pi wei lun

[Guest guest]

, " " <@h...> wrote:

 

> SO is it valid for somewhat to read one of these 'classic' books,

especially with no commentary/ case studies, and a) think they actually

understand it, b) deviate from this, and develop their own theory, while

not even reading the language? Some say definitely yes to this question;

I would like to hear from these people...

 

 

I'm with you. We should be conservative in our speculation if we do not

have access to a full range of source texts, including commentary. The pi

wei lun is indeed controversial. PCOM just got its doctoral program

approved and it will include chinese language and classics study. But

after some debate, it was apparently decided to drop the pi wei lun from

the classics track. Many of my chinese colleagues do not consider this a

very important book and felt it was oddly out of place in a classics

program. This was especially the opinion of 2 of our more scholarly docs,

who have advanced degrees in either chinese philosophy or study of

ancient classics.

 

Anyone who has read my work on the qi dynamic know that I am influenced in

part by Bob Flaws commentary on the pi wei lun. However, to be fair, Bob'

s commentary gave foundation to a style of practice I had already learned

from my teacher Li Wei. I had never heard of yin fire or mutually

engendering pathomechanisms, but in hindsight it is clear my teacher had

constructed formulas partly modeled after Li dong yuan and Zhu Dan xi.

Nevertheless I am still uncommitted in how far to take these concepts. As

stated, I tend to use 12 herb formulas, not the 18 herb formulas used by

many in modern china. I rarely treat more than 3-4 patterns

simultaneously. My current sense is that sometimes it is essential to

treat many pathomechanisms all at once, but not always. I have esteemed

scholarly colleagues who recognize the existence of many mutually

engendering pathomechanisms, but approach the patient looking for a few

core patterns to untie the knot in the key place that allows one to

unravel the entire disease.

 

The argument has been made that because of the complexity of the modern

patient and the conditions we see today that the methodology of Li dong

Yuan has come to the fore. It did not apply as much in ancient China, nor

even in modern china till recently. While I consider the spleen and

stomach function essential to health and also major factors in most

chronic illness, isn't it true the Li dong yuan catered to patients during

a period of great famine, not one of sedentary affluence. conversely,

weren't the diseases we associate with modern times always a problem of

the chinese elite (who were sedentary and ate rich foods). I have always

thought the reason TCM is so applicable to modern times is that is largely

a product of the treatment of the sedentary elite in ancient china. there

were very few literate physicians and most did not cater to the masses, if

I remember Unschuld correctly. Personally, there are situations when only

yin fire theory seems adequate, so to dismiss it seems foolish.

 

The point I make in my Qi Dynamic articles is that the thread that seems

to link various diverse approaches to chronic illness is the idea of

regulating the qi dynamic, which is explicitly discussed by many classic

physicians. This ranges from dampheat theorists to zhu dan xi to li dong

yuan to yan de xin to gu syndrome and so on. In some cases, formulas are

very large and complex, others small and elegant. I can definitely say

the yin fire method has proven useful in many cases of autoimmunity, but I

have been equally influenced by the modern school of blood stasis. If one

can regulate the qi dynamic, then much can be accomplished.

 

 

 

Chinese Herbs

 

 

" Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre

minds " -- Albert Einstein

[Guest guest]

but approach the patient looking for a few core patterns to untie the knot in the key place that allows one to unravel the entire disease

>>>By far has been the majority opinion of my teachers. And that is why I often talk about primary and secondary mechanisms

Alon

[Guest guest]

> SO is it valid for somewhat to read one of these 'classic' books, especially with no commentary/ case studies,

>>>Well Li left very few case studies so what to we do with that

alon

[Guest guest]

, <@i...> wrote:

The pi

> wei lun is indeed controversial. PCOM just got its doctoral

program

> approved and it will include chinese language and classics study.

But

> after some debate, it was apparently decided to drop the pi wei lun

from

> the classics track. Many of my chinese colleagues do not consider

this a

> very important book and felt it was oddly out of place in a

classics

> program.

 

Interesting, as PWL has influenced prax outside of China, tempting as

it may be for us to regard it as pet theory of modern American prax

but a footnote in China. IIRC the Gosei school of Japanese Kanpo is

founded largely on Li-Zhu medicine (the majority style of Kouhou is

based on Yoshimasu Toudou's reorganization of SHL/JGYL). In fact,

one of the most commonly-used non-SHL/jgyl formulas is Bu Zhong Yi Qi

Tang (Hochuekki-tou), which sort of gets arbitrarily put into the

Shaoyang category (due to presence of Chaihu perhaps?) by Kouhou-ha

prax.

 

Robert Hayden

http://jabinet.net

[Guest guest]

where can I find your qi dynamic articles??

Eti

< wrote:

, "" wrote:> SO is it valid for somewhat to read one of these 'classic' books, especially with no commentary/ case studies, and a) think they actually understand it, b) deviate from this, and develop their own theory, while not even reading the language? Some say definitely yes to this question; I would like to hear from these people...I'm with you. We should be conservative in our speculation if we do not have access to a full range of source texts, including commentary. The pi wei lun is indeed controversial. PCOM just got its doctoral program approved and it will include chinese language and classics study. But after some debate, it was apparently decided to drop the pi wei lun from the classics track. Many of my chinese colleagues do not consider this a very important book and felt it was oddly out of place in a classics program. This was especially the opinion of 2 of our more scholarly docs,who have advanced degrees in either chinese philosophy or study of ancient classics.Anyone who has read my work on the qi dynamic know that I am influenced in part by Bob Flaws commentary on the pi wei lun. However, to be fair, Bob's commentary gave foundation to a style of practice I had already learned from my teacher Li Wei. I had never heard of yin fire or mutually engendering pathomechanisms, but in hindsight it is clear my teacher had constructed formulas partly modeled after Li dong yuan and Zhu Dan xi. Nevertheless I am still uncommitted in how far to take these concepts. As stated, I tend to use 12 herb formulas, not the 18 herb formulas used by many in modern china. I rarely treat more than 3-4 patterns simultaneously. My current sense is that sometimes it is essential to treat many pathomechanisms all at once, but not always. I have esteemed scholarly colleagues who recognize the existence of many mutually engendering pathomechanisms, but approach the patient looking for a few core patterns to untie the knot in the key place that allows one to unravel the entire disease.The argument has been made that because of the complexity of the modern patient and the conditions we see today that the methodology of Li dong Yuan has come to the fore. It did not apply as much in ancient China, nor even in modern china till recently. While I consider the spleen and stomach function essential to health and also major factors in most chronic illness, isn't it true the Li dong yuan catered to patients during a period of great famine, not one of sedentary affluence. conversely, weren't the diseases we associate with modern times always a problem of the chinese elite (who were sedentary and ate rich foods). I have always thought the reason TCM is so applicable to modern times is that is largely a product of the treatment of the sedentary elite in ancient china. there were very few literate physicians and most did not cater to the masses, if I remember Unschuld correctly. Personally, there are situations when only yin fire theory seems adequate, so to dismiss it seems foolish.The point I make in my Qi Dynamic articles is that the thread that seems to link various diverse approaches to chronic illness is the idea of regulating the qi dynamic, which is explicitly discussed by many classic physicians. This ranges from dampheat theorists to zhu dan xi to li dong yuan to yan de xin to gu syndrome and so on. In some cases, formulas are very large and complex, others small and elegant. I can definitely say the yin fire method has proven useful in many cases of autoimmunity, but I have been equally influenced by the modern school of blood stasis. If one can regulate the qi dynamic, then much can be accomplished.Chinese Herbshttp://www..orgvoice: fax: "Great spirits have always found violent opposition from mediocre minds" -- Albert EinsteinAcuClinic: Acupuncture and HerbsEti Domb, L.Ac.1281 University Ave, Suite ESan Diego, CA 92103619.543.9280

[Guest guest]

, " kampo36 " <kampo36> wrote:

 

the Gosei school of Japanese Kanpo is

> founded largely on Li-Zhu medicine (the majority style of Kouhou is

> based on Yoshimasu Toudou's reorganization of SHL/JGYL).

 

I was aware of that. I mentioned to someone the other day that it is probably

the japanese literature where we can really see this school elaborated.

 

In fact,

> one of the most commonly-used non-SHL/jgyl formulas is Bu Zhong Yi Qi

> Tang (Hochuekki-tou), which sort of gets arbitrarily put into the

> Shaoyang category (due to presence of Chaihu perhaps?)

 

according to andy ellis, li dong yuan chose chai hu for bu zhong becuse of its

role in clearing the pivot (or shaoyang) and thus rectifying ascent and descent

 

[Guest guest]

, Eti Domb <etidomb> wrote:

>

> where can I find your qi dynamic articles?

 

http://.org/kdz.html

[Guest guest]

, Eti Domb <etidomb> wrote:

>

> where can I find your qi dynamic articles??

 

and a much longer one at http://.org/knot(bph).html

[Guest guest]

OK, my turn.

 

There is another 'scholarly doc' at PCOM who specialized in pediatrics

who told me that her teacher used primarily Dong-yuan theory.

 

I was involved in these discussions at PCOM for the doctorate, and I

disagreed with both of these docs, because of my feeling that Li-Zhu

medicine is very important for modern practice. I went along with the

decision, because lumping the Pi Wei Lun together with Wen Bing in one

course made no sense or justice to either topic (it had been decided to

divide a class between the two).

 

I don't know why, but Li-Zhu medicine seems to be a very emotional

topic for many mainland Chinese teachers. It appears to be a

politicized issue, because the arguments against this approach appear

to be based in emotion rather than logic.

 

Why should we limit what we study to specific approaches? Shouldn't

the historical source literature of Chinese medicine be an open book?

 

Furthermore, Li Dong-yuan's approach is clearly based in the SHL. If

one studies the Jue yin disease chapter, one sees a similar approach of

using complex multi-ingredient prescriptions for a complex of disease

patterns.

 

Dr Li's work has been a major influence until the present day in

Chinese medicine, if we look at such later physicians as Fu Qing-shu in

pediatrics, Wang Le-ting in acupuncture, Sun Bing-yin in oncology, and

Zhang Xi-chun's 'sinking of the great qi' ideas. Dr. Zhang added

ascending and descending qi to the ba gang/eight principles, and

several physicians use these ideas today.

 

Not having access to Dr Li's theories is crippling to the practice of

Chinese medicine in the West, because one loses access to tools that

could be very helpful at times.

 

 

 

 

I

On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 12:46 PM, Eti Domb wrote:

 

>

>

>

> I'm with you. We should be conservative in our speculation if we do not

> have access to a full range of source texts, including commentary. The

> pi

> wei lun is indeed controversial. PCOM just got its doctoral program

> approved and it will include chinese language and classics study. But

> after some debate, it was apparently decided to drop the pi wei lun

> from

> the classics track. Many of my chinese colleagues do not consider this

> a

> very importa! nt book and felt it was oddly out of place in a classics

> program. This was especially the opinion of 2 of our more scholarly

> docs,

> who have advanced degrees in either chinese philosophy or study of

> ancient classics.

>

[Guest guest]

I'll start with a quote from an ayurvedic text:

 

" the classical texts are like oceans, and physicians are like divers

looking for pearls " .

 

The Pi Wei Lun is a complex, difficult text, I am sure everyone agrees.

However, the underlying principles are not, and they are very valuable

tools for Western practitioners, in my opinion. I am wholeheartedly in

agreement with Bob Flaws on this. I think Bob's approach to herbal

medicine, and his prescriptions derived from Dr. Li and Gong Ding-xian

are superb.

 

I have two different Chinese translations of the Pi Wei Lun, one as

part of the complete works of Dong-yuan. While my medical Chinese is

not evolved to the point where I can read with ease, I am able to

compare the translated English version with the Chinese text with the

help of dictionaries.

 

I stand on what I teach about complex patterns and my clinical

experience with same. I stand on my ideas about certain concepts of

Dong-yuan, such as 'ming men fire is the foe of the original qi'. This

is what I see with my patients over the last twenty years, this is the

work that inspires me, and I am not going to apologize to anyone for

teaching or practicing these ideas.

 

As far as 'latent qi warm disease' theory, the jury is still out.

Clearly this approach and ideas are still evolving, and is open to new

ideas and interpretations, such as those expressed in " Warm Disease/A

Clinical Guide " by Dr. Gaohui Liu. While at the present time I don't

see the prescriptions and treatment strategies as relevant to what I do

clinically, the diagnostics and organizing principles of the theory I

find very valuable.

 

Finally, I think I am very clear when I teach that I also share my

interpretations of what I read. However, I believe I have the

experience and time spent with the work to back myself up.

 

This doesn't mean I am not open to change my point of view as I learn

more. I have dedicated my life to studying and practicing Chinese

medicine, and hope to keep growing and learning into old age, G-d

willing.

 

 

On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 12:46 PM, Eti Domb wrote:

 

> > SO is it valid for somewhat to read one of these 'classic' books,

> especially with no commentary/ case studies, and a) think they actually

> understand it, b) deviate from this, and develop their own theory,

> while

> not even reading the language? Some say definitely yes to this

> question;

> I would like to hear from these people...

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

 

>

> Furthermore, Li Dong-yuan's approach is clearly based in the SHL. If

> one studies the Jue yin disease chapter, one sees a similar approach of

> using complex multi-ingredient prescriptions for a complex of disease

> patterns.

>

> Dr Li's work has been a major influence until the present day in

> Chinese medicine, if we look at such later physicians as Fu Qing-shu in

> pediatrics, Wang Le-ting in acupuncture, Sun Bing-yin in oncology, and

> Zhang Xi-chun's 'sinking of the great qi' ideas. Dr. Zhang added

> ascending and descending qi to the ba gang/eight principles, and

> several physicians use these ideas today.

 

I have studied yin fire, li dong yuan, zhu dan xi far more than wen bing or SHL

myself, so I cannot. But Heiner Fruehauf and Andy Ellis both consider the

PWL to be rooted in the SHL in its formula construction. that certainly seems

to be the case. I think the schools of the " four great masters " fell into some

disrepute by the end of the qing dynasty. Unschuld's forgotten traditions

documents some of this. But I agree with Z'ev that no stone should be left

unturned. I also agree with Jason that without adequate access to

commentary, the classics are easily misconstrued.

 

I find yin fire theory satisfying. It is clearly the work of a scholar who read

deeply in the chinese classics. It is not merely MSU. But theories are just

maps of an essentially unmappable terrain. I don't find yin fire theory leads

me to create formulas that are much different than I always did (since several

of my teachers emphasized the direction of herbs, the pivot and dampheat in

their construction), but rather it gives me one more additional model by which

to consider the pathogenesis of chronic illness. Whether it belongs in a

classics program is not in my purview. Given the choice, I would probably

rather read commentary on the PWL than the SHL, but that's just me.

 

I am curious what others think about the place of the PWL in a limited classic

studies program, since I am unable to make a thoroughly educated

conclusion about this matter.

 

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

 

> I stand on what I teach about complex patterns and my clinical

> experience with same. I stand on my ideas about certain concepts of

> Dong-yuan, such as 'ming men fire is the foe of the original qi'.

: Z'ev, could you elaborate on how you interpret the phrase above about

mingmen. I have found this concept difficult to explain to my interns and find

myself relying on more conventional explanations about sinking qi leading to

heat from depression stirring ministerial fire. BTW, I find this pathomechanism

described above to be quite prevalent. I believe I see qi vacuity heat patterns

at least as much if not more than pure yin vacuity heat patterns.

[Guest guest]

I believe I see qi vacuity heat patterns at least as much if not more than pure yin vacuity heat patterns.

 

>>>I agree, but is this really Li's ideas or older. Floating deficient yang certainly is. And that is how I have originally learned it although I never asked if Li's ideas were the root of clinical application of floating def yang, damp-heat in lower burner resulting in either Empty-Heat or agitating Mingmen, for which rou gui is used.

Or when rou gui and huang lian are used in Kid Heart disorder is this combination Li's? I think its older?

alon

[Guest guest]

In my opinion the PWL is a pivotal and essential work and I would like to see it offered in the doctorate program. To leave it out of the doctoral program would be neglecting a very important and very useful text. To reiterate it provides a map to a terrain that requires careful study and understanding. The work encompasses so many theoretical and clinical applications that I use daily in my practice- It is definitely one of the essential classical texts and should be studied alongside the SHL and Wen Bing. Eti

 

< wrote:

, "" <zrosenbe@s...> wrote:> > Furthermore, Li Dong-yuan's approach is clearly based in the SHL. If > one studies the Jue yin disease chapter, one sees a similar approach of > using complex multi-ingredient prescriptions for a complex of disease > patterns.> > Dr Li's work has been a major influence until the present day in > Chinese medicine, if we look at such later physicians as Fu Qing-shu in > pediatrics, Wang Le-ting in acupuncture, Sun Bing-yin in oncology, and > Zhang Xi-chun's 'sinking of the great qi' ideas. Dr. Zhang added > ascending and descending qi to the ba gang/eight principles, and > several physicians use these ideas today.I have studied yin fire, li dong yuan, zhu dan xi far more than wen bing or SHL myself, so I cannot. But Heiner Fruehauf and Andy Ellis both consider the PWL to be rooted in the SHL in its formula construction. that certainly seems to be the case. I think the schools of the "four great masters" fell into some disrepute by the end of the qing dynasty. Unschuld's forgotten traditions documents some of this. But I agree with Z'ev that no stone should be left unturned. I also agree with Jason that without adequate access to commentary, the classics are easily misconstrued. I find yin fire theory satisfying. It is clearly the work of a scholar who read deeply in the chinese classics. It is not merely MSU. But theories are just maps of an essentially unmappable terrain. I don't find yin fire theory leads me to create formulas that are much different than I always did (since several of my teachers emphasized the direction of herbs, the pivot and dampheat in their construction), but rather it gives me one more additional model by which to consider the pathogenesis of chronic illness. Whether it belongs in a classics program is not in my purview. Given the choice, I would probably rather read commentary on the PWL than the SHL, but that's just me. I am curious what others think about the place of the PWL in a limited classic studies program, since I am unable to make a thoroughly educated conclusion about this matter. ToddChinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education.

[Guest guest]

Robert,

Thanks for bringing up the Japanese experience. After reading your

post, I went back to an interesting text I've had for several years,

" Science and Culture in Traditional Japan (Sugimoto and Swain, Charles

Tuttle Books) " , which has a good history of the development of

medicine in Japan.

 

Throughout the text, the authors discuss the development of an

aristocratic, official Li-Zhu based medicine from the time of Manase

Dohan in the 16th century to the 18th century. From the 17th century,

it appears there was a councurrent counter-trend 'back to the classics'

of the Nei Jing and Shang Han Lun, although the resulting practice as

seen in Toudou's 18th century school was quite different than anything

seen before, and quite empirical as opposed to theoretical. There was

also a third school that served as a 'middle of the road' approach

based on earlier Jin-yuan teachings of Zhang Zhe-he (purgation school)

and Liu Wan-su (cool-cold school). From the text, it appears that the

Li-Zhu approach was the more accepted mainstream approach.

 

Since the disagreements between the SHL/NJ based approach and Jin-yuan

based approach were quite vigorous, according to this text, it gave me

some thoughts as to some possibilities of the present controversy

surrounding Li-Zhu medicine among Chinese practitioners. If anyone has

some further insight on this, I'd appreciate hearing about this.

 

Finally, I just recently found an old translation of a Japanese medical

text, Yojokun, written by Ekiken Kaibara in the 17th century. I

originally bought it in Boston from Tao Books (the predecessor to

Redwing Books) in the 70's, and of course, didn't really understand it

back then. I had bought the text because Kaibara was considered by

George Ohsawa to be the founder and forerunner of the Macrobiotic

approach to dietetics. And, certainly, the book is very grounded in

proper diet, lifestyle, along with neo-Confucian ethics, herbal

medicine, and a lot of Dong-yuan theory on health.

 

It is interesting that the founders of Macrobiotics (Sagen Ishizuka and

Ohsawa) saw this text as the foundation of their school, which had a

strong influence in the West in the initial interest in Eastern

medicine in general. I know several individuals, including Michael

Broffman, Bob Flaws, Honora Wolfe, Alex Tiberi, Bob Felt, Miles

Roberts, and myself, who started their studies in macrobiotics and

moved on to Chinese and Japanese medicine.

 

 

On Saturday, November 23, 2002, at 12:31 PM, kampo36 wrote:

 

> Interesting, as PWL has influenced prax outside of China, tempting as

> it may be for us to regard it as pet theory of modern American prax

> but a footnote in China. IIRC the Gosei school of Japanese Kanpo is

> founded largely on Li-Zhu medicine (the majority style of Kouhou is

> based on Yoshimasu Toudou's reorganization of SHL/JGYL). In fact,

> one of the most commonly-used non-SHL/jgyl formulas is Bu Zhong Yi Qi

> Tang (Hochuekki-tou), which sort of gets arbitrarily put into the

> Shaoyang category (due to presence of Chaihu perhaps?) by Kouhou-ha

> prax.

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> Not having access to Dr Li's theories is crippling to the practice

of Chinese medicine in the West, because one loses access to tools

that could be very helpful at times.

 

 

Z'ev:

 

Do you have a syllabus in mind that would show how you would like

the classics to be taught?

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Jim,

The syllibus I have is not in a final form, and I'd feel

uncomfortable posting unfinished work on this site.

 

After discussing it with I've decided to include yin fire

theory (Dong-yuan) in a class I am working on for SHL and WB that is

starting at PCOM in the spring. When it is in final copy, I'll show it

to you.

 

 

On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 04:47 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> , " " <zrosenbe@s...>

> wrote:

>> Not having access to Dr Li's theories is crippling to the practice

> of Chinese medicine in the West, because one loses access to tools

> that could be very helpful at times.

>

>

> Z'ev:

>

> Do you have a syllabus in mind that would show how you would like

> the classics to be taught?

>

> Jim Ramholz

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Jim, Z'ev,

 

>

>

> Z'ev:

>

> Do you have a syllabus in mind that would show how you would like

> the classics to be taught?

>

 

I am also interested in seeing such a syllabus.

I just wonder if there is anyone on this list

who questions whether or not such a syllabus

can or should occlude a concentration on language

and terminology. It's hard to tell sometimes

from the ebb and flow of discussions where

people's current thinking on various topics

stands.

 

I realize that to some, we have beaten the

language and terminology issue to death.

But I just wonder whether or not there are

any among us who both acknolwedge the

importance of studying and understanding

the medical classics and hold the opinion

that study and familiarity with the language

and terminology of those texts is non-essential.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

There is no doubt that a concentration on language and terminology,

along with the core concepts of yin fire theory, would be at the core

of such a class.

 

In fact, this is the core of how I teach these days. I teach, ask and

drill students to make sure they know what terms mean, how concepts

work, and how they translate into clinical practice.

 

 

On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 06:06 PM, dragon90405 wrote:

 

> Jim, Z'ev,

>>

>

> I am also interested in seeing such a syllabus.

> I just wonder if there is anyone on this list

> who questions whether or not such a syllabus

> can or should occlude a concentration on language

> and terminology. It's hard to tell sometimes

> from the ebb and flow of discussions where

> people's current thinking on various topics

> stands.

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

> There is no doubt that a concentration on language and

terminology,

> along with the core concepts of yin fire theory, would be at the

core

> of such a class.

 

I know that you and I see eye to

eye on this matter, but I suspect

that there are others who continue

to hold the view that all we need

to know is what we can find in

translations and that time spent

becoming familiar with the relationship

between Chinese thought and language

and Chinese medical theory is not

worth the trouble, causes more

problems than it's worth, and so on.

 

When the seasons change, like now

in Beijing the autumn gives way

to winter, I like to pause and

reflect on where we stand on various

fronts. I just wonder how many people

still devote themselves to the

ignorance of language.

 

Ken

>

> In fact, this is the core of how I teach these days. I teach, ask

and

> drill students to make sure they know what terms mean, how

concepts

> work, and how they translate into clinical practice.

>

>

> On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 06:06 PM, dragon90405 wrote:

>

> > Jim, Z'ev,

> >>

> >

> > I am also interested in seeing such a syllabus.

> > I just wonder if there is anyone on this list

> > who questions whether or not such a syllabus

> > can or should occlude a concentration on language

> > and terminology. It's hard to tell sometimes

> > from the ebb and flow of discussions where

> > people's current thinking on various topics

> > stands.

[Guest guest]

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

After discussing it with I've decided to include yin fire

theory (Dong-yuan) in a class I am working on for SHL and WB that is

starting at PCOM in the spring.

 

 

Z'ev:

 

Can you go into some of the ideas concerning the relation of yin

fire to SHL or WB material?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

Strictly speaking, yin fire is distinct from cold damage, wind-strike

or wind-warmth diseases. Yin fire is a nei shang/internal damage

caused by damage to the qi mechanism by poor diet, emotional excesses

and undisciplined lifestyle. The other three are wai gan, or exterior

contractions, disturance by exterior qi such as wind, cold, damp, heat,

summerheat and dryness. Dr. Li talks continually about the

relationship of interior and exterior disorders throughout the text,

using quotes from the Nei Jing and Shang Han Lun as sources.

 

 

On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 08:33 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

 

> Can you go into some of the ideas concerning the relation of yin

> fire to SHL or WB material?

[Guest guest]

Z'ev:

 

Sounds interesting. I hope you'll post the syllabus as an example of

organizing and teaching this material.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

, " " <zrosenbe@s...>

wrote:

> Strictly speaking, yin fire is distinct from cold damage, wind-

strike

> or wind-warmth diseases. Yin fire is a nei shang/internal damage

> caused by damage to the qi mechanism by poor diet, emotional

excesses

> and undisciplined lifestyle. The other three are wai gan, or

exterior

> contractions, disturance by exterior qi such as wind, cold, damp,

heat,

> summerheat and dryness. Dr. Li talks continually about the

> relationship of interior and exterior disorders throughout the

text,

> using quotes from the Nei Jing and Shang Han Lun as sources.

>

>

> On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 08:33 PM, James Ramholz wrote:

>

> > Can you go into some of the ideas concerning the relation of yin

> > fire to SHL or WB material?

[Guest guest]

For those that were at the PCOM Symposium (and anyone else who

feels the need to respond to this), Mary Kay Ryan, a professor at

PCOM-Chicago made note of the fact that historically, the need for all

practitioners to learn Chinese may not be called for. She made

reference to the translation of Greek medicine into Arabic, and that

in that situation there were only a handful of " translators, "

while the vast majority of Arabic practitioners did not speak or read

Greek. The translation of the medicine was apparently very

successful and the practitioners for the most part focused on what

they did best, practice medicine, which they were also very successful

at, not knowing a bit of Greek.

 

No one, to my knowledge, has taken this proposal and explored

it. This may be a bit off-topic for the list, but I was

wondering what people thought about that comment? Is this an

historically accurate statement? Should it be accurate, does

that affect how we think about learning Chinese to practice TCM?

I for one am very interested in learning Chinese, but am struck by

this interesting comment. Anyone care to comment?

 

-Steve

 

Z'ev,

 

> There is no doubt that a concentration on language and

terminology,

> along with the core concepts of yin fire theory, would be at

the

core

> of such a class.

 

I know that you and I see eye to

eye on this matter, but I suspect

that there are others who continue

to hold the view that all we need

to know is what we can find in

translations and that time spent

becoming familiar with the relationship

between Chinese thought and language

and Chinese medical theory is not

worth the trouble, causes more

problems than it's worth, and so on.

 

When the seasons change, like now

in Beijing the autumn gives way

to winter, I like to pause and

reflect on where we stand on various

fronts. I just wonder how many people

still devote themselves to the

ignorance of language.

 

Ken

>

> In fact, this is the core of how I teach these days. I

teach, ask

and

> drill students to make sure they know what terms mean, how

concepts

> work, and how they translate into clinical practice.

>

>

> On Sunday, November 24, 2002, at 06:06 PM, dragon90405 wrote:

>

> > Jim, Z'ev,

> >>

> >

> > I am also interested in seeing such a syllabus.

> > I just wonder if there is anyone on this list

> > who questions whether or not such a syllabus

> > can or should occlude a concentration on language

> > and terminology. It's hard to tell sometimes

> > from the ebb and flow of discussions where

> > people's current thinking on various topics

> > stands.

 

 

Groups Sponsor

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed

healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate

academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety

of professional services, including board approved online continuing

education.

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/25/2002 10:52:17 PM Pacific Standard Time, bergh writes:

what is happening with the Idea that CHA host a internet based medical Chinese language course? last I remember Rey showed interest in elaborating such course, and I certainly would be interested in participating in such a course.

 

I would also be interested in a course like this.

-Anne