the classics matter

[Guest guest]

Chinese Medicine , " acu_qichina "

<acu@q...> wrote:

> Surely the issue of how this knowledge came about is absolutely

> fundamental to everything we do? By just saying it's " classical "

and

> therefore imbued with some sort of authority is a cop-out. If

modern

> day humans will never be in the position to replicate how that

> original knowledge was acquired, then all the weight is thrown on

the

> source texts, elevating them in some sort of self-fulfilling

prophecy

> to an almost mystical status. If the opposite is true - that we

can

> through direct experience and using all our senses including

reason,

> deduce similar patterns of imbalances in qi which cause disease,

and

> develop theories and techniques how to remedy that, then we would

have

> an alternative 'window' into this system of medicine which above

all,

> a *practical* system of medicine, rather than an historical

research

> exercise.

>

> It's not true to say the Mawangdui manuscripts tell us about TCM

> methods at all - this is a gross over-simplification. If you want

to

> say that such classical sources are still relevant and are an

> 'assurance of reliability', then I suggest you try this piece of

> authoritative treatment advice for inguinal swelling:

>

> On the sixteenth day of the month when the moon first begins to

> deteriorate, perform the Pace of Yu thrice. Say: " Moon is matched

> against sun " and " Sun is matched against moon " - three times each.

> " Father is perverse, Mother is strong. Like other people they bore

> Sons, and only bore inguinal swelling bulges. Perversness desist.

> Grasp the hammering stone and strike your Mother. " Immediately,

> exorcistically beat and hammer the person twice seven times with an

> iron mallet. Do it at sunrise, and have the person with inguinal

> swelling face east.

> (Mawangdui Medical Manuscripts translation by Donald Harper.)

>

> Ouch! Godfrey Bartlett

 

IMO, if one is serious about TCM, one should study the classics in

the chronological order i.e. Nei Jing (7 warrior states), Nan Jing,

ShenNong Ben Jing, SHL (Han), Qian1 Jing1 Fang1 (Tang), Bi Wei Lun

(Song), the 4 Jing-Yuan masters (Jing/Yuan) and various Wen Bing

classics (Qing) and the famous TCM doctors in each period. Then, one

should argue about usefulness of the classics based on the fact that

one has understood the whole picture.

 

IMO, Nei Jing, Nan Jing and SHL are the most important classics. All

the subsequent developments (e.g. Bi Wei Lun, Wen Bin) are largely

based on them. These three classics form the base of the TCM. In my

chinese textbook for Fang1 Ji4 (formulas), 1/3 of the formulas come

from SHL written in Han Dynasty. The textbook on diagnosis is full

of quotes from Nei Jing. Therefore, these classics are still and

will continue to be relevant and authoritative.

 

In the history, all the great TCM doctors in China share one common

background i.e. they are experts in Nei Jing/Nan Jing and SHL. I

have not seen any well-known doctors in the history that do not

refer to Nei Jing/Nan Jing/SHL in their own writing. And these

doctors were good in saving lives by applying the TCM theory !!!!

[Guest guest]

I agree. I think it is very important that we develop the tools to

teach our students and fellow professionals to learn the classics in an

accurate manner, and give as many people as possible access to the

original texts through expert translations, on-line translation tools,

and doctorate courses. Knowledge is strength.

 

 

On Sep 28, 2004, at 1:13 AM, Tan Jit Kiat wrote:

> IMO, if one is serious about TCM, one should study the classics in

> the chronological order i.e. Nei Jing (7 warrior states), Nan Jing,

> ShenNong Ben Jing, SHL (Han), Qian1 Jing1 Fang1 (Tang), Bi Wei Lun

> (Song), the 4 Jing-Yuan masters (Jing/Yuan) and various Wen Bing

> classics (Qing) and the famous TCM doctors in each period. Then, one

> should argue about usefulness of the classics based on the fact that

> one has understood the whole picture.

>

> IMO, Nei Jing, Nan Jing and SHL are the most important classics. All

> the subsequent developments (e.g. Bi Wei Lun, Wen Bin) are largely

> based on them. These three classics form the base of the TCM. In my

> chinese textbook for Fang1 Ji4 (formulas), 1/3 of the formulas come

> from SHL written in Han Dynasty. The textbook on diagnosis is full

> of quotes from Nei Jing. Therefore, these classics are still and

> will continue to be relevant and authoritative.

>

> In the history, all the great TCM doctors in China share one common

> background i.e. they are experts in Nei Jing/Nan Jing and SHL. I

> have not seen any well-known doctors in the history that do not

> refer to Nei Jing/Nan Jing/SHL in their own writing. And these

> doctors were good in saving lives by applying the TCM theory !!!!

>