do so to improve their judgment, i.e. their ability to

think in a clear fashion and improve their diagnosis and clinical

strategies. Chinese medicine is largely a way of thinking, a method of

logic, and by studying the classical texts, we learn how to internalize

and apply this logic.

 

It is very difficult to understand and internalize Han dynasty and

Jin-yuan dynasty mind-sets, but I think we need to understand the

mentality from which the Nan Jing, SHL, and, later, Pi Wei Lun came

from. I think it greatly enriches the teaching and practice of Chinese

medicine.

 

 

On Dec 27, 2004, at 5:31 AM, Rory Kerr wrote:

 

> At 8:35 PM +0000 12/25/04, wrote:

> >While I find Heiner's

> >perspective fascinating, it is more because it helps me gain insight

> >into the workings of the religious mind, not because it gives me any

> >clinical insight.

> --

>

> I've just watched the Fruehauf lecture, and my impression is

> that, when you boil it down, all he is advocating is the deep study

> of the I Ching and Huang Di Nei Jing, in order to cultivate the

> practitioner's heart/shen. He suggests that this will help develop

> greater insight into the medicine, and into patients with complex

> diseases, and that as a consequence you will be more effective as a

> doctor. This seems consistent with the recommendations in the Nei

> Jing itself, and many of our most well known physicians since then.

> Their seems to be agreement that if you want to understand and

> practice Chinese medicine at the highest level of your abilities, you

> should study the I Ching.

>

> I don't know Heiner Fruehauf, so I can't say if he makes this a

> religious practice, but deep study of the classics, including the

> symbolism of the I Ching, doesn't seem to be necessarily religious to

> me, more a means of personal development. Of course, this can be done

> in a religious context, and described with religious language, but is

> it necessarily a religious undertaking?

>

> Rory

> --

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

Although I have met Heiner, briefly, I know you actually have studied

or worked with him in clinic. Could you please tell us more about

Heiner's personal history and also about your experiences of how he

practices? I think this is important information we all need in

assessing Heiner's more theoretical statements and putting his

statements into perspective. If one speaks in public or publishes,

then everything about their practice is open to public scrutiny and

review.

 

Bob