Understanding the history of Integrationists versus traditionalists

[Guest guest]

Hi fellow practitioners,

 

On the issue referred to, i think it is important to understand the

history of the medicine we practise and te development of the

tradition that we claim to be proponents of.

 

Medicine in China, especially herbal medicine was not based upon

substances unique to china, but many of the substances in the

materia medica were from 'foreign' lands with a similar resonance to

how Vitamin C is from a 'foreign' field. Our 'traditional' doctors

through the experience of working with these 'foreign' substances

did as Zev mentioned i.e they determined the TCM functions,

qualities, tastes etc of the substance and hey, they became part of

the chinese materia medica, if that isnt integration then what is?.

the real tradition is in the methodology, because that is what TCM

is, if we understand and 'master the basics'(Bob Flaws) we will be

able to understand the TCM function of any modality or therpeutic

substance, whether it be an essential oil, zinc tablets or open

heart surgery.

 

The virtue of this is that we will apply the best substance/modality

for the pattern that we have identified, like Zev i am not saying

that we discard other methodologies for the 'universal truth' of TCM

but that when we are using other maps (aka orthomolecular therapy)

the TCM trained practitioner has an extra and extremely valuable

tool of the TCM methodology that will tell him that Vitamin C is

really good to use in every case of infection except when there are

prominent cold signs. I am not sure if any of you are familiar with

the fact that the famous echinacea has been known to sometimes

worsen the flu for which it is given, did u ever wonder what is the

reason: echinacea clears heat and therefore its property is cold or

at least cool, if you administer it for a wind-cold invasion it is

highly likely the patient will get worse, understand my point.

 

 

So what im getting to is that the traditional doctors were

integrationists, they took what worked, figured out the TCM

properties and functions and that became TCM, such a shame that many

of the modern practitioners took the knowledge but not the

underlying methodology, that is the dao of this medicine, the dao

that can be written is not the dao, because if it was so everyone

would have told his brother.

 

By the way I have been working for some time on a book titled 'The

TCM use of vitamins, minerals and nutritional supplements' and i

would appreciate the group's contribution in understanding the TCM

properties, functions etc of this group of therapeutic substances.

 

Feroz