high horses and E. Rochat

January 12, 2010

On Jan 11, 2010, at 9:19 AM, wrote:

> I think too often people get on a high horse in regard to these

> activities. I have heard too many people think that you must do some

> special

> activities, e.g. sitting meditation or qi-gong, to really understand

> Chinese

> medicine. These people often put down others who do not partake in

> such

> activities, thinking they are somehow lesser beings.

Yes, the prevalence of high horses in our field is of great concern to

me, too. This is a lot of the subtext for my Interdisciplinary Rigor

post. Those who actually live with plants and grow them (I was an

organic vegetable farmer for many years, and came to love herbs in

that way) cannot understand how anyone who does not know the actual

plants could possibly " really " understand them. This is the " real "

pathway to knowledge, according to those who embrace this pathway.

For those who have lived in China, studying Chinese culture and

history, this is the only way to get a " real " understanding of Chinese

medicine, and anyone who has not done this cannot possibly have any

legitimate knowledge.

For those who can read classical Chinese and study the original texts,

this too becomes a high horse, an elite status without which no amount

of other experience can compete, and which confers automatic authority

to legitimate what is " real " knowledge.

Me, I was the keynote speaker at last year's National Qi Gong

Association conference, so my bias is clear: I am strongly affiliated

with qi gong and its efficacy in taking practitioners of Chinese

medicine beyond the intellectual map and into the inner experiential

territory of healing. If I were looking for a high horse to ride,

this would be it for me. Because qi gong is so much a part of my

practice, and because it has been such a critical aspect of my

development of abilities as a practitioner, I confess that it is

prejudicially incomprehensible to me that anyone else would not put in

the time and make the effort to self-cultivate in this traditional

Chinese way whether it comes naturally to them or not.

But no doubt you feel the same about people reading classical texts in

the original Chinese. Before I was a mother, I studied Chinese,

although I never got far enough to be able to trust my own reading of

a text without a great deal of supervision. My understanding was

rudimentary at best. After becoming a mom, breast-feeding basically

washed half of my brain's contents out of my head in a hormonal tide,

and Chinese went with it (maybe my son drank in a natural aptitude for

Chinese in my breast milk; who knows?). At any rate, it's gone, along

with various other cognitive capacities such as higher math. In its

wake there came a profound blossoming of capacities more associated

with my qi gong practice, but that is another story.

On Jan 12, 2010, at 8:14 AM, wrote:

>

> For example, you don't know how many students actually believe that

> you MUST

> practice Qi-Gong to be a good Chinese medicine practitioner. Many of

> them

> are concerned because this type of practice does not fit their

> personality.

>

Yes, it is much the same with me, facing those who believe that we

MUST be able to read the original text in Chinese in order to be good

Chinese medicine practitioners. Clearly qi gong is an important part

of Chinese medicine, and the self-cultivation of the practitioner by

such means-- much more specific and honed and rigorous than tennis or

hiking-- is a great advantage in practice. Is it a sine qua non? Is

a practitioner worthless without it? Of course not, any more than a

Chinese herbalist is worthless without having the intimate experience

of growing the herbs-- or without the ability to read the Shang Han

Lun in the original text.

1) all of us have the opportunity to verify our perceptions as " real

knowledge " through clinical practice, and

2) as a community, we each have the opportunity to take an

unthreatened look at the kinds of verification we can-- and must--

gain only by comparing our insights with those whose pathways of

knowledge are significantly different from our own.

Qi gong is the love of my life; Chinese characters no longer stick in

my head for very long. Thus I rely upon keeping in close touch with

others who read classical Chinese to keep me clearly on the " map " of

Chinese paradigm. I simply cannot do without such influences in my

life, and it is my responsibility not to substitute interdisciplinary

rigor for a high horse.

Just so it is equally important for those whose pathways of knowledge

do not include qi gong to be clear that no one pathway of Chinese

medical studies holds the sole rights to legitimization of knowledge--

and to keep in dialog, and keep in touch, with a generous respect for

each others' different areas of expertise.

It is so easy to value our own ways of knowing above " other " ways, but

would be a great loss to denigrate or devalue one aspect of knowledge

at the expense of another, just because it is outside of our own

purview. If I can hitch a ride with you on the back of your horse of

text-based knowledge when I am needing verification, and you can hitch

a ride of the back of my experiential fractal qi gong horse, then

neither of our horses is too high-- we work together, and everyone

benefits.

This brings me to a last bit of unfinished business:

On Jan 10, 2010, at 8:24 PM, wrote:

> The best thing is to get actual textual examples of where " tu xue "

> is used

> in some broader (e.g. spiritual/emotional - or whatever) context,

> then we

> can read the Chinese and evaluate.

>

As far as reading Chinese text, I cannot at this time join you there,

which is why I rely on experts such as Elisabeth Rochat and Heiner

Fruehauf. When I was learning Chinese, I learned enough to know that,

as you pointed out early in our correspondence, errors of

interpretation are insidious and rife. Thus I prefer to leaving these

interpretations to authorities I trust-- again, Elisabeth Rochat and

Heiner Fruehauf would be my own top choices, but naturally this is not

an exclusive list.

To use an example from the field of qi gong, some people are not doing

much more than waving their arms around; others are highly

cultivated. It is much like Trevor's experience with energy healers.

There is a range, spanning from charlatan chicanery to practical

mastery.

Just so with the other " high horses " prevalent in our field, e.g.

having the ability to read the original Shang Han Lun text et alia.

To some, reading Chinese appears to confer a sort of automatic

nobility, an authority or credibility which is no more meaningful than

the claim of being a qi gong master. Many people read Chinese, and

many people read it differently. If you know what I mean.

My sense is that on this list serve, we could easily spend another

decade arguing about interpretations of specific text, and I am not

interested at all. I'd rather trust Elisabeth or Heiner on this one,

because I am very certain that they know far better than I do.

Additionally, we are not debating what tu xue means in this text

versus that text-- we are looking at the more general notion of how

one reads a list of indications in Chinese medical text, with tu xue

as an example.

So if you do not care to join me in deferring to an expert, I will

decline your invitation to explore text. I cannot follow you there,

and would not accept your interpretations carte blanche anyway-- just

as you would not trust mine regarding herb functions. Rightfully so,

I might add; we hardly know each other.

If you can think of a clear way to defer the question to Elisabeth, I

am ready.

Thea Elijah

January 12, 2010

I think Thea's previous post is a good insight. We can't all help but be guilty

of it to some degree.... thinking that our approach is the best way to

understand the medicine when in reality it is just the best way for us.

Doug

, Thea Elijah <parkinglot wrote:

>

January 12, 2010

Thea,

It looks like I must clarify, because you are definitely misrepresenting my

point of view:

1) I have never suggested that one " MUST be able to read the original text

in Chinese in order to be good Chinese medicine practitioners. " It is just

something I personally enjoy (among Qi Gong and other things). Actually if

you read my posts closely, and you will notice that I don't feel there is

any prerequisite to being a good Chinese medicine practitioner beyond

" knowing " Chinese medicine (and of course through clinical practice).

Learning to read classical Chinese practicing calligraphy, practicing Qi

Gong, or whatever only has a potential of making one better and is clearly

not a prerequisite. I've met plenty of Western CM doctors that read no

Chinese and who are incredible physicians. I also have met plenty of Chinese

who do no meditation/ qi gong etc. and are just encyclopedias of knowledge

and also are incredible physicians.

2) My only point in regard to classical Chinese, is if you're going to

investigate/debate what an original classic texts meaning is, you must know

classical Chinese (this has nothing to do with being a good doctor!). This

seems obvious and hard to deny. If you want to rely on someone else that

does read Chinese then fine. To date though, no " expert " has weighed in on

this topic, and no specific examples have been presented. We have a vague

report of a talk that happened 20 years ago. I feel you have enough input

(from our detailed discussions, and personal responses from both Z'ev and I)

to ask a question to whomever you like if you have the desire to further

clarify this issue. If you do not have the desire then the case is rested

and nothing more needs to be said. I actually have nothing to prove (so I am

bailing out) and am content with the status quo CM party line. But from your

tone, I assume I won't be holding my breath waiting for any examples.

I am not trying to be harsh here, but one of the points of a discussion

forum is expanding each other's horizons. It is pretty common practice that

if someone says something that is odd that it is their duty (if they want to

prove their point) to provide evidence/do the legwork to present a tangible

argument. There is obviously more than one person (myself) that questioned

Elizabeth's notion. Granted, some people will never be satisfied, but I can

assure you, I personally am open to anything that comes down the pike. It is

clear, that certain terms had a very wide ranging meanings hence giving

great insight into using formulas in a broad manner. However it seems pretty

clear that Chinese medicine has a whole list of very fixed terms that have

little debate. I just feel " tu xue " is one of the latter.

3) I do not consider myself an expert in classical Chinese (that is far from

the point) and know very few people that are. However, commentaries from

Chinese experts throughout the centuries have been collected discussing

these specific issues and anyone who can read Chinese can access this. That

is precisely why specific textual examples can be examined for this issue.

It is not my interpretation (in question), but centuries of doctors that we

look at. Therefore if someone presents something contrary to these experts

(even if they read Chinese), it seems foolhardy to just blindly accept them

without further investigation. But let there be no mistake, I am open to any

number of interpretations, but without something to look at this argument is

a paper tiger.

4) Finally, if your (Thea's) only point is that we can come up with some

pathodynamic (or pattern) from a list of symptoms this is just basic Chinese

medicine- and we probably can all agree. Almost all commentaries on the SHL

do this.

But maybe we still have a misunderstanding, taking specific symptoms such as

" tu xue " and saying that it really does not mean " blood ejection " and has

some hidden meaning that becomes clear through reading between the lines and

this will give us emotional and spiritual insights into using herbs is a

whole different ballgame and is far from 'obvious' or 'common method'.

There may be some truth to all this, I just have no idea what it is without

something to look at... " tu xue " was given as an example because it is

supposed to be a representative case and point. However looking at this term

throughout history does not suggest that this is accurate. If there are some

better examples that Elizabeth has, I am happy to hear them.

So one thing we clearly can agree on is there is " no one pathway of Chinese

medical studies holds the sole rights to legitimization of knowledge. " And

maybe I am biased to think that to answer a question about what a classical

Chinese text says one needs to know classical Chinese. Please let me know.

But I would not think that some purely intellectual knowledge could answer

deep questions about qi-gong or feeling qi in the channels.

Regards and thanks for the conversation,

-Jason

On Behalf Of Thea Elijah

Tuesday, January 12, 2010 8:20 AM