johnwang wrote:When I'm thinking about health, I'm think about:
- Strong lung and heart through running.
- Small waist line through sitting up.
- Strong muscle through weight lifting.
- ...
Why do you equate a small waist line and ability to lift weights with health - where did you obtain this idea? The reason i ask is because besides "glamour" magazines and a minority of modern medical professionals these two do not equal "health" from many peoples perspectives.
Health is undoubtedly a state of both mental fitness and physical fitness - it just depends on how you view the body whether a particular "body type" is considered healthy. It reminds me of the tale of the 3 blind men and the elephant. Each one was asked to touch a part of the elephant and describe what an elephant looks like. One said its body structure is thin and hairy, one said it is thick and "trunk like", the other said that it was round and distended, like a drum. They all felt the same elephant yet all came back with different results. This is the same as comparing Chinese / East Asian views on health and modern views on health.
To start, the Chinese view is focused more on what is within than what is on the outside - superfical physical attributes have never been a large component of the "Chinese" body. This is because of how they viewed the body - as energetic interactions. Their knowledge of anatomy and muscular function did not come into play until jesuits entered China only a few hundred years ago (and even then that knowledge was limited). This does bring us back to the notion of Qi - and if one had plenty of it and it was in the right places then that person could be considered healthy. Health, from a CMA / TCM aspect came through regular but not excessive exercise, proper dietary intake, emotional equilibrium, inner cultivation (NeiGong) combined with knowledge of the outer cultivation (WaiGong), apporiate sexual conduct (primarily from Daoist sources) etc. Harder to obtain than a skinny waist and big muscles - but that was the general idea. And most of it was done (as most of it was sourced from Daoist, Buddhist and Confucian ideologies) in order for the adept to acheive longevity, immortality, enlightenment and so on.
The modern western perspective differs from this greatly. Firstly - the Chinese martial arts, cultivation practices and medicinal practices focused intently on the lower abdomen and utilised that as a storehouse - this is what they desired to be "healthy". Modern components (which obviously change daily) focus on, as you said, the upper part - big chest, chest breathing, heart rate etc. From a CH point of view this is no good - putting everything so high up (the vice versa has yet to be critical analysed). Many individuals that i have come across feel that the tighter and harder thier body is the better - again CH looks at a balance between the two.
I am not criticising Western health perspectives - it has many great benefits and as technological advancements continue our knowledge of what we are becomes greater, and hence our knowledge of health will too. However, what can be considered healthy really needs to be looked at through the eye of the beholder, and therefore comparing the two leads to looking at in Black and White (similar to what i have just done!) and that can lead to conflict between ideas. Integrating the two would be my preference - like with studying martial arts - take what you like and what you feel works and maintain and cultivate what feels healthy to you.