Stagnation v Stasis (Zhi v Yu) - and what about Accumulation

November 16, 2003

Jason wrote:

I agree that there is clear clinical importance between the terms

stag and stasis, but in regard to differentiations of the herbs

that `invigorate' blood where do you get `your' impressions/ sources

of the relative strength of these herbs in relation to the

terminology. I think it is Bensky that says, that at least in his

book, he does not make any real distinctions between the terms.

Julie responds:

I feel that Bensky does make a distinction in his descriptions of the herbs,

if not exactly in his terms. I also get my impressions about the relative

strength of the herbs in removing stagnation/stasis/breaking up blood, etc.

from several sources, including most of the texts I consult when I prepare

my lectures; also from discussions with my own teachers/doctors; and from my

own observations about the herbs. For example, some are allowed in pregnancy

while others clearly are not. Some " harmonize the blood " , which one of my

teachers, an expert in gynecology, explained to me means it has properties

to tonify blood, create new blood, as well as quicken/invigorate blood.

Jiao Shu-De also makes many distinctions among the actions of quickening the

blood, dispelling qi stagnation in the blood, blood stagnation, blood

stasis, " aggregations, concretions " and so on. His book is so rich with

comparisons, it is truly a treasure.

Jason: Bensky doesn't attribute a specific hierarchy to the

terms, as well as possible debate on the actual strength of the herbs

(but I cannot speak for him).

Julie: I think Bensky does discuss the actual strength of the herbs, in his

paragraphs on each herb, and in his summary section ( " Summary of Comparative

Functions " ). For example, under San Leng, p. 282, " forcefully breaks up

blood stasis " , compared to Yi Mu Cao, p. 273, which " invigorates blood and

regulates menses. " I agree that Bensky does use the term " stasis " in almost

every herb narrrative, but since I am not a slave to a single word, I pay

attention to the totality of what he is saying (and what other authors are

saying) about each herb.

Julie

November 16, 2003

I think Dan would probably improve term clarity in any new version of

the materia medica and formula texts. I am sure his knowledge base has

improved like the rest of us. I've made lots of notes about clarity of

terms and concepts as I teach prescription classes over the last

several years, and perhaps I'll forward them to Dan at some point.

On Nov 16, 2003, at 9:51 AM, wrote:

> Tan tan is an exper=

> t in

> chinese literature and said this is common knowledge amongst educated

> chinese. so the expression, huo xue, hua yu has no greater

> significance th=

> an

> just saying huo xue. He thinks Bensky is clear and correct about the

> term =

>

> issue.

>

November 16, 2003

, Julie Chambers <info@j...>

wrote:

>

> Julie responds:

>

> I feel that Bensky does make a distinction in his descriptions of

the herbs,

> if not exactly in his terms. I also get my impressions about the

relative

> strength of the herbs in removing stagnation/stasis/breaking up

blood, etc.

> from several sources, including most of the texts I consult when I

prepare

> my lectures; also from discussions with my own teachers/doctors;

and from my

> own observations about the herbs. For example, some are allowed in

pregnancy

> while others clearly are not.

this is not always about shere invorgating power...

Some " harmonize the blood " , which one of my

> teachers, an expert in gynecology, explained to me means it has

properties

> to tonify blood, create new blood, as well as quicken/invigorate

blood.

>

I believe you are wrong about Bensky's distinctions, for he clearly

says "

" Translation note: The terminology regarding the relative strength

of these herbs is especially nonstandarized in Chinese texts.

Different books, and even different sections of the same book, use

varying terminology. The four major categories, in ascending order

of strength, are those that harmonize the blood, those that promote

the movement of blood, those that dispel blood stasis, and those that

break up blood stasis. In this text, the term `invigorate the blood'

is general in nature and does not specify any particular strength in

function… the reader should note that a slight variance in strength

of terminology used in describing two herbs does not HAVE CLINICAL

SIGNIFICANCE. "

What that means to me is don't read to much into the use of terms,

more important is the kind of distinctions that are made by the

usage/ type of problems treated…

-

> Jiao Shu-De also makes many distinctions among the actions of

quickening the

> blood, dispelling qi stagnation in the blood, blood stagnation,

blood

> stasis, " aggregations, concretions " and so on. His book is so rich

with

> comparisons, it is truly a treasure.

>

> Jason: Bensky doesn't attribute a specific hierarchy to the

> terms, as well as possible debate on the actual strength of the

herbs

> (but I cannot speak for him).

>

> Julie: I think Bensky does discuss the actual strength of the

herbs, in his

> paragraphs on each herb, and in his summary section ( " Summary of

Comparative

> Functions " ). For example, under San Leng, p. 282, " forcefully

breaks up

> blood stasis " , compared to Yi Mu Cao, p. 273, which " invigorates

blood and

> regulates menses. " I agree that Bensky does use the term " stasis "

in almost

> every herb narrrative, but since I am not a slave to a single word,

I pay

> attention to the totality of what he is saying (and what other

authors are

> saying) about each herb.

>

> Julie

November 16, 2003

I remember something that Alan Kay, the great computer scientist, said

when the Macintosh was first released in 1984. He was, surprisingly,

to many, very critical of many aspects of the computer, including the

low memory and lack of a hard drive. When questioned about it, he

answered, " the Macintosh is the first computer worth criticizing. "

It is no accident that Alan shortly thereafter became an Apple Fellow.

On Nov 16, 2003, at 11:57 AM, kenrose2008 wrote:

> I, for one, have never dismissed Dan

> as a serious scholar, writer, contributor

> to the early phase of the subject in

> the West. As I've said before, it is

> precisely the status of his work and

> the influence that it continues to exert

> over the field to this day that I feel

> compels us to examine it carefully and

> critically.

November 16, 2003

OK, Jason, I concede that Bensky did say what you quoted.

But the original question on this thread was whether or not we should care

about the difference between stagnation and stasis, and I think we should.

Would you use San Leng, E Zhu, Tao Ren, Hong Hua, etc. for mildly sluggish

blood circulation, or would you save them for severe stasis and blood

stoppage?

I think there are clinical differences among the herbs and we communicate

those by using the terms properly.