Guest guest Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 I've read many of the long tomes of discourse on this forum about the classic literature in Chinese - how all acupuncturists worth their weight should be able to read them, and only those able to do so may hope for a sound practice based on the ancient dicta. Since my first post on the topic I was simply wondering if any of those who are so educated could confirm whether there is reference to the use of one needle as the sign of the superior practitioner. In school there was but one English speaker who was able to allude to the classic texts with some amount of scholasticism. I was, as were the vast majority of my classmates, rapt in those lectures. This post and my previous posts are meant to simply try and confirm one small dictum that I took to heart from this lecturer. I certainly am not defending Robert Johns nor do I wish to defend any stand on the classics: to-know-or-not-to-know controversy. I simply wish to be the best clinician I can be. Albeit using one needle successfully would most likely exist only in the rarified aerie of a most superior practitioner. But still, if that is true, and a rational goal, I would like to know it. Or perhaps I just learned what I heard too literally. As a recovering Catholic, I've fallen far from the tree of the Bible as gospel. I do not believe you can take what is in the Bible literally. If it is possible to make an analogy of interpreting the classics along the lines of how one interprets the Bible, then I am fully ready to dispense with 'one needle technique as the sign of the superior practitioner' as adulterated hogwash. (Depending on who the translator was, of course.) So, Zev, I was not comparing your take on it to Robert Johns take on it. I'm still just trying to know what the classics say. -p >>>Robert Johns is entitled to his opinion, and interpretation. But it ain't necessarily so. . . it depends on the case, situation, era, etc. On May 25, 2007, at 10:59 PM, Pamela Zilavy wrote: > Zev, that is exactly NOT the context of what Robert Johns was > talking about. The classics evidently say that the most highly > skilled doctor will use that ONE needle which will cut to the core > so to speak, and cure the patient. No matter how many symptoms or > signs. Pamela Zilavy, L.Ac. chexin http://www.change-exchange-interchange.com 415) 279-8376 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted May 29, 2007 Report Share Posted May 29, 2007 Pamela, Sometimes the e-mail format distorts intentions and creates arguments that weren't meant to be. I only mentioned one-needle acupuncture as an example of a seminar given in San Diego several years ago along with several other lectures on other topics that played to the choir of the more new age, spirit-seeking approach. I never meant to imply that using one needle is not a possible method, or to begin a discussion on the merits or demerits of such a method. But a lot of this stuff is marketing, and I seriously doubt that every patient can be cured of a spiritual disorder by using one needle. That's all. The Nei Jing corpus, to me, is not like the Bible. It is a heterogeneous text, with several different, often seemingly contradicting philosophies and approaches, with modifications over the centuries. I've never seen a complete translation that has done it justice, and I have over a dozen. Paul Unschuld and Hermann Tessanow will be publishing a Su Wen dictionary in the fall that should give some idea as to the complexity and depth of the knowledge contained within, so at this point, it is difficult to know what is an accurate reading or interpretation of the text. I don't know the passage in the Nei Jing that mentions one-needle acupuncture, On May 29, 2007, at 12:33 PM, Pamela Zilavy wrote: > I've read many of the long tomes of discourse on this forum about > the classic literature in Chinese - how all acupuncturists worth > their weight should be able to read them, and only those able to do > so may hope for a sound practice based on the ancient dicta. Since > my first post on the topic I was simply wondering if any of those > who are so educated could confirm whether there is reference to the > use of one needle as the sign of the superior practitioner. > In school there was but one English speaker who was able to allude > to the classic texts with some amount of scholasticism. I was, as > were the vast majority of my classmates, rapt in those lectures. > This post and my previous posts are meant to simply try and confirm > one small dictum that I took to heart from this lecturer. I > certainly am not defending Robert Johns nor do I wish to defend any > stand on the classics: to-know-or-not-to-know controversy. I simply > wish to be the best clinician I can be. Albeit using one needle > successfully would most likely exist only in the rarified aerie of > a most superior practitioner. But still, if that is true, and a > rational goal, I would like to know it. Or perhaps I just learned > what I heard too literally. > As a recovering Catholic, I've fallen far from the tree of the > Bible as gospel. I do not believe you can take what is in the Bible > literally. If it is possible to make an analogy of interpreting the > classics along the lines of how one interprets the Bible, then I am > fully ready to dispense with 'one needle technique as the sign of > the superior practitioner' as adulterated hogwash. (Depending on > who the translator was, of course.) > > So, Zev, I was not comparing your take on it to Robert Johns take > on it. I'm still just trying to know what the classics say. > -p > > > >>>Robert Johns is entitled to his opinion, and interpretation. But it > ain't necessarily so. . . it depends on the case, situation, era, etc. > > > On May 25, 2007, at 10:59 PM, Pamela Zilavy wrote: > > > Zev, that is exactly NOT the context of what Robert Johns was > > talking about. The classics evidently say that the most highly > > skilled doctor will use that ONE needle which will cut to the core > > so to speak, and cure the patient. No matter how many symptoms or > > signs. > > Pamela Zilavy, L.Ac. > chexin > http://www.change-exchange-interchange.com > 415) 279-8376 > > 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.