Talk:Classical Chinese medicine

On CCM

Classical Chinese Medicine has not died out, nor is it seeing a revival. Due to the Filtering process of the Marxis Dialectic Materialism many of the concepts of Classical Chinese Medicine were thought to be old fashioned and not relevant in modern 1950´s Maoist China. An example is the Movement of the 5 Elementals usually used as 5 Elements. Process or content, that is the question. This political filter was not used in Vietnam. Dr. Van Nghi was a leading member of a committee to rewrite the classics using practical knowledge from their experience. This was done and the classical are known as the Trung E Hoc. Dr. Van Nghi has students all over the world practising Chinese Medicine according to his principals based on the Classics. Dr VAn Nghi was made president of the 1st World Congres of Chinese Medicine Bejing, 1988 in recognition of his work.§§§§

Rewrite?

This could use a rewrite; the tone is pretty defensive (for lack of a better word). Changing the tone would be a good idea. 170.158.82.51 14:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading statements

The remark about texts being intentionally written in a confusing manner such as with no punctuation is plain wrong. Classical Chinese (古文, Gǔwén, "Ancient Writing"; or more literally 古典漢語 Gǔdiǎn Hànyǔ "Classical Chinese") and the later development (文言文, Wényánwén, "Literary Writing", or more colloquially just 文言 Wényán) has no punctuation. Modern editions add in punctuation to make it easier to read. Except maybe for certain Daoist texts none of the classical medical writings (Han dynasty) nor any of the Tang, Song, Ming or Qing dynasty medical classics were ever written in an intentional obscure manner. Written Chinese is by definition terse and requires a great deal of skill and literacy to understand.

Family traditions had there secrets, but none of the great medical works were intentionally written in a obscure or confusing manner. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.53.102.37 (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Important to maintain a separate article

It is imperative that CCM remain distinct from TCM. The ideologies and theories behind them are uniquely different. TCM is really a synthesis of CCM which occurred at a later date (under the direction of Mao in the 1960's). The purpose of starting this particular article was to create that distinction. 13:31, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

While I agree that this article could use a rewrite and clean-up (I'm willing to do some of that work) at the same time it should definitely be its own section or, at the very least, a substantial and clearly marked subheading on the TCM page. I'm happy to be involved in the rewrite and merging if that is the consensus of the community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.22.76.222 (talk) 05:30, 24 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that CCM should maintain its own page. After all, if it is merged with TCM, what are we going to call it? Is TCM a hierarchy above CCM? No. --71.146.23.225 (talk) 00:24, 3 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I also protest the request to merge the TCM and CCM articles. There is little question that these two practices are distinctly different as a result of political influnce of recent decades. Sadly, Mao ZeDong's Communist rule took a horrible toll on all aspects of Chinese culture. At one time, Buddhism and Daoism flourished, true masters of martial arts existed, and an emphasis on uniting patients with the natural tendencies of nature determined treatment principles of Chinese medicine. However, over the last 50 years, the Chinese approach to cultural homogenization, economic and political "development" at any environmental cost, and literal genocide of minority groups living within China (and others who attempt to deviate from the norm) have altered Chinese medicine beyond recognition. There is an interesting CCM reference in the "Branches" section of the "Traditional Chinese Medicine" wiki page that highlights the importance of maintaining the separate and distinct identity of Classical Chinese medicine in an attempt to recover both the integrity and efficacy of the medicine practiced for thousands of years until 1949. Please allow this wiki page to grow and spread the understanding of natural principles that guide Chinese medical treatments rather than the memorization of long superficial lists of symptoms and treatment protocols that have become the hallmark of modern "TCM." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.21.105.92 (talk) 20:44, 14 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The different CCM-TCM

.The CCM deeply differ from TCM.Yes,they share common terms,but in the core,in the concepts it is very different.Unfortunately for the humanity,Mao-tse try to destroy the ancient culture of China and make it Communist and materialist,so the medicine become western/modern.only after that it combined with the CCM,but remain western in its concepts,core.Thats how the TCM was created.The CCM is the original,ancient chinese medicine,loyal to the ancient teachings and methods,far more deep,wide,and "chinese",CCM based purely on the classical medical writings,-and the chinese physicians lineage,and rooted in the philosophical background,-mainly the Daoist teachings,confucianism and neo-confucianism as well.Fore example:In CCM the explanation for disease is not symptomatic,like in the western medicine and TCM,it is personaly,and depended on many conditions not taken in the TCM.The things are not permanent,but part of a whole cosmos,as the daoists teach.The meaning of time,points in time,cosmology-another different. During Mao-tse revolution,many of the chinese physicians run away to the periphery,mainly to Taiwan and Vietnam.One of the scholars studied the CCM from chinese physician was J.D. Van Buren,ducht.He brought it to the west and had many students. Here i hope i helped you a bit at the development of the article(which has to remain separated from TCM!!!). Im a student at CCM school in Israel,first year. Good luck. 84.108.9.51 (talk) 02:07, 31 December 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.108.9.51 (talk) 20:45, 30 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

Here some reliable sources,as i got it from my theachers,and checked it myself: Paul Unschuld-"Chinese Medicine" -and other books.What he call "traditional"(chinese medicine),is actualy "classic". Mao Shing Ni:"Yellow Emperor`s classic",-the best translation of the Su-Wen. P. Unschuld is about to publish a good,reliable traslation of the classics.84.108.9.51 (talk) 14:30, 6 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Neither TCM nor CCM should be used as headings

There should be a larger heading which includes both TCM and CCM as subheadings.

First of all, neither TCM ("Traditional Chinese medicine") nor CCM ("Classical Chinese Medicine") exist in Chinese. These are Western terms. In many circles, "Traditional Chinese Medicine" has become the quasi-official English translation of Zhongyi 中醫/中医, a Chinese term that actually just means "Chinese medicine." The curriculum and doctrines of what we now call "TCM" were developed (on the basis of carefully selected ancient texts) after the Chinese Communist Revolution. The term TCM is new: Chinese physicians of the imperial period did not conceive themselves as doing "traditional" medicine (since "traditional" only makes sense in opposition to "modern"), and not even "Chinese" medicine, for that matter: they were just doing medicine.

Some people are trying to return to the supposedly purer form of Chinese medicine that existed before the reforms that have taken place since the 1950s. Advocates call this putatively more authentic medicine "Classical Chinese medicine." (CCM)

CCM advocates are correct to point out that post-1949 TCM is not as "traditional" as its name implies, but in the end the label "CCM" is no more useful than "TCM," because both approaches tend to erase the diversity of medical ideas and practices that existed in imperial times, and both tend to select ideas that (modern) CCM or TCM physicians may find palatable. Modern people who claim to practice some form of "Chinese medicine" tend to cherry-pick the parts of it that suit their personal taste. Most leave out demonology, exorcisms and talismans, though these have been important parts of Chinese medicine through the centuries and certainly have strong therapeutic potential -- even if only based on the placebo effect, which is also true of many (most?) TCM and CCM therapies. In Imperial and modern China there are also countless 民间偏方 (folk remedies) which generally have no theory (yin/yang, etc) behind them at all. Why leave these out and keep something else? The decision is rarely systematically evidence-based, but more often based on personal taste, hear-say, faith in the authority of a "classic" text or teacher, or (at best) a few uncontrolled, individual cases.

"CCM" and "TCM" as described in this thread strike me as "brand names" for modern partisan versions of historical Chinese medicine. A larger heading such as "Imperial Chinese Medicine" would be more neutral, non-partisan and historically accurate.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Lingshu8 (talk • contribs) 02:33, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hello everyone,

Part of the above post by Lingshu8 is a summary of a thread on "China History Forum". But that thread concerned the words we use when we discuss the history of Chinese medicine. I think "imperial Chinese medicine" wouldn't be a good title for this wiki, first because we are no longer in the imperial period, and also because nobody speaks (or knows) of Chinese medicine as "imperial Chinese medicine."
To me, the simple "Chinese medicine" would be the most neutral title.
A wiki titled "Chinese medicine" should start with a solid historical section, explain the modernization of Chinese medicine in the Republican and Communist periods, and eventually point out that "TCM" is the usual English translation of Zhongyi 中医/中醫, a term that just means "Chinese medicine." The wiki should then present the main precepts of "TCM" today (because TCM is more mainstream and has more secondary literature on it), but it should also include a section explaining that some people working under the banner of "CCM" disagree with "TCM" precepts and claim they want to return to some more authentic precepts and practices.
This simple structure (1. complex history; 2. 20th-century reforms and institutionalization; 3. current TCM precepts; 4. CCM protests) would be more historically accurate and would solve the current POV fork between CCM and TCM. Any suggestions?

Madalibi (talk) 06:09, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - As a student at a CCM school, I also agree that one title of "Chinese medicine" with subcategories of TCM and CCM would be a better choice. I see that this medicine is being torn apart by these ideas that we are all so different (or that those of us who would read and use the classical texts are somehow better). To me, the difference in these ways of thinking has to do with an algorithm based approach as opposed to an understanding of fundamental principles and utilizing those in a situation. TCM is a valuable medicine that was created by amazing Chinese doctors who had marvelous lineage based learning and who were reading the classics. It was made to train Western doctors in the practice of Chinese medicine quickly. The algorithm-based approach works in most cases, and that's what matters. As for "CCM" there never was such a differentiation until now, and I think it's horrible that the author of this article made it sound as if CCM is something that has been brought back from the Han Dynasty. There was never a CCM back then - just Zhongyi, as another person here stated. The idea with CCM is that doctors are taught the simple principles of the medicine, thereby removing the need for an algorithm based approach - so that when a more complicated situation arises (such as many different patterns overlapped upon each other), the doctor can reduce it to the simple principles of the medicine to solve the problem. As one of my teachers has said: TCM is an allied health based approach while CCM is more of the model that we use to train physicians. This can be seen in the similar training for the allied health fields (nurses, PAs) and the algorithms they are taught as opposed to the training that MD's receive. One is not better than another. Both work depending on the situation. I agree that both should be under the same heading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.189.125 (talk) 16:37, 20 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CFORK

This "CCM" article is pure WP:CFORK for TCM. In fact, there is not even a different word for the two in Chinese! The article creator made the whole thing up, and admits it above - "TCM is really a synthesis of CCM which occurred at a later date (under the direction of Mao in the 1960's). The purpose of starting this particular article was to CREATEe that distinction." The article has no RS content whatsoever that is not in TCM. Unless there is a good source stating that there is a distinction in the Chinese langauge, I will merge and redirect. PPdd (talk) 03:09, 6 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]