Guest guest Posted February 10, 2010 Report Share Posted February 10, 2010 Good point... I have never really looked at Unschuld in his history writings other than his recent Currents book. Is he the best English language source for this or can anyone recommend others? Doug , " trevor_erikson " <trevor_erikson wrote: > > Doug, > > Actually if you look at the last 2000 years of Chinese history, there has been a lot disagreement of what is true Chinese medicine vrs what is not,particularly between the Confucianists and taoists. Their view points differed greatly at times, and I believe is why the whole " Neo-Confucianism " movement started in the middle ages, to try and blend the two systems together. > > Trevor > > , " " <taiqi@> wrote: > > > > One problem in this discussion from (our?) western perspective is that has always been part of Chinese Philosophy whereas what we might call Philosophy comes under ethics and governance. I'm paraphrasing some author here.... > > > > That has meant that taoists, buddhists, qi gong practitioners, martial artists, meditators have some and legitimate claim to the medicine. The communists undoubtably took and take unconscionable actions against religious movement as did each group take towards each other, just talking about the last 200 years of China's history. > > > > For westerners with a body and mind the psychospiritual concept is missing only when taken from the taoist point of view or one of the other sets of groups. I would agree that the spiritual isn't in the medicine literature but what has been ignored by the current TCM are the side " philosophies " which incorporate the medicine. Whether this is a concern for us that are only involved with the medicine shouldn't matter. > > > > doug > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 HI Doug, I really enjoy Unshulds books, particularly the one dedicated to herbal medicine, History of Pharmaceutics. He basically comments on every single known updated version/ revision of the Ben cao over the last 2000 years, analyzing the differences between 4 main tradition. It is a massive achievement really. The Currents book you speak of is Volker Shied's, which is also excellent. His approach is different than Unshuld's, in that Volker linked the many different human relationships, as well as treatment styles, that made/ make up the Meng He current as we know today. Unshuld was more interested in the relationships of related written works. Both Authors offer excellent viewpoints on a Chinese medical history, and I would highly recommend both. Best Trevor , " " wrote: > > Good point... I have never really looked at Unschuld in his history writings other than his recent Currents book. Is he the best English language source for this or can anyone recommend others? > Doug > > > , " trevor_erikson " <trevor_erikson@> wrote: > > > > Doug, > > > > Actually if you look at the last 2000 years of Chinese history, there has been a lot disagreement of what is true Chinese medicine vrs what is not,particularly between the Confucianists and taoists. Their view points differed greatly at times, and I believe is why the whole " Neo-Confucianism " movement started in the middle ages, to try and blend the two systems together. > > > > Trevor > > > > , " " <taiqi@> wrote: > > > > > > One problem in this discussion from (our?) western perspective is that has always been part of Chinese Philosophy whereas what we might call Philosophy comes under ethics and governance. I'm paraphrasing some author here.... > > > > > > That has meant that taoists, buddhists, qi gong practitioners, martial artists, meditators have some and legitimate claim to the medicine. The communists undoubtably took and take unconscionable actions against religious movement as did each group take towards each other, just talking about the last 200 years of China's history. > > > > > > For westerners with a body and mind the psychospiritual concept is missing only when taken from the taoist point of view or one of the other sets of groups. I would agree that the spiritual isn't in the medicine literature but what has been ignored by the current TCM are the side " philosophies " which incorporate the medicine. Whether this is a concern for us that are only involved with the medicine shouldn't matter. > > > > > > doug > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 11, 2010 Report Share Posted February 11, 2010 Thanks for the recommendation and d'uhh of course i should have remembered that it was Volker Scheid...who wrote the Currents book. Doug , " trevor_erikson " <trevor_erikson wrote: > > HI Doug, > > I really enjoy Unshulds books, particularly the one dedicated to herbal medicine, History of Pharmaceutics. He basically comments on every single known updated version/ revision of the Ben cao over the last 2000 years, analyzing the differences between 4 main tradition. It is a massive achievement really. > > The Currents book you speak of is Volker Shied's, which is also excellent. His approach is different than Unshuld's, in that Volker linked the many different human relationships, as well as treatment styles, that made/ make up the Meng He current as we know today. Unshuld was more interested in the relationships of related written works. > > Both Authors offer excellent viewpoints on a Chinese medical history, and I would highly recommend both. > > Best > Trevor > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.