Guest guest Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Does anyone know how long JR Worsley studied in Asia, and did he speak Chinese? -Jason Acupuncture www.ChineseMedicinedoc.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 10, 2009 Report Share Posted August 10, 2009 Dr. Worsley studied in Taiwan with Wu Wei-Ping, who wrote a book on five phase acupuncture, for how long I don't know. He didn't speak Chinese apparently. On Aug 10, 2009, at 6:57 PM, wrote: > Does anyone know how long JR Worsley studied in Asia, and did he speak > Chinese? > > -Jason > > Acupuncture > > > > www.ChineseMedicinedoc.com > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Jason, My first acupuncture teacher was the late " Dr. " Eric Xi-yu Tao. He said he was Worsley's translator in Taiwan when Worsley studied with Wu Wei-ping. According to Dr. Tao, Worsley was only there a matter of a couple of weeks. Unfortunately, Dr. Tao passed away last year or we could ask him more about this. Bob , " " wrote: > > Does anyone know how long JR Worsley studied in Asia, and did he speak > Chinese? > > > > -Jason Acupuncture > > > > > > > www.ChineseMedicinedoc.com > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Jason, Sorry, I forgot to add, Worsley most definitely did not speak or read Chinese. Bob , " " wrote: > > Does anyone know how long JR Worsley studied in Asia, and did he speak > Chinese? > > > > -Jason Acupuncture > > > > > > > www.ChineseMedicinedoc.com > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 If you study Worsley's acupuncture, you can see it has traces of the French system that Soulie De Morant had and a lot of Japanese methods like Akabane... On Tue, Aug 11, 2009 at 11:05 AM, Bob Flaws <bob wrote: > Jason, > > My first acupuncture teacher was the late " Dr. " Eric Xi-yu Tao. He said he > was Worsley's translator in Taiwan when Worsley studied with Wu Wei-ping. > According to Dr. Tao, Worsley was only there a matter of a couple of weeks. > Unfortunately, Dr. Tao passed away last year or we could ask him more about > this. > > Bob > > -- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 11, 2009 Report Share Posted August 11, 2009 Thanks Bob et al, Very interesting. -Jason On Behalf Of Bob Flaws Tuesday, August 11, 2009 12:05 PM Re: JR Jason, My first acupuncture teacher was the late " Dr. " Eric Xi-yu Tao. He said he was Worsley's translator in Taiwan when Worsley studied with Wu Wei-ping. According to Dr. Tao, Worsley was only there a matter of a couple of weeks. Unfortunately, Dr. Tao passed away last year or we could ask him more about this. Bob Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 12, 2009 Report Share Posted August 12, 2009 Jason, Peter Eckman attempted to untangle the various influences on JR's development of Leamington Acupuncture (LA) in his book In the Footsteps of the Yellow Emperor. Because Peter was a student of JR (I believe), this book is, IMO, a bit of a partisan apologia. I think it skirts some of the real issues with JR and his teachings. Nevertheless, it does fill in some of the history. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 , " Bob Flaws " <bob wrote: > > Jason, > > Sorry, I forgot to add, Worsley most definitely did not speak or read Chinese. The Worsley system of " Classical Chinese Acupuncture " is one of the most divisive things in our field. In every Western country, we see something of a war between " TCM " and " Five-Element. " It is a subject that is difficult to discuss, because essentially the Worsley camp is faith-based rather than being based on primary sources. Many people would love to write about this topic, but basically it is untouchable. To question Worsley is akin to questioning the Pope. People would get very upset, potential customers and colleagues could be alienated, and any practitioner that pointed out that the Emperor here is wearing no clothes would risk a major backlash from certain segments of the community. Therefore, I wouldn't like to get too involved in such a discussion. However, I will offer a few observations: 1) Most people that pursue a traditional, lineage-based system with a master are quick to credit their sources, to honor their teacher. The typical style is to say " my teacher is X-YZ, he came from Hunan, he is a great master, I was his humble student who was fortunate to carry on the lineage. " In the JR Worsley system, it is all about JR himself. It is not about his teacher, not about the classics, not about the lineage. This is highly unusual for an authentic recipient of lineage training. Long forgotten is Worsley's " teacher. " Now Worsley is the master. His students trace their lineage to Worsley, not to the supposed link of thousands of years of oral transmission that led to Worsley. 2) To my knowledge, there is not a single person in the Worsley community who can read Chinese. I have never seen a single person who could actually read the classics go on the record to support Worsley's interpretation of the classics. Worsley himself could not read the Chinese classical literature, though his adherents often claim that their " Classical Chinese Acupuncture " is based on the Nei Jing and the Nan Jing. However, I do not know of a single Worsley style practitioner who has actually read the Nei Jing or the Nan Jing. In fact, every person that I have ever met who can read the Nei Jing and the Nan Jing (in Chinese, of course) universally dismisses the Worsley system as a Western invention created to fulfill a market expectation. Certainly it has been a dramatic success in this regard, and we often see that Worsley's direct disciples make six-figure incomes by training other disciples. If the " Classical Chinese Acupuncture " camp was actually based on the classics, one would think that they would encourage students to read Chinese so that they could actually read the classics. But instead of the classics, the words of Worsley are what is truly revered. JR has become the classic, he has surpassed Lao Zi and the Yellow Emperor himself. Again, I cannot point to a single student of the Worsley system who has ever been encouraged to study Chinese so they can learn to read the classics. But they are quick to say that only their system is based on the classics. Of course, the Worsley camp will often respond to this angle by saying that the brainwashed communists destroyed the classics. Naturally, anyone with even the most basic education in Chinese history or access to primary Chinese sources will be quick to point out that this viewpoint is grossly ignorant and flat-out wrong. Nonetheless, trying to engage someone on an issue like this is about as hard as trying to sell evolution to a creationist, facts are completely meaningless in such an argument. 3) The Worsley camp is allegedly based on certain sections of the Nan Jing and Nei Jing. However, Chinese medicine is a rich, diverse, and profound medical system because it contains thousands of books over the course of two thousand years of dynamic, living theory. To reduce the wisdom of Chinese medicine down to a few lines of one or two books is like reducing the entire history of Christianity down to one or two paragraphs of the bible. And then saying that you and your followers are the only true Christians. 4) There is a heavy emphasis on using points based on their names. However, the translations of the point names are often very fanciful, targeted to hit the G-spot for the market rather than to maintain accuracy and authenticity of the point's name itself. Given that no one in the Worsley system can translate the point names, this whole approach is slightly suspect. Point names are indeed important, but some points are named based on their location, based on animal names, based on constellations, and other such naming schemes. Such points are not inherently inferior, and the emphasis on point names alone leads to point selection that emphasizes everything with the word spirit and precious little else. Virtually no one in Asia, lineage-trained or university-trained alike, would base their entire understanding of the human body on distorted fanciful English translations of point names alone. 5) According to an article from Wiseman that I read some time ago, Worsley's main two early students were Christian missionaries. A Christian himself, the influence of Christianity can still be clearly seen in the works of contemporary " Classical Chinese Acupuncture " teachers. For example, look at this quote on the acupoint Heart-1, taken from a website of a prominent teacher (who charges impressionable students tens of thousands of dollars for his classes): " Heart 1, Utmost Source: To the early Chinese, the Heart Official, which they called the Supreme Controller, was akin to the emperor, heaven's representative on earth. The emperor, when healthy, manifests all the qualities we would want in a chief executive: Divine wisdom, radiance, fairness, enlightenment, unselfishness, and love for all. The love and joy that we receive from the fire element bathes every part of our lives. It allows us to feel the love of the Divine, to share in the warmth of spirit that eternally pervades everything and enables us to feel at one with others. This point connects us to that source within and without: one and the same. It is used when that con-nection has been broken, such as after a shock or trauma has penetrated the Heart's defenses. Disconnected from the Utmost Source, we feel alone, isolated, spiritually cut off, uninspired, fearful, empty, severed from life. " 6) To me, the people that should be making six-figure salaries teaching classical acupuncture are people like Charlie Thomson. Charlie is a CHA member who recently posted an excellent response to the thread on Tong Qi San from the Yi Zong Jin Jian. Charlie speaks and reads Chinese fluently, and he went out to Beijing to study with a lineage-trained acupuncture expert in China, Wang Ju-Yi. Unlike Worsley, Charlie can actually speak to his teacher and ask questions. Unlike Worsley, Charlie spent years over there and dove deeply into the material. Unlike Worsley, Charlie is humble and acknowledges his teachers and actually reads the classics that classical acupuncture styles are based on. I have great respect for lineage traditions and the old masters. But to me, Charlie's approach is the authentic route. But of course, one cannot actually write and publish thoughts like I have expressed here on CHA. As Doug said, what goes on CHA stays on CHA, and CHA offers us a unique place to express our true feelings about trends in the field. Years ago, I told Nigel Wiseman to remove all his material about the history of Worsley acupuncture from a potential book, because alienating this sector of the market would detract from the ability of the book to penetrate US schools. But now I wish I could find that history section, because people should really know this history. People that understand Chinese culture know that Chinese society is not highly religious and in religious affairs, it is polytheistic. Worsley's approach to Chinese medicine is monotheistic. Perhaps that is why it has such a broad appeal to Westerners raised with monotheistic religions such as Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. People in the West like Worsley because they are looking for religion in Chinese medicine, particularly a monotheistic (one clear message) perspective on Chinese medicine. By contrast, Chinese medicine has many ideas and perspectives, and they are not all mutually exclusive. To quote Nigel Wiseman: " In an American world where there has been a recent resurgence of Christian fundamentalism, possibly connected in a wider world to a resurgence of Islamic fundamentalism, we would should look carefully at the currents in Chinese medicine that cluster around turning the subject into a 'faith.' " People are disgruntled by Christianity in the West, but the appropriate response is not to dress Christ up in a yellow Buddhist robe. Christianity + modern psychology does not equal classical Chinese medicine. Even if it sells like hotcakes. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Eric, Poignant and thought-provoking post. Just curious what your thoughts are on the work of Thea Elijah... the pre-eminent 5 element herbalist in the states who sees the herbs as personalities with psychological therapeutics. She teaches classes in " the spirit of herbs " . I'm fascinated by this type of work, but don't know if she's a medium or if there's any literature to back it up. In other words, have others shared her perception of the herbs and is her work reproducible? Is she the only one with these insights? She might be a genius like Goethe (who could see cellular structures inside of plants) or just using artistic license with Chinese herbs. In any case, her work is unique. http://www.perennialmedicine.com/ K -- Turtle Island Integrative Health TCM Review director CA State Board Prep Courses www.tcmreview.com Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 On the topic of Five Element Acupuncture: Please note that I am not a " hater " by any means, and I love many individual human beings that practice five element acupuncture. Five Element practitioners often pay attention to their patients, and they often have strong positive intent and are gifted healers. I think there is a certain lack of academic credibility in the Worsley system, but that does not detract from the power of gifted individual healers. One Five Element practitioner I know makes me feel better just by smiling at me, he is a great human being. Another one took care of a friend for many years and greatly helped his Qi Gong practice. Bottom line is: Acupuncture is an amazing art and it works in ways that we do not fully understand. Give a great healer an acupuncture needle and they can do wonderful things. But when it comes to this five element vs. TCM dichotomy, I really do get frustrated because they divide our community so much with this " classical " vs. " TCM " nonsense. There are several good blogs at BluePoppy.com that go into dispelling various TCM myths and emphasizing the need for primary sources. They all relate to other topics so they are not related to this particular CHA thread. Nonetheless, many CHA readers will surely enjoy the material. An excellent post by Bob Flaws " Saying doesn't make it so " http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2009/08/04/saying-doesn-t-make-it-\ so On correcting errors in OM 101 textbooks: http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2009/08/05/authenticity-in-chinese\ -medicine-101-cor On the virtues of transparency: http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2009/07/22/the-virtues-of-transpar\ ency Excellent article on Windows of the Sky (which turns out to be a Western fabrication): http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2009/06/11/excellent-article-on-wi\ ndows-of-the-sky Chinese medicine and the body-mind-spirit- NOT! http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2009/05/27/body-mind-spirit-also-n\ ot Peeling the layers of the onion- not! http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2009/05/26/peeling-the-layers-of-t\ he-onion-not Ginseng, coffee, herb-drug interactions: http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2009/06/12/ginseng-coffee-herb-dru\ g-interactions-an Were men historically thought to be more susceptible to sexual taxation? http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2009/06/17/were-men-historically-t\ hought-to-be-more On the concept of shen in Chinese medicine: http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2009/06/05/on-the-concept-of-shen-\ spirit-in-chinese Common counterfeits in Chinese medicine: http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2009/05/22/common-counterfeits-in-\ chinese-herbal-me Commonly confused medicinals (actually we have many blogs that cover this topic): http://www.bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/blog1.php/2009/05/15/commonly-confused-medic\ inals Lots of fun stuff there to read. Click on the archives, there are several hundred articles up there now, listed by topic. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 Eric, So tell us how you really feel about JR and Leamington Acupuncture. (Irony) BTW, I believe the two Christian " missionaries " Wiseman was referring to were Bob Duggan and Diane Connelly, the founders of TAI Sophia. As far as I know, Bob was a Jesuit priest and Diane was a nun. So definitely professional religious if not actual missionaries. They left the Church in the 60s and got married. I don't know Diane, but Bob is a very charismatic person with great personal power. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 17, 2009 Report Share Posted August 17, 2009 , <johnkokko wrote: > > Eric, > Poignant and thought-provoking post. > Just curious what your thoughts are on the work of Thea Elijah... > the pre-eminent 5 element herbalist in the states > who sees the herbs as personalities with psychological therapeutics. > She teaches classes in " the spirit of herbs " . Sorry, haven't ever heard of this. Some more thoughts on acupuncture... Acupuncture is only going to get progressively more global. There are already MDs and dentists using acupuncture needles with different paradigms. Soon there will be African shamans using acupuncture needles. Acupuncture is a cheap, remarkably effective, and culturally neutral method of healing that will reach the entire world. We are just seeing the tip of the iceberg. Every culture in the world that learns how to use an acupuncture needle will develop theory and effective treatments with it. Western psychotherapy could add acupuncture and would probably get great results. South American shamans could learn it and get great results. Their techniques would not be inherently inferior to Chinese acupuncture. But they would have a shorter history and they couldn't really be authentically called classical Chinese acupuncture. Look at how diverse massage therapy is throughout the world. We all use the same hands and the same body. Nonetheless, it is useful to differentiate Swedish massage from Shiatsu from Thai massage. It honors the roots of the tradition and it preserves the knowledge of the original culture. I wouldn't call indigenous South American massage techniques Thai massage, why call psychosomatic-balancing Western acupuncture styles classical Chinese acupuncture? Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 21, 2009 Report Share Posted August 21, 2009 As might be expected, I got quite a backlash for my posting about JR Worsley. It is a subject that I would never get into normally, it seems to be highly emotionally charged and it really opens a can of worms as a discussion topic. I put a similar post up on facebook and got at least 30 intense comments coming from all sides, and a fair bit of private feedback as well. I received some very insightful feedback from a CHA member, and I will post her comments below (she asked that they be posted anonymously). In addition, I'd like to add a few comments of my own. When it comes to acupuncture, none of us really know how it works or why it works. There are different theoretical explanations to choose from, ranging from the Chinese channel system to biomedical models and beyond. Honestly, I think that intention, attention, confidence, needling skill, and the intangible healing power of a gifted practitioner are more important than the theoretical system itself. I only responded to this thread because another CHA member had contacted me with his frustration that the patients in his hometown constantly told him that they had heard that TCM was inferior to Five Element Acupuncture for treating real problems. There seems to be a general problem with dogma that divides our community, and this division really seems to get promulgated from the Five Element camp. I had several of my former PCOM students respond to me about the post (the current PCOM SD class was heavily indoctrinated by the Five Element camp early on in their training). They responded from all angles, but I realized that many of them would actually like to see the gap between the camps bridged. Many of them did not have very extreme anti-Chinese medicine ideology, and I think that these later generations of Five Element practitioners may be more moderate and interested in bringing the community closer together. I never intended to imply that all Five Element practitioners have dogma that is as extreme as Worsley's was. In fact, several students have told me that they thought Worsley's extreme position detracted from the ability of Five Element Acupuncture to reach the world and heal people. Multiple people wrote to me to say that even though they don't agree with the anti-TCM dogma, they had experienced profound healing while receiving Five Element Acupuncture. Similary, I never intended to imply that the clinical effect of Five Element Acupuncture was lacking. I've never really studied it or experienced it, but I know many people that report profound results from it. In fact, I recall two acupuncture sessions that I gave that were both extremely profound in terms of stimulating an emotional release from the patient. One was with all needles in the foot, done when I was a student intern under a Five Element practitioner, the other was when I was studying at Chang Gung hospital in Taiwan under a doctor who used a lot of relatively obscure channel theory and Nei Jing theory. Night and day in terms of their sources of information, but in both instances, I had no idea why the points selected were chosen. I just needled what the teacher told me to needle and it had a profound effect. So I am not saying anything to suggest that Five Element Acupuncture is not effective for the type of healing that people use it for, nor am I saying that Five Element practitioners invariably to the anti-TCM dogma that gives their group a bad public image. I was only trying to point out that maybe it should be called something like " modern Western psychosomatic integrative acupuncture " or something other than " classical Chinese acupuncture. " Maybe I am overly concerned with semantics, but to me one cannot say something is classical unless it is based on classical works. I don't doubt that someone could have a profound result with acupuncture at trigger points accompanied with reiki and laughing gas, but I wouldn't call it a classical technique because laughing gas didn't come about until the 1800s. Having seen many PCOM students go for Five Element training outside of school, I see that a lot of them come back to PCOM with quite a bit of dogma. They tell the other students that TCM only treats symptoms, that no treatment will work until the pulses are balanced, something that can apparently only be done by high level five element practitioners. So these students come back and try to base their whole diagnosis on pulse alone, along with smelling. The smelling diagnosis is a bit dubious sometimes, because one always hears them debating the differences between rotten and fetid or some such nuance, and invariably they are giving too much weight to a single diagnostic sign- particularly when that critical diagnostic sign is based on their own interpretation of an English word that may or may not be an accurate translation for the original Chinese concept in the first place. Then these students attempt to use the pulse to determine the whole nature of the case, which is something that even a great doctor with decades of experience would almost never choose to do. In fact, we see many instances in the classics (the Yi Zong Jin Jian has some prominent quotes) where doctors are pointing out that reliance on the pulse alone is insufficient for proper diagnosis. Furthermore, the positions and the right/left differentiations that the Five Element students are assessing were not even used at the time when the classical texts that their system is supposedly based on were written. Anyway, I am now going to jump out of the fray. I never should have gotten involved in the first place. I never meant to offend anyone but I learned a lot from the great corrections that are contained in the email below. Here is the email that I received from an anonymous Five Element-trained student. " Thank you so much for your post. I love the idea of a constructive dialogue and better understanding between TCM and Worsley Style Five Element practitioners. It is disappointing to hear you have experienced such a backlash from Worsley folks. I imagine this comes from their ignorance of other aspects of . I agree that the weakest aspect of my Tai Sophia education was that there was no larger context of all that is Chinese medicine, and no acknowledgment of what aspects of what we learned were an extrapolation of Chinese medicine versus directly sourced from the classics. I refer to the 5E acupuncture portion, not my herbal studies which were done as a separate program with Cara Frank. I work in the student acupuncture clinic helping students find points, needle, etc. and I occasionally find myself correcting a student's assumption that 5 Element is " more holistic " then what they refer to as " 8 Principle " (they are generally referring to pattern differentiation). Sometimes a student might say that other acupuncture systems are more about " chasing the symptoms " , or the practitioner " fixing " people without educating them as to what may have caused their disease process and how they might change their lifestyle. I try to have the students understand that pattern differentiation is about identifying and resolving underlying patterns, not masking symptoms as in some Western pharmaceuticals. In the same way please allow me to correct or provide a context for some of your notions about Worsley acupuncture. I must say I did not know JR Worsley directly so I will only say things about him that I have heard from enough different people as to have no reason to think they are speculation. It seems, based on my experiences with my teachers who knew JR at different times over the years, that JR's teachings did evolve over time. When his students started their own schools there was further evolution and it seems that many were " disowned " as they evolved and JR no longer felt they reflected his teachings in the purest sense (we would have to find someone who has been around longer than me to give you the scoop on that, but I know there were " rifts " ). For instance, when John and Angela Hicks started their school in the UK that taught both 5E and TCM together, my understanding is that Worsley did not approve. By all accounts JR had a tremendous gift for being with people, but he was certainly not a scholar. He seemed to like the idea of having an oral tradition and I am told he " didn't have much use for books. " I think many of the books listing him as author are essentially transcripts from his lectures that he approved. I wouldn't say Worsley developed his style to fill a market, he clearly had a gift and passion for healing and I was told he always spent a lot of time with his patients and insisted his students do the same. He probably could have seen a lot more patients and made a lot more money had he sacrificed that. On the other hand, he did wear expensive suits and drive a nice car, although he grew up very poor. In general, I have always thought of 5E practitioners as less financially successful than a typical TCM practitioner since they generally see only 1 or 2 clients per hour. For the sake of correctness I will let you know that at least at Tai Sophia I was taught to look up characters using Weiger and translate Su Wen chapters 2 and 8. Twice a year we had week-long " classics intensives " that were taught by Elisabeth Rochat (now Jeffrey Yuen also comes to teach " classics " ). There appears to be a very longstanding relationship with Elisabeth Rochat and her mentor Father Claude Larre (who was a missionary) until he died (perhaps more of the French influence as suggested by Robert Chu). In my opinion there wasn't a good set-up or context for learning from the very scholarly Rochat, and for many students this went over their heads. Students still report it is difficult to get much out of classics week, it is not well integrated into the normal curriculum. So obviously it both inadequate and poorly organized, but I wanted to let you know it is incorrect to say that no Worsley student is encouraged to be able to translate the classics. Also, speaking only for Tai Sophia, I can say there is not an emphasis on choosing points based on the point name alone but perhaps a more nuanced understanding of the point. Because 5E style inherently limits your pool of points for a given patient, students are encouraged to a deeper understanding of the points by using texts such as the one you quoted that offer " spirit of the points " . These texts vary in their ability to be sourced, some are collections of notes from JR's teaching which can be rightly considered to be made up, some are more scholarly, like Energetic Physiology In The Acupuncture Pointnames by Dennis Willmont, and some are based on understanding the characters, like Debra Kaatz's Characters of Wisdom. Using the " spirit of the points " this way is not the basis or entirety of Worsley practice, but it is a portion of it. When I read the passage you quoted about Heart 1 " Utmost Source " I can see that the author has extrapolated or expanded on the idea of the Heart official from the Su Wen Chapter 8. My own personal historical context is that I went to Catholic school for 12 years, so I may be desensitized to Christian references. That is an interesting observation. I was thinking of it as being like the " source " as in the 48th hexagram of the I Ching, but I guess there is no scholarly reason to draw that connection (and likely many reasons not to). Tai Sophia was founded by Bob Duggan and Dianne Connelly. Bob was a priest at one time but Dianne was not a nun (thanks Bob Flaws because to think of her that way is hilarious). I never thought of it as religious, but there is an underpinning of reverence at Tai Sophia. Reverence for nature in a Taoist sense (as in the Five Elements as corresponding with the seasons and movements of nature), and then a more Confucian reverence for propriety, as with the extrapolation of the " officials " of Su Wen Chapter 8. There is definitely an emphasis on " the oneness " , or interconnectedness of all things, as epitomized by the first chapter of the Tao De Ching, the oneness that exists before differentiation of yin and yang or the 10,000 things. I think of this as being very similar to the idea of interconnectedness spoken of in yoga, another ancient tradition that is connected with polytheistic religion. Well if you are still reading this I thank you and apologize for my own areas of ignorance, which I am sure, are glaringly obvious. I am still relatively new to Chinese medicine and I have much yet to learn. Not to mention the fact that what I have learned has not yet organized itself in my mind. I hope other more experienced and learned people who knew JR directly that will attempt to continue this discussion. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 24, 2009 Report Share Posted August 24, 2009 I only have a couple of comments. First of all, I am assuming Eric's posts stems from some of the statements in reference to TCM that come from many five element acupuncturists. These not only are found in articles but are fairly pervasive in the layman community (e.g. patients). Here are some common misrepresentations. ¡¦ TCM is not part of Chinese philosophy, while five element is ¡¦ TCM is really only useful for acute conditions (e.g. back pain) while five element is useful for Constitutional long-term chronic conditions ¡¦ TCM only addresses the physical while five element addresses the physical, emotional, and spiritual. ¡¦ TCM is a modern communist creation where the spirit and soul have been stripped out of it while five element represents a classical more spiritual view of Chinese medicine These all of course are incorrect and consequently have been creating a division within our profession for quite some time. Some type of unity cannot be achieved until these statements are brought out into the open and talked about maturely. For the record, I am not suggesting that ALL five element acupuncturists believe this, these are just ideas/beliefs that I have read, heard from patients, but also encountered while in school in the 90s. Clearly this emotional topic has gone on for some time... I have no comment what five element acupuncture really is. However, I think we all agree that it is not classical, except for using the words " five element, " which by the way is used by probably all acupuncture systems from Asia. For example, many five element acupuncturists try to link their lineage to the basic concept of five phases (elements). Rochat states, ¡ÈTheir use in the art of acupuncture diagnosis and treatment is deeply rooted in the Chinese medical classics and in particular the Huang di nei jing, the Yellow Emperor's Classic of Internal Medicine.¡É Therefore yes it is true that five phases (elements), that we all use, has classical roots, but can we say that five element treatments (e.g. husband/wife imbalance, seven internal demons, external dragons, and aggressive energy) have the same classical origins? I have no idea, but I personally have never seen it documented as anything but modern. I am though open to any information that is presented. Finally in regard to Chinese language and interpretation of classical concepts. I think that Eric's point about the pre-modern /classical Chinese people possibly not having the same " spiritual agenda " , understanding, or goals as what we " think " they had is paramount to explore. The biggest complaint I've heard from people who actually have spent their lifetime studying classical Chinese is that many people (who don't really know Chinese) take a character such as shen (¿À) or ming¡ÊÌ¿¡Ëor some phrase containing such words, and put their own modern interpretation onto it. Using a couple modern dictionaries (armed with a couple of Chinese classes) is so far from understanding what was going on classically. Furthermore, taking such terms with one's modern new age psychological influences and suggesting that this is what the Chinese were talking about (without any academic rigor) is careless. This is why it is important to have actual academics who have studied help decipher these difficult issues. And this is why, I imagine, there has been much criticism in the past. BTW - I am not directing this at any one person, especially Lonnie and I am absolutely not saying that such newer perspectives aren't useful. Let's just be clear on our sources. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that studying just a little Chinese is useless. Actually it can greatly enrich one's experience on many levels. Consequently, I am so happy to hear that more and more people are making the plunge. I personally have been studying rigorously (formal classes, numerous tutors, immersion in China etc.) for over 12 years and feel like I am just scratching the surface. However, I would not even consider attempting to try to make assumptions on what classical authors meant. Even native Chinese (without proper classical training) have immense difficulty deciphering such issues. However I will put forth the proposition (from discussing this with many classical Chinese experts) that what most Western students perceive as spirit is nowhere close to what classical Chinese writers were talking about. I cite " An axis of efficacy " by Charles Chace and Dan Bensky, published in the Lantern (volume 6 No.1, January 2009). Both authors are incredible practitioners as well as having wicked classical Chinese skills. Too often, spiritually hungry students hear the word ¡Èspirit¡É and make all sorts of assumptions based on their own language and culture. Seeing that TCM says very little about what they believe is important frustrates them. Then they encounter material that contains ¡Èclassical pre-communist acupuncture¡É knowledge. Without having the chops to evaluate this, who is to blame them for falling in love with such a fantasy. But the reality, many times, is that this is not actually classical Chinese medicine. Finally, I am not suggesting, as Eric did not, that five element acupuncture is not useful. I'm sure it helps many people as almost any acupuncture does. I personally have no idea if five element acupuncture, can address spiritual and emotional issues, because I do not practice it. I hear that it does. However I know for a fact that TCM, because this is what I do, can address these issues. Actually, probably any system that can balance the body can bring about resolution of such issues. I reference a ¡Èghost in the machine¡É by Charles Chace as well as my clinical practice. I just find it a bit humorous when five element acupuncturists juxtapose themselves against TCM. Really the only major difference that I see is the language that each one uses to discuss problems. One likes to use more modern psychological conversation while the other uses more Chinese style descriptions of the disease process. But really, we are all doing the same thing, can¡Çt we all just get along? Warm regards, - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 25, 2009 Report Share Posted August 25, 2009 I have no time for in depth discussion of this, but feel compelled to chime in a bit. My main complaint is when I hear about people claiming to have the " real " or " original " or " true " or " classical " and go on to slander the rest of us by saying that everyone else is practicing some inferior form of the medicine (or maybe they " only " say that about so-called TCM, whatever that may be. Maybe someone would care to define TCM for me as it is very unclear what that means here in China, where continues to be a highly diversified set of medical practices based on common principles set forth in the major classics such as Neijing, SHL, JGYL, Nanjing, etc.). Lonny, I am not accusing you of this, but apparently this has been an issue among 5E people, and I'm sure it's not limited to them. As Jason said, " can't we all just get along? " I have no complaint with " 5E " , and I don't really care if it's classically based or is a bunch of newly invented stuff, as long as it works, there is transparency as to it's sources, and the people doing it don't slander the rest of us. Lonny, with all due respect, to claim that has flourished or advanced more in the last 150 years in democracies (presumably this means the west?) than it has in " totalitarian " countries (presumably a reference to China?) is, I think, difficult to support. I am unfamiliar with your work, but I gather that there is a strong " spiritual " component to it, and maybe you feel that development along those lines qualifies as greater advancement, and maybe you're right. But I still find it divisive to make such a claim. This is discrediting and/or undervaluing the work of countless great physicians of the last 2 centuries, and borders on the type of slander that I decried above. What I gather your vision of Chinese medicine is or should strive to be is, I believe, not universally held. There are many ways to interpret and practice CM. And how do you know your interpretation of the phrase " nourishing destiny " is the same as the original meaning? I'm not suggesting that what you strive for or do is invalid or should not be done. Maybe it's the greatest thing ever. But maybe it has nothing to do with . I for one am extremely hesitant to make any claims to understand the " real " or " original " meaning of such ancient words, and my Chinese is not bad (I am not intending to brag, but I have been studying it for well over ten years now, spent 7 years in China, did a PhD in China entirely in Chinese on Shang Han Lun [so my classical Chinese is not too bad]). In any case, because I don't know your work, Lonny, I don't know what you interpret " nourishing destiny " to mean. And I therefore am not criticizing your work or what you expound. But I do think it is too bold to make claims that it is (and I apologize for the coming paraphrase because I can't find your original words) closer to the original spirit of the medicine. Even if you are right, it is not a claim that I personally would feel comfortable making. Lonny, you mention Leon Hammer and his work. Hammer was a student of John Shen, who studied under Ding Gan-Ren at Ding's school in Shanghai. Ding was trained in Meng-He, Jiangsu. All of this occurred in the last 150 years. Do you actually think Hammer knew more about CM and was a better clinician that Ding Gan-Ren? While I don't know much about Hammer, I would be surprised if the factual answer to this question was " yes " . I'm sure Hammer was good, maybe even great. But Ding was during his life, and posthumously continues to be recognized as one of the great CM physicians of the 150 year period you mentioned. He may not have had " enlightenment " as his goal, but who is to say that " enlightenment " is part of ? Isn't simply providing a person with good health so that their physical and mental capacities function at optimal levels also nourishing their destiny? Isn't this empowering people to have what it takes to pursue their own meaning for their life? I personally think it could be as simple as this, and I personally feel far from qualified to interfere as a physician with a person's destiny other than in this small and humble way. And again, I am not suggesting that " enlightenment " is an illegitimate pursuit of physicians (for themselves and their patients, for I gather that is what you profess), but just the claim that it is the true spirit of CM. Maybe it is the true spirit of CM and maybe it isn't, maybe the highest level of practice, or maybe not, but that is not the point. My point is that we should acknowledge that these are personal interpretations, and not necessarily what the authors of the classics had in mind. Therefore, if in mainland China they choose a different interpretation than you, I don't think it is fair to dismiss their interpretation, and furthermore to claim that CM has seen more significant development in the west. I hope you will not read a harsh tone into my words (this is often all too easy with this form of written communication), as I only wish to have a friendly discussion. If I made any misrepresentations of your work and ideas, it is not out of maliciousness, but rather due to lack of understanding of your work on my part. In any case, I just wanted to address these few points. Thanks. Greg Greg A. Livingston, PhD Physician Shanghai East International Medical Center mobile: +86.158.6919.4600 , " " wrote: > > I only have a couple of comments. First of all, I am assuming Eric's posts > stems from some of the statements in reference to TCM that come from many > five element acupuncturists. These not only are found in articles but are > fairly pervasive in the layman community (e.g. patients). Here are some > common misrepresentations. > > > > ¡¦ TCM is not part of Chinese philosophy, while five element is > > ¡¦ TCM is really only useful for acute conditions (e.g. back pain) > while five element is useful for Constitutional long-term chronic conditions > > ¡¦ TCM only addresses the physical while five element addresses the > physical, emotional, and spiritual. > > ¡¦ TCM is a modern communist creation where the spirit and soul have > been stripped out of it while five element represents a classical more > spiritual view of Chinese medicine > > > > These all of course are incorrect and consequently have been creating a > division within our profession for quite some time. Some type of unity > cannot be achieved until these statements are brought out into the open and > talked about maturely. For the record, I am not suggesting that ALL five > element acupuncturists believe this, these are just ideas/beliefs that I > have read, heard from patients, but also encountered while in school in the > 90s. Clearly this emotional topic has gone on for some time... > > > > I have no comment what five element acupuncture really is. However, I think > we all agree that it is not classical, except for using the words " five > element, " which by the way is used by probably all acupuncture systems from > Asia. For example, many five element acupuncturists try to link their > lineage to the basic concept of five phases (elements). Rochat states, > ¡ÈTheir use in the art of acupuncture diagnosis and treatment is deeply > rooted in the Chinese medical classics and in particular the Huang di nei > jing, the Yellow Emperor's Classic of Internal Medicine.¡É Therefore yes it > is true that five phases (elements), that we all use, has classical roots, > but can we say that five element treatments (e.g. husband/wife imbalance, > seven internal demons, external dragons, and aggressive energy) have the > same classical origins? I have no idea, but I personally have never seen it > documented as anything but modern. I am though open to any information that > is presented. > > > > Finally in regard to Chinese language and interpretation of classical > concepts. I think that Eric's point about the pre-modern /classical Chinese > people possibly not having the same " spiritual agenda " , understanding, or > goals as what we " think " they had is paramount to explore. The biggest > complaint I've heard from people who actually have spent their lifetime > studying classical Chinese is that many people (who don't really know > Chinese) take a character such as shen (¿À) or ming¡ÊÌ¿¡Ëor some phrase > containing such words, and put their own modern interpretation onto it. > Using a couple modern dictionaries (armed with a couple of Chinese classes) > is so far from understanding what was going on classically. Furthermore, > taking such terms with one's modern new age psychological influences and > suggesting that this is what the Chinese were talking about (without any > academic rigor) is careless. This is why it is important to have actual > academics who have studied help decipher these difficult issues. And this is > why, I imagine, there has been much criticism in the past. BTW - I am not > directing this at any one person, especially Lonnie and I am absolutely not > saying that such newer perspectives aren't useful. Let's just be clear on > our sources. > > > > Furthermore, I am not suggesting that studying just a little Chinese is > useless. Actually it can greatly enrich one's experience on many levels. > Consequently, I am so happy to hear that more and more people are making the > plunge. I personally have been studying rigorously (formal classes, numerous > tutors, immersion in China etc.) for over 12 years and feel like I am just > scratching the surface. However, I would not even consider attempting to try > to make assumptions on what classical authors meant. Even native Chinese > (without proper classical training) have immense difficulty deciphering such > issues. However I will put forth the proposition (from discussing this with > many classical Chinese experts) that what most Western students perceive as > spirit is nowhere close to what classical Chinese writers were talking > about. I cite " An axis of efficacy " by Charles Chace and Dan Bensky, > published in the Lantern (volume 6 No.1, January 2009). Both authors are > incredible practitioners as well as having wicked classical Chinese skills. > > > > Too often, spiritually hungry students hear the word ¡Èspirit¡É and make all > sorts of assumptions based on their own language and culture. Seeing that > TCM says very little about what they believe is important frustrates them. > Then they encounter material that contains ¡Èclassical pre-communist > acupuncture¡É knowledge. Without having the chops to evaluate this, who is > to blame them for falling in love with such a fantasy. But the reality, many > times, is that this is not actually classical Chinese medicine. > > > > Finally, I am not suggesting, as Eric did not, that five element acupuncture > is not useful. I'm sure it helps many people as almost any acupuncture does. > I personally have no idea if five element acupuncture, can address spiritual > and emotional issues, because I do not practice it. I hear that it does. > However I know for a fact that TCM, because this is what I do, can address > these issues. Actually, probably any system that can balance the body can > bring about resolution of such issues. I reference a ¡Èghost in the > machine¡É by Charles Chace as well as my clinical practice. > > > > I just find it a bit humorous when five element acupuncturists juxtapose > themselves against TCM. Really the only major difference that I see is the > language that each one uses to discuss problems. One likes to use more > modern psychological conversation while the other uses more Chinese style > descriptions of the disease process. But really, we are all doing the same > thing, can¡Çt we all just get along? > > > > Warm regards, > > > > - > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 26, 2009 Report Share Posted August 26, 2009 Greg: Lonny, with all due respect, to claim that has flourished or advanced more in the last 150 years in democracies (presumably this means the west?) than it has in " totalitarian " countries (presumably a reference to China?) is, I think, difficult to support. I am unfamiliar with your work, but I gather that there is a strong " spiritual " component to it, and maybe you feel that development along those lines qualifies as greater advancement, and maybe you're right. But I still find it divisive to make such a claim. This is discrediting and/or undervaluing the work of countless great physicians of the last 2 centuries, and borders on the type of slander that I decried above. Lonny: Hello Greg, nice to meet you. While it may be difficult to support, that doesn't mean it's not possible. If I'm right, how could it be divisive except to those not interested in the truth? I don't know how much more respect I could have given to those who came before me than to have spent 15 years writing my first text. It is my opinion that there are dimensions to Western culture that have evolved beyond where the Chinese culture is at large and that, at it's leading edge, the emergence of an integral perspective represents an evolution of the medicine. Greg: how do you know your interpretation of the phrase " nourishing destiny " is the same as the original meaning? Lonny: I don't . Just the same as you don't know that it isn't. So I'll then take 100% responsibility for suggesting that a truly holistic and integral medicine can support human evolution across all lines of development and that CM is the most evolved vehicle on the planet for doing that. Greg: I'm not suggesting that what you strive for or do is invalid or should not be done. Maybe it's the greatest thing ever. But maybe it has nothing to do with . Lonny: Well, I'd think saying that it has " nothing " to with Chinese medicine might be a bit strong given the data I've provided in the 1600 or so pages I've published.. Greg: I for one am extremely hesitant to make any claims to understand the " real " or " original " meaning of such ancient words, and my Chinese is not bad (I am not intending to brag, but I have been studying it for well over ten years now, spent 7 years in China, did a PhD in China entirely in Chinese on Shang Han Lun [so my classical Chinese is not too bad]). Lonny: I'm not so hesitant. I find it remarkable to consider the possibility that the physician scholars of the day were ignorant of the use of terms such as ming, jing, ling, dao, and shen in Chinese alchemy, literature, philosophical, and spiritual texts. If all the original author of the Shen Nong ben Cao meant by " yangming, " nourishing destiny, was " to keep the body alive a long time " then he was a superficial, crass materialist and I'm happy to have looked deeper into the matter than he cared to. Greg: But I do think it is too bold to make claims that it is (and I apologize for the coming paraphrase because I can't find your original words) closer to the original spirit of the medicine. Even if you are right, it is not a claim that I personally would feel comfortable making. Lonny: Well, at some point someone is going to have to stand up for something, so I'm glad to be the oneIf this isn't the original meaning, I'm happy to take credit for the integrity of the work I present as an integrated medical science. .. From the introduction to my first book: In conclusion, to the degree that my thesis conforms to the beliefs and practices of those who have come before me, I am happy to credit them. To the degree that this work challenges those who attach importance to historical antecedents as a requisite condition for defining what is " true " Chinese medicine, I am happy to admit that " I made this work up " and to let a self-aware inner tradition begin with this text. Fair enough? Greg: Lonny, you mention Leon Hammer and his work. Hammer was a student of John Shen, who studied under Ding Gan-Ren at Ding's school in Shanghai. Ding was trained in Meng-He, Jiangsu. All of this occurred in the last 150 years. Do you actually think Hammer knew more about CM and was a better clinician that Ding Gan-Ren? Lonny: I think Leon knows a hell of a lot more about treating post-modern narcissists, yes. Greg: I'm sure Hammer was good, maybe even great. But Ding was during his life, and posthumously continues to be recognized as one of the great CM physicians of the 150 year period you mentioned. Lonny: I'm sure he was marvelous when it came to treating the people of his era for what ailed them. Greg: He may not have had " enlightenment " as his goal, but who is to say that " enlightenment " is part of ? Lonny: Me and others. If it wasn't historically, it is now. And I'm more than happy to have a term other than " Chinese medicine " applied to what I practice. I'm not Chinese, and if the medicine I'm practicing isn't then I'm happy to take responsibility for it. I've cited my sources, made my case, and history will judge. Greg: Isn't simply providing a person with good health so that their physical and mental capacities function at optimal levels also nourishing their destiny? Lonny: Of course! And what that means all depends on one's value system concerning what we think " optimum " means in relationship to human functioning. This point isn't insignificant and may be the " crux of the biscuit " as Mr Zappa said. Greg: Isn't this empowering people to have what it takes to pursue their own meaning for their life? Lonny: Not necessarily. There is a hierarchy of meaning. And,, there are better and worse choices having better and worse outcomes. From an integral and evolutionary perspective, our job is to help them make better choices and create higher meaning. Greg: I personally think it could be as simple as this, and I personally feel far from qualified to interfere as a physician with a person's destiny other than in this small and humble way. Lonny: Not me. But my answer two above this speaks volumes to this issue. What is the upper limit of human function and to what degree should we not support it and why? Greg: And again, I am not suggesting that " enlightenment " is an illegitimate pursuit of physicians (for themselves and their patients, for I gather that is what you profess), but just the claim that it is the true spirit of CM. Lonny: Well, I think I've provided irrefutable proof that the notion is at least present in the Classical tradition even it might have represented the minority view in actual practice. I will make the point that from a holistic/integral perspective the deep traditions of Daoist and Buddhist alchemy (not the silly stuff) are a branch of medicine. If one is willing to accept this, then I'm certainly right. Greg: My point is that we should acknowledge that these are personal interpretations, and not necessarily what the authors of the classics had in mind. Lonny: Point granted. Although it would take a real materialist to explain away phrases like " tong shen ming " , " yang ming " , or the opening sentence of the Jia Yi Jing quoting the ling shu that " all treatment must be rooted in spirit. " Again, I'm more than happy to take responsibility for my insights. Greg: Therefore, if in mainland China they choose a different interpretation than you, I don't think it is fair to dismiss their interpretation, and furthermore to claim that CM has seen more significant development in the west. Lonny: I disagree. I think it even makes intuitive sense that a system of medicine whose raison d'etre it is to promote the unfettered flow of qi would thrive more in democracies in than under fascism. And, I will point out, that there isn't enough freedom in China even now that anyone who held my view could ever openly speak about it. Because spirit is a revolutionary force that brings down artificial hierarchy in self and culture and the rulers there know it. And there is plenty of historical precedent for that. Greg:I hope you will not read a harsh tone into my words (this is often all too easy with this form of written communication), as I only wish to have a friendly discussion. If I made any misrepresentations of your work and ideas, it is not out of maliciousness, but rather due to lack of understanding of your work on my part. Lonny: I think all your questions, points, and concerns are totally reasonable and I take no offense whatsoever. Send me a mailing address and I will post to you a copy of my first text at my own expense and perhaps we can carry the conversation forward from there. Warm regards, Lonny Jarrett Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Lonny and group, I think this conversation is one of the most important ones we've had on the CHA and this whole idea of making stuff up (and what that means) is something of importance. The way I see it, if as you say, you have just ¡Èmade something up¡É, how can one consider this part of Chinese medicine if it is not based on previous CM works? I am interested in what people think about this? Is this the same as tuning forks, which also often quotes classical texts. They may be great, but they are definitely not Chinese medicine. However, you can't have it both ways. You either make something up and it is new and not part of the tradition, or it is clearly documented in historical/previous texts and it comes from the tradition. Clearly there is some line somewhere which I am not comfortable drawing. However it is something to discuss. Needles alone clearly do not make something part of Chinese medicine. So what does? Using philosophical framework such as five elements? Is this enough? If I use tuning forks with five element theory is this enough? A synthesis of CM, as stated before, has a core foundation. I do not think this is the same as searching through poetry and philosophical texts finding references to what you are creating. Doing so does not give it credence, even if you write 2000 pages on the topic. For example, I have a hard time understanding how one can validate Worley¡Çs husband/wife diagnosis and treatment strategy based on the commentaries that you mention. You also asked if ¡ÈI am taking the position that we can only count on what dead Chinese said about point function.¡É This statement simply misses the point. As we all agree, you can do whatever you want with your point functions. But if you are going to claim that it has classical roots that validates a certain treatment method for a certain diagnostic criteria, then yes, I am taking the position that we must count on/source some ¡Èdead Chinese¡É, which by the way I find a bit of a degrading way to address, ¡Èclassical texts.¡É After reading your numerous posts it is clear that you have an agenda that, as you yourself agree, quite simply is not supported in Chinese medicine literature. Again you can't have it both ways. One cannot merely assume that these pre-modern texts were discussing such ideas as nourishing destiny or spirit as you describe it. Your comeback seems to be, " prove that they weren't. " Well I think the proof is in the numerous scholars in the West and East that do not come to this conclusion. More importantly though, if you are going to suggest an idea, or translation of a term, that is different from the status quo, then the scholarly approach is to provide some sort of evidence through academic rigor. As stated previously, I do not have the ability or scholarship to make any such call either way. However, I have read numerous people, much smarter than me, analyze these issues (with academic rigor) and the process that they go about doing this. They analyze numerous texts from a similar time, breaking down possible interpretations based on these other texts. Essentially creating a time period dictionary. Furthermore, if one reads Chinese, one can access this type of material (han yu da ci dian etc) that has been put together by numerous scholars throughout the centuries. For example, one can look up ming (Ì¿)¡¤ and it will give (I'm guessing) 20-30+ definitions spanning the centuries based on specific seminal texts. If one is going to disagree with these sources, then one better have their ducks in a row, which usually requires serious classical Chinese skills. One cannot just say, ¡Æit is so¡Ç because one believes in consciousness and this is what one thinks they should have be talking about. In my humble opinion, this is not an academic/scholarly approach and is just a circular argument that leaves little room for debate. You mention that you ¡Èfind it remarkable to consider the possibility that the physician scholars of the day were ignorant of the use of terms such as ming, jing, ling, dao and shen¡£¡£¡£¡É again I think you are missing the point. They were not ignorant of these terms, they use them all over the place. You must consider that these physician scholars just have a different perception of these terms then you or others may have. Finally can we say we are really more evolved or have higher consciousness? This superior stance borderlines on arrogance and really has little to do with Chinese medicine in my opinion and I think we should respect this. Your e-mails come across that anyone that doesn't believe this, for example classical Chinese physicians or modern China, ¡Èjust didn't/doesn't get it¡É and somehow are inferior. Come on¡Ä Warm regards, - On Behalf Of sppdestiny Wednesday, August 26, 2009 5:14 PM Re: JR Greg: Lonny, with all due respect, to claim that has flourished or advanced more in the last 150 years in democracies (presumably this means the west?) than it has in " totalitarian " countries (presumably a reference to China?) is, I think, difficult to support. I am unfamiliar with your work, but I gather that there is a strong " spiritual " component to it, and maybe you feel that development along those lines qualifies as greater advancement, and maybe you're right. But I still find it divisive to make such a claim. This is discrediting and/or undervaluing the work of countless great physicians of the last 2 centuries, and borders on the type of slander that I decried above. Lonny: Hello Greg, nice to meet you. While it may be difficult to support, that doesn't mean it's not possible. If I'm right, how could it be divisive except to those not interested in the truth? I don't know how much more respect I could have given to those who came before me than to have spent 15 years writing my first text. It is my opinion that there are dimensions to Western culture that have evolved beyond where the Chinese culture is at large and that, at it's leading edge, the emergence of an integral perspective represents an evolution of the medicine. Greg: how do you know your interpretation of the phrase " nourishing destiny " is the same as the original meaning? Lonny: I don't . Just the same as you don't know that it isn't. So I'll then take 100% responsibility for suggesting that a truly holistic and integral medicine can support human evolution across all lines of development and that CM is the most evolved vehicle on the planet for doing that. Greg: I'm not suggesting that what you strive for or do is invalid or should not be done. Maybe it's the greatest thing ever. But maybe it has nothing to do with . Lonny: Well, I'd think saying that it has " nothing " to with Chinese medicine might be a bit strong given the data I've provided in the 1600 or so pages I've published.. Greg: I for one am extremely hesitant to make any claims to understand the " real " or " original " meaning of such ancient words, and my Chinese is not bad (I am not intending to brag, but I have been studying it for well over ten years now, spent 7 years in China, did a PhD in China entirely in Chinese on Shang Han Lun [so my classical Chinese is not too bad]). Lonny: I'm not so hesitant. I find it remarkable to consider the possibility that the physician scholars of the day were ignorant of the use of terms such as ming, jing, ling, dao, and shen in Chinese alchemy, literature, philosophical, and spiritual texts. If all the original author of the Shen Nong ben Cao meant by " yangming, " nourishing destiny, was " to keep the body alive a long time " then he was a superficial, crass materialist and I'm happy to have looked deeper into the matter than he cared to. Greg: But I do think it is too bold to make claims that it is (and I apologize for the coming paraphrase because I can't find your original words) closer to the original spirit of the medicine. Even if you are right, it is not a claim that I personally would feel comfortable making. Lonny: Well, at some point someone is going to have to stand up for something, so I'm glad to be the oneIf this isn't the original meaning, I'm happy to take credit for the integrity of the work I present as an integrated medical science. . From the introduction to my first book: In conclusion, to the degree that my thesis conforms to the beliefs and practices of those who have come before me, I am happy to credit them. To the degree that this work challenges those who attach importance to historical antecedents as a requisite condition for defining what is " true " Chinese medicine, I am happy to admit that " I made this work up " and to let a self-aware inner tradition begin with this text. Fair enough? Greg: Lonny, you mention Leon Hammer and his work. Hammer was a student of John Shen, who studied under Ding Gan-Ren at Ding's school in Shanghai. Ding was trained in Meng-He, Jiangsu. All of this occurred in the last 150 years. Do you actually think Hammer knew more about CM and was a better clinician that Ding Gan-Ren? Lonny: I think Leon knows a hell of a lot more about treating post-modern narcissists, yes. Greg: I'm sure Hammer was good, maybe even great. But Ding was during his life, and posthumously continues to be recognized as one of the great CM physicians of the 150 year period you mentioned. Lonny: I'm sure he was marvelous when it came to treating the people of his era for what ailed them. Greg: He may not have had " enlightenment " as his goal, but who is to say that " enlightenment " is part of ? Lonny: Me and others. If it wasn't historically, it is now. And I'm more than happy to have a term other than " Chinese medicine " applied to what I practice. I'm not Chinese, and if the medicine I'm practicing isn't then I'm happy to take responsibility for it. I've cited my sources, made my case, and history will judge. Greg: Isn't simply providing a person with good health so that their physical and mental capacities function at optimal levels also nourishing their destiny? Lonny: Of course! And what that means all depends on one's value system concerning what we think " optimum " means in relationship to human functioning. This point isn't insignificant and may be the " crux of the biscuit " as Mr Zappa said. Greg: Isn't this empowering people to have what it takes to pursue their own meaning for their life? Lonny: Not necessarily. There is a hierarchy of meaning. And,, there are better and worse choices having better and worse outcomes. From an integral and evolutionary perspective, our job is to help them make better choices and create higher meaning. Greg: I personally think it could be as simple as this, and I personally feel far from qualified to interfere as a physician with a person's destiny other than in this small and humble way. Lonny: Not me. But my answer two above this speaks volumes to this issue. What is the upper limit of human function and to what degree should we not support it and why? Greg: And again, I am not suggesting that " enlightenment " is an illegitimate pursuit of physicians (for themselves and their patients, for I gather that is what you profess), but just the claim that it is the true spirit of CM. Lonny: Well, I think I've provided irrefutable proof that the notion is at least present in the Classical tradition even it might have represented the minority view in actual practice. I will make the point that from a holistic/integral perspective the deep traditions of Daoist and Buddhist alchemy (not the silly stuff) are a branch of medicine. If one is willing to accept this, then I'm certainly right. Greg: My point is that we should acknowledge that these are personal interpretations, and not necessarily what the authors of the classics had in mind. Lonny: Point granted. Although it would take a real materialist to explain away phrases like " tong shen ming " , " yang ming " , or the opening sentence of the Jia Yi Jing quoting the ling shu that " all treatment must be rooted in spirit. " Again, I'm more than happy to take responsibility for my insights. Greg: Therefore, if in mainland China they choose a different interpretation than you, I don't think it is fair to dismiss their interpretation, and furthermore to claim that CM has seen more significant development in the west. Lonny: I disagree. I think it even makes intuitive sense that a system of medicine whose raison d'etre it is to promote the unfettered flow of qi would thrive more in democracies in than under fascism. And, I will point out, that there isn't enough freedom in China even now that anyone who held my view could ever openly speak about it. Because spirit is a revolutionary force that brings down artificial hierarchy in self and culture and the rulers there know it. And there is plenty of historical precedent for that. Greg:I hope you will not read a harsh tone into my words (this is often all too easy with this form of written communication), as I only wish to have a friendly discussion. If I made any misrepresentations of your work and ideas, it is not out of maliciousness, but rather due to lack of understanding of your work on my part. Lonny: I think all your questions, points, and concerns are totally reasonable and I take no offense whatsoever. Send me a mailing address and I will post to you a copy of my first text at my own expense and perhaps we can carry the conversation forward from there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 Over the last two millenia, we can track new inventions or discoveries in the medicine for instance... the switch from using nine pulse locations to solely the radial pulse the moxa pole in the ming dynasty the expanded use of tongue diagnosis in the last several centuries the change of retaining needles for 1-7 breaths in the classics to 15-45 minutes in the last century the use of concentrated extract powders in the last 2 decades the invention of heat lamps in the 20th century microsystem acupuncture... scalp (20th century), auricular (compiled 20th century), hand (20th century) electro acupuncture (20th century) allowing women to learn and practice the art of acupuncture in the 20th century... All of these have their validity for our times. Can we see these changes as part of the evolution of the medicine? Many things that we do today in our clinic were not practiced or documented in the times of the Nei Jing, Nan Jing or Zhang Zhong Jing. What is the line, both chronologically and descriptive, where the term " classical " ends and " modern " begins. If it is not written in one of the " jings " ... ie.. Nei jing, Nan jing, Jia yi jing, Mai jing, I jing, Dao de jing, is it not classical? At one point, the four great masters of the Jin-Yuan dynasties were considered deviants from the established norm. Of course, pretending to have a patent on " classical medicine " is ridiculous. My take on this is... if it's written in one of the " jings " , I must seriously study and critique and have some level of faith that there is wisdom in these texts. If it isn't in the classics, then I must ask.... is this practical and based on anything that was written from one of the " jing " s? If it's practical, but not based on the classics, then I can still use it, but I must be cautious. If it's written in one of the jings, but doesn't seem practical, then I must not be wise enough to know how to use it. K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 27, 2009 Report Share Posted August 27, 2009 If it's written in one of the jings, but doesn't seem practical, then I must not be wise enough to know how to use it. Lonny: Or, perhaps, it isn't relevant any more due to evolution. 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.