research methodology and experimental design

[Guest guest]

Steven, John and others,

 

I am not trying to be dumb here, but I have to say, I find the terminology

" channel distinctions " to be confusing. Of course I know of the divergent

channels and luo channels or vessels. I'm not sure it is helpful (is it

more accurate?) to also add in 'channel distinctions' to the mix. I don't

know the fine points of translating from the Chinese, but there are many

languages that place the adjective after the noun, and yet, when we

translate these to English, we put the adjective in front of the noun. So

we say distinct channels, rather than channel distinctions.

 

Unless you mean something different, unless you mean 'channel distinctions'

as something related specifically to divergent channels. To me, it wasn't

clear from your answer.

 

thanks,

RoseAnne

 

 

 

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:28 AM, wrote:

 

> I'm looking at chart from the PMPH book Fundamentals Study Guide(which I

> recommend BTW).

> Channels and collateral system is the broad relevant category and the title

> of this chapter.

>

> You have channels which include 12 channels, 12 divergent channels and

> eight extraordinary Vessels. (Unfortunately within the text it refers to 8

> extraordinary channels. Reading Rochat gives the best reasoning of why the 8

> extras are indeed Vessels (and extraordinary).)

>

> There are collaterals consisting of 15 divergent collaterals, the

> superficial collaterals and the minute collaterals.

>

> In addition there are connecting regions consisting of the 12 sinew

> channels and the 12 cutaneous regions.

>

> I'll leave it to others to compare this to deadman and wiseman etc...

>

> Doug

>

>

> >

> > So, is this correct terminology? : *

> > *Channel Distinctions (72*,*000 in the classics or just 72)*

> >

> > Cutaneous channels?* (12)

> > Channel sinews/muscles... (12)

> > *Channel Luo? or just Luo? or Luo channels?* (15/16)

> > Primary channels (12)

> > Channel divergences (12)

> > 8 Extraordinary channels (8)

> >

> > K

> >

> >

> >

> >

> > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpernwrote:

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > Sure, Thea. You can forward my post. Thanks for the support.

> > >

> > > RoseAnne: These are what are commonly known as the divergent channels.

> I

> > > use

> > > two possible translations for the term " *bie* " to differentiate between

> > > related but separate functions -- distinctions and divergences; I also

> > > thank

> > > Andy Ellis for pointing out to me a grammatical point in translation of

> the

> > > Chinese term *jingbie*. Thus, for some time I've been referring to

> these

> > > channels as the channel distinctions (instead of distinct channels) and

> > > channel divergences (instead of divergent channels) to name the channel

> > > system as it is responsible for each of those functions.

> > >

> > > The luo are a separate system of vessels. The (longitudinal) luo

> function

> > > in

> > > some ways similar to the channel divergences, though also somewhat

> > > differently.

> > >

> > > Steve

> > >

> > >

> > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 8:44 AM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

> > > roseanne.spradlin <roseanne.spradlin%40gmail.com>> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Steven,

> > > >

> > > > Can you clarify what you are referring to, physiologically, when you

> say

> > > > " channel distinctions (*jingbie*)? " Are you referring to luo vessels?

> > > >

> > > > thanks,

> > > > RoseAnne

> > > >

> > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern@

> ...<stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> > > <stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> > >

> > > > >wrote:

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Excellent point, Bob, about this confusion about the term " spirit. "

> > > This

> > > > is

> > > > > such a loaded word that carries considerable baggage, which I

> believe

> > > we

> > > > > need to learn to check at the door as we enter into studying its

> use in

> > > > CM.

> > > > >

> > > > > The individual's personal spirit is separated from " primordial

> > > awareness "

> > > > > by

> > > > > the collection of his or her (sub-consciously held)

> interpretations.

> > > > These

> > > > > are contained in the channel distinctions (*jingbie*), and

> projected

> > > onto

> > > > > current awareness (the primary channels) at every moment, providing

> the

> > > > > individual's limited perspective. Each individual's psychological

> and

> > > > > emotional qualities arise from their core interpretations of who

> they

> > > are

> > > > > and what is their place in the world. While recognition of

> separation

> > > > from

> > > > > the source is not ultimate truth, it is also part of what allows

> each

> > > > > individual to survive. Each individual must be willing to grasp

> breath

> > > > and

> > > > > descend the valley in order to survive -- we must grasp our lives,

> yet

> > > > this

> > > > > very grasping lay the foundation of the accumulations of unfinished

> > > > > processing of experience that eventually lead to our disease --

> after

> > > we

> > > > > have exhausted our " storage capacity " in the longitudinal luo,

> channel

> > > > > divergences, and to some extent the 8EV. This issue of grasping may

> be

> > > > one

> > > > > of the core conundrums of human life -- the willingness to hold to

> > > one's

> > > > > individual life (jing containing and holding individuated shen),

> while

> > > > > releasing the limitations of one's personal point of view. This

> > > > " spiritual "

> > > > > process work is exactly the same as the transformations of being

> that

> > > > > inspire physical healing.

> > > > >

> > > > > Steve

> > > > > CCMforHealing.com

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:14 AM, pemachophel2001 <bob<bob%

> 40bluepoppy.com>

> > > <bob%40bluepoppy.com>

> > > > <bob%40bluepoppy.com>>

> > > >

> > > > > wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Part of the problem here is that we, as Westerners, tend to

> conflate

> > > > the

> > > > > > technical CM term shen/spirit with its English language spiritual

> > > > > > connotations. " Spiritual " means one thing; " the spirit " in CM

> means

> > > > > > something else. In standard contemporary CM, shen/spirit IS what

> we

> > > > call

> > > > > the

> > > > > > psyche. CM dictionaries make that very, very clear. As such,

> > > > shen/spirit

> > > > > > refers to thinking-feeling, the mind, emotions, and sensations.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > When I said " excellent " in response to Lonny's clarification, I

> was

> > > > > > responding to what I believe is a very valid and accurate

> distinction

> > > > > > between the psyche/mind and what Buddhists call Buddha-mind, the

> > > > > > Tathagatagarbha, rigpa/yeshe (primordial awareness), Dharmakaya,

> no

> > > > mind,

> > > > > no

> > > > > > name, etc. So I was applauding Lonny's recognition and very clear

> > > > > > description of these two aspects of potential human " experience. "

> > > This

> > > > > other

> > > > > > " level " of experience is, I think, rightly called spiritual.

> However,

> > > > in

> > > > > my

> > > > > > reading of both the premodern and contemporary CM literature, I

> don't

> > > > > think

> > > > > > this other " thing, " Buddha-mind/rigpa, is really a part of CM.

> While

> > > CM

> > > > > > dictionaries and many Chinese teachers recognize that the word

> shen

> > > can

> > > > > have

> > > > > > this other, spiritual meaning, they are usually quick to point

> out

> > > that

> > > > > this

> > > > > > other meaning plays no real part in the clinical practice of CM.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > I think one has to be very careful when using the word

> shen/spirit in

> > > > CM,

> > > > > > being very clear exactly what one means by it. Clinically, the

> > > majority

> > > > > > Chinese opinion for the last 1,000 years is that spirit DOES mean

> the

> > > > > > affects of anger, joy, thinking, sorrow, fear, and fright. So if

> we

> > > use

> > > > > this

> > > > > > word to also mean that reality which transcends the

> thinking-feeling

> > > > > mind,

> > > > > > we've created a real semantic problem.

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

[Guest guest]

John and everyone,

 

The briefest overview of the channel systems as I relate to them:

 

There are 12 sinews. I agree with Pirog's point that the name (strictly

translated) should be " channel sinews; " I find the simpler " sinews " (without

the word " channel " ) adequately accurate and much less " clunky. " Each

(primary) channel has one sinew, from which it receives post-natal yang.

 

There are 12 (primary) channels, which have external-internal relationship

with the zangfu. The 12 primary channels manage and regulate

moment-to-moment life process (somatically physiology, yet also the

individual's ongoing " current " experience of life). Lingshu, chapter 5

clearly states that these (primary) channels also lay the foundation for the

accumulation of unresolved pathogenic factors -- both external and internal.

 

There are 15 or 16 luo (or perhaps even 17) -- twelve are associated with

each of the primary channels; each of those has two expressions:

 

- the longitudinal luo (which store unresolved blood stagnations, which

are somatized unresolved internal pf's, and to some extent fluid

stagnations, which are somatized unresolved pf's)

- transverse luo, which are conduits communicating with the yuan-source

point of the channels of its " husband-wife " pair

 

There are also:

 

- the great luo of the spleen, which wraps around the chest

- some recognize a great luo of yangming, also in the chest

- I've heard Jeffrey mention a great luo of shaoyin, which relates to

" blood (i.e. emotional) issues " fundamental to the individual spirit's

embodiment

 

In Neijing, the " post-natal " luo eventually empty into luo of the Sea of

Yang (du) and Sea of Yin (ren), while in Nanjing they empty into the

Yangqiao and Yinqiao. These " ditches " of the luo (to borrow Nanjing

terminology) are counted as the last two luo. In either classical tradition,

eventually the accumulation of unresolved blood/fluid in the luo eventually

oppresses the individual's " constitution " -- intrinsic capacity/ability to

survive as an individual person.

 

There are 12 channel distinctions or divergences. These are generally

considered the same things, so shouldn't be counted twice. I use these two

possible translations of the term " bie " to signify different but related

functions. See previous posts for a brief survey of SOME of their role and

functions. I believe this is the most challenging and interesting system,

though the full range of the primary channels in Lingshu (which is rather

larger than is discussed in modern TCM) is also fascinating.

 

I'm not entirely sure when, historically, the 12 (one for each primary

channel) " cutaneous regions " were segregated as separate things. Some may

consider the " suan (grandchild) luo " of Suwen, chapter 63, refer to

cutaneous regions, or they may be a more recent conceptualization (as

separate things). In any case, I look at them as " zones " -- in terms of the

six divisions of yang and yin. I consider them expressions of the channel

distinctions/divergences, which are physically external but communicate

directly with jing-essence. Consider, for instance, sensual massage.

 

There are 8 extraordinary vessels, which convey how the individual expresses

the characteristics of the species to survive. The specific implementation

of life functions takes place in the " post-natal " channels, and they rely of

the responsive and evolving foundation of the 8 extraordinary vessels.

 

I think I got them all, John. Let me know if I left anything out.

 

Steve

CCMforHealing.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steve,

Thanks for your lengthy response.

 

The Great luo of the ST is sometimes known as ST 18 (cardiac area).

Is there any more information on this Luo?

 

Miki Shima also calls the " Divergent channels "

" Channel Divergences " in his book.

 

K

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpernwrote:

 

>

>

> John and everyone,

>

> The briefest overview of the channel systems as I relate to them:

>

> There are 12 sinews. I agree with Pirog's point that the name (strictly

> translated) should be " channel sinews; " I find the simpler " sinews "

> (without

> the word " channel " ) adequately accurate and much less " clunky. " Each

> (primary) channel has one sinew, from which it receives post-natal yang.

>

> There are 12 (primary) channels, which have external-internal relationship

> with the zangfu. The 12 primary channels manage and regulate

> moment-to-moment life process (somatically physiology, yet also the

> individual's ongoing " current " experience of life). Lingshu, chapter 5

> clearly states that these (primary) channels also lay the foundation for

> the

> accumulation of unresolved pathogenic factors -- both external and

> internal.

>

> There are 15 or 16 luo (or perhaps even 17) -- twelve are associated with

> each of the primary channels; each of those has two expressions:

>

> - the longitudinal luo (which store unresolved blood stagnations, which

> are somatized unresolved internal pf's, and to some extent fluid

> stagnations, which are somatized unresolved pf's)

> - transverse luo, which are conduits communicating with the yuan-source

> point of the channels of its " husband-wife " pair

>

> There are also:

>

> - the great luo of the spleen, which wraps around the chest

> - some recognize a great luo of yangming, also in the chest

> - I've heard Jeffrey mention a great luo of shaoyin, which relates to

> " blood (i.e. emotional) issues " fundamental to the individual spirit's

> embodiment

>

> In Neijing, the " post-natal " luo eventually empty into luo of the Sea of

> Yang (du) and Sea of Yin (ren), while in Nanjing they empty into the

> Yangqiao and Yinqiao. These " ditches " of the luo (to borrow Nanjing

> terminology) are counted as the last two luo. In either classical

> tradition,

> eventually the accumulation of unresolved blood/fluid in the luo eventually

> oppresses the individual's " constitution " -- intrinsic capacity/ability to

> survive as an individual person.

>

> There are 12 channel distinctions or divergences. These are generally

> considered the same things, so shouldn't be counted twice. I use these two

> possible translations of the term " bie " to signify different but related

> functions. See previous posts for a brief survey of SOME of their role and

> functions. I believe this is the most challenging and interesting system,

> though the full range of the primary channels in Lingshu (which is rather

> larger than is discussed in modern TCM) is also fascinating.

>

> I'm not entirely sure when, historically, the 12 (one for each primary

> channel) " cutaneous regions " were segregated as separate things. Some may

> consider the " suan (grandchild) luo " of Suwen, chapter 63, refer to

> cutaneous regions, or they may be a more recent conceptualization (as

> separate things). In any case, I look at them as " zones " -- in terms of the

> six divisions of yang and yin. I consider them expressions of the channel

> distinctions/divergences, which are physically external but communicate

> directly with jing-essence. Consider, for instance, sensual massage.

>

> There are 8 extraordinary vessels, which convey how the individual

> expresses

> the characteristics of the species to survive. The specific implementation

> of life functions takes place in the " post-natal " channels, and they rely

> of

> the responsive and evolving foundation of the 8 extraordinary vessels.

>

> I think I got them all, John. Let me know if I left anything out.

>

> Steve

> CCMforHealing.com

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

So, is the problem that I choose to use two different English translations

of the term " bie " to highlight two different aspects of what you wish to

call " divergent channels, " or is it the sequence and parts of speech of the

translated terms? I submit that you are comfortable with the term " divergent

channel " because you're familiar with it, rather than because it's an

accurate name for the concept. Perhaps our profession needs to grow better

acquainted with the full depth and range of the systems of channels and

vessels, before we pass judgment on the proper names of its constituents.

 

The point of my using " channel divergence " (or distinction) rather than

" divergent (or distinct) channel " is that in the original Chinese term " bie "

is the noun! It is not, as you suggest an adjective. The usual translation

is misleading, yet for many years I used it, and was able to learn how to

use these vitally important vessels. I call them " vessels " because their

role is to contain, even though they emerge from and join the (primary)

channels. Anyway, I was sharing with Andy, whose Chinese language skills far

exceed mine, about a series of seminars that I was planning at the time, and

he asked me what I thought of that point of grammar. It took me a few

minutes to let go of my familiar term, yet when I recognized the

significance I immediately realized that " channel divergence " more closely

represents their roles and nature than the more common " divergent channel. "

I enrolled in that change immediately.

 

I recognize that I may be the only person who is currently using two

different proposed translations for " bie " to signify different aspects of

the functions of the jingbie, in contrast to just choosing a favorite one as

others seem to do. I realize that I have a case to make for that usage, and

I've already done that briefly in this forum. While they are the same

jingbie, as:

 

- channel distinctions they contain very early and/or profoundly deep

conditioning that each individuals project onto all " current " experience

- channel divergences they support the smooth functioning of the primary

channels by diverting unresolved pathogenic factors into storage where they

don't overtly block the necessary continuous flow of zheng qi in the

(primary) channels

 

If anyone wants to know more, consider coming to my four weekend series of

seminars on the five systems of channels and vessels. The entire third

weekend is devoted to *jingbie*, whatever you wish to call them in English.

Call them " chopped liver " if you want, but I believe our profession would

benefit if we studied them in greater depth, so we could learn to use them

for improving both our diagnosis and treatment of many individual patients.

 

Steve

CCMforHealing.com

 

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:01 AM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

roseanne.spradlin wrote:

 

>

>

> Steven, John and others,

>

> I am not trying to be dumb here, but I have to say, I find the terminology

> " channel distinctions " to be confusing. Of course I know of the divergent

> channels and luo channels or vessels. I'm not sure it is helpful (is it

> more accurate?) to also add in 'channel distinctions' to the mix. I don't

> know the fine points of translating from the Chinese, but there are many

> languages that place the adjective after the noun, and yet, when we

> translate these to English, we put the adjective in front of the noun. So

> we say distinct channels, rather than channel distinctions.

>

> Unless you mean something different, unless you mean 'channel distinctions'

> as something related specifically to divergent channels. To me, it wasn't

> clear from your answer.

>

> thanks,

> RoseAnne

>

>

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:28 AM,

<<taiqi%40taiqi.com>>

> wrote:

>

> > I'm looking at chart from the PMPH book Fundamentals Study Guide(which I

> > recommend BTW).

> > Channels and collateral system is the broad relevant category and the

> title

> > of this chapter.

> >

> > You have channels which include 12 channels, 12 divergent channels and

> > eight extraordinary Vessels. (Unfortunately within the text it refers to

> 8

> > extraordinary channels. Reading Rochat gives the best reasoning of why

> the 8

> > extras are indeed Vessels (and extraordinary).)

> >

> > There are collaterals consisting of 15 divergent collaterals, the

> > superficial collaterals and the minute collaterals.

> >

> > In addition there are connecting regions consisting of the 12 sinew

> > channels and the 12 cutaneous regions.

> >

> > I'll leave it to others to compare this to deadman and wiseman etc...

> >

> > Doug

> >

> >

> > >

> > > So, is this correct terminology? : *

> > > *Channel Distinctions (72*,*000 in the classics or just 72)*

> > >

> > > Cutaneous channels?* (12)

> > > Channel sinews/muscles... (12)

> > > *Channel Luo? or just Luo? or Luo channels?* (15/16)

> > > Primary channels (12)

> > > Channel divergences (12)

> > > 8 Extraordinary channels (8)

> > >

> > > K

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern@

> ...>wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > Sure, Thea. You can forward my post. Thanks for the support.

> > > >

> > > > RoseAnne: These are what are commonly known as the divergent

> channels.

> > I

> > > > use

> > > > two possible translations for the term " *bie* " to differentiate

> between

> > > > related but separate functions -- distinctions and divergences; I

> also

> > > > thank

> > > > Andy Ellis for pointing out to me a grammatical point in translation

> of

> > the

> > > > Chinese term *jingbie*. Thus, for some time I've been referring to

> > these

> > > > channels as the channel distinctions (instead of distinct channels)

> and

> > > > channel divergences (instead of divergent channels) to name the

> channel

> > > > system as it is responsible for each of those functions.

> > > >

> > > > The luo are a separate system of vessels. The (longitudinal) luo

> > function

> > > > in

> > > > some ways similar to the channel divergences, though also somewhat

> > > > differently.

> > > >

> > > > Steve

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 8:44 AM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

> > > > roseanne.spradlin <roseanne.spradlin%40gmail.com>> wrote:

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Steven,

> > > > >

> > > > > Can you clarify what you are referring to, physiologically, when

> you

> > say

> > > > > " channel distinctions (*jingbie*)? " Are you referring to luo

> vessels?

> > > > >

> > > > > thanks,

> > > > > RoseAnne

> > > > >

> > > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern@

> > ...<stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> > > > <stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> > > >

> > > > > >wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Excellent point, Bob, about this confusion about the term

> " spirit. "

> > > > This

> > > > > is

> > > > > > such a loaded word that carries considerable baggage, which I

> > believe

> > > > we

> > > > > > need to learn to check at the door as we enter into studying its

> > use in

> > > > > CM.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The individual's personal spirit is separated from " primordial

> > > > awareness "

> > > > > > by

> > > > > > the collection of his or her (sub-consciously held)

> > interpretations.

> > > > > These

> > > > > > are contained in the channel distinctions (*jingbie*), and

> > projected

> > > > onto

> > > > > > current awareness (the primary channels) at every moment,

> providing

> > the

> > > > > > individual's limited perspective. Each individual's psychological

> > and

> > > > > > emotional qualities arise from their core interpretations of who

> > they

> > > > are

> > > > > > and what is their place in the world. While recognition of

> > separation

> > > > > from

> > > > > > the source is not ultimate truth, it is also part of what allows

> > each

> > > > > > individual to survive. Each individual must be willing to grasp

> > breath

> > > > > and

> > > > > > descend the valley in order to survive -- we must grasp our

> lives,

> > yet

> > > > > this

> > > > > > very grasping lay the foundation of the accumulations of

> unfinished

> > > > > > processing of experience that eventually lead to our disease --

> > after

> > > > we

> > > > > > have exhausted our " storage capacity " in the longitudinal luo,

> > channel

> > > > > > divergences, and to some extent the 8EV. This issue of grasping

> may

> > be

> > > > > one

> > > > > > of the core conundrums of human life -- the willingness to hold

> to

> > > > one's

> > > > > > individual life (jing containing and holding individuated shen),

> > while

> > > > > > releasing the limitations of one's personal point of view. This

> > > > > " spiritual "

> > > > > > process work is exactly the same as the transformations of being

> > that

> > > > > > inspire physical healing.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Steve

> > > > > > CCMforHealing.com

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:14 AM, pemachophel2001 <bob<bob%

> > 40bluepoppy.com>

> > > > <bob%40bluepoppy.com>

> > > > > <bob%40bluepoppy.com>>

> > > > >

> > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Part of the problem here is that we, as Westerners, tend to

> > conflate

> > > > > the

> > > > > > > technical CM term shen/spirit with its English language

> spiritual

> > > > > > > connotations. " Spiritual " means one thing; " the spirit " in CM

> > means

> > > > > > > something else. In standard contemporary CM, shen/spirit IS

> what

> > we

> > > > > call

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > psyche. CM dictionaries make that very, very clear. As such,

> > > > > shen/spirit

> > > > > > > refers to thinking-feeling, the mind, emotions, and sensations.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > When I said " excellent " in response to Lonny's clarification, I

> > was

> > > > > > > responding to what I believe is a very valid and accurate

> > distinction

> > > > > > > between the psyche/mind and what Buddhists call Buddha-mind,

> the

> > > > > > > Tathagatagarbha, rigpa/yeshe (primordial awareness),

> Dharmakaya,

> > no

> > > > > mind,

> > > > > > no

> > > > > > > name, etc. So I was applauding Lonny's recognition and very

> clear

> > > > > > > description of these two aspects of potential human

> " experience. "

> > > > This

> > > > > > other

> > > > > > > " level " of experience is, I think, rightly called spiritual.

> > However,

> > > > > in

> > > > > > my

> > > > > > > reading of both the premodern and contemporary CM literature, I

> > don't

> > > > > > think

> > > > > > > this other " thing, " Buddha-mind/rigpa, is really a part of CM.

> > While

> > > > CM

> > > > > > > dictionaries and many Chinese teachers recognize that the word

> > shen

> > > > can

> > > > > > have

> > > > > > > this other, spiritual meaning, they are usually quick to point

> > out

> > > > that

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > other meaning plays no real part in the clinical practice of

> CM.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > I think one has to be very careful when using the word

> > shen/spirit in

> > > > > CM,

> > > > > > > being very clear exactly what one means by it. Clinically, the

> > > > majority

> > > > > > > Chinese opinion for the last 1,000 years is that spirit DOES

> mean

> > the

> > > > > > > affects of anger, joy, thinking, sorrow, fear, and fright. So

> if

> > we

> > > > use

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > word to also mean that reality which transcends the

> > thinking-feeling

> > > > > > mind,

> > > > > > > we've created a real semantic problem.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

[Guest guest]

You're welcome, John. Yes, many consider St 18 the luo pt. of the great luo

of yangming (stomach), just as Sp 21 is the luo pt of the great luo of the

spleen. The great luo of the stomach is indeed related to heart function.

The heart receives its *qi* from the stomach, so any stagnation in the

stomach (and yangming is full of both *qi* and blood) would be conveyed

directly to the heart, so this great luo protects that function.

 

Yes, and I thank Miki for blazing that part of the trail to improve our

profession's translation of *jingbie*. His book is a nice start, and there

is a lot more wisdom to uncover through careful study and meditation of the

channel distinctions/divergence.

 

Steve

 

>

>

> Steve,

> Thanks for your lengthy response.

>

> The Great luo of the ST is sometimes known as ST 18 (cardiac area).

> Is there any more information on this Luo?

>

> Miki Shima also calls the " Divergent channels "

> " Channel Divergences " in his book.

>

> K

>

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 8:16 AM, Steven Alpern

<stevenalpern<stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> >wrote:

>

>

> >

> >

> > John and everyone,

> >

> > The briefest overview of the channel systems as I relate to them:

> >

> > There are 12 sinews. I agree with Pirog's point that the name (strictly

> > translated) should be " channel sinews; " I find the simpler " sinews "

> > (without

> > the word " channel " ) adequately accurate and much less " clunky. " Each

> > (primary) channel has one sinew, from which it receives post-natal yang.

> >

> > There are 12 (primary) channels, which have external-internal

> relationship

> > with the zangfu. The 12 primary channels manage and regulate

> > moment-to-moment life process (somatically physiology, yet also the

> > individual's ongoing " current " experience of life). Lingshu, chapter 5

> > clearly states that these (primary) channels also lay the foundation for

> > the

> > accumulation of unresolved pathogenic factors -- both external and

> > internal.

> >

> > There are 15 or 16 luo (or perhaps even 17) -- twelve are associated with

> > each of the primary channels; each of those has two expressions:

> >

> > - the longitudinal luo (which store unresolved blood stagnations, which

> > are somatized unresolved internal pf's, and to some extent fluid

> > stagnations, which are somatized unresolved pf's)

> > - transverse luo, which are conduits communicating with the yuan-source

> > point of the channels of its " husband-wife " pair

> >

> > There are also:

> >

> > - the great luo of the spleen, which wraps around the chest

> > - some recognize a great luo of yangming, also in the chest

> > - I've heard Jeffrey mention a great luo of shaoyin, which relates to

> > " blood (i.e. emotional) issues " fundamental to the individual spirit's

> > embodiment

> >

> > In Neijing, the " post-natal " luo eventually empty into luo of the Sea of

> > Yang (du) and Sea of Yin (ren), while in Nanjing they empty into the

> > Yangqiao and Yinqiao. These " ditches " of the luo (to borrow Nanjing

> > terminology) are counted as the last two luo. In either classical

> > tradition,

> > eventually the accumulation of unresolved blood/fluid in the luo

> eventually

> > oppresses the individual's " constitution " -- intrinsic capacity/ability

> to

> > survive as an individual person.

> >

> > There are 12 channel distinctions or divergences. These are generally

> > considered the same things, so shouldn't be counted twice. I use these

> two

> > possible translations of the term " bie " to signify different but related

> > functions. See previous posts for a brief survey of SOME of their role

> and

> > functions. I believe this is the most challenging and interesting system,

> > though the full range of the primary channels in Lingshu (which is rather

> > larger than is discussed in modern TCM) is also fascinating.

> >

> > I'm not entirely sure when, historically, the 12 (one for each primary

> > channel) " cutaneous regions " were segregated as separate things. Some may

> > consider the " suan (grandchild) luo " of Suwen, chapter 63, refer to

> > cutaneous regions, or they may be a more recent conceptualization (as

> > separate things). In any case, I look at them as " zones " -- in terms of

> the

> > six divisions of yang and yin. I consider them expressions of the channel

> > distinctions/divergences, which are physically external but communicate

> > directly with jing-essence. Consider, for instance, sensual massage.

> >

> > There are 8 extraordinary vessels, which convey how the individual

> > expresses

> > the characteristics of the species to survive. The specific

> implementation

> > of life functions takes place in the " post-natal " channels, and they rely

> > of

> > the responsive and evolving foundation of the 8 extraordinary vessels.

> >

> > I think I got them all, John. Let me know if I left anything out.

> >

> > Steve

> > CCMforHealing.com

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Steve,

 

My question about your choice of terminology was sincere; I'm not trying to

promote my own choices, just trying to understand how you and others are

conceiving of the channels or vessels. To me, the word 'channel' or

'vessel' denotes a physical structure in the body; a 'distinction,' on the

other hand, doesn't. A 'distinction' may point to a function or 'mind' of a

certain structure; as a word, it seems more conceptual, less concrete. If

it's an accurate translation, a valuable term to use, then I would like to

understand it.

 

If everyone is going to do their own translations, then we will probably

need to have discussions about word choices and their meanings. If you are

teaching your concepts, you will likely be asked to explain them and your

choice of terminology. I think that's only fair. Otherwise, how can we

hope to truly communicate with each other?

 

I also study with Jeffrey Yuen, but at this point I have only three years

with Jeffrey under my belt. You have many more. But I'm not someone who is

choosing favorite terms like favorite pairs of shoes. I'm really trying to

understand the physiology and the mechanisms at work in the channel

systems. That's why I asked the question.

 

RoseAnne

 

 

 

 

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpernwrote:

 

> So, is the problem that I choose to use two different English translations

> of the term " bie " to highlight two different aspects of what you wish to

> call " divergent channels, " or is it the sequence and parts of speech of the

> translated terms? I submit that you are comfortable with the term

> " divergent

> channel " because you're familiar with it, rather than because it's an

> accurate name for the concept. Perhaps our profession needs to grow better

> acquainted with the full depth and range of the systems of channels and

> vessels, before we pass judgment on the proper names of its constituents.

>

> The point of my using " channel divergence " (or distinction) rather than

> " divergent (or distinct) channel " is that in the original Chinese term

> " bie "

> is the noun! It is not, as you suggest an adjective. The usual translation

> is misleading, yet for many years I used it, and was able to learn how to

> use these vitally important vessels. I call them " vessels " because their

> role is to contain, even though they emerge from and join the (primary)

> channels. Anyway, I was sharing with Andy, whose Chinese language skills

> far

> exceed mine, about a series of seminars that I was planning at the time,

> and

> he asked me what I thought of that point of grammar. It took me a few

> minutes to let go of my familiar term, yet when I recognized the

> significance I immediately realized that " channel divergence " more closely

> represents their roles and nature than the more common " divergent channel. "

> I enrolled in that change immediately.

>

> I recognize that I may be the only person who is currently using two

> different proposed translations for " bie " to signify different aspects of

> the functions of the jingbie, in contrast to just choosing a favorite one

> as

> others seem to do. I realize that I have a case to make for that usage, and

> I've already done that briefly in this forum. While they are the same

> jingbie, as:

>

> - channel distinctions they contain very early and/or profoundly deep

> conditioning that each individuals project onto all " current " experience

> - channel divergences they support the smooth functioning of the primary

> channels by diverting unresolved pathogenic factors into storage where

> they

> don't overtly block the necessary continuous flow of zheng qi in the

> (primary) channels

>

> If anyone wants to know more, consider coming to my four weekend series of

> seminars on the five systems of channels and vessels. The entire third

> weekend is devoted to *jingbie*, whatever you wish to call them in English.

> Call them " chopped liver " if you want, but I believe our profession would

> benefit if we studied them in greater depth, so we could learn to use them

> for improving both our diagnosis and treatment of many individual patients.

>

> Steve

> CCMforHealing.com

>

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:01 AM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

> roseanne.spradlin wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Steven, John and others,

> >

> > I am not trying to be dumb here, but I have to say, I find the

> terminology

> > " channel distinctions " to be confusing. Of course I know of the divergent

> > channels and luo channels or vessels. I'm not sure it is helpful (is it

> > more accurate?) to also add in 'channel distinctions' to the mix. I don't

> > know the fine points of translating from the Chinese, but there are many

> > languages that place the adjective after the noun, and yet, when we

> > translate these to English, we put the adjective in front of the noun. So

> > we say distinct channels, rather than channel distinctions.

> >

> > Unless you mean something different, unless you mean 'channel

> distinctions'

> > as something related specifically to divergent channels. To me, it wasn't

> > clear from your answer.

> >

> > thanks,

> > RoseAnne

> >

> >

> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:28 AM, <<taiqi%

> 40taiqi.com>>

> > wrote:

> >

> > > I'm looking at chart from the PMPH book Fundamentals Study Guide(which

> I

> > > recommend BTW).

> > > Channels and collateral system is the broad relevant category and the

> > title

> > > of this chapter.

> > >

> > > You have channels which include 12 channels, 12 divergent channels and

> > > eight extraordinary Vessels. (Unfortunately within the text it refers

> to

> > 8

> > > extraordinary channels. Reading Rochat gives the best reasoning of why

> > the 8

> > > extras are indeed Vessels (and extraordinary).)

> > >

> > > There are collaterals consisting of 15 divergent collaterals, the

> > > superficial collaterals and the minute collaterals.

> > >

> > > In addition there are connecting regions consisting of the 12 sinew

> > > channels and the 12 cutaneous regions.

> > >

> > > I'll leave it to others to compare this to deadman and wiseman etc...

> > >

> > > Doug

> > >

> > >

> > > >

> > > > So, is this correct terminology? : *

> > > > *Channel Distinctions (72*,*000 in the classics or just 72)*

> > > >

> > > > Cutaneous channels?* (12)

> > > > Channel sinews/muscles... (12)

> > > > *Channel Luo? or just Luo? or Luo channels?* (15/16)

> > > > Primary channels (12)

> > > > Channel divergences (12)

> > > > 8 Extraordinary channels (8)

> > > >

> > > > K

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern@

> > ...>wrote:

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > Sure, Thea. You can forward my post. Thanks for the support.

> > > > >

> > > > > RoseAnne: These are what are commonly known as the divergent

> > channels.

> > > I

> > > > > use

> > > > > two possible translations for the term " *bie* " to differentiate

> > between

> > > > > related but separate functions -- distinctions and divergences; I

> > also

> > > > > thank

> > > > > Andy Ellis for pointing out to me a grammatical point in

> translation

> > of

> > > the

> > > > > Chinese term *jingbie*. Thus, for some time I've been referring to

> > > these

> > > > > channels as the channel distinctions (instead of distinct channels)

> > and

> > > > > channel divergences (instead of divergent channels) to name the

> > channel

> > > > > system as it is responsible for each of those functions.

> > > > >

> > > > > The luo are a separate system of vessels. The (longitudinal) luo

> > > function

> > > > > in

> > > > > some ways similar to the channel divergences, though also somewhat

> > > > > differently.

> > > > >

> > > > > Steve

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 8:44 AM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

> > > > > roseanne.spradlin <roseanne.spradlin%40gmail.com>> wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Steven,

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Can you clarify what you are referring to, physiologically, when

> > you

> > > say

> > > > > > " channel distinctions (*jingbie*)? " Are you referring to luo

> > vessels?

> > > > > >

> > > > > > thanks,

> > > > > > RoseAnne

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern@

> > > ...<stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> > > > > <stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> > > > >

> > > > > > >wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Excellent point, Bob, about this confusion about the term

> > " spirit. "

> > > > > This

> > > > > > is

> > > > > > > such a loaded word that carries considerable baggage, which I

> > > believe

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > need to learn to check at the door as we enter into studying

> its

> > > use in

> > > > > > CM.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > The individual's personal spirit is separated from " primordial

> > > > > awareness "

> > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > the collection of his or her (sub-consciously held)

> > > interpretations.

> > > > > > These

> > > > > > > are contained in the channel distinctions (*jingbie*), and

> > > projected

> > > > > onto

> > > > > > > current awareness (the primary channels) at every moment,

> > providing

> > > the

> > > > > > > individual's limited perspective. Each individual's

> psychological

> > > and

> > > > > > > emotional qualities arise from their core interpretations of

> who

> > > they

> > > > > are

> > > > > > > and what is their place in the world. While recognition of

> > > separation

> > > > > > from

> > > > > > > the source is not ultimate truth, it is also part of what

> allows

> > > each

> > > > > > > individual to survive. Each individual must be willing to grasp

> > > breath

> > > > > > and

> > > > > > > descend the valley in order to survive -- we must grasp our

> > lives,

> > > yet

> > > > > > this

> > > > > > > very grasping lay the foundation of the accumulations of

> > unfinished

> > > > > > > processing of experience that eventually lead to our disease --

> > > after

> > > > > we

> > > > > > > have exhausted our " storage capacity " in the longitudinal luo,

> > > channel

> > > > > > > divergences, and to some extent the 8EV. This issue of grasping

> > may

> > > be

> > > > > > one

> > > > > > > of the core conundrums of human life -- the willingness to hold

> > to

> > > > > one's

> > > > > > > individual life (jing containing and holding individuated

> shen),

> > > while

> > > > > > > releasing the limitations of one's personal point of view. This

> > > > > > " spiritual "

> > > > > > > process work is exactly the same as the transformations of

> being

> > > that

> > > > > > > inspire physical healing.

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Steve

> > > > > > > CCMforHealing.com

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:14 AM, pemachophel2001 <bob@

> ...<bob%

> > > 40bluepoppy.com>

> > > > > <bob%40bluepoppy.com>

> > > > > > <bob%40bluepoppy.com>>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Part of the problem here is that we, as Westerners, tend to

> > > conflate

> > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > technical CM term shen/spirit with its English language

> > spiritual

> > > > > > > > connotations. " Spiritual " means one thing; " the spirit " in CM

> > > means

> > > > > > > > something else. In standard contemporary CM, shen/spirit IS

> > what

> > > we

> > > > > > call

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > psyche. CM dictionaries make that very, very clear. As such,

> > > > > > shen/spirit

> > > > > > > > refers to thinking-feeling, the mind, emotions, and

> sensations.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > When I said " excellent " in response to Lonny's clarification,

> I

> > > was

> > > > > > > > responding to what I believe is a very valid and accurate

> > > distinction

> > > > > > > > between the psyche/mind and what Buddhists call Buddha-mind,

> > the

> > > > > > > > Tathagatagarbha, rigpa/yeshe (primordial awareness),

> > Dharmakaya,

> > > no

> > > > > > mind,

> > > > > > > no

> > > > > > > > name, etc. So I was applauding Lonny's recognition and very

> > clear

> > > > > > > > description of these two aspects of potential human

> > " experience. "

> > > > > This

> > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > " level " of experience is, I think, rightly called spiritual.

> > > However,

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > reading of both the premodern and contemporary CM literature,

> I

> > > don't

> > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > this other " thing, " Buddha-mind/rigpa, is really a part of

> CM.

> > > While

> > > > > CM

> > > > > > > > dictionaries and many Chinese teachers recognize that the

> word

> > > shen

> > > > > can

> > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > this other, spiritual meaning, they are usually quick to

> point

> > > out

> > > > > that

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > other meaning plays no real part in the clinical practice of

> > CM.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > I think one has to be very careful when using the word

> > > shen/spirit in

> > > > > > CM,

> > > > > > > > being very clear exactly what one means by it. Clinically,

> the

> > > > > majority

> > > > > > > > Chinese opinion for the last 1,000 years is that spirit DOES

> > mean

> > > the

> > > > > > > > affects of anger, joy, thinking, sorrow, fear, and fright. So

> > if

> > > we

> > > > > use

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > word to also mean that reality which transcends the

> > > thinking-feeling

> > > > > > > mind,

> > > > > > > > we've created a real semantic problem.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Since we're on the subject, what do you think the best point for " xue " is?

 

Point? Acu-point?

Cave?

Vortex?

Whirl-pool?

Bio-electrically conductive space?

 

Point is what we're used to saying, but it doesn't translate with much

meaning.

It's a 2 dimensional word for a 4 dimensional phenomenon.

 

Weren't " acu-points " seen as caves (yin areas) where light (yang) was shined

into them?

With moxa this is seen as adding heat and light (Qi) to the dark cave-like

structure.

With needles, removing " xie Qi " is like evacuating the cave from rodents and

bats.

 

" Acu-points " and " Channels/Meridians/Vessels " are both structural and

functional.

Do the words we ascribe to describe them, give us a decent idea of what they

are and what they do?

 

 

 

 

--

 

 

""

 

 

www.tcmreview.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

RoseAnne,

 

I didn't mean to question your sincerity. Please carefully read the two key

functions I've differentiated for the jingbie. As " distinctions " they

contain those features of being that individuate a person -- distinguishing

him or her from the Dao, which is represented by the " universal " aspects of

the primary channels (see earlier posts in this thread). Thus, I believe

they are rightly called " distinctions. " They function by containing and

projecting the individual's core interpretations onto all " current "

experience, and thus lay the foundation for the quality and distribution of

all qi and blood generated by individuals -- through the function of the

primary channels.

 

I believe my use of terms is clear in their use. I endeavor to be very

careful with my use of language, and it's not easy to articulate profound CM

ideas clearly. I invite you (and others) to read the essays archived on my

website <http://www.ccmforhealing.com/>. Good luck in your studies of CCM,

 

Steve

 

On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:53 PM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

roseanne.spradlin wrote:

 

>

>

> Steve,

>

> My question about your choice of terminology was sincere; I'm not trying to

> promote my own choices, just trying to understand how you and others are

> conceiving of the channels or vessels. To me, the word 'channel' or

> 'vessel' denotes a physical structure in the body; a 'distinction,' on the

> other hand, doesn't. A 'distinction' may point to a function or 'mind' of a

> certain structure; as a word, it seems more conceptual, less concrete. If

> it's an accurate translation, a valuable term to use, then I would like to

> understand it.

>

> If everyone is going to do their own translations, then we will probably

> need to have discussions about word choices and their meanings. If you are

> teaching your concepts, you will likely be asked to explain them and your

> choice of terminology. I think that's only fair. Otherwise, how can we

> hope to truly communicate with each other?

>

> I also study with Jeffrey Yuen, but at this point I have only three years

> with Jeffrey under my belt. You have many more. But I'm not someone who is

> choosing favorite terms like favorite pairs of shoes. I'm really trying to

> understand the physiology and the mechanisms at work in the channel

> systems. That's why I asked the question.

>

> RoseAnne

>

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 10:31 PM, Steven Alpern

<stevenalpern<stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> >wrote:

>

>

> > So, is the problem that I choose to use two different English

> translations

> > of the term " bie " to highlight two different aspects of what you wish to

> > call " divergent channels, " or is it the sequence and parts of speech of

> the

> > translated terms? I submit that you are comfortable with the term

> > " divergent

> > channel " because you're familiar with it, rather than because it's an

> > accurate name for the concept. Perhaps our profession needs to grow

> better

> > acquainted with the full depth and range of the systems of channels and

> > vessels, before we pass judgment on the proper names of its constituents.

> >

> > The point of my using " channel divergence " (or distinction) rather than

> > " divergent (or distinct) channel " is that in the original Chinese term

> > " bie "

> > is the noun! It is not, as you suggest an adjective. The usual

> translation

> > is misleading, yet for many years I used it, and was able to learn how to

> > use these vitally important vessels. I call them " vessels " because their

> > role is to contain, even though they emerge from and join the (primary)

> > channels. Anyway, I was sharing with Andy, whose Chinese language skills

> > far

> > exceed mine, about a series of seminars that I was planning at the time,

> > and

> > he asked me what I thought of that point of grammar. It took me a few

> > minutes to let go of my familiar term, yet when I recognized the

> > significance I immediately realized that " channel divergence " more

> closely

> > represents their roles and nature than the more common " divergent

> channel. "

> > I enrolled in that change immediately.

> >

> > I recognize that I may be the only person who is currently using two

> > different proposed translations for " bie " to signify different aspects of

> > the functions of the jingbie, in contrast to just choosing a favorite one

> > as

> > others seem to do. I realize that I have a case to make for that usage,

> and

> > I've already done that briefly in this forum. While they are the same

> > jingbie, as:

> >

> > - channel distinctions they contain very early and/or profoundly deep

> > conditioning that each individuals project onto all " current " experience

> > - channel divergences they support the smooth functioning of the primary

> > channels by diverting unresolved pathogenic factors into storage where

> > they

> > don't overtly block the necessary continuous flow of zheng qi in the

> > (primary) channels

> >

> > If anyone wants to know more, consider coming to my four weekend series

> of

> > seminars on the five systems of channels and vessels. The entire third

> > weekend is devoted to *jingbie*, whatever you wish to call them in

> English.

> > Call them " chopped liver " if you want, but I believe our profession would

> > benefit if we studied them in greater depth, so we could learn to use

> them

> > for improving both our diagnosis and treatment of many individual

> patients.

> >

> > Steve

> > CCMforHealing.com

> >

> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 4:01 AM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

> > roseanne.spradlin <roseanne.spradlin%40gmail.com>> wrote:

> >

> > >

> > >

> > > Steven, John and others,

> > >

> > > I am not trying to be dumb here, but I have to say, I find the

> > terminology

> > > " channel distinctions " to be confusing. Of course I know of the

> divergent

> > > channels and luo channels or vessels. I'm not sure it is helpful (is it

> > > more accurate?) to also add in 'channel distinctions' to the mix. I

> don't

> > > know the fine points of translating from the Chinese, but there are

> many

> > > languages that place the adjective after the noun, and yet, when we

> > > translate these to English, we put the adjective in front of the noun.

> So

> > > we say distinct channels, rather than channel distinctions.

> > >

> > > Unless you mean something different, unless you mean 'channel

> > distinctions'

> > > as something related specifically to divergent channels. To me, it

> wasn't

> > > clear from your answer.

> > >

> > > thanks,

> > > RoseAnne

> > >

> > >

> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 3:28 AM,

<<taiqi%40taiqi.com>

> <taiqi%

> > 40taiqi.com>>

>

> > > wrote:

> > >

> > > > I'm looking at chart from the PMPH book Fundamentals Study

> Guide(which

> > I

> > > > recommend BTW).

> > > > Channels and collateral system is the broad relevant category and the

> > > title

> > > > of this chapter.

> > > >

> > > > You have channels which include 12 channels, 12 divergent channels

> and

> > > > eight extraordinary Vessels. (Unfortunately within the text it refers

> > to

> > > 8

> > > > extraordinary channels. Reading Rochat gives the best reasoning of

> why

> > > the 8

> > > > extras are indeed Vessels (and extraordinary).)

> > > >

> > > > There are collaterals consisting of 15 divergent collaterals, the

> > > > superficial collaterals and the minute collaterals.

> > > >

> > > > In addition there are connecting regions consisting of the 12 sinew

> > > > channels and the 12 cutaneous regions.

> > > >

> > > > I'll leave it to others to compare this to deadman and wiseman etc...

> > > >

> > > > Doug

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > So, is this correct terminology? : *

> > > > > *Channel Distinctions (72*,*000 in the classics or just 72)*

> > > > >

> > > > > Cutaneous channels?* (12)

> > > > > Channel sinews/muscles... (12)

> > > > > *Channel Luo? or just Luo? or Luo channels?* (15/16)

> > > > > Primary channels (12)

> > > > > Channel divergences (12)

> > > > > 8 Extraordinary channels (8)

> > > > >

> > > > > K

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 11:19 AM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern@

> > > ...>wrote:

> > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Sure, Thea. You can forward my post. Thanks for the support.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > RoseAnne: These are what are commonly known as the divergent

> > > channels.

> > > > I

> > > > > > use

> > > > > > two possible translations for the term " *bie* " to differentiate

> > > between

> > > > > > related but separate functions -- distinctions and divergences; I

> > > also

> > > > > > thank

> > > > > > Andy Ellis for pointing out to me a grammatical point in

> > translation

> > > of

> > > > the

> > > > > > Chinese term *jingbie*. Thus, for some time I've been referring

> to

> > > > these

> > > > > > channels as the channel distinctions (instead of distinct

> channels)

> > > and

> > > > > > channel divergences (instead of divergent channels) to name the

> > > channel

> > > > > > system as it is responsible for each of those functions.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > The luo are a separate system of vessels. The (longitudinal) luo

> > > > function

> > > > > > in

> > > > > > some ways similar to the channel divergences, though also

> somewhat

> > > > > > differently.

> > > > > >

> > > > > > Steve

> > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 8:44 AM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

> > > > > > roseanne.spradlin <roseanne.spradlin%40gmail.com>> wrote:

> > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Steven,

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > Can you clarify what you are referring to, physiologically,

> when

> > > you

> > > > say

> > > > > > > " channel distinctions (*jingbie*)? " Are you referring to luo

> > > vessels?

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > thanks,

> > > > > > > RoseAnne

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > On Sat, Feb 13, 2010 at 9:39 AM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern@

> > > > ...<stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> > > > > > <stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> > > > > >

> > > > > > > >wrote:

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Excellent point, Bob, about this confusion about the term

> > > " spirit. "

> > > > > > This

> > > > > > > is

> > > > > > > > such a loaded word that carries considerable baggage, which I

> > > > believe

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > need to learn to check at the door as we enter into studying

> > its

> > > > use in

> > > > > > > CM.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > The individual's personal spirit is separated from

> " primordial

> > > > > > awareness "

> > > > > > > > by

> > > > > > > > the collection of his or her (sub-consciously held)

> > > > interpretations.

> > > > > > > These

> > > > > > > > are contained in the channel distinctions (*jingbie*), and

> > > > projected

> > > > > > onto

> > > > > > > > current awareness (the primary channels) at every moment,

> > > providing

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > individual's limited perspective. Each individual's

> > psychological

> > > > and

> > > > > > > > emotional qualities arise from their core interpretations of

> > who

> > > > they

> > > > > > are

> > > > > > > > and what is their place in the world. While recognition of

> > > > separation

> > > > > > > from

> > > > > > > > the source is not ultimate truth, it is also part of what

> > allows

> > > > each

> > > > > > > > individual to survive. Each individual must be willing to

> grasp

> > > > breath

> > > > > > > and

> > > > > > > > descend the valley in order to survive -- we must grasp our

> > > lives,

> > > > yet

> > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > very grasping lay the foundation of the accumulations of

> > > unfinished

> > > > > > > > processing of experience that eventually lead to our disease

> --

> > > > after

> > > > > > we

> > > > > > > > have exhausted our " storage capacity " in the longitudinal

> luo,

> > > > channel

> > > > > > > > divergences, and to some extent the 8EV. This issue of

> grasping

> > > may

> > > > be

> > > > > > > one

> > > > > > > > of the core conundrums of human life -- the willingness to

> hold

> > > to

> > > > > > one's

> > > > > > > > individual life (jing containing and holding individuated

> > shen),

> > > > while

> > > > > > > > releasing the limitations of one's personal point of view.

> This

> > > > > > > " spiritual "

> > > > > > > > process work is exactly the same as the transformations of

> > being

> > > > that

> > > > > > > > inspire physical healing.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > Steve

> > > > > > > > CCMforHealing.com

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > On Fri, Feb 12, 2010 at 11:14 AM, pemachophel2001 <bob@

> > ...<bob%

> > > > 40bluepoppy.com>

> > > > > > <bob%40bluepoppy.com>

> > > > > > > <bob%40bluepoppy.com>>

> > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > wrote:

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > Part of the problem here is that we, as Westerners, tend to

> > > > conflate

> > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > technical CM term shen/spirit with its English language

> > > spiritual

> > > > > > > > > connotations. " Spiritual " means one thing; " the spirit " in

> CM

> > > > means

> > > > > > > > > something else. In standard contemporary CM, shen/spirit IS

> > > what

> > > > we

> > > > > > > call

> > > > > > > > the

> > > > > > > > > psyche. CM dictionaries make that very, very clear. As

> such,

> > > > > > > shen/spirit

> > > > > > > > > refers to thinking-feeling, the mind, emotions, and

> > sensations.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > When I said " excellent " in response to Lonny's

> clarification,

> > I

> > > > was

> > > > > > > > > responding to what I believe is a very valid and accurate

> > > > distinction

> > > > > > > > > between the psyche/mind and what Buddhists call

> Buddha-mind,

> > > the

> > > > > > > > > Tathagatagarbha, rigpa/yeshe (primordial awareness),

> > > Dharmakaya,

> > > > no

> > > > > > > mind,

> > > > > > > > no

> > > > > > > > > name, etc. So I was applauding Lonny's recognition and very

> > > clear

> > > > > > > > > description of these two aspects of potential human

> > > " experience. "

> > > > > > This

> > > > > > > > other

> > > > > > > > > " level " of experience is, I think, rightly called

> spiritual.

> > > > However,

> > > > > > > in

> > > > > > > > my

> > > > > > > > > reading of both the premodern and contemporary CM

> literature,

> > I

> > > > don't

> > > > > > > > think

> > > > > > > > > this other " thing, " Buddha-mind/rigpa, is really a part of

> > CM.

> > > > While

> > > > > > CM

> > > > > > > > > dictionaries and many Chinese teachers recognize that the

> > word

> > > > shen

> > > > > > can

> > > > > > > > have

> > > > > > > > > this other, spiritual meaning, they are usually quick to

> > point

> > > > out

> > > > > > that

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > other meaning plays no real part in the clinical practice

> of

> > > CM.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > > I think one has to be very careful when using the word

> > > > shen/spirit in

> > > > > > > CM,

> > > > > > > > > being very clear exactly what one means by it. Clinically,

> > the

> > > > > > majority

> > > > > > > > > Chinese opinion for the last 1,000 years is that spirit

> DOES

> > > mean

> > > > the

> > > > > > > > > affects of anger, joy, thinking, sorrow, fear, and fright.

> So

> > > if

> > > > we

> > > > > > use

> > > > > > > > this

> > > > > > > > > word to also mean that reality which transcends the

> > > > thinking-feeling

> > > > > > > > mind,

> > > > > > > > > we've created a real semantic problem.

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > > > >

[Guest guest]

Steve,

 

" The individual's personal spirit is separated from " primordial awareness " by

the collection of his or her (sub-consciously held) interpretations. These are

contained in the channel distinctions (*jingbie*), and projected onto current

awareness (the primary channels) at every moment, providing the individual's

limited perspective. "

 

Very interesting. Are these your own beliefs or doe they have a Chinese

(Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean) source? If they have an Asian source, I'd really

like the citation so I can go read up on this for myself. I believe it's really

important that we tell our readers where we are getting our information. If

these are your own personal conclusions, then I think the reader needs to know

that as well. This kind of acknowledgment/attribution seems especially important

in our profession where all too often ideas and information are not sourced and

" it's all good. " In any case, I'd like to read/know more about this once I

decide if the source is credible. :-)

[Guest guest]

Steve,

 

Thanks for your response, and yes, I did find my way to your website and

read some of the blog where this was discussed. I don't have a problem

understanding the concepts. I understand why you are drawn to the word

" distinctions " but I would just say that the vessels themselves are not 'the

distinctions; " they are the vessels that hold the fluid that is imprinted

with the individual's experiences that give that individual his/her (mostly

unconscious) " distinctions. " So calling them " distinctions " is kind of a

shorthand to the full idea. That's fine, and if it works for you, great.

You've obviously put a lot of thought into your terminology.

 

Sometimes I think it can be helpful to get feedback from someone totally

fresh to the idea at hand, and I guess that's what I was offering on the

terminology. But if it's not helpful to hear how other people resonate with

your terminology, then I can understand that, too. We all are looking for

the best way to articulate and hold in our minds the complex concepts of

CM. I appreciate the work you've done and I enjoyed reading your website.

 

RoseAnne

 

 

 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpernwrote:

 

> RoseAnne,

>

> I didn't mean to question your sincerity. Please carefully read the two key

> functions I've differentiated for the jingbie. As " distinctions " they

> contain those features of being that individuate a person -- distinguishing

> him or her from the Dao, which is represented by the " universal " aspects of

> the primary channels (see earlier posts in this thread). Thus, I believe

> they are rightly called " distinctions. " They function by containing and

> projecting the individual's core interpretations onto all " current "

> experience, and thus lay the foundation for the quality and distribution of

> all qi and blood generated by individuals -- through the function of the

> primary channels.

>

> I believe my use of terms is clear in their use. I endeavor to be very

> careful with my use of language, and it's not easy to articulate profound

> CM

> ideas clearly. I invite you (and others) to read the essays archived on my

> website <http://www.ccmforhealing.com/>. Good luck in your studies of CCM,

>

> Steve

>

> On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:53 PM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

> roseanne.spradlin wrote:

>

> >

[Guest guest]

I hope Steve answers as to specific sources but these are very Jeffery Yuen

concepts and since Steve studied with Jeffery....

Doug

 

 

 

, " pemachophel2001 " <bob wrote:

>

> Steve,

>

> " The individual's personal spirit is separated from " primordial awareness " by

the collection of his or her (sub-consciously held) interpretations. These are

contained in the channel distinctions (*jingbie*), and projected onto current

awareness (the primary channels) at every moment, providing the individual's

limited perspective. "

>

> Very interesting. Are these your own beliefs or doe they have a Chinese

(Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean) source? If they have an Asian source, I'd really

like the citation so I can go read up on this for myself. I believe it's really

important that we tell our readers where we are getting our information. If

these are your own personal conclusions, then I think the reader needs to know

that as well. This kind of acknowledgment/attribution seems especially important

in our profession where all too often ideas and information are not sourced and

" it's all good. " In any case, I'd like to read/know more about this once I

decide if the source is credible. :-)

>

[Guest guest]

John: I personally like " cave, " and I realize that most would consider that

terribly quirky. I agree with all the issues your raise concerning

translating xue as " point, " and I think there is something even more

important to recall. There has been a fundamental shift, increasingly over

the past thousand years, toward viewing acupuncture the study of points

rather than the five systems of channels and vessels (collaterals, if you

like). This shift has substantially limited the depth of acupuncture theory.

 

 

This brings me to Bob's query: That is my " unpacking " of material in the

early chapters of Lingshu, especially chapter 11 on the jingbie. Early in

that chapter, Huangdi notes that the (primary) channels are both in accord

with the Dao of Heaven and not -- leading to disease. How can that be? I

simply responded to that question, using the language you used in your

posting. Members of CHA who have followed my posts during the past few weeks

(such as Gloria's question about wind or the discussion of the classics that

began with Nanjing) know that Neijing is my main focus, and that I believe

that one has a substantial amount of work to do unpacking it in order to

derive much wisdom from it.

 

No amount of scholarship (alone) will pry open the deep wisdom of Chinese

medicine, because many important principles were never written. In part,

that's because Chinese " philosophy " was a personal matter and never

discursive like western philosophy. Before the modern period there was

always an emphasis on receiving teachings from someone who knew how to

" de-code " multiple layers of textured meaning from classic texts, as well as

receiving and reading those texts. There have also been the desire to keep

certain knowledge within a " family " to provide economic security and

benefit. And then there's also the fact that Imperial China didn't have a

concept like academic freedom. For many centuries, if your ideas were

substantially different from those officially sanctioned by the Emperor, it

was best to keep them to oneself. Indeed, many seekers of truth who ran

afoul of the Emperor over the centuries were sent far to the south (the area

of current day Vietnam), where presumably they would fall victim to an early

demise from tropical disease. But, I digress...

 

Relative to the channel distinctions, I draw upon the early chapters of

Lingshu (especially chapter 11 specifically on that topic, but also

integrated with understanding of the other systems discussed in several

other chapers), teachings/interpretations from Jeffrey Yuen, using them in

devising treatment strategies in clinical practice, and my own work

practicing and teaching for a dozen years a specialized form of qigong that

I call " neo-natal

daoyin<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/classes/neo-natal-daoyin/>. "

While I've unquestionably experienced considerable " cross fertilization "

among these four sources of learning, in many respects I believe the last

has been the most helpful in integrating my understanding.

 

All my posts are my personal conclusions based on my study. How could it be

any other way? Unless I state otherwise, its safe to assume that my posts

are my opinions based on my interest in and study of Neijing, including my

philosophical analysis of the significance of various topics (see, for

instance, my response to Gloria) and my clinical experience. I'm happy to

discuss the merits of any of my ideas, and don't consider the written word

the ultimate arbiter of truth. While study and scholarship are important,

indeed even vital, I believe we must embody Chinese medicine in order to

fathom its depths. Scholarship alone won't allow us to penetrate into its

deep wisdom.

 

Steve

CCMforHealing.com

 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:46 PM, pemachophel2001 <bob wrote:

 

>

>

> Steve,

>

>

> " The individual's personal spirit is separated from " primordial awareness "

> by the collection of his or her (sub-consciously held) interpretations.

> These are contained in the channel distinctions (*jingbie*), and projected

> onto current awareness (the primary channels) at every moment, providing the

> individual's limited perspective. "

>

> Very interesting. Are these your own beliefs or doe they have a Chinese

> (Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean) source? If they have an Asian source, I'd

> really like the citation so I can go read up on this for myself. I believe

> it's really important that we tell our readers where we are getting our

> information. If these are your own personal conclusions, then I think the

> reader needs to know that as well. This kind of acknowledgment/attribution

> seems especially important in our profession where all too often ideas and

> information are not sourced and " it's all good. " In any case, I'd like to

> read/know more about this once I decide if the source is credible. :-)

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi RoseAnne,

 

Thanks for checking out my site. Indeed, the issue of how to understand and

articulate the complex issues of CM is a huge challenge. I do appreciate

feedback/input, and the issues of language and meaning are profoundly

interconnected.

 

For instance, the jingbie are not just " the vessels that hold the fluid, "

but also the habituated holding patterns and patterns of activation of the

sinews that retain the fluids in certain locations. Those holding patterns

are the somatic expression of the individual's attachment to point of view,

which separates (another translation for " jie " ) the individual from the Dao.

One of the great conundrums of Chinese medicine is that individuals are both

a microcosm of Dao, and that each of us holds ourselves separate from it in

our own individual ways. The channel distinctions address that conundrum;

that's why Lingshu chapter 11 reminds us that " the unskilled think it's

easy, while the superior know it's difficult. "

 

Steve

 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:07 PM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

roseanne.spradlin wrote:

 

>

>

> Steve,

>

> Thanks for your response, and yes, I did find my way to your website and

> read some of the blog where this was discussed. I don't have a problem

> understanding the concepts. I understand why you are drawn to the word

> " distinctions " but I would just say that the vessels themselves are not

> 'the

> distinctions; " they are the vessels that hold the fluid that is imprinted

> with the individual's experiences that give that individual his/her (mostly

> unconscious) " distinctions. " So calling them " distinctions " is kind of a

> shorthand to the full idea. That's fine, and if it works for you, great.

> You've obviously put a lot of thought into your terminology.

>

> Sometimes I think it can be helpful to get feedback from someone totally

> fresh to the idea at hand, and I guess that's what I was offering on the

> terminology. But if it's not helpful to hear how other people resonate with

> your terminology, then I can understand that, too. We all are looking for

> the best way to articulate and hold in our minds the complex concepts of

> CM. I appreciate the work you've done and I enjoyed reading your website.

>

> RoseAnne

>

> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Steven Alpern

<stevenalpern<stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> >wrote:

>

>

> > RoseAnne,

> >

> > I didn't mean to question your sincerity. Please carefully read the two

> key

> > functions I've differentiated for the jingbie. As " distinctions " they

> > contain those features of being that individuate a person --

> distinguishing

> > him or her from the Dao, which is represented by the " universal " aspects

> of

> > the primary channels (see earlier posts in this thread). Thus, I believe

> > they are rightly called " distinctions. " They function by containing and

> > projecting the individual's core interpretations onto all " current "

> > experience, and thus lay the foundation for the quality and distribution

> of

> > all qi and blood generated by individuals -- through the function of the

> > primary channels.

> >

> > I believe my use of terms is clear in their use. I endeavor to be very

> > careful with my use of language, and it's not easy to articulate profound

> > CM

> > ideas clearly. I invite you (and others) to read the essays archived on

> my

> > website <http://www.ccmforhealing.com/>. Good luck in your studies of

> CCM,

>

> >

> > Steve

> >

> > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:53 PM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

> > roseanne.spradlin <roseanne.spradlin%40gmail.com>> wrote:

> >

> > >

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steven,

Yes.. if we're going to be respectful to the ones who created this medicine

in its early stages, along with its terminology... we must consider why they

would call acu-points ... " caves " ( " xue " ). I like " caves " too, because they

are metaphorically descriptive of the 3D nature of the Qi-openings along

channels and even off of channels. We can envision a river which runs

through a valley and small caves and coves positioned along the course of

the stream.

 

Between " channels " , " vessels " and " meridians " , I like " channels " , because

the word holds both substantive and functional meaning. These fields of Qi

can " channel " Qi, blood, fluids etc. through the territory. From a more

" energetic " perspective... you can " channel " communication signals by

manipulating the course of the Qi.... like changing the channels in the

body. In English, we talk about " channels " in the context of water movement

as well.

 

" Vessels " are descriptive on a 3D level, but to me sound more like a

vertical basin for fluids, instead of a river, stream or spring which flows.

An acupoint actually sounds more like a " vessel " , which holds the Qi in

place.

 

Thoughts?

 

K

 

 

 

 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 3:50 PM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpernwrote:

 

>

>

> John: I personally like " cave, " and I realize that most would consider that

> terribly quirky. I agree with all the issues your raise concerning

> translating xue as " point, " and I think there is something even more

> important to recall. There has been a fundamental shift, increasingly over

> the past thousand years, toward viewing acupuncture the study of points

> rather than the five systems of channels and vessels (collaterals, if you

> like). This shift has substantially limited the depth of acupuncture

> theory.

>

> This brings me to Bob's query: That is my " unpacking " of material in the

> early chapters of Lingshu, especially chapter 11 on the jingbie. Early in

> that chapter, Huangdi notes that the (primary) channels are both in accord

> with the Dao of Heaven and not -- leading to disease. How can that be? I

> simply responded to that question, using the language you used in your

> posting. Members of CHA who have followed my posts during the past few

> weeks

> (such as Gloria's question about wind or the discussion of the classics

> that

> began with Nanjing) know that Neijing is my main focus, and that I believe

> that one has a substantial amount of work to do unpacking it in order to

> derive much wisdom from it.

>

> No amount of scholarship (alone) will pry open the deep wisdom of Chinese

> medicine, because many important principles were never written. In part,

> that's because Chinese " philosophy " was a personal matter and never

> discursive like western philosophy. Before the modern period there was

> always an emphasis on receiving teachings from someone who knew how to

> " de-code " multiple layers of textured meaning from classic texts, as well

> as

> receiving and reading those texts. There have also been the desire to keep

> certain knowledge within a " family " to provide economic security and

> benefit. And then there's also the fact that Imperial China didn't have a

> concept like academic freedom. For many centuries, if your ideas were

> substantially different from those officially sanctioned by the Emperor, it

> was best to keep them to oneself. Indeed, many seekers of truth who ran

> afoul of the Emperor over the centuries were sent far to the south (the

> area

> of current day Vietnam), where presumably they would fall victim to an

> early

> demise from tropical disease. But, I digress...

>

> Relative to the channel distinctions, I draw upon the early chapters of

> Lingshu (especially chapter 11 specifically on that topic, but also

> integrated with understanding of the other systems discussed in several

> other chapers), teachings/interpretations from Jeffrey Yuen, using them in

> devising treatment strategies in clinical practice, and my own work

> practicing and teaching for a dozen years a specialized form of qigong that

> I call " neo-natal

> daoyin<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/classes/neo-natal-daoyin/>. "

> While I've unquestionably experienced considerable " cross fertilization "

> among these four sources of learning, in many respects I believe the last

> has been the most helpful in integrating my understanding.

>

> All my posts are my personal conclusions based on my study. How could it be

> any other way? Unless I state otherwise, its safe to assume that my posts

> are my opinions based on my interest in and study of Neijing, including my

> philosophical analysis of the significance of various topics (see, for

> instance, my response to Gloria) and my clinical experience. I'm happy to

> discuss the merits of any of my ideas, and don't consider the written word

> the ultimate arbiter of truth. While study and scholarship are important,

> indeed even vital, I believe we must embody Chinese medicine in order to

> fathom its depths. Scholarship alone won't allow us to penetrate into its

> deep wisdom.

>

> Steve

> CCMforHealing.com

>

>

> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:46 PM, pemachophel2001

<bob<bob%40bluepoppy.com>>

> wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Steve,

> >

> >

> > " The individual's personal spirit is separated from " primordial

> awareness "

> > by the collection of his or her (sub-consciously held) interpretations.

> > These are contained in the channel distinctions (*jingbie*), and

> projected

> > onto current awareness (the primary channels) at every moment, providing

> the

> > individual's limited perspective. "

> >

> > Very interesting. Are these your own beliefs or doe they have a Chinese

> > (Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean) source? If they have an Asian source, I'd

> > really like the citation so I can go read up on this for myself. I

> believe

> > it's really important that we tell our readers where we are getting our

> > information. If these are your own personal conclusions, then I think the

> > reader needs to know that as well. This kind of

> acknowledgment/attribution

> > seems especially important in our profession where all too often ideas

> and

> > information are not sourced and " it's all good. " In any case, I'd like to

> > read/know more about this once I decide if the source is credible. :-)

> >

> >

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Doug,

 

Thanks. I believe it is vitally important that we identify our sources of

information or the evidence for our beliefs. We are medical professionals and

what we do has real consequences for our patients. As clinicians, we are not

arm-chair philosophers or poets (although we may also be those).

 

As I have stated before, I believe on this forum, I think as a group we are way

too accepting. IMO, we need to constantly be asking who said something, when,

where, in what context, with what evidence.

 

That is not say that someone's personal ideas are bad or wrong. They may be

spot-on and brilliant. But we need to know that they are a person's own ideas

and on what basis they communicate those ideas to others in the profession.

 

For instance, I believe that, if the late Prof. Worsley had been open and

forthright about identifying many of his teachings as his own personal beliefs

and insights, he would be regarded today as a brilliant innovator by a larger

segment of our profession, regardless of whether or not one accepts those

beliefs and insights. However, insisting that they were some kind of esoteric

oral tradition only hurt his credibility once more Western practitioners learned

more about the history of Chinese medicine and its clinical practice in Asia.

 

Bob

 

, " " wrote:

>

> I hope Steve answers as to specific sources but these are very Jeffery Yuen

concepts and since Steve studied with Jeffery....

> Doug

>

>

>

> , " pemachophel2001 " <bob@> wrote:

> >

> > Steve,

> >

> > " The individual's personal spirit is separated from " primordial awareness "

by the collection of his or her (sub-consciously held) interpretations. These

are contained in the channel distinctions (*jingbie*), and projected onto

current awareness (the primary channels) at every moment, providing the

individual's limited perspective. "

> >

> > Very interesting. Are these your own beliefs or doe they have a Chinese

(Japanese, Vietnamese, Korean) source? If they have an Asian source, I'd really

like the citation so I can go read up on this for myself. I believe it's really

important that we tell our readers where we are getting our information. If

these are your own personal conclusions, then I think the reader needs to know

that as well. This kind of acknowledgment/attribution seems especially important

in our profession where all too often ideas and information are not sourced and

" it's all good. " In any case, I'd like to read/know more about this once I

decide if the source is credible. :-)

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Steve,

 

Yes, well I said " imprinted fluid " and with that I am acknowledging that the

" imprint " (of our individual experiences) is what continually recreates the

(mostly unconscious) holding patterns, the point of view.

 

RA

 

On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 7:11 PM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpernwrote:

 

> Hi RoseAnne,

>

> Thanks for checking out my site. Indeed, the issue of how to understand and

> articulate the complex issues of CM is a huge challenge. I do appreciate

> feedback/input, and the issues of language and meaning are profoundly

> interconnected.

>

> For instance, the jingbie are not just " the vessels that hold the fluid, "

> but also the habituated holding patterns and patterns of activation of the

> sinews that retain the fluids in certain locations. Those holding patterns

> are the somatic expression of the individual's attachment to point of view,

> which separates (another translation for " jie " ) the individual from the

> Dao.

> One of the great conundrums of Chinese medicine is that individuals are

> both

> a microcosm of Dao, and that each of us holds ourselves separate from it in

> our own individual ways. The channel distinctions address that conundrum;

> that's why Lingshu chapter 11 reminds us that " the unskilled think it's

> easy, while the superior know it's difficult. "

>

> Steve

>

> On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 1:07 PM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

> roseanne.spradlin wrote:

>

> >

> >

> > Steve,

> >

> > Thanks for your response, and yes, I did find my way to your website and

> > read some of the blog where this was discussed. I don't have a problem

> > understanding the concepts. I understand why you are drawn to the word

> > " distinctions " but I would just say that the vessels themselves are not

> > 'the

> > distinctions; " they are the vessels that hold the fluid that is imprinted

> > with the individual's experiences that give that individual his/her

> (mostly

> > unconscious) " distinctions. " So calling them " distinctions " is kind of a

> > shorthand to the full idea. That's fine, and if it works for you, great.

> > You've obviously put a lot of thought into your terminology.

> >

> > Sometimes I think it can be helpful to get feedback from someone totally

> > fresh to the idea at hand, and I guess that's what I was offering on the

> > terminology. But if it's not helpful to hear how other people resonate

> with

> > your terminology, then I can understand that, too. We all are looking for

> > the best way to articulate and hold in our minds the complex concepts of

> > CM. I appreciate the work you've done and I enjoyed reading your website.

> >

> > RoseAnne

> >

> > On Mon, Feb 15, 2010 at 12:12 PM, Steven Alpern <stevenalpern

> <stevenalpern%40gmail.com>

> > >wrote:

> >

> >

> > > RoseAnne,

> > >

> > > I didn't mean to question your sincerity. Please carefully read the two

> > key

> > > functions I've differentiated for the jingbie. As " distinctions " they

> > > contain those features of being that individuate a person --

> > distinguishing

> > > him or her from the Dao, which is represented by the " universal "

> aspects

> > of

> > > the primary channels (see earlier posts in this thread). Thus, I

> believe

> > > they are rightly called " distinctions. " They function by containing and

> > > projecting the individual's core interpretations onto all " current "

> > > experience, and thus lay the foundation for the quality and

> distribution

> > of

> > > all qi and blood generated by individuals -- through the function of

> the

> > > primary channels.

> > >

> > > I believe my use of terms is clear in their use. I endeavor to be very

> > > careful with my use of language, and it's not easy to articulate

> profound

> > > CM

> > > ideas clearly. I invite you (and others) to read the essays archived on

> > my

> > > website <http://www.ccmforhealing.com/>. Good luck in your studies of

> > CCM,

> >

> > >

> > > Steve

> > >

> > > On Sun, Feb 14, 2010 at 9:53 PM, RoseAnne Spradlin <

> > > roseanne.spradlin <roseanne.spradlin%40gmail.com>> wrote:

> > >

> > > >

> >

> >

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

*RoseAnne:* Indeed, you did write " imprinted fluid, " and you were completely

correct in calling me on that. However, my point was also correct -- that

habituated patterns of holding and activation of the sinews is a separate

yet related expression of the channel distinctions (aka divergent channels),

and that the two are inter-connected in very important ways.

 

*John:* I agree with your points (and have heard others) favoring " channel "

as the translation for " jing. " While I understand that " collateral " is

widely considered the best term for the " secondary vessels " (as Royston Low

called them many years ago), I like the word " vessels " for the

(longitudinal) *luo* and *jingbie*, because their primary role is to contain

unresolved pathogenic factors which have been embedded in physical humors

for storage. Also, in Chinese the 8EV are called " mai " (vessels), so that

term seems best for them and doesn't only refer to blood vessels.

 

While some believe there should be a single denotative translation for each

CM term, perhaps our profession could benefit by allowing different

connotations to be highlighted by different renderings into English

depending upon context, as I've tried to do with the different renditions of

" bie " in jingbie. Yet, I'm also satisfied with the word " collateral, " if

people really prefer it. In any case, I believe there's a lot to learn about

the five systems (of whatever one wishes to call them); some followers of

this list may be interested in attending my four weekend series of

seminars<http://www.ccmforhealing.com/classes/>on that topic in either

the SF Bay Area this autumn or Albuquerque next

spring ('11) to learn more.

 

*Bob:* Would you like to discuss the merits of my analyses of Neijing, such

as the discussion of Suwen chapter 42 a week or two ago with Gloria on this

list, or in this case Lingshu chapter 11 within the context of the rest of

that text's early chapters introducing the five systems of channels and

vessels (or whatever one wishes to call them), or would you rather just

engage in indirect ad hominem attacks? Which do you believe will provide

greater benefit to the busy professionals and students of CM who follow this

list?

 

Steve

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

So I was applauding Lonny's recognition and very clear description of these two

aspects of potential human " experience. " This other " level " of experience is, I

think, rightly called spiritual. However, in my reading of both the premodern

and contemporary CM literature, I don't think this other " thing, "

Buddha-mind/rigpa, is really a part of CM.

 

Lonny:Bob, What is the perspective of " Buddha-mind " on the notion that it is not

intrinsic to the practice of medicine?

[Guest guest]

Lonnie,

 

Of course, Buddha-mind is intrinsic to all aspects of human experience. No

argument there. However, as formulated by well-known Chinese authors, I can't

find any specific teachings in the CM literature regarding this concept and

especially not in terms of clinical practice, and this is something I devoted a

number of years of my life specifically looking for. In fact, it is part of why

I learned to read Chinese. This nameless (wu ming, [Chinese]), nonconceptual

(mi-mik, [Tibetan]) tathata (suchness, [sanskrit]) aspect of non-dual reality is

not and, as far as I can tell, never has been part of the standard clinical

definition of spirit in CM. So I was simply pointing out the danger of

conflating these two potential meanings of shen/spirit.

 

As for adding this concept to the contemporary practice of CM, great, but I have

two suggestions.

 

1. Maybe not use the word shen/spirit so as to avoid this conflation.

 

Or somehow modify the word when it means this ultimate meaning of the word. For

instance, in Tibetan Buddhism, we use the term sem (mind) when we are talking

about the dualistic, conceptual mind, a thinker thinking thoughts, but we use

sem-nyid, mind-itself when we want to refer to this ultimate level of non-dual

primordial awareness. In this case, the word sem-nyid is a synonym of

Buddha-mind, tathatagata-garbha, clear light, etc. For shorthand, Tibetan

Buddhists refer to these two levels of reality as " relative truth/reality " and

" ultimate truth/reality. " Since English has capitalization which Chinese does

not, one way of dealing with these two different meanings of the word

shen/spirit would be to use spirit (uncapitalized) when referring to the psyche

in the standard clinical practice of CM, relative reality spirit, but capital-S

Spirit when talking about ultimate reality Spirit.

 

2. Clearly identify this addition as a new addition to this particular medicine,

again to avoid confusion and to be perfectly transparent.

 

My concern with these two suggestions is not creating historically unverifiable

myths about standard professional CM.

 

Tibetan medicine has integrated this concept of ultimate reality into both its

theory and practice. I mention this for two reasons:

 

1. To give an example of a medicine that has incorporated this concept as an

integral part.

 

2. To suggest that TM might be used as a model for doing the same thing for CM.

For instance, as someone who has studied both TM and CM, I simply use the TM

teachings and practices to extend the " short-comings " of CM when it comes to

Buddha-mind and clinical practice. However, that is probably not going to be an

option for most Western practitioners, since the Tibetan model assumes and

requires having " taken refuge in the Three Jewels " as well as a number of other

" religion/lineage-specific " requirements and practices.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Fantastic post, Bob. Let me be naive... when we Westerners look for sem-nyid /

Shen issues in CM, does the medicine (tend to) default to Taoism?

 

Doug

 

 

 

, " pemachophel2001 " <bob wrote:

>

> Lonnie,

>

> Of course, Buddha-mind is intrinsic to all aspects of human experience. No

argument there. However, as formulated by well-known Chinese authors, I can't

find any specific teachings in the CM literature regarding this concept and

especially not in terms of clinical practice, and this is something I devoted a

number of years of my life specifically looking for. In fact, it is part of why

I learned to read Chinese. This nameless (wu ming, [Chinese]), nonconceptual

(mi-mik, [Tibetan]) tathata (suchness, [sanskrit]) aspect of non-dual reality is

not and, as far as I can tell, never has been part of the standard clinical

definition of spirit in CM. So I was simply pointing out the danger of

conflating these two potential meanings of shen/spirit.

>

> As for adding this concept to the contemporary practice of CM, great, but I

have two suggestions.

>

> 1. Maybe not use the word shen/spirit so as to avoid this conflation.

>

> Or somehow modify the word when it means this ultimate meaning of the word.

For instance, in Tibetan Buddhism, we use the term sem (mind) when we are

talking about the dualistic, conceptual mind, a thinker thinking thoughts, but

we use sem-nyid, mind-itself when we want to refer to this ultimate level of

non-dual primordial awareness. In this case, the word sem-nyid is a synonym of

Buddha-mind, tathatagata-garbha, clear light, etc. For shorthand, Tibetan

Buddhists refer to these two levels of reality as " relative truth/reality " and

" ultimate truth/reality. " Since English has capitalization which Chinese does

not, one way of dealing with these two different meanings of the word

shen/spirit would be to use spirit (uncapitalized) when referring to the psyche

in the standard clinical practice of CM, relative reality spirit, but capital-S

Spirit when talking about ultimate reality Spirit.

>

> 2. Clearly identify this addition as a new addition to this particular

medicine, again to avoid confusion and to be perfectly transparent.

>

> My concern with these two suggestions is not creating historically

unverifiable myths about standard professional CM.

>

> Tibetan medicine has integrated this concept of ultimate reality into both its

theory and practice. I mention this for two reasons:

>

> 1. To give an example of a medicine that has incorporated this concept as an

integral part.

>

> 2. To suggest that TM might be used as a model for doing the same thing for

CM. For instance, as someone who has studied both TM and CM, I simply use the TM

teachings and practices to extend the " short-comings " of CM when it comes to

Buddha-mind and clinical practice. However, that is probably not going to be an

option for most Western practitioners, since the Tibetan model assumes and

requires having " taken refuge in the Three Jewels " as well as a number of other

" religion/lineage-specific " requirements and practices.

>

> Bob

>

[Guest guest]

Excellent, Bob. Thank you for your suggestion of using capitalized " S "

Spirit to refer to the pure infinite within the embodied spirit and the

small " s " spirit to refer to individual awareness which grasps its own

personal interpretations. I've long used that differentiation, and find it a

very clean way to keep the distinction clear without adding confusing

jargon.

 

As for textual evidence of this idea being recognized historically in CM,

I'd refer you to the beginning of chapter 11 of Lingshu. Indeed, I'd say

there are several classical sources that could be " unpacked " to yield this

basic issue. How would you like to resolve the conundrum that I noted in my

prior post -- that individuals are both a microcosm of Dao and also have

particular personal differences (both physiological and

psychologically/emotionally) leading to their individual challenges in life

and eventually their struggles with disease?

 

Please address any errors of interpretation that you believe I've made in my

previous posts on this site. My interpretations were " primary " analysis,

based on my own study, experience, and contemplation, as I've made clear in

my posts. I don't believe they require previous Chinese authors, yet I

recognize that many would wish to have that reinforcement, I'll address at

least two good reasons that such discussions are NOT found in the historical

Chinese literature:

 

1. On " fundamental " topics of what is real and what is its nature

(technically in western philosophy -- epistemology and ontology), the

cultural norm throughout Chinese history has been for individual to pursue

them in a personal rather than discursive way. Relatively early in Chinese

history, especially relative to recorded material about CM -- during the

Waring States Period, there was some discussion of this sort, but it largely

disappeared from Chinese written philosophy. (For those interested, more

than 25 years ago Chad Hansen did a great, though perhaps a bit dense, study

of this in his " Language and Logic in Ancient China. " )

2. Ideas such as the universal within the personal were part of the

cultural norm, especially among certain social groups. On this specific

topic, I'd submit that there have been many well-cultivated Buddhists and

Daoists, who have practiced CM over the centuries. I'd say that for them,

interpretations like mine of LS chapter 11 would go without saying. Indeed,

during classical times I believe many literate Chinese would have seen as I

suggest. They didn't need to write about their worldview, because it was

embedding within them. I suggest that we do, because classical Chinese

approach to what it is to be a human being is rather different from our

(modern/post-modern) worldview.

 

There continue to be perceptual and cognitive differences between Asians and

people from the U.S. and Europe. Almost a decade ago, a very well respected

group of social scientists organized a fairly large multi-site study of

these differences that contains several results that may interest serious

students of CM. The results of this study were written up in a book called

" The Geography of Thought. " The primary author among the group was Richard

Nisbett.

 

Steve

 

On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 9:22 AM, pemachophel2001 <bob wrote:

 

>

>

> Lonnie,

>

> Of course, Buddha-mind is intrinsic to all aspects of human experience. No

> argument there. However, as formulated by well-known Chinese authors, I

> can't find any specific teachings in the CM literature regarding this

> concept and especially not in terms of clinical practice, and this is

> something I devoted a number of years of my life specifically looking for.

> In fact, it is part of why I learned to read Chinese. This nameless (wu

> ming, [Chinese]), nonconceptual (mi-mik, [Tibetan]) tathata (suchness,

> [sanskrit]) aspect of non-dual reality is not and, as far as I can tell,

> never has been part of the standard clinical definition of spirit in CM. So

> I was simply pointing out the danger of conflating these two potential

> meanings of shen/spirit.

>

> As for adding this concept to the contemporary practice of CM, great, but I

> have two suggestions.

>

> 1. Maybe not use the word shen/spirit so as to avoid this conflation.

>

> Or somehow modify the word when it means this ultimate meaning of the word.

> For instance, in Tibetan Buddhism, we use the term sem (mind) when we are

> talking about the dualistic, conceptual mind, a thinker thinking thoughts,

> but we use sem-nyid, mind-itself when we want to refer to this ultimate

> level of non-dual primordial awareness. In this case, the word sem-nyid is a

> synonym of Buddha-mind, tathatagata-garbha, clear light, etc. For shorthand,

> Tibetan Buddhists refer to these two levels of reality as " relative

> truth/reality " and " ultimate truth/reality. " Since English has

> capitalization which Chinese does not, one way of dealing with these two

> different meanings of the word shen/spirit would be to use spirit

> (uncapitalized) when referring to the psyche in the standard clinical

> practice of CM, relative reality spirit, but capital-S Spirit when talking

> about ultimate reality Spirit.

>

> 2. Clearly identify this addition as a new addition to this particular

> medicine, again to avoid confusion and to be perfectly transparent.

>

> My concern with these two suggestions is not creating historically

> unverifiable myths about standard professional CM.

>

> Tibetan medicine has integrated this concept of ultimate reality into both

> its theory and practice. I mention this for two reasons:

>

> 1. To give an example of a medicine that has incorporated this concept as

> an integral part.

>

> 2. To suggest that TM might be used as a model for doing the same thing for

> CM. For instance, as someone who has studied both TM and CM, I simply use

> the TM teachings and practices to extend the " short-comings " of CM when it

> comes to Buddha-mind and clinical practice. However, that is probably not

> going to be an option for most Western practitioners, since the Tibetan

> model assumes and requires having " taken refuge in the Three Jewels " as well

> as a number of other " religion/lineage-specific " requirements and practices.

>

> Bob

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Doug wrote:

 

" Let me be naive... when we Westerners look for sem-nyid / Shen issues in

CM, does the medicine (tend to) default to Taoism? "

 

I don't think we have to " default to Daoists, " though during the history of

Chinese thought, Confuscian influences tended to exert more influence over

ones social relations and Daoism tended to relate more to one's relations

with the universe.

 

Of course, there were also many Buddhist medical practitioners.

 

BTW, since you raised the issue several days ago: While I've been a student

of Jeffrey Yuen's for many years and have been much inspired by his

teachings, I have and share my own thoughts about Chinese medicine. Indeed,

I differ from Jeffrey on several interpretations of points of theory. I'm

willing to share why I believe any idea I post. I'd invite you to ask,

rather than simply attributing my ideas to Jeffrey.

 

Steve

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Doug,

 

Sorry, I'm not following you here. I don't believe there is any clinical

equivalent to sem-nyid/Shen in CM. (Please note the word " clinical. " ) In

addition, the sem-nyid has no problems. It's always and forever " all-good "

(Samantabhadra [skt.]/Kuntu Zangpo [Tib.]). When we perceive reality as dualism

(me inside, you/it outside), then the three klesas* of ignorance (of

non-duality), anger (disliking, not wanting), and desire (liking, not wanting)

obscure or cloud the sem-nyid so that it is not perceived**/apparent. However,

just as the sun is not affected by the clouds in the sky, the sem-nyid is never

affected. The experience of these three klesas and the 84,000 other

mental-emotional states that stem from these three are all experienced by the

sem, the small-m mind, what I might call the small-s shen or psyche in Chinese.

In TM, the three klesas give rise to imbalances in the three doshas of phlegm,

bile, and wind respectively. Such imbalances in three doshas then give rise to

imbalances in the five viscera and six bowels, channels, etc., etc. The three

doshas are also connected to the five elements of TM (which are not the same as

the five phases of CM). So the three doshas also cause imbalances in these five

(sometimes only referred to as four) elements.

 

Interestingly, in the Tang dynasty, Sun Si-miao tried to graft three dosha

theory onto CM but it didn't take.

 

* Sorry, I'm having a senior moment. Can't remember the English for kleshas. The

Tibetan is nyon-mong which translates close to CM's qing, affects, although some

translators gloss it as emotions.

 

** In English, " perceived " implies a perceiver, but there is no perceiver. It's

the belief in a supposed perceiver that's the problem. Ha!

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

Bob, Lon,

This is an excellent discussion, and raises a number of issues that point

out the difficulties of teaching " Spirit " with a capital " S " .

 

If you take us as three individuals, we are all interested in " Spirit " and

self-cultivation. But we look at Spirit through different lens. It is one of

those interesting paradoxes of creation that while Spirit is universal, the

specific pathways to get there are culture or path-specific. Bob, you are a

practicing Tibetan Buddhist. Lon, you are a student of the teachings of Andrew

Cohen and Ken Wilbur. And myself, I view the Spirit 'realm' through the lens of

Chassidic/Sephardic/Kabbalistic teachings in a Jewish perspective.

 

This to me is the clear advantage of what we call mainstream Chinese

medicine, that it allows for these different perspectives on Spirit, without

limiting the practice of the medicine to a particular spiritual discipline. I

wouldn't like to see a mainstream CM college teach Tibetan Buddhist, Jewish or

other mystical teachings as a requirement. I think self-cultivation should be

encouraged in the realm of Yang Sheng/Nourishing Life, and this can be found in

such works as Sun Si-miao's writings, or Ekiken Kaibara's Yojokun. And I

certainly wouldn't be opposed to 'specialty' schools or programs on more

esoteric approaches to medicine and healing, but clearly this is beyond the ken

of professional Chinese medicine.

 

I myself have been a patient of Tibetan medical practitioners, and regularly

take Chulen, Precious Pills, and other Tibetan medicaments. However, I couldn't

be a practitioner of Tibetan medicine, because no matter how much I admire the

medicine, my loyalties are with the Jewish spiritual path of my ancestors, and I

must honor that. .

 

 

On Feb 22, 2010, at 9:22 AM, pemachophel2001 wrote:

 

> Lonnie,

>

> Of course, Buddha-mind is intrinsic to all aspects of human experience. No

argument there. However, as formulated by well-known Chinese authors, I can't

find any specific teachings in the CM literature regarding this concept and

especially not in terms of clinical practice, and this is something I devoted a

number of years of my life specifically looking for. In fact, it is part of why

I learned to read Chinese. This nameless (wu ming, [Chinese]), nonconceptual

(mi-mik, [Tibetan]) tathata (suchness, [sanskrit]) aspect of non-dual reality is

not and, as far as I can tell, never has been part of the standard clinical

definition of spirit in CM. So I was simply pointing out the danger of

conflating these two potential meanings of shen/spirit.

>

> As for adding this concept to the contemporary practice of CM, great, but I

have two suggestions.

>

> 1. Maybe not use the word shen/spirit so as to avoid this conflation.

>

> Or somehow modify the word when it means this ultimate meaning of the word.

For instance, in Tibetan Buddhism, we use the term sem (mind) when we are

talking about the dualistic, conceptual mind, a thinker thinking thoughts, but

we use sem-nyid, mind-itself when we want to refer to this ultimate level of

non-dual primordial awareness. In this case, the word sem-nyid is a synonym of

Buddha-mind, tathatagata-garbha, clear light, etc. For shorthand, Tibetan

Buddhists refer to these two levels of reality as " relative truth/reality " and

" ultimate truth/reality. " Since English has capitalization which Chinese does

not, one way of dealing with these two different meanings of the word

shen/spirit would be to use spirit (uncapitalized) when referring to the psyche

in the standard clinical practice of CM, relative reality spirit, but capital-S

Spirit when talking about ultimate reality Spirit.

>

> 2. Clearly identify this addition as a new addition to this particular

medicine, again to avoid confusion and to be perfectly transparent.

>

> My concern with these two suggestions is not creating historically

unverifiable myths about standard professional CM.

>

> Tibetan medicine has integrated this concept of ultimate reality into both its

theory and practice. I mention this for two reasons:

>

> 1. To give an example of a medicine that has incorporated this concept as an

integral part.

>

> 2. To suggest that TM might be used as a model for doing the same thing for

CM. For instance, as someone who has studied both TM and CM, I simply use the TM

teachings and practices to extend the " short-comings " of CM when it comes to

Buddha-mind and clinical practice. However, that is probably not going to be an

option for most Western practitioners, since the Tibetan model assumes and

requires having " taken refuge in the Three Jewels " as well as a number of other

" religion/lineage-specific " requirements and practices.

>

> Bob

>

>

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

<bob wrote:

>

> Doug,

>

> Sorry, I'm not following you here. I don't believe there is any clinical

equivalent to sem-nyid/Shen in CM. (Please note the word " clinical. " )

 

OK, this is good. What I meant is that in that we can look towards " religious

belief " (which I see sem-hyid to be) in Cm the only one that applies would be

that of Taosism. And I understand you might/would probably say that Taoism

wouldn't apply clinically. Confusism doesn't have this religious aspect as I see

it.

 

Doug