Eric Brand and Divisiveness int the Profession: A response

[Guest guest]

I read with interest Mr. Brand's recent assessment that " The Worsley

system of " Classical Chinese Acupuncture " is one of the most divisive things in

our field. " He mentions that he doesn't want to " risk a major backlash from

certain segments of the community. [and] Therefore, wouldn't like to get too

involved in such a discussion. " He then proceeds in an additional 15 paragraphs

to deride the integrity of the tradition, those who practice it, and presumably

the intelligence of the consumers who find value in it. Here I will respond

point by point.

 

At the outset its important to note that I have heard every point made

by Mr. Brand expressed verbatim by Mr. Flaws, who appears to be his mentor, over

the last 20 years. He has endeavored to discredit the tradition by publishing

papers and interviews in this regard on his web site. Apparently Mr. Brandt,

seeking to identify himself with Mr. Flaw's cause celebre, is picking up the

torch. Would, instead, that he'd endeavor to distinguish himself. I'd also like

to note the disingenuous and ironic nature of his attribution of " divisiveness "

given the tenor of his entire piece in debasing an entire tradition of practice.

Who, exactly, in your mind, Mr. Brand, constitutes " the Worsley camp " ? By how

much association is a person so tainted? I spent my first 6 years of study in

this tradition and wrote two books on the subject so I'll assume you are

including me. To paint such a wide and varied group of human beings joined by a

common thread with such broad strokes would seem nothing more than ignorant

prejudice and rather small minded. Was prejudice a topic not covered in any of

your studies?

 

 

I believe I'm qualified to respond to Mr. Brand on several counts. I began my

formal study of CM 30 years ago under a student of JR Worsley's and later

studied with JR in his clinic in England for a month. I graduated from TAI, a

school in JR's lineage. My science chops are up to snuff and my work has been

published in several of the worlds leading journals including the Proceedings of

the National Academy of Sciences. I went on, as any serious student in any

tradition does, to diversify and deepen my knowledge by studying with others-

most notably pulse diagnosis with Leon Hammer for 10 years and herbal medicine

with Ted Kaptchuck for two. Beyond that I took courses in reading Chinese back

in the 70's and self completed the entire Yale course in Reading Chinese to get,

at least, a basic background in the language. Finally, I've published the two

main texts used to teach the tradition in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the

United States, and Canada. Interestingly, the books are used at very many TCM

schools.

 

 

I will now address each of Mr. Brand's points.

 

1. J.R Worsely-the man.

 

 

It is hard to argue with much of what Mr. Brand has said regarding Mr.

Worsley's character. Like most of us, JR was, in my opinion, a deeply divided

human being who had little understanding of, and took little responsibility for,

his division. A division well exemplified by the last letter I received from him

and his group stating at the start that he was prepared to sue anyone who used

the term " Classical Acupuncture " (he backed down under legal duress) and ending

by claiming that his tradition was " all about love, isn't that a relief? "

It is deeply regrettable that Mr. Worsley refused to name his sources

or just flat out take a stand for what he created. It's intellectually dishonest

and suggests a fair amount of insecurity. I have noticed, however, that he

hadn't cornered the market on insecurity and there seems to be a lot to go

around. The fact of his megalomania is perhaps reinforced by the observation

that JR was asked to leave, as far as I know, virtually all the schools he was

associated with. Regrettably too, Mr. Worsley was exceedingly self-righteous

about the superiority of his system compared to the materialism he found

prevalent in his culture at the time. It is not hard to imagine that Mr. Flaws,

being young at the time and passionate about his pursuit of the medicine, would

have felt insulted by the condescension that JR, and many of his students,

visited upon anyone who failed to venerate him, or pursue a different direction

in the medicine. Suffice it to say that if Mr. Flaws, or Mr. Brand, or anyone

" outside " the tradition have had problems with JR's tyrannical ego (all our

ego's are, aren't they?), that their pain pales in comparison to those of us

within the tradition who suffered ridicule and alienation from JR and continue

to do so from some of his unquestioning, self righteous, adherents (though I'm

happy to report there seems to be a thawing on some avenues of that front).

 

But we must also give credit where credit is due, and we must make a

distinction between the man, and the tradition. Mr. Worsely must be credited

with what was in 1948, and through the 1950's and 1960's, a then radical

insight: In the developed world the most significant causes of disease had

shifted to the internal syndrome patterns and this was due to the illusion of

separation and individuality emerging in the modern and postmodern era. While

much of TCM focused on the external causes of illness, JR intuitively realized

that we were seeing very different dynamics in the Western world. Living in a

democracy, JR and his students were free to explore and develop the medicine

during the period of time that humanistic psychology and the consciousness

expansion movement were occurring. While I think much of that is old news and

antiquated now, I don't think it can be dismissed as it represented an EVOLUTION

of the medicine as it entered a new culture. Frankly there aren't that many

differences between totalitarianism and Confucianism (both are artificial

dominator hierarchies) and it makes sense that CM would have to make

evolutionary jumps as it migrated to cultures at higher stages of development

(it is my opinion that democracy for all it's flaws is far superior to fascism).

 

I find it ironic that while lambasting Mr. Worsley for his lack of Chinese

language skills, and failure to acknowledge his predecessors, that Mr. Brand

finds it so easy to disrespect a man who gave his life to the medicine,

practiced clinically for nearly 60 years, and helped to lay much of the

foundation in the West for the practice of the medicine which Mr. Brand is so

passionate about. Suffice it to say that several of Mr. Worsley's close students

founded nearly every national organization that supports the practice of CM in

America today. Would Mr. Brand even have had a profession to step into and excel

at without JR Worsley and his lineage? The answer isn't clear. But to level the

critique that he has, and then to fail utterly to respect hierarchy, is ironic

at best. It is as ignorant for a scholar to disrespect the position of the

clinician as it is for the clinician to adopt an anti-intellectual stance. This

medicine needs pure scholars, pure clinicians, and the entire continuum in

between culminating, perhaps, in the expression of the physician/scholar.

Nonetheless, such competition between scholars and clinicians is immature and at

best represents the ego's of each competing for attention and market share. If

we are going to produce a generation of scholar/physicians we are going to need

the contributions of both. We all have a lot to learn, and to learn from each

other, so, can we please lay this petty argument to rest here and now?

 

To discredit the efficacy of the tradition and it's practitioners

based on the personal failings of Mr. Worsley and some of his close followers

lacks integrity. If Mr. Brand has data to suggest that practitioners who are

based in Worsley's tradition are less clinically effective than his, or any

other tradition, he should publish it. If he has no data, as I suspect, his

assertions are nothing more than faith based belief and he should relent from

substantiating himself by criticizing others and instead focus on his own good

works. I for one will be happy, at any time and in any place, to put my clinical

and diagnostic skills to a test in public against either him or Mr. Flaws.

 

2. Citation of lineage, The Classics, and reading Chinese.

 

 

There isn't any secret that JR couldn't read or speak a word of Chinese,

had next to no understanding of the Classics, wasn't a scholar, and didn't value

intellectual endeavor. I have heard rumors for years that JR hardly spent

anytime in Asia and certainly not the amount of time he suggested. Nonetheless,

from a clinical point of view, this makes JR's achievements even more

impressive. It's just too bad he wasn't secure enough to cite his influences and

to stand up when necessary and say " I Created it, take it or leave it " .

HAVING SAID THIS……..The Authors of many of the Classical texts which Mr.

Brand venerates didn't cite their influences either. Instead they cited mythic

characters like Huang ti and Shen Nong presumably to create the illusion of

tradition where there was none and to tie themselves to sources that already had

credibility. Ironically, Worsley did the same-so let's acknowledge that for what

it is and move past it because the simple fact is that now there are at least 4

schools nationally based in the tradition and a significant minority of

practitioners. And, beyond that, I simply cannot keep up with the demand from

schools and groups of practitioners around the world to come and teach. My

students are running programs in many major schools, and I just sold out a 7

weekend course in two days at a major university for TCM practitioners wanting

to learn the nuts and bolts of JR's system. Why? Because of a perceived lack of

depth in TCM training that might allow practitioners to address patients in a

context that makes sense in the 21'st century in the West. (I wont go more

deeply into this here, but I will be more than happy to defend this assertion to

any length necessary and in front of the entire profession out in the open.)

Mr. Brand asserts, " To my knowledge, there is not a single person in the

Worsley community who can read Chinese. " Well, I don't read it anymore for lack

of time and because the most significant events shaping the medicine are our

life circumstances TODAY and not the insights of dead Chinese regarding the

periods in which they lived. I am all for scholarship, and respect of lineage,

but for any living discipline the proper proportion of attention can NEVER be

more than 49% directed to history with at least 51% directed to the present.

While I don't read anymore, I certainly did give the language many years of

personal and formal study. At least enough to write my two books and to satisfy

a somewhat impressive list of endorsers. I will also point out that the

tradition has been closely tied to Per Claude Larre and Elisibeth Rochat for 30

years and that we published Manferd Porkert's original work. Porkert was perhaps

the first real scholar of CM I was aware of, certainly an advanced reader of

Chinese, and I was thankful to have the opportunity to study with him also as

part of by Curriculum at TAI.

 

Mr. Brand is correct to chastise JR and those who assert that their tradition is

based in the classics. It isn't. At least not on a technical level. In calling

his tradition " Classical " I believe that JR meant to suggest more, than anything

else, that his tradition attended to spirit first and foremost in a way that is

foundational in many of the classics. If JR had understood the phrase

tongshenming & #36890; & #31070; & #26126;as emphasized in the classics, I believe

he would have cited this as the single most important part of what he meant by

" classical " . He might have pointed to the Jia Yi Jing's first line asserting

that, " All methods of needling must first have their basis in spirit " Frankly,

calling a pot that was made this morning an " antique " IS a venerated Chinese

tradition-what is being venerated is the tradition of making it and not the pot

itself (this is putting the best face on the deception).

But lineage is most importantly a quality of transmission of spirit and, for his

many faults, JR did get perhaps the most important aspect of CM right as this

dimension of the medicine wasn't even on the radar screen in it's native land

and was evidenced in the teaching of precious few others elsewhere. A situation

that continues right up to this moment. I will cite Peter Deadman's published

refutation (BAC Journal 11/04) that CM is incapable of treating the spirit (In

direct contradistinction to the Classical literature). The entire printed output

of TCM does little more than pay lip service to the spiritual depth and

foundation of the tradition. And this depth is meaningless to write about if one

is not a living representation of it. It's ludicrous to, on the one hand avoid

or deny the spiritual dimension of the foundations of the medicine and, on the

other hand, to be cynical about anyone who sincerely strives to fill that

glaring and deliberate omission.

It was Dr. Worsley's recognition of spirit that touched so many, so deeply. It

is no secret that the bar for spiritual teachers is rather low, especially in

the superficial and materialistic West, and that at the time CM came here

enforce in the 70's there was a great lack of understanding regarding spirit and

what constitutes a worthy teacher. Only by the default of ignorance and

materialism did people like JR become " spiritual " teachers. Nonetheless, having

worked in his clinic for a month and spent time with him on several other

occasions, I can attest to the fact that the man was awakened to something real,

as terribly divided as he was. And he deserves credit for bringing a spiritual

aspiration to the practice of medicine as its core focus at a time when such a

focus was lacking in it's native country and throughout the West generally. To

this day not only have I not seen a mature spiritual perspective emerge from

whatever tradition we might call " TCM " I haven't even seen any serious attempt

to do so. From my perspective, what has been called " spiritual " in the

traditions associated with Mr. Worsley is really, in fact, humanistic

psychological approaches that fall very far short of what constitutes authentic

spiritual understanding or endeavor. But the fact that this is so is a cultural

phenomena pervasive in postmodernity, throughout all traditions of CM practiced

in the West, and had nothing to do with JR himself but rather the values of the

people who went to study with him in the 1960's and `70's.

 

It is clear that the value systems of those authors who can read the Chinese

language often greatly colors their interpretation of what is being read. This

to the degree that there is surprisingly little depth in the works of many of

the best readers and " scholars " . (the bar is pretty high for scholarship when it

is considered from an integral perspective). This includes the work of Mr.

Wisemen who Mr. Brand apparently reveres.

 

For example, In his book " Grasping the Wind " , Mr Wisemen, et al. suggest that

the name of K-7 denotes that (to paraphrase) `he kidney channel makes a circle

around the ankle and the flow of qi returns from k-6 to k-7.' Apparently their

multiple PHD's, and years of Classical study, didn't prompt them to mention that

the point's name and function is emblematic of arguably one of the deepest and

highest values of Ancient Chinese Culture: The Turning Point, The recognition of

the role of human will, and free choice, in forging destiny and mediating the

interpenetration of yin and yang as the root of both health and enlightenment. A

small detail to have glossed over, admittedly, but still one worth noting

perhaps? Either the authors were clueless in this regard, or didn't value the

fact having had no degree of personal experience with the inner dimensions of

the teachings that they could take a stand for.

 

And it is this most unfortunate failure to provide depth by many of those who

do have access to the Classics that makes room in all the traditions for much of

the airy fairy, newagey, humanistic, psychological pablum that I would guess Mr.

Brand, and I can assure you that I, detest. The best way to remedy this is to

pay the price to become a living expression of the deepest and highest virtues

pointed to by the classics and to bring that depth of integration, humility,

insight, passion, and enlightenment to one's work. But the price for admission

is high, pretense has to be left at the door because depth cannot be faked. And,

so far I've seen precious few clinicians, scholars, or practitioners willing to

pay that price-across all traditions and areas of inquiry within, and without,

CM.

 

Materialistic, Postmodern, values also taint many " literally giants " in our

field by virtue of the material they choose to leave out due either to

embarrassment, or a lack of ability to find the deeper meanings in what is being

written. While some authors laud the fact that they haven't " included a single

word or notion not in the original text " they interestingly fail to mention they

had to edit out all references to women having sex with ghosts and giving birth

to animals or the " fact " (according to Mr. Li Shi Zhen) that foxes give birth to

human children. After all the venerated Mr. Zhen reminds us, " only the highest

and most open minded physician knows of such things " a sentiment I'm sure was

shared by Sun Simiao and most of the other people who authored the classics. I

also find it interesting to contemplate that, while many like to deify the

authors of the ancient texts for their " enlightenment, " I doubt very much that

any had reached a level of cultural development that would have inspired a

marriage proposal from a female reader of either of our newslists.

 

Lastly, as concerns the point names, I would like Mr. Brand to back up his

claims of poor translation. When I wrote my Clinical Practice text, I compared

the point name translations of virtually all texts available in English. There

is surprisingly little difference between them. In my book, I gave my

translation, and the Chinese characters for every alternate name for each point.

Beyond that, I actually gave the page reference for both Mathews Chinese-English

Dictionary and Wieger's translation of the Shouwen for every character so that

students wouldn't be bound by any author's value decisions regarding a

translation. While one might argue with my choice of reference texts, I think it

has to be acknowledged that I went to a very great extant to empower

practitioners to find out for themselves.

In JR's tradition the names are only one consideration taken into account when

choosing points. True, 30 years ago too much rested on that. But now there is

such a wealth of information available that no serious student of any tradition

could feel safe to rest on what they had learned in school. It seems that the

best any school can do is teach some technical basics, teach a perspective based

on a value system, and leave it up to the inspired practitioner to give a

lifetime to developing in the medicine. But I've taught the graduates of nearly

every school in the Western world for 23 years and I could count on one hand the

number of practitioners 5 years out who could perform an integrated diagnosis

and fewer 10 years or more out who could take a pulse and speak coherently about

it for more than 20 seconds (this is changing now in a small minority of

practitioners due to Leon Hammer's good work). From an integral perspective, the

bar for diagnosis is higher than ever before and I see precious few even aware

of what it might take to perform such a diagnosis.

 

School is a basis for practice and one can't fake what only 20-30 years of

focused attention in a clinical setting, and of study, can accomplish. And I

will mention that precious few in history attained Mr Worsley's record of 60

years of clinical experience. The man literally conducted an intake on a student

of mine from his deathbed because the fellow had scheduled it many months

before. JR was committed in a rare way and, for all his faults, deserves the

respect from Mr. Brand that he says he would have liked to have seen JR give his

own predecessors.

 

As to Mr. Brand's assertion that, " brainwashed communists " did not " destroy the

classics " I can only attest that when I published my original articles Mr. Flaws

expressed to me that he had been incredulous of my assertion that the

" Nourishment of Destiny " was the highest form of practice noted in the Ben

Cao-until he had procured a copy that had not been printed on the mainland. We

can discuss this all day long, but if your assertion is that CM has thrived

under totalitarianism, or that it's development there equals its development

these last 150 years in democracies, we will have to agree to disagree.

 

As to the classics and JR's tradition, all I can say is that when I went through

school we spent a total of 6 days, 8 hours a day, with Father Claude Larre (a

man who spent 50 years to publish a dictionary in French from the oracle bones

up through the classical language) and Elisabeth Rochat. No, we didn't learn to

read Chinese, but we were certainly given an appreciation of the language, the

etymology, texts and the tools to pursue them to whatever individual degree of

interest we had. As to myself, I have sat with the Dao De Jing, Zhuangzi, the

Neijing, the Nanjing, and the writings of Liu Yiming, with dictionaries,

etymological texts, and English translations and gone through them one character

at a time. This is now long ago. But I don't think one can diminish the effort.

What is of importance is one's depth of understanding, beyond mere intellect,

and, so far, many of the scholars Mr. Brand mentions he venerates have come up

empty handed in this regard. If ever there was an appropriate application for

the term " vacuity " it rests in failure of so many " scholars " to actually

demonstrate personal realization of the highest attributes inherent in the heart

of the medicine. Or, for that matter, to even feign an attempt to pursue such a

worthy goal and personally stretch to comprehend what might have been being

pointed to by a phrase such as tongshenming and it's implications for the

practice of medicine today.

 

As my books are two of the main source texts for the tradition that Mr. Brand is

assailing I think it only fair to assume he is critiquing the merits of my work.

To any degree Mr. Brand feels that my conclusions or scholarship are not up to

snuff, he should step right up and say so. I will be more than happy, in any

venue, at any time, to address his concerns in front of any number of people,

and he can feel free to have lifelines to Mr. Flaws, Mr. Wiseman, or any other

resources he feels are necessary to substantiate his point of view. The

assertion that fluency in reading Chinese produces a superior practitioner

stands without the slightest proof. It's just another superstitious, faith based

belief, with no single bit of data to support it. Please, Mr Brand, produce the

data and publish it if you have it.

 

 

3. Economic Imperatives

 

 

It is both crassly cynical and disingenuous to suggest that Mr. Worsley

and his followers propagate their medicine " to fulfill a market expectation " . It

is similarly bizarre, and telling, when he suggests that, " the people that

should be making six-figure salaries teaching classical acupuncture are people

………[that I like!] " . Really? Isn't this a capitalistic democracy? For Mr. Brand

to suggest that he isn't selling his perspective, and has no financial

investment in his arguments, is patently false. This point is based on such

reliable data, and is so well recognized, that we teachers are required to sign

legal forms disclosing any affiliation we have with companies whose products we

might be selling in our lectures. Do you sell any products Mr. Brand? We know

that the tobacco companies can't do unbiased research on the health effects of

smoking, and we know that same principle is at work in at least all but the most

enlightened and selfless among us. I will point out that many of Mr. Brand's

colleagues endorsed a system of transliteration based on what many consider to

be a superficial and materialistic value system and campaigned vigorously for

schools to require texts that featured that system, and for the national exam to

require those texts, as a way of not only selling their value system (take the

language and you've got the culture) but, dare I say it, profiting financially.

 

Mr. Brand is just to young to be so cynical regarding the pure motivation of so

many of us who aspire to be healers and have some affiliation with the tradition

associated with the lineage of Mr. Worsley.

 

4. Christianity:

 

Mr. Brand takes deference to the finding that JR's tradition is in part

influenced by Christianity:

 

" 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. "

 

Well, not exactly Mr. Brand. In the first place, it makes sense that as CM came

into Western culture it would be assimilated into different value systems than

it had been historically based in. This is called E-v-o-l-u-t-i-o-n and it's a

necessary step to the emergence of integral consciousness which has huge

implications at the cutting edge of cultural evolution for every classical

discipline East and West. Secondly, I would like to point out that, while the

Chinese may have been polytheistic the Daoists did realize the absolute (the

one, real, authentic, true, unnamed dao as ONE and not separate in anyway from

True Self). And this realization was also present if Confucianism (the absolute

one right way to live the realization in the world) and Chan Buddhism as it was

influenced by Daoism's view of non-dual realization. In fact, this absolute

recognition was LATE to Christianity and emerged during the axial age (800 BC to

200 BC-during the time many of the classics were written) in many cultures

simultaneously around the globe. My suggestion is that your reaction here is

colored more by the conditioned postmodern rejection of hierarchy than by any

rational objection to a Christian incorporating his cultural roots into his

clinical practice.

Interestingly, you use the metaphor of " discussing evolution with a

creationist " . It might benefit you to actually apply evolutionary theory to the

development and history of CM by providing you with a somewhat more elevated

perspective on the archaic value system you are espousing in your essay. Again,

I would be more than happy to discuss this openly in public with you. It might

be interesting to find out just what you know about evolution and might reveal

who the conservative really is!

You cited a description of Ht-1 by a " prominent teacher " as proof. I refer you

to my own article on the subject in the California Journal of Oriental Medicine

(V O L U M E 1 9, N O . 2 • F A L L / W I N T E R 2 0 0 8). Let me point out

that I'm Jewish, not Christian, and that I'll be pleased to debate with you the

functions of the points I ascribe based on my clinical experience, the

realization of non-duality inherent in Daoism and Buddhism and more modern

evolutionary teachings, and Chinese physiology.

 

5. Eric Brand: " 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. "

 

 

Lonny Jarrett: Really? At least we have definitive proof that this assertion

isn't correct. Is CHA your secret cabal? It is impossible to believe that you

are so naive that you think that thoughts you publish on the internet on a

group will not be disseminated globally. Therefore, I have to conclude that it

is your intention to disseminate this perspective while maintaining the pretense

of being reticent to do so (again, 15 more paragraphs after saying that you had

" just a few thoughts " and didn't really want to get into it?). In fact, I

suspect you knew I was on the CHA list since I've posted on it and you follow it

closely. And, for your information, I first became aware of your post, and

copied it, from the Alumni web site of the Traditional Acupuncture institute. As

you wished, every graduate of the school is now well aware of what you think of

them.

And, why would you even want a forum, such as your , where you are

free to publish such vehemently derisive comments about an entire tradition of

practice without accountability? Is this what you do on CHA, get together and

gloat about your superiority to other people? My own Nourishingdestiny.com site

has 1200 practitioners signed on and only the clinical forum is closed to the

public for the sake of both confidentiality and transparency. What has to be

carried out in secret (even though that could not have been your intent) isn't

wholesome, and lacks both dignity and integrity. Frankly, it's shameful and

apparently you knew this but did it anyway. It's irrelevant how well a person

can read the classical teachings if they fail to embody them.

 

 

Faith

 

Eric Brand: " essentially the Worsley camp is faith-based rather than being based

on primary sources. "

 

Quite the contrary. The techniques and perspective taught by JR Worsley

persist not because we have faith in them sir, but because they have been

subjected to over 60 years of clinical scrutiny by now thousands of

practitioners. No intelligent clinician continues using techniques that do not

work. I have done over 60,000 clinical sessions. I stop utilizing anything that

does not work very quickly. Any decent practitioner also refines what they learn

over time and adapts their protocols accordingly.

 

When you state that our tradition is not based on primary sources, what exactly

do you mean? Are you familiar enough with our techniques and have you done an

exhaustive search to ascertain that none of them predate JR Worsley? If so would

you please publish that? I don't know where many of these techniques came from

but it is impossible for me to believe the man was such a genius that he

personally devised them all. But, even if he had, this does not imply in anyway

that my confidence in them is " faith based. " I find it hard to believe that you

actually think that the most weighty substantiation of a perspective or

technique is that it was first mentioned by a Chinese person, the longer dead

the better. Because, ironically, it is exactly this type of thinking that

literally defines fundamentalism which you appear to be arguing against.

 

Finale

 

What experience do you have with the efficacy of the techniques, diagnosis, and

prognostic capability of the superior physicians in JR's lineage? Forget your

generalizations about either the man, or the character of some of his adherents

because, frankly, many of us share at least some of your views. That's all old,

dead, history. There is plenty of pretense and flakiness to go around and it's

not lacking in those who read classical Chinese, practice TCM, or in any

tradition.

 

What we are seeing regarding flakiness is more the effects of postmodernism and

several previous levels of development that haven't even made it there yet. And

none of us are immune from the unquestioned assumptions inherent in or cultural

conditioning. Depth and authenticity are rare qualities and are not limited to

those who read certain books in any language or to those in any tradition of

practice. Do you really believe that the many of us who owe JR Worsley a great

depth of gratitude, who have practiced 20 years longer than you, or seen many

times the numbers of patients than your mentor, lack clinical and personal

integrity because of our affiliation with a specific man during a portion of our

training or because we use, among other things, a collection of certain

techniques he assimilated?

 

Do you support the eradication of the tradition? If so, then step up to the

plate and make your assertions in public pointing your finger specifically at

all those you would indict as being frauds. Provide data and evidence for the

lack of integrity and efficacy in practice and scholarship that you intimate.

Otherwise, stand down.

 

The debate of who has more " authority " the scholar or the physician

is old, dead, tired, and relevant only to those more interested in

self-promotion than the advancement of the medicine. The single most significant

hallmark of the Scholar-physician, is the degree to which he or she is

authentically in touch with (tong shen ming) the radiant light of spirit. Such a

person evidences humility, integrity, ease of being and an enlightened

perspective in all things. Scholars so enlightened are always far more

interested in what they don't already know, than in what they do know. They

convey a profound sense of realizing that there isn't any problem, and a

ceaseless passion to make things better. And everything they do is motivated by

one single goal: TO BRING PEOPLE TOGETHER. These attributes are central to being

a practitioner of any true holistic/integral medicine and they can't be faked.

These virtues far outweigh one's accumulation of information by a ratio of a

trillion to one. Every other consideration of development in our medicine comes

after this fact.

 

 

Why don't you just relent, and stop carrying forward the petty grievances and

old wounds of others and focus instead on doing the good works of which I'm sure

you're quite capable? I have no doubt that we could respectfully have very many

discussions that would be of benefit to the profession, and that we would each

discover surprising things, and develop, in the process. But we are all in this

together Eric, and you gain no merit or credibility whatsoever by pointing your

finger at others or disrespecting a practitioner of Worsley's stature. Ego

engenders ego, and it is clear that JR's failings reverberate through your own

ego in your essay. It only takes one person to make a choice and brake the cycle

for the good and betterment of all involved. It is my hope that, going forward,

you will choose to be a vehicle for that positive expression alone. I think we

can agree that it's regrettable when one's significant contributions are tainted

by gross division. Can we also agree that it's unnecessary?

 

Warm regards, Lonny S. Jarrett

[Guest guest]

, " sppdestiny " <revolution wrote:

> Lonny: I read with interest Mr. Brand's recent assessment that " The

Worsley system of " Classical Chinese Acupuncture " is one of the most divisive

things in our field. "

> At the outset its important to note that I have heard every point

made by Mr. Brand expressed verbatim by Mr. Flaws, who appears to be his mentor,

over the last 20 years.

 

Eric: I'm sorry, but I haven't ever read any of Bob Flaws' writing on this

subject. I didn't even know that he ever wrote about it, so I guess we reached

our conclusions independently. In fact, I suspect that most people that read

Chinese share the same point of view about this (I should be cautious not to

over-generalize, but all the Chinese readers I know feel the same way).

 

Lonny: Apparently Mr. Brandt, seeking to identify himself with Mr. Flaw's

cause celebre, is picking up the torch. Would, instead, that he'd endeavor to

distinguish himself.

 

Eric: To be honest, I'd much rather be known for the stuff that I actually

publish and write about day-to-day. I write about all manners of subjects,

generally academic herbal medicine stuff, and I hope that my core work would be

the thing that people noticed, rather than reducing all my professional efforts

to a single email critique of JR.

 

Lonny: Who, exactly, in your mind, Mr. Brand, constitutes " the Worsley camp " ?

By how much association is a person so tainted? I spent my first 6 years of

study in this tradition and wrote two books on the subject so I'll assume you

are including me.

 

Eric: Lonny, I'm sorry but I am not very familiar with your work. I was not

referencing you or your work in any way. My objection had nothing to do with

your work, and nothing to do with any individual practitioners. I was merely

arguing the semantics of calling JR Worsley's system " Classical Chinese

Acupuncture. " Nothing more, nothing less.

 

I do acknowledge that my statements were over-generalized, and I apologize to

any who I inadvertently offended. I know that the landscape of practitioners is

diverse and I was not attempting to suggest that any approach of healing is

inherently superior. I was only advocating for transparency of sources and

authenticity when it comes to calling a system of medicine " classical. "

 

Lonny: Beyond that I took courses in reading Chinese back in the 70's and self

completed the entire Yale course in Reading Chinese to get, at least, a basic

background in the language. Finally, I've published the two main texts used to

teach the tradition in Europe, Australia, New Zealand, the United States, and

Canada. Interestingly, the books are used at very many TCM schools.

 

Eric: I have already realized that I made a gross over-simplification as

regards suggesting that the Five Element community does not advocate the study

of Chinese. A student responded to me by explaining that their education does

involve studying some sections of the classics. While admittedly there is a big

difference between taking some courses and having the fluency required for

translation, it is a step in the right direction that students are thus

encouraged to learn the language and pursue the original classics themselves.

Glad to hear that you have also undertaken Chinese study yourself.

 

I guess I didn't realize that your books were the main two texts used to teach

the Five Element tradition. The reason that I wouldn't write any formal article

about this topic is very simple- I am obviously woefully ignorant of the subject

of Five Element Acupuncture. I only know what I hear from the students who come

back from the training, and from the practitioners in the community that talk

about Five Element. I haven't studied it myself so I don't think that I have

any authority to write about it. The only thing I can say is that it doesn't

seem to be based on Chinese sources.

 

Honestly, it doesn't matter to me whether or not someone's acupuncture practice

is based on Chinese sources. For myself, I go back to Chinese sources because I

like having 2000 years of literature and collective experience to reference.

But an acupuncture needle is just a tool, and I can completely accept the fact

that acupuncture can evolve in the modern world and can adapt to different

cultural circumstances.

 

Lonny, I never associated your work with Worsley because it never seemed to me

that you were trying to represent your work as Worsley Classical Chinese

Acupuncture. I always thought that you advocated a modern, spiritual method of

acupuncture that was rooted in Chinese philosophy integrated with Western

psychological perspectives (for lack of a better description). While I admit

that I am not that familiar with the depth of your work, I never thought you

were billing it as anything other than what it is. I can completely respect

someone promoting an evolution of acupuncture into the modern Western world. I

can completely respect trying to embody ancient Chinese philosophy, mixing

acupuncture needles with spiritual work and psychology. I certainly wouldn't

question its efficacy or validity.

 

Please don't misinterpret my questioning of Worsley's sources as a fundamental

distrust of anything that is not rooted in the Chinese literature. I have no

doubt that all manners of great healing techniques can come from outside the

Chinese literature. I have respect for anyone that can help people, it doesn't

matter to me if the paradigm is based on biomedical principles of acupuncture,

modern psychology mixed with acupuncture, modern spirituality mixed with

acupuncture, craniosacral therapy mixed with acupuncture, ayahuasca mixed with

acupuncture, whatever works, who cares? I just think it should be authentically

represented.

 

In your writings and lectures, I never had the feeling that you were inauthentic

in your representation of your art. You seem to advocate an evolution of

cultural ideas, an adaption of traditional philosophy to the modern clinic, a

spiritual way of using acupuncture for the practitioner's and patient's benefit.

You always seem to present this as a modern evolution of acupuncture, which is a

very authentic way to approach it. The thing I objected with about JR's use of

the phrase " Classical Chinese Acupuncture " is that it seemed inauthentic. If it

was called " miraculous new acupuncture to heal the spirit " or " a fantastic

breakthrough that uses acupuncture to balance a person spiritually, " I would

have no problem with it. The only thing I was objecting to is calling it

" Classical Chinese Acupuncture, " because this implies that it is based on

classical primary sources.

 

If Worsley just presented his system as his own innovation instead of calling it

classical Chinese acupuncture, I'd say that he was a genius. Clearly, he

created or stumbled upon something that has helped to heal thousands of people.

If he just took credit for inventing the system himself instead of calling it

classical Chinese acupuncture, I'd be all for it. Students would know that

viable methods that can heal thousands of people can be created from scratch,

they would know that they could all be Worsleys, they wouldn't need to simply

follow Worsley. I would rather see students do Qi Gong, pay close attention to

their patients, and innovate new things themselves instead of blindly following

the innovations of others.

 

I have no problem with innovation, I only have a problem with people making up

their own thing and then claiming that it is the secret lost tradition from the

classics. If it works, who cares if it came from the classics? Just be honest

about it.

 

One of the biggest problems in our field is that people don't distinguish

primary sources from secondary sources. Not everything in the Chinese

literature is useful and sophisticated, and certainly the ancient Chinese didn't

have a monopoly on healing. But it is still useful for people to know what

material comes from primary sources and what material is a modern innovation.

As educators, our goal is not to stifle innovation, but we do have a

responsibility to let future students know which ideas have been around for 600

years and which ideas have only been around for 60 years.

 

Lonny: > > It is deeply regrettable that Mr. Worsley refused to name

his sources or just flat out take a stand for what he created. It's

intellectually dishonest and suggests a fair amount of insecurity.

 

Eric: That is all I am trying to say.

 

Lonny: Regrettably too, Mr. Worsley was exceedingly self-righteous about the

superiority of his system compared to the materialism he found prevalent in his

culture at the time. It is not hard to imagine that Mr. Flaws, being young at

the time and passionate about his pursuit of the medicine, would have felt

insulted by the condescension that JR, and many of his students, visited upon

anyone who failed to venerate him, or pursue a different direction in the

medicine.

 

Eric: It seems that the whole problem is this fundamental division.

Self-righteousness and the exclusion of other viable possibilities is problem

that has harmed humanity for thousands of years. I am just a young student, I

think my Chinese medicine skills are many decades away from being truly

advanced. I do not self-righteously believe that Chinese medicine as

exemplified in the Chinese literature is the only thing that is valid and

effective. But I do think that we owe it to the community to be transparent

about our sources. People should know what comes from the Nei Jing, what comes

from Jung, and what comes from biomedicine. Then they can decide for themselves

what they want to study and focus on.

 

Lonny: Living in a democracy, JR and his students were free to explore and

develop the medicine during the period of time that humanistic psychology and

the consciousness expansion movement were occurring. While I think much of that

is old news and antiquated now, I don't think it can be dismissed as it

represented an EVOLUTION of the medicine as it entered a new culture. Frankly

there aren't that many differences between totalitarianism and Confucianism

(both are artificial dominator hierarchies) and it makes sense that CM would

have to make evolutionary jumps as it migrated to cultures at higher stages of

development (it is my opinion that democracy for all it's flaws is far superior

to fascism).

 

Eric: For someone that opens up his arguments talking about

over-generalizations and prejudice, I must say that those are some mighty

sweeping statements. Worsley studied in Taiwan, a place that never had a

communist government, never had a cultural revolution and enjoys one of the most

vibrant democracies in the world today. Their turnout on election day is much

better than we could ever hope for in the U.S. Chinese medicine is continually

evolving the modern world, without a doubt, but it seems a bit ethnocentric to

suggest that our culture is at a " higher stage of development " than Chinese

culture. Just like Western culture cannot be reduced down to the USA (much as

many Americans might have a hard time grasping this), Chinese culture cannot be

reduced down to the PRC, and the PRC and America are both more diverse with

ideas than many people would assume.

 

Lonny: > Would Mr. Brand even have had a profession to step into and excel at

without JR Worsley and his lineage? The answer isn't clear.

 

Eric: Thanks for getting acupuncture legalized. My whole generation loves it.

Although I thought Miriam Lee was one of the main people that first got the

legalization going, perhaps I am in error?

 

Lonny: If Mr. Brand has data to suggest that practitioners who are based in

Worsley's tradition are less clinically effective than his, or any other

tradition, he should publish it.

 

Eric: Never suggested this at all. Worsley's system could be the most

effective approach ever created for all I know. Ditto with biomedical

acupuncture. But biomedical acupuncture doesn't claim to be more than 50 years

old. Again, my argument has nothing to do with efficacy, my argument revolves

around the pure semantics of calling a system that is 60 years old " classical. "

 

Lonny: > There isn't any secret that JR couldn't read or speak a word of

Chinese, had next to no understanding of the Classics, wasn't a scholar, and

didn't value intellectual endeavor. I have heard rumors for years that JR hardly

spent anytime in Asia and certainly not the amount of time he suggested.

Nonetheless, from a clinical point of view, this makes JR's achievements even

more impressive. It's just too bad he wasn't secure enough to cite his

influences and to stand up when necessary and say " I Created it, take it or

leave it " .

 

Eric: You just summarized my entire argument.

 

Lonny: > HAVING SAID THIS……..The Authors of many of the Classical texts

which Mr. Brand venerates didn't cite their influences either. Instead they

cited mythic characters like Huang ti and Shen Nong presumably to create the

illusion of tradition where there was none and to tie themselves to sources that

already had credibility.

 

Eric: Actually, even early classical works like the Shang Han Lun do cite other

classics, and the use of citations and academic rigor is extremely developed in

the Chinese literature. Li Shi-Zhen's Ben Cao Gang Mu had citations to over 800

different works, and even the earliest extant texts like Tao Hong-Jing's Shen

Nong Ben Cao Jing were done with great scholarship, all the original text was

separated from the commentaries with different colored ink, a practice that

persisted throughout history. By contrast with JR's approach, the Chinese

classical literature placed tremendous influence on the traceability of their

sources and the rooting of their ideas in the previous literature.

 

As to Shen Nong, of course Shen Nong is a mythical character. That is the whole

point of naming the book after him. It isn't alleged to have been written by

Shen Nong, just as the Nei Jing is not said to be written by Huang Di. Shen

Nong is a mythical figure that honors the countless thousands of people that

died in the quest to discover medicine. It took the trial and error of many

generations to discover how to harness the power of deadly medicines like

aconite, and the myth of Shen Nong was created to honor their collective

contribution. The book is so named in honor of the many contributors, not one

single person " to create the illusion of tradition when there was none. "

 

Similarly, the Huang Di Nei Jing uses the fictional character of Huang Di as

part of the writing style. The Nei Jing was written by many different

contributors and likely evolved over a period of time, it doesn't " create the

illusion of tradition when there was none, " it shows us that such a tradition

existed. Using metaphors of government is just an example of how Chinese

medicine's fundamental principles can be expressed in a variety of metaphors.

The metaphor is not the truth, just like a shadow is not the shape itself, only

its reflection. No doubt you recall the opening line of the Dao De Jing, " Dao

Ke Dao, Fei Chang Dao, Ming Ke Ming Fei Chang Ming " (the Tao that can be Tao-ed

is not the Tao, the name that can be named is not the name). Using the myth of

Huang Di to discuss Chinese medicine in political terms is a pure manifestation

of this tradition of describing the indescribable by means of natural metaphor.

 

Lonny: > Mr. Brand is correct to chastise JR and those who assert that their

tradition is based in the classics. It isn't…Frankly, calling a pot that was

made this morning an " antique " IS a venerated Chinese tradition-what is being

venerated is the tradition of making it and not the pot itself (this is putting

the best face on the deception).

 

Eric: Sure, there is a venerated tradition of making fake antiques. People

have been making fake antiques for hundreds of years, and it can be done with

great craftsmanship. But that just makes real antiques all the more valuable.

If you have never been exposed to the idea of fake antiques, you will get ripped

off the first time you try to buy one. But if you know that both real and fake

antiques exist, you can make sure to bring an expert with you when you go

shopping. The problem with Chinese medicine in the West is that people just

dress up anything as an antique and too few people study deeply enough to learn

the difference between a real antique and a fake. I guarantee that plenty of

real antique furniture exists in China. Just because fakes are made with skill

doesn't mean that there is no difference between real antiques and fakes.

 

Lonny: To this day not only have I not seen a mature spiritual perspective

emerge from whatever tradition we might call " TCM " I haven't even seen any

serious attempt to do so.

 

Eric: Has it ever occurred to you that maybe Chinese medicine doesn't

necessarily have the same spiritual agenda that you have? This is not to say

that Chinese medicine doesn't heal the spirit or that Chinese medicine is

divorced from Chinese philosophy; in fact, Chinese medicine constantly addresses

the spirit and constantly uses principles of Chinese philosophy. But we should

be careful to first understand Chinese medicine as it is, and not try to

superimpose our own ideas about what we think it should be.

 

Chinese medicine is already quite rich in its holistic treatment of the human

body. If we understand the basics well, then I'm all for innovations beyond

anything that has been done before. But I think it is erroneous to assume that

the ancient Chinese had the same spiritual goals that we have in modern day

America. Evolving it into our own spiritual paradigm may be valid, but it is an

innovation, not something from the classics.

 

Lonny: > For example, In his book " Grasping the Wind " , Mr Wisemen, et al.

suggest that the name of K-7 denotes that (to paraphrase) `he kidney channel

makes a circle around the ankle and the flow of qi returns from k-6 to k-7.'

Apparently their multiple PHD's…

 

Eric: I think one of the things that Wiseman and Ellis learned in the process

of their studies is that their written works should be based on primary sources.

They weren't trying to write a book about their own ideas or speculations; they

were just translating what the Chinese books say so that Western readers could

learn what the Chinese books say without the burden of learning the Chinese

language. There are actually many people in the community who simply want to

know what the Chinese textbooks say. Once you know what the textbook says, you

can go beyond the textbook in any way that you choose. But if no one preserves

the textbook knowledge, people can't tell which ideas are based in consensus in

the primary literature and which ideas are the Western author's own innovative

interpretations.

 

Lonny: While some authors laud the fact that they haven't " included a single

word or notion not in the original text " they interestingly fail to mention they

had to edit out all references to women having sex with ghosts and giving birth

to animals or the " fact " (according to Mr. Li Shi Zhen) that foxes give birth to

human children. After all the venerated Mr. Zhen reminds us, " only the highest

and most open minded physician knows of such things " a sentiment I'm sure was

shared by Sun Simiao and most of the other people who authored the classics.

 

Eric: While I think Li Shi-Zhen's work has recently been translated in English,

I haven't read it and I can't say anything about the translation approach that

was used. However, Wiseman did translate the Jin Gui section that has the

original reference to women having sex with ghosts, and it definitely isn't

filtered in any way. This disease is also covered in the gynecology section of

the Yi Zong Jin Jian, which is available in English from Paradigm Publications.

Sabine Wilms also translated the gynecology section of Sun Si-Miao's Qian Jin

Fang, and it similarly does not suffer from any such omissions. Certainly it

mentions magical techniques of influencing the gender of the child, and it even

contains formulas for such esoteric purposes as shrinking the vagina (apparently

achieved with topical application of hen's liver, rat skulls, lacquer, and

hare's droppings).

 

Lonny: > Lastly, as concerns the point names, I would like Mr. Brand to back up

his claims of poor translation. When I wrote my Clinical Practice text, I

compared the point name translations of virtually all texts available in

English.

 

Eric: I'm sorry, I didn't know that your books were reference texts for the

point names used in the Worsley tradition. My comments in no way where directed

towards your book. My only exposure to the Worsley point names came from the

notes of PCOM students and their teacher's website.

 

Lonny: > School is a basis for practice and one can't fake what only 20-30 years

of focused attention in a clinical setting, and of study, can accomplish. And I

will mention that precious few in history attained Mr Worsley's record of 60

years of clinical experience.

 

Eric: I agree with the fact that school is just the starting point. But I

think that stating that " precious few in history have achieved Worsley's record

of 60 years of clinical experience " is a grossly ignorant statement, unless you

mean " precious few white people. " There are many, many doctors of today and in

days gone by that practiced medicine for 60 years or more.

 

Lonny: The man literally conducted an intake on a student of mine from his

deathbed because the fellow had scheduled it many months before. JR was

committed in a rare way and, for all his faults, deserves the respect from Mr.

Brand that he says he would have liked to have seen JR give his own

predecessors.

 

Eric: I respect his healing gift and his commitment to helping others. The

only thing I don't respect is him trying to call his own creation " Classical

Chinese Acupuncture " and then trying to bring lawsuits for infringing on his

trademark claim to this name.

 

Lonny: We can discuss this all day long, but if your assertion is that CM has

thrived under totalitarianism, or that it's development there equals its

development these last 150 years in democracies, we will have to agree to

disagree.

 

Eric: I did most of my post-graduate study in Taiwan, so I can't say that I have

much experience with " totalitarianism. " Rather, I studied in the native

language in a place that has had a continual history of traditional culture with

minimal political interruption, in a thriving democracy. I guess that this

doesn't meet your criteria for the development of Chinese medicine in a

civilized, advanced culture, so I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.

 

Lonny: > As my books are two of the main source texts for the tradition that

Mr. Brand is assailing I think it only fair to assume he is critiquing the

merits of my work.

 

Eric: Not at all. Like I said, I didn't even know your books were part of the

orthodox Worsley tradition. I thought your books were more of a modern,

integrative acupuncture approach, so I never even thought to link them to the

Worsley brand name. My apologies for not being more informed on the nature or

the content or your publications. Suffice to say that I was not criticizing

them.

 

Lonny: The assertion that fluency in reading Chinese produces a superior

practitioner stands without the slightest proof.

 

Eric: I have never made such an assertion. In fact, in all of my writings, I

constantly mention that I do not believe that Chinese fluency is essential for

being a superior practitioner. Chinese fluency helps one to read a wider range

of literature, but I would never suggest that Chinese fluency is a requirement

for being a great practitioner. Please do not put words in my mouth. Anyone

that reads my essays on this type of topic would quickly recognize that your

assertion of " my assertion " is patently false, thank you very much. I don't

know what your goal of maligning me is, but please attempt to focus your efforts

on legitimate arguments.

 

Lonny: > Interestingly, you use the metaphor of " discussing evolution with a

creationist " . It might benefit you to actually apply evolutionary theory to the

development and history of CM by providing you with a somewhat more elevated

perspective on the archaic value system you are espousing in your essay. Again,

I would be more than happy to discuss this openly in public with you. It might

be interesting to find out just what you know about evolution and might reveal

who the conservative really is!

 

Eric: Not opposed to the evolution of ideas. Not rigidly clinging onto the

ideas of dead people as the only valid source of information. I just like

transparency and honesty.

 

Lonny: In fact, I suspect you knew I was on the CHA list since I've posted on it

and you follow it closely. And, for your information, I first became aware of

your post, and copied it, from the Alumni web site of the Traditional

Acupuncture institute. As you wished, every graduate of the school is now well

aware of what you think of them.

Eric: Well, I guess I was foolish to put trust in things like the " Terms of

Use " of the CHA , which clearly states that one cannot copy and cross

post material without the author's permission. But I think you may be taking it

a bit too personally to think that I was making an attack on you personally. I

wasn't thinking of you when I posted to CHA, I wasn't even associating you with

Worsley in the first place. I'm sorry if it is a disappointment to you that not

everyone in the field is intimately familiar with your work. I was ignorant

about your work and your connection with Worsley, so surely you must understand

that this was not a personal attack in any way.

 

I wonder if the students reading that list are equally reactive. I wonder if

they can differentiate the fact that I am questioning Worsley's sources but I am

not attacking them as practitioners. I know that nearly everyone involved in

acupuncture does it because they care about people and want to help people. I

have no problem with anyone with such a noble human goal. People need to

understand the difference between questioning sources and attacking the

character of fundamentally benevolent human beings. The people practicing Five

Element are not Worsley himself, they should not feel like they are being

personally attacked simply because their teacher's sources are being questioned.

Most Five Element practitioners do it because they feel that it works well, they

don't practice out of blind loyalty to JR himself. What does it matter where it

comes from as long as the effect is satisfactory? Who cares if Worsley made it

up?

 

Incidentally, you have my permission to post my response to whatever discussion

group you posted the first message to. I wonder if my response will ever see

that message group. I wouldn't be surprised if only the negative side is shown

to those readers because the negative slant is probably only the side they want

to hear. I wonder if any of those readers would ever be exposed to the stuff

that I actually write about professionally, the stuff that is actually in my

field of expertise. It is a shame to think that people would have their whole

opinion of me shaped by one off-topic email to CHA. Maybe if Lonny doesn't want

to share my response, someone else on that Traditional Acupuncture list where

the first post showed up will follow it up with this response. Otherwise,

please respect the rules of the list and do not post my stuff without

permission.

 

Lonny: What has to be carried out in secret (even though that could not have

been your intent) isn't wholesome, and lacks both dignity and integrity.

 

Eric: Actually, some people would prefer to post anonymously just so that their

reputation is not smeared by the response and message forwarding that you

described. For example, the student that wrote to me in private and was willing

to share her ideas as long as it didn't draw attention to her personally. I

wonder if her words and copyright have been violated as well. Maybe if I was

smart, I would have concealed my identity just like she did.

 

 

Lonny: Do you really believe that the many of us who owe JR Worsley a great

depth of gratitude, who have practiced 20 years longer than you, or seen many

times the numbers of patients than your mentor, lack clinical and personal

integrity because of our affiliation with a specific man during a portion of our

training or because we use, among other things, a collection of certain

techniques he assimilated?

 

Eric: Certainly I don't think that such people lack personal or clinical

integrity. Again, please stop putting words into my mouth to fit your agenda.

I don't do that to you.

 

I also don't make any assumptions about your mentors. My close mentor in the

past Feng Ye has seen hundreds of thousands of patients, and I have had many

influential teachers along the way, not just one or two. Questioning the

experience of my teachers is uncalled for and is really quite a silly approach

to an argument if you actually knew about my education.

 

Lonny: > Do you support the eradication of the tradition? If so, then step up

to the plate and make your assertions in public pointing your finger

specifically at all those you would indict as being frauds.

 

Eric: Not at all. I don't deny that it could be an incredibly effective

tradition, and have never said otherwise. I just question whether it should be

called " Classical Chinese Acupuncture. " Seems like a lengthy debate over a

relatively small point. It almost even seems like you agree with me on that key

issue.

 

Lonny: > Why don't you just relent, and stop carrying forward the petty

grievances and old wounds of others and focus instead on doing the good works of

which I'm sure you're quite capable?

 

Eric: I am not pursuing this. I don't like this topic at all, I want to wash

my hands and be done with it. In fact, I focus nearly all my efforts on those

" good works that I am capable of. " Maybe you should explore my work instead of

just looking at me based on a single issue, an issue which I admit I am largely

ignorant about. After all, I haven't even read your books or Bob Flaws'

articles on this topic. Didn't even know they existed.

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

Hello Eric,

 

 

I appreciate you taking the time to respond. We agree wholeheartedly on

the designation of " Classical Acupuncture " and many other points as well. It's

silly and pretentious and we can leave it at that. From my perspective, all the

" Classical " acupuncturists died 2000 years ago. But I hope that you can see that

the way you spoke about this issue lacked the kind of rigor that I assume you

apply in your scholarly work. There should be no difference in the standard you

apply there or in any realm of public discourse. That's the meaning of

integrity.

I find it surprising that you are unaware of Bob's perspective on these

matters as he announced you at the Pacific Symposium as his successor. You

publish on his blog which contains multiple written pieces and audios conveying

similar views. Views expressed in person to me 20 years ago. Mr. Flaw's

sentiments are apparent when he terms Peter Eckman's book " an apologia " as

opposed to welcoming with a big heart the sincere efforts of a scholar to set

the record straight in as much as is possible regarding JR's actual history.

Perhaps, since you are in close affiliation with him, you should take more of an

interest in the overall tenor of his approach and its effect on the profession.

Recently Mr. Flaws published an audio interview where he and the subject

discussed at length these same issues regarding " the Worsleyans " just as you

refer to " the Worsley Camp " . Using such a term is dangerous and wrong for all

the reasons well known such the civil rights movement. You obviously knew this

when you proclaimed your reticence to discuss the topic and then did so anyway.

The mature and scholarly manner to handle differences in perspective is to

mention people with whom you take issue by name, with direct citation of the

material you object to. Certainly it's not up to academic standards you strive

to uphold to coin terms slurring anyone associated with a tradition and refer to

people anonymously in a public newsgroup with the pretense of having done so in

private. To me the definition of transparency and integrity is that one is the

same in private as one is in public.

I'm sure it's apparent that by failing to be forthright and discussing

directly who you were talking about it's not a stretch for any author,

practitioner, and teacher associated with the tradition to take offense and feel

implicated. My works go very well beyond JR's tradition and yet are also closely

allied with it finding their roots in a 5E constitutional approach.

Of course, you would " hope that your core work would be the thing

that people noticed, rather than reducing all your professional efforts to a

single email critique of JR. " And I'm sure that JR would hope the same

regarding the core of his work and his own personal failings. For precisely this

reason, I would suggest that if you, or anyone, has specific issues with living

individuals that you should be completely transparent in your criticism and

leave JR who is dead and cannot answer for himself or change, and his tradition,

out of it. You say, " If Worsley just presented his system as his own innovation

instead of calling it classical Chinese acupuncture, I'd say that he was a

genius. " Well, he's no less of a genius for having lacked integrity in the ways

we've discussed. That's why it's so very, very important that our words and

actions reflect our highest ideals. Integrity isn't something that can exist in

only one domain of our life's endeavor such as academic work. As you say, " the

whole problem is this fundamental division. " I'm making the point that this

same division is present in your original post and it would profit all involved,

the medicine itself, and humanity for all of us to consciously choose a very

different path right now in regard to these matters.

Lastly, I found your implications that I would not post your response

curious at best as had intended to from the outset and anyone who knows me will

attest to this. I have an open forum at Nourishingdestiny.com and you, Bob, Mr.

Wiseman, and anyone else can feel free to join and post openly at anytime as

long as the tenor of the communication is respectful. I would be happy to be

challenged on any and all facets of my teaching and, if I really am wrong about

something, I want to know it. A scholar-physician does not grow or further the

medicine by talking in private to those who agree with him. We grow only because

we are most interested in what we don't already know. And who better to teach

this to us than those with different perspectives?

I would be more than happy to discuss with you sometime the

higher implications of evolution for our medicine. I look forward to seeing

increased transparency as you take over the reigns at Blue Poppy and I wish you

success in the endeavor. Warm regards, Lonny Jarrett

[Guest guest]

, " sppdestiny " <revolution wrote:

> Lonny: I appreciate you taking the time to respond. We agree

wholeheartedly on the designation of " Classical Acupuncture " and many other

points as well. It's silly and pretentious and we can leave it at that.

 

Eric: The " Classical Chinese Acupuncture " label is the only thing that I really

care about, certainly it is the only thing that would provoke me enough to post

about a topic that is far from my specialty. It seems that we do indeed agree

about the fact that the " Classical Chinese Acupuncture " trademark is

inauthentic.

 

The only point that I was trying to make was that everyone I've ever met who is

fluent in Chinese believes that Worsley made the system up himself. In other

words, it doesn't seem to be based on the classics, it seems to be Worsley's own

creation. To me, representing it as " Classical Chinese Acupuncture " lacks

integrity and authenticity.

 

Given that there is precious little evidence that Worsley's knowledge was based

on the Chinese classics, it seems that this fact should be openly dealt with.

Why do people persist in calling it Classical Acupuncture or Traditional

Acupuncture if it is neither traditional nor classical?

 

It is hard to imagine that students could receive a Master's degree in medicine

without even learning the difference between primary sources and secondary

sources of information. Hard to imagine that they could earn a Master's degree

studying a system largely created by JR Worsley without ever learning that JR

made it up himself. In most places in the world, a Master's degree is something

that has academic credibility, very few people receive Master's degrees without

ever being exposed to primary sources of information in their field of study.

To me, it is unethical to teach someone that something comes from the Chinese

classics if it was in fact made up in England 60 years ago.

 

Even an expert such as Lonny Jarrett freely acknowledges that Worsley made it up

himself. So it is hardly any big secret that Worsley didn't have much, if any,

direct exposure to the classics. While Lonny and I may disagree about any

number of things, I think that Lonny is extremely open and authentic in his

work. He seems to view his efforts as an evolution of acupuncture into modern

Western society, and he does not misrepresent his work as being " Classical

Chinese Acupuncture. " To me, people looking to innovate new styles should be

following the model of Lonny Jarrett, not JR Worsley. Lonny has taken what he

learned from JR and assimilated it with his other studies, and he presents it

authentically as a new approach for the modern world. This is the model that

will heal the rift between " TCM " and other approaches.

 

TCM, in fact, is not a concept that exists in the Chinese language. In Chinese,

we just talk about Chinese medicine. The thing that people think of as " TCM " in

the narrow sense is basically just the core textbook series. In Asia, people

start with the core textbooks and then continue their studies, maybe branching

into scientific topics, classical works, or other avenues. No one practices

" TCM " unless their education never progressed beyond the most basic textbooks.

But in the West, we have this " TCM " vs. " real " Chinese medicine split, and I

think this split can be directly traced to the marketing and dogma of JR. I

think it is time to get rid of these misconceptions and heal this unnecessary

division. The " TCM " folks will freely welcome the innovators if the innovators

stop spreading misinformation about Chinese medicine.

 

Lonny: But I hope that you can see that the way you spoke about this issue

lacked the kind of rigor that I assume you apply in your scholarly work. There

should be no difference in the standard you apply there or in any realm of

public discourse.

 

Eric: I fully agree that my original post lacked the rigor and scholarship that

I usually put into my work. That is why I was uncomfortable with the idea of it

being cross-posted and disseminated around the web. I think of CHA as a

relatively informal, relatively private place where people can voice their

opinions safely without fear of cross-posting and other violations of the Terms

of Use.

 

CHA posts are by nature somewhat informal, more akin to email than to journal

publications or even blog publications. If every person that posted something

on CHA felt like they could only write something that was publication-quality

material, the airwaves would be awfully quiet. CHA is an informal discussion

group, not a professional journal. It is a place to share ideas in a safe,

contained environment, it doesn't demand that any contributor demonstrate

comprehensive expertise on any topic that they comment on.

 

Lonny: I find it surprising that you are unaware of Bob's perspective on

these matters

 

Eric: I am more or less aware of Bob's perspective, but I never really read any

of Bob's articles on the subject of Worsley. Frankly, Bob is quite prolific and

I haven't read every one of the thousands of articles that he has written (has

anyone?). Most of the time, I read Bob's articles on cutting edge herbal

medicine stuff, which is of more interest to me than an article on Worsley.

 

To be honest, I hardly feel like I even need to read every word of Bob's

articles on Worsley- basically everyone I know that is fluent in the Chinese

language has already reached the same conclusion about the authenticity of

Worsley's sources. I never really chose to spend my time researching Worsley, I

just happened to write an off-the-cuff post to CHA that questioned whether the

Emperor was really wearing clothes. I freely acknowledge that I am like the

ignorant child that didn't know any better, just couldn't help but blurt out

that the Emperor was naked.

 

Lonny: Recently Mr. Flaws published an audio interview where he and the

subject discussed at length ... You obviously knew this when you proclaimed your

reticence to discuss the topic and then did so anyway.

 

Eric: Sorry that I didn't first familiarize myself with Bob's writings or audio

lectures on this subject. I guess I'd rather learn something new, so I always

gravitated towards Bob's essays on other topics. If Bob gave me an article to

read that proposed using primary Chinese sources instead of Westernized

creations as a basis for professional medical information, it would be

" preaching to the choir. "

 

I formed my opinions about JR's authenticity years before I ever met Bob Flaws.

I just never anticipated writing about Worsley so I never bothered to do a

thorough review of the available literature. I apologize for posting my

thoughts without first doing a thorough literature review, but it seemed like

CHA was a pretty casual and safe space before this topic came along.

 

I assure you that I wouldn't need to know anything about Bob's writing to know

that this discussion topic is a potential minefield. I think that is pretty

clear to everyone by now.

 

One thing that you have to understand is that I spend a lot of time in the

Chinese world. Once, one of my Chinese teachers was talking to a leader of a

state acupuncture association in the USA, and this leader effectively told my

Chinese teacher that he had no clue about Chinese medicine because he was

educated in China. That takes a lot of audacity.

 

As the Chinese have started to move to other countries, such as Australia, this

Five Element vs. Chinese medicine thing has really come to a head. In Australia,

Worsley's system has deep roots, and it has created a lot of strife because the

Chinese experts get quite offended when gringos with no experience with Chinese

culture, language, or literature assume that their knowledge of Chinese medicine

is better than the Chinese themselves have. Talk about ignorance and prejudice.

 

Imagine if one Chinese dude created his own fanciful interpretation of a few

passages of the Torah in Chinese, and then tried to tell all the Rabbinical

scholars in Israel that his Chinese-language version of the Torah represented

the only authentic roots of the Jewish tradition. Would that be cool? Is that

really all that different from what JR did with Chinese medicine?

 

To me, an innovator like Lonny is infinitely more authentic than JR because he

doesn't try to be something that he is not. Lonny would be akin to a Chinese

guy that tried to bring the wisdom of the Torah into modern Chinese culture,

whereas JR's approach sounds a lot like the dude in the paragraph above. Just

my opinion.

 

Eric Brand

[Guest guest]

Actually,

Something like this actually happened about 40 years ago. Koji

Ogaswara, of the Kototama school founders, tried to impress rabbis

that the Kototama school of thought in Japan was the culmination of

the Kabbalistic teachings in the Torah. . . having read the Kototama

literature, I can say that it is certainly not true, although the

Kototama principle is a very interesting subject.

 

Back to our thread, I was rejected as a student at the Kototama

institute when I was 27 years old (although accepted later), and I

wouldn't have been accepted at the Worsley school as he allegedly (as

in his books) wouldn't accept a student who didn't agree to eat

meat. . . .

 

 

 

 

On Aug 25, 2009, at 9:35 AM, smilinglotus wrote:

 

> Imagine if one Chinese dude created his own fanciful interpretation

> of a few passages of the Torah in Chinese, and then tried to tell

> all the Rabbinical scholars in Israel that his Chinese-language

> version of the Torah represented the only authentic roots of the

> Jewish tradition. Would that be cool? Is that really all that

> different from what JR did with Chinese medicine?

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> Actually,

> Something like this actually happened about 40 years ago. Koji

> Ogaswara, of the Kototama school founders, tried to impress rabbis

> that the Kototama school of thought in Japan was the culmination of

> the Kabbalistic teachings in the Torah. . .

 

Wow, truth is truly stranger than fiction.

 

On the topic of religion, I came across a fascinating quote by JR Worsley the

other day. This comes from a book called Five Element Constitutional

Acupuncture, published by Churchill Livingston:

 

" JR Worsley connected the functioning of the Lungs with contacting our Father in

Heaven. He says:

`The Metal Element represents the Father within us, the connections with the

Heavens, which gives our life a sense of quality and higher purpose. The

Receiver of Pure Qi Energy from the Heavens is the Official [organ], which

establishes and maintains this connection. Examples draw us to religious

experience for illustrations, where an almost literal spiritual void has been

filled suddenly and completely.' "

 

Classical Chinese Acupuncture? I'm no expert, but this sounds more like

Classical Christian Acupuncture to me...

 

On a more mundane note, here is another fun Worsley quote, from the same book,

this time about the Gallbladder:

 

" There are choices in everything we do and it is through the Official that we

are able to choose… Someone has to decide when to activate the blood clotting

process, to release hormones, and to secrete bile… Every physical movement of

our body is a collection of split-second decisions which keep us in balance and

put our arms, legs, and bodyweight in the right place. "

 

I am tempted to quote a section in the Yijing where they talked about the

gallbladder making the decision to release hormones and activate the

blood-clotting process, but that would be uncool and divisive and I'm trying to

be more conscious about such things.

 

I guess that since I am already the bad guy, I might as well point out that the

same book has a whole section on Window of the Sky points. If you missed this

recent discussion, it turns out that that the whole concept of " Window of the

Sky " points has already been rather gracefully debunked by John McDonald.

Apparently the whole thing stemmed from a mistranslation in a secondary source,

no such point category ever existed.

 

Read the original article here:

 

http://www.tcmcentral.com/TCM/Acu%20Edu/Library%20Articles/Library_Articles_Acup\

uncture_05.html

 

I know that the tone in email can be hard to read sometimes, so please

understand that I am not trying to offend anyone.

 

Eric

[Guest guest]

Sounds like appropriation at its best.

Christianity is a conglomeration of many pagan religions, philosophies and

histories,

not unlike the expansive evolution of Chinese culture.

The problem is not saying " I am right " , but " you are wrong " .

 

Much of Korean culture was borrowed from the Chinese which was carried over

to Japan in

the expanse of Buddhism. Japanese dress from the Tokugara era is from Song

dynasty China.

Mongolian Buddhism is from Tibet, which is both a mix of indigenous and

Indian influence.

Now, they say that Tibet is part of China. Over 2000 years ago, much of

Manchuria was controlled

by Korean clans. What is China today? over 50 distinct cultural groups.

The sweep of history is more like ripples of water than metal boxes.

 

Strangely, it's charismatic figures in history who create kingdoms and

schools of thought.

What we're seeing here is like feudalistic warfare or challenges between

martial arts schools.

When you read the Nei Jing, it's half astrological manual and half medical.

Who's really practicing " classical " medicine?

 

K

[Guest guest]

I just read this article, which is very interestingly timed with the discussion

we were having here. It's an interesting take on the idea of " schools " and I

appreciate the spirit of it as it relates to this discussion:

http://tinyurl.com/m34347

*we might all try using these tinyurl links to make sure our links are

reachable. The long ones always get cut off.

 

, " smilinglotus " <smilinglotus

wrote:

> I guess that since I am already the bad guy, I might as well point out that

the same book has a whole section on Window of the Sky points. If you missed

this recent discussion, it turns out that that the whole concept of " Window of

the Sky " points has already been rather gracefully debunked by John McDonald.

Apparently the whole thing stemmed from a mistranslation in a secondary source,

no such point category ever existed.

>

> Read the original article here:

>

> http://tinyurl.com/nxqm22

>

> I know that the tone in email can be hard to read sometimes, so please

understand that I am not trying to offend anyone.

>

> Eric

 

I had read this article before, and I think it is a great example of how to

approach issues like the ones we have been discussing here. It's pretty amazing

that it took so many years for someone to sit down and research this. There is a

lot of other information like this that could be looked at with the rigor John

McDonald used.