Subhuti Dharmananda's article on Coffee

[Guest guest]

, " "

<zrosenbe@s...> wrote:

>

>

> On Jan 11, 2004, at 1:10 PM, Fernando Bernall wrote:

>

> > I find it interesting the way the term TCM is used. On the one

hand,

> > we hear how TCM defines the standard of practice in PRC as an

> > integration of old and new. We see folks using Schisandra for

> > hepatitis irrespective of tcm pattern and so on.

>

> I didn't say that modern TCM didn't integrate these things, or

that

> there are different styles of practice that integrate WM. I said

that,

> in my opinion, Chinese ear acupuncture is confused. Period.

>

>

> > As soon as one is

> > challanged, the classics come into play. Why such dichotomy?

>

> What are you talking about? There has to be some way for people

to

> tell what has been part of the Chinese tradition for centuries,

and

> what are new innovations, or for that matter, what innovations

have

> occurred throughout CM history. Otherwise, we are just

indiscriminate

> end-users. Why shouldn't people have a right to know?

>

>

 

Z'ev,

 

I agree... SO how do you define the line? When is the cut off?

1949?

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> Who are you to decide? I can see an integration of ideas still CM…

> furthermore, tell that to all the Chinese doctors in the hospitals

> that say otherwise. I am actually sure there are some Chinese

> teachers at PCOM that you can start with. Tell them their

> integration of pharmacological properties or western research isn't

> CM. I think that is absurd. What do you think John Chen says about

> that… Bensky's new book is going to have tons of WM integration of

> herbs in it… Many toxicity issues are based on WM understanding…

>

> It is as valid as anything else. It can work just as well (in

> certain instances)… I just am unsure why you think you can draw the

> line? What is your decision based on?

 

You question seems quite arrogant here, Jason. Who am I to decide? I

can decide not to call something CM if I so please. I do not need

your approval or the blessing of a Chinese person practicing Western

medicine in China.

 

I can draw the line for myself however I well please. I did not draw

a line for you, nor do I expect you to observe my line, let alone

understand it.

 

Integration, is just that, intengration. If a CM practitioner

integrates Western methodologies and practices into a treatment, then

it is an integrated CM / WM treatment - not a CM treatment, nor a WM

treatment. It is a simple concept and it is how things are defined.

It is like having a red car, and then painting blue dots onto it. It

is no longer a red car, and there is no reason to call it a red car.

 

Also, I would like to clarify that I see no problem with people

practicing integrative medicine if they are qualified to do so.

However, if a CM practitioner uses WM ideas based on their own limited

understanding and limited eduction in WM, then I would say that this

is unethical.

 

One of your often used comments lately has been that an " approach is

valid. " I have not agrued that so I do not really need to here that

again, and again, and again. Just because an approach to medicine is

valid, does not make it Chinese medicine.

 

How about you take what you know of CM, what you know of WM, read up

on some 16th Century African shamanic practices, mix them all

together, call it CM and then see how many people agree. If you can

make the system work clincially, then fine, you have found a valid

approach to medicine, but it would be CM.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

 

> How about you take what you know of CM, what you know of WM, read up

> on some 16th Century African shamanic practices, mix them all

> together, call it CM and then see how many people agree. If you can

> make the system work clincially, then fine, you have found a valid

> approach to medicine, but it would be CM.

>

> Brian C. Allen

 

That last comment should read, " but it would NOT be CM. " - and it

wouldn't.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...>

wrote:

> , " "

> <@h...> wrote:

>

> > Who are you to decide? I can see an integration of ideas still

CM…

> > furthermore, tell that to all the Chinese doctors in the

hospitals

> > that say otherwise. I am actually sure there are some Chinese

> > teachers at PCOM that you can start with. Tell them their

> > integration of pharmacological properties or western research

isn't

> > CM. I think that is absurd. What do you think John Chen says

about

> > that… Bensky's new book is going to have tons of WM integration

of

> > herbs in it… Many toxicity issues are based on WM understanding…

> >

> > It is as valid as anything else. It can work just as well (in

> > certain instances)… I just am unsure why you think you can draw

the

> > line? What is your decision based on?

>

> You question seems quite arrogant here, Jason. Who am I to

decide?

 

It is not the question that is arrogant, it is the one who thinks he

can answer it so easily.

 

I

> can decide not to call something CM if I so please.

 

You can do what ever you want. But if you don't have anything to

back it up with, then maybe you should keep it quite. Furthermore,

when we define a term or field of study or anything else, a

consensus is important. You are making blanket statements like they

mean something . " THIS IS NOT CM. " So you can say what you want

(you say). Well I say you are just shooting your mouth off with no

evidence. If you have some good reasons why what MANY Chinese are

calling CM is not CM then let us hear it. Oh I forgot, you have

PCOM over there and that is the true CM.

 

 

 

>It is a simple concept and it is how things are defined.

 

Simple?? Funny you act like there is some black and white issue

here. I don't think it is so simple.

 

> It is like having a red car, and then painting blue dots onto it.

It

> is no longer a red car, and there is no reason to call it a red

car.

 

What are you talking about??? Again it is still a car… Things are

not black and white. Do you think there is some magical line that

you cross and all of a sudden you are not doing CM (because you say

so)… If I use 1 WM concept in my thinking do you think I am no

longer practicing CM>…

 

 

> One of your often used comments lately has been that an " approach

is

> valid. " I have not agrued that so I do not really need to here

that

> again, and again, and again. Just because an approach to medicine

is

> valid, does not make it Chinese medicine.

 

Again who says??? You??? You make a statement like it is some

truth. Have some humility and say IMO or something… Approach is

valid means that people use such a system within a CM framework, and

these WM concepts are now PART of CM now, like it or not… CM has

evolved and moved on into the 21th century, It is not what it was 50

years ago or 100 years ago or 1000 years ago or even 10 years ago…

There is no black and white just a grey blur

 

 

>

> How about you take what you know of CM, what you know of WM, read

up

> on some 16th Century African shamanic practices, mix them all

> together, call it CM and then see how many people agree. If you

can

> make the system work clincially, then fine, you have found a valid

> approach to medicine, but it would be CM.

 

You are totally missing the point… You example (and argument) is a

red herring.

 

There is only 1 reason to continue this debate. IF you and others

want to try define what CM is or isn't., with some logic, data, and

openness. Otherwise your opinion is just that, another opinion that

can get swept under the rug.

 

-

[Guest guest]

Brian,

 

Further information: One can open a BASIC modern CM textbook on

theory (or herbs) and see plenty of WM information and integration.

Or are you going to say that anything modern (CM) is not CM??????

 

-Jason

[Guest guest]

This is a true story:

 

I grew up and the church I briefly went to believed that any church

that had musical instruments was not a true church, because in the

bible there were no musical instruments. Correct worship was

supposed to be only based on a literal and strict interpretation of

the BIBLE. Anything else was just wrong and not considered the true

Christianity.

 

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

 

-

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> It is not the question that is arrogant, it is the one who thinks he

> can answer it so easily.

 

Yes it is the question that is arrogant.

 

> You can do what ever you want. But if you don't have anything to

> back it up with, then maybe you should keep it quite. Furthermore,

> when we define a term or field of study or anything else, a

> consensus is important. You are making blanket statements like they

> mean something . " THIS IS NOT CM. " So you can say what you want

> (you say). Well I say you are just shooting your mouth off with no

> evidence. If you have some good reasons why what MANY Chinese are

> calling CM is not CM then let us hear it. Oh I forgot, you have

> PCOM over there and that is the true CM.

 

 

Take any one thing and add another different thing to it and it is no

longer the first thing, but rather a combination of the two. If you

cannot understand that, then this whole thread is lost on you.

 

I am not defining CM, nor have I proported to. Do you think

everything is CM? I do not think that you do. However, you have made

that decision that somes things are not CM, just as I have. Maybe you

should ask yourself what gives you the right.

 

 

> > It is like having a red car, and then painting blue dots onto it.

> It

> > is no longer a red car, and there is no reason to call it a red

> car.

>

> What are you talking about??? Again it is still a car… Things are

> not black and white. Do you think there is some magical line that

> you cross and all of a sudden you are not doing CM (because you say

> so)… If I use 1 WM concept in my thinking do you think I am no

> longer practicing CM>…

 

Yes, it is still a car, which is why I brought up your droning about

" valid approaches. " I have never said that the things of which you

speak are not medicine. A red car, once painted with blue dots, is no

longer a red car.

 

If you use 1 WM concept in your thinking then you are using CM along

with a WM concept. What would be wrong with saying that. I have not

knocked the approach. There is no shame in combining ideas if you are

qualified to do so. There is no need to hide it and still try to say

that it is only CM.

 

For example, when the Chinese adapted capatilism to there own use,

they did not continue to call is capatilism, they called it capatilism

with Chinese characteristics because they knew they changed it and it

was different.

 

 

> > One of your often used comments lately has been that an " approach

> is

> > valid. " I have not agrued that so I do not really need to here

> that

> > again, and again, and again. Just because an approach to medicine

> is

> > valid, does not make it Chinese medicine.

>

> Again who says??? You??? You make a statement like it is some

> truth. Have some humility and say IMO or something… Approach is

> valid means that people use such a system within a CM framework, and

> these WM concepts are now PART of CM now, like it or not… CM has

> evolved and moved on into the 21th century, It is not what it was 50

> years ago or 100 years ago or 1000 years ago or even 10 years ago…

> There is no black and white just a grey blur

 

As I said before, I am all for better healing systems. I do not see

what is wrong with truth in labeling though.

 

 

> > How about you take what you know of CM, what you know of WM, read

> up

> > on some 16th Century African shamanic practices, mix them all

> > together, call it CM and then see how many people agree. If you

> can

> > make the system work clincially, then fine, you have found a valid

> > approach to medicine, but it would not be CM.

>

> You are totally missing the point… You example (and argument) is a

> red herring.

 

It is not a red herring. It illustrates the invalidity of your

position, so you chose to ignore it. That's fine. I expect it from you.

 

 

> There is only 1 reason to continue this debate. IF you and others

> want to try define what CM is or isn't., with some logic, data, and

> openness. Otherwise your opinion is just that, another opinion that

> can get swept under the rug.

>

> -

 

While you have out the broom, do not forget to do the sweeping of your

own opinions.

 

I have offered a logical arguement and an analogy (the red car) to

start things off in regards as to what is not CM.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

> Brian,

>

> Further information: One can open a BASIC modern CM textbook on

> theory (or herbs) and see plenty of WM information and integration.

> Or are you going to say that anything modern (CM) is not CM??????

>

> -Jason

 

I find it humorous that you want to call is all CM, but for some

reason, you continue to use words like " WM information " and " integration. "

 

If it really was all CM like you say, then why are you calling it WM

information. Why are you calling it integration? Would everything in

the book be CM according to you? How do you integrate something with

itself?

 

Your arguement is very, very week.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...> wrote:

>

> If it really was all CM like you say, then why are you calling it WM

> information. Why are you calling it integration? Would everything in

> the book be CM according to you? How do you integrate something with

> itself?

 

I made another typo that makes me say the opposite of what I meant.

 

The second to the last sentence should say, " Wouldn't everything in

the book be CM according to you? "

 

I am sorry if my typos have broken the flow of this thread.

 

Brian C. Allen

[Guest guest]

Hi Z'ev

 

--- " " wrote:

> I am not saying you are wrong, just, why should I accept what you

> say if I cannot find it in any CM text?

 

Just a small question that maybe requires a larger answer.

 

In some previous posts about Elisabeth Hsu there was mention of one

style of chinese medicine as being " secret transmission " .

How would one like to handle the knowledge transmitted in this way

because it is likely not to be found in any CM-text and how would it

have to be subjected to scrutiny to be allowed into traditional /

mainstream / academic / modern CM?

 

Are there any CM-journals that have enough authority to have

findings, old/new knowledge peer-reviewed and 'accepted' into the

body of knowledge of CM?

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

What about formulas where little or nothing is done to ameliorate

the side-effects of the chief herbs, such as ba zheng san, where

you're draining with every herb you include, leaving out herbs that

might protect against unnecessary damage to qi or yin? where

the formula is as singleminded as the diagnosis, no care to

suplement the zheng qi, only to obliterate the excess. typically

formulae are designed to avoid the dangers of the directional

nature of herbal medicine, overcompensation leading to the kind

of consequenses you hear listed on the drug commercials on tv.

this formula is avoiding those principles but still widely used and

known, isn't that an example of a prescription designed

according to a more pharmacological reasoning? otherwise

there'd be herbs boost the wei qi and prevent some of the

damage the cheif herb's action will do.

I remember supervisors when i was a student putting in very

cold herbs to address a cold presentation of nasal discharge

because they insist the only cause of a chronic infection was a

'bacterial infection' which required cold 'antibiotic' herbs. on

the

contrary, when we were given the opportunity to treat cold

presentations with appropriate warm herbs, the conditions

improved.

but back to the point, i believe that the formulas exist, where the

herbs are chosen for their function rather than to completely

match the condition they are treating. the reason for which must

be pharmacological (on a basic level) rather than the holistic

approach of most formulas.

 

Brett Jackson

 

 

 

, " Z'ev

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

> Show me one prescription that is designed according to

pharmacological

> reasoning. I am not talking about pharmacological properties

of

> individual herbs.

>

>

>

> On Jan 11, 2004, at 12:30 PM, wrote:

>

> > This is not true, there is a whole (huge) sect of prescribing

herbs

> > based on pharmacological properties and WM. This is just

as valid…

[Guest guest]

I don't see it so much as a 'cut-off point' as a continuum of history.

We simply need to see the whole time-line to the best of our abilities.

Chinese medical history is huge, so it is hard to get a complete view,

but it certainly helps to have some familiarity with the sources of the

tradition, and measure growth and change against those sources.

 

The recent era of integration, and the political changes of moving from

Qing to Republican to Communist (and perhaps post-Communist) in China

has had great effects. As has the exportation of CM to the West. We

are still in the midst of these great changes, so controversy and

greatly divergent viewpoints are the norm right now. We don't yet have

the perspective of time to judge what has happened clearly, in my

opinion.

 

 

On Jan 11, 2004, at 9:48 PM, wrote:

 

> Z'ev,

>

> I agree... SO how do you define the line? When is the cut off?

> 1949?

>

> -

[Guest guest]

Even though you may do this (add herbs based on pharmacological

properties), I assume you will take into account their flavor, nature,

and traditional use before adding the herbs to your prescription, and

follow the rules of combination (dui yao), dosage, and jun chen zuo shi

(sovereign minister assistant and envoy/courier). Many pharmacological

properties of herbs are not conflicting with their traditional

indications, in fact they compliment them. But you haven't designed a

new prescription solely on the basis of their pharmacological

properties.

 

As I mentioned in an earlier post, one's practice is based on what form

of thinking is used. You can choose from CM, WM, or a hybrid of the

two. Even in your example, you are 'importing' biomedical thinking

into a basically CM approach to preparing your prescription. And, yes,

I know there are many practitioners in China and Japan thinking in this

way.

 

You also mentioned shotgun 'antiviral' prescriptions as an example. I

think we'd both agree that this is a less than optimal way to approach

the art of prescriptions, knowing the great subtleties of the

approaches developed, say, in the Wen Bing tradition. In fact, I have

a case history example for you.

 

In Beijing winter, a patient came an integrative hospital with what

would appear to be a wind-cold attack (clear sputum, cough, fear of

cold, etc.). The CM practitioner performed a sputum test, and

determined that he had a viral infection, so he gave the patient a

bitter cold isatis prescription for its antiviral properties. The cold

got worse, and went into the patient's chest, leading to a severe case

of bronchitis. A more 'traditional' SHL-based practitioner was called

in, who moxaed back shu points and gave a warming, more supplementing

prescription and cured the patient.

 

The point of all this? I think that using shotgun treatment may work

in acute short-term cases, or that one can use pharmacological

properties to enhance one's knowledge and treatment (I know that I pay

attention to this), but it cannot be as effective, in my opinion, as

the traditional way of practice of herbal medicine.

 

 

 

 

On Jan 11, 2004, at 9:43 PM, wrote:

 

> Z'ev

>

> Why does it have to be a whole prescription...? If I choose the base

> formula of xiao yao san and add 4 herbs to it based on

> pharmacloligal proiperties or WM research, then this is a VERY new

> and different way of prescribing herbs… This is very common, and I

> actually learned this sort of stuff at PCOM. To me this is

> integration, and modern and new.

>

> As far as full formulas, it is well known it was very popular for

> sometime to just put all the antiviral herbs in a formula for Wind

> attacks that were virus. I am not advocating this, but that is an

> example.

>

> -

[Guest guest]

, " bcataiji " <bcaom@c...>

wrote:

> , " "

> <@h...> wrote:

> > Brian,

> >

> > Further information: One can open a BASIC modern CM textbook on

> > theory (or herbs) and see plenty of WM information and

integration.

> > Or are you going to say that anything modern (CM) is not CM??????

> >

> > -Jason

>

> I find it humorous that you want to call is all CM, but for some

> reason, you continue to use words like " WM information "

and " integration. "

>

> If it really was all CM like you say, then why are you calling it

WM

> information. Why are you calling it integration?

 

I will spell it out. Integration is `the act of combining into an

integral whole' The whole is CM, the information is from West, this

is a no brainer, and I think you have again completely seen through

the point.

 

-

[Guest guest]

Actually, my intuition is that theory and practice (in the Nei Jing

era) developed concurrently, but you've raised some good questions for

the likes of Paul Unschuld. I think I'll take it up with him myself.

 

I agree with everything else you say here, and you've expressed it

wonderfully. My only concern is that the traditional approach to CM

doesn't get 'lost in the shuffle' of new ideas.

 

 

On Jan 11, 2004, at 7:54 PM, wrote:

 

> Jim actually said MSU + time + clinical results = classics. I tend to

> agree. However

> there are really only a few fundamental classiccs (nei jing, SHL, shen

> nong, nan jing).

> Everything else is derivative, right. New ideas are supposed to be

> rooted in the core

> classics or other texts that are generally considered derived

> therefrom (even if not

> always mainstream), including pi wei lun, wen bing xue and dan xi xin

> fa. However,

> and here's the rub, theory need not precede practice. In all

> likelihood practice has

> always preceded theory, at least in the formative stages of new ideas

> or systems.

> there is no way the chinese wrote the nei jing first and then

> developed acupuncture

> afterwards.

>

> So in order for a new idea to incorporated into the general practice of

> CM, it can most certainly begin as an empirical practice (and I don't

> think z'ev is

> saying otherwise). It only needs to be explained according to CM

> theory in order to

> qualify as CM. that is how we add new materia medica, which may have

> only been

> known empirically until a TCM doc took a look. So I agree with Z'ev

> that any use of

> needles and ch. herbs is not CM, per se. However it still may be

> holistic medicine, ala

> naturopathy, for example. CHA is interested in both the system of CM

> and the herbs

> that grow in china, regardless of how they are used. So we can

> discuss non CM uses

> of chinese herbs here (in that the uses rely on modern concepts).

> However the

> empirical use of herbs is also chinese medicine as Bob Felt has

> reminded us. And

> perhaps allopathic herbology is just another variation on this. Keep

> in mind that

> allopaths think we are the ones who treat symptoms and they are the

> ones who treat

> the cause of disease.

>

> It is obviously too premature to close out the discussion of what CM

> is and only

> include data that fits that one definition. We will collect data and

> see where it all fits

> over time. I personally consider it equally experimental to base

> one's practice on a

> personal interpetation of the classics as on modern science. However

> both or either

> may prevail. In the meantime, we have the collegial consensus to

> guide us.

>

 

[Guest guest]

, " "

<@h...> wrote:

 

> I will spell it out. Integration is `the act of combining into an

> integral whole' The whole is CM, the information is from West, this

> is a no brainer, and I think you have again completely seen through

> the point.

>

 

The following are opinions:

 

There seems to be just one difference on how we use the term CM, even

though the issue may seem larger.

 

I like the notion that Z'ev hinted at. It seems a good definition of

CM would be something like, " medicine based in whole on... " - whatever

core basics / theory / etc. have a concensus agreement.

 

It seems that your definition is almost the same, but would be changed

to say, " medicined base in part on... " rather than " in whole on... "

This is OK, but this leads to problems where anybody with some

crystals or some rune stones can be claiming to do CM if they place

them on your body based on a 5-Phase map. This does not seem

appropriate to me, but I guess it seems OK for others.

 

Also, that CM continues to change is OK with me and can still fit fine

within my definition. If totally foreing concepts are introduced into

CM, I see nothing wrong with calling it CM + other concepts. Maybe

some feel uncomfortable with this and would like to continue to use

the term CM loosely. Again, the problem with this is that the idea CM

can be used to mask quite divergent practices.

 

I understand that Chinese people in China practice a hybrid form of

medicine that many call CM. I also understand that it is not the same

medicine, as was in the past. It is now based partly on foreign

concepts (a new set of classics / ideas / theories). A billion people

can say that 2+2=5 and it will not make it so, unless they redefine

some or all of the terms, " 2 " , " plus " , or " 5 " . If this happens, say

with " 5 " , then the idea of " 5 " no longer has the same solid usefulness

that it once had. When " 5 " is mentioned, how could one be sure of

what it meant? When a definition has to keep changing, then the word

is not so useful anymore.

 

Brian c. Allen

[Guest guest]

, " Tim Sharpe " <listserve@d...> wrote:

 

> PS - I suppose one of us should have changed this subject line long ago.

> The only tie-in to coffee is the fact that I'm drinking a cup right now.

 

Quite the contrary, IMO - I find the subject line eminently apropos. It is

fascinating

how the mere mention of coffee has tripled the pace and intensified the

emotional

tenor of the discussion, to the point of triggering a remarkably sustained

irritability.

Seems one doesn't even have to drink the stuff to experience the effect.

Moreover,

and getting back to the original issue of whether coffee not only stimulates but

also

drains, it appears that the subtext of the ensuing conversation reveals a degree

of

taxation fatigue, as it were, of the yuan qi of CM. In this argument about how

to

label new and/or integrative developments in the unfolding history of CM, some

may

perceive a certain vacuity of respect for the profoundly more refined

sensibilities of

the ancients. Which is, I think, elegantly addressed by Z'ev's calm insistence

on an

abiding awareness of continuity, of roots.

 

IMO, even in the presence of clinical results and empirical, experimental, or

statistical

reinforcement, MSU is likely to acquire the weight, depth, and longevity of the

classics

only if it is also grounded in a sense of continuity with the classics. Of

course, then it

would not be MSU, but tong shen ming - penetrating spiritual illumination.

 

And only time will tell.

 

Simcha Gottlieb

[Guest guest]

should we ignore all the herbs that entered CM from other regions?

Alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

 

My experience differs from yours, even with my interactions with

M.D.'s. There is a strong desire to understand what Chinese medicine

is, not just interpreting it through western eyes. So far, our

profession has done a poor job in transmitting Chinese medicine in the

West, we are only beginning to rectify this problem. Few individuals

have a grasp on what the Chinese were saying or teaching both in the

modern and premodern eras.

 

This also contradicts what you have said about education, which I

understand to mean that you think we should teach a standard TCM

curriculum based on yin-yang and pattern differentiation. If students

cannot tell what is CM and what is WM, or only learn empirical

techniques, they will only be 'end-users', not innovators. If you look

at Coulter's work and present reality in, say, homeopathy, you'll see

that even though Coulter favors empiricism (in my opinion) over

rationalism, modern 'classical' homeopathy is seeking out theoretical

constructs such as Eizayaga's algorithms, Digby's five element model,

Rozenberg's categories, and Sankaran's plant and mineral family models

to organize the empirical data around.

 

All in all, an interesting discussion, but I don't think what you

suggest is 'the only way' for us to develop the profession.

 

 

On Jan 12, 2004, at 9:45 AM, wrote:

 

> Why do I write this. Because I strongly believe integration of

> western ideas, testing of

> our own methods, group patient education and acceptance of the

> empirical use of our

> herbs by our patients and medical peers is the ONLY hopeful path we

> have as a

> profession. We will be completely marginalized in 25 years otherwise.

> I know others

> feel differently and will continue to argue their case, but I find it

> a weak one and I am

> on the inside. Everyone I know on the outside dismisses the purist

> position out of

> hand.

[Guest guest]

Prescriptions such as ba zheng san are designed for acute situations of

repletion heat and/or damp-heat, in replete patients or patterns

without underlying vacuity. If there was underlying vacuity, they

would need to be addressed with other prescriptions, or this

prescription would need to be modified.

 

Using cold, 'antibiotic-like' medicinals for wind-cold attacks is

simply fallacy, nothing less.

 

Otherwise, I have to disagree that formulas such as ba zheng san are

chosen just for functionality. I don't have the time now, but an

ingredient by ingredient analysis of the prescription would be quite

interesting to do.

 

 

On Jan 12, 2004, at 12:48 AM, scooteronian wrote:

 

> What about formulas where little or nothing is done to ameliorate

> the side-effects of the chief herbs, such as ba zheng san, where

> you're draining with every herb you include, leaving out herbs that

> might protect against unnecessary damage to qi or yin? where

> the formula is as singleminded as the diagnosis, no care to

> suplement the zheng qi, only to obliterate the excess. typically

> formulae are designed to avoid the dangers of the directional

> nature of herbal medicine, overcompensation leading to the kind

> of consequenses you hear listed on the drug commercials on tv.

> this formula is avoiding those principles but still widely used and

> known, isn't that an example of a prescription designed

> according to a more pharmacological reasoning? otherwise

> there'd be herbs boost the wei qi and prevent some of the

> damage the cheif herb's action will do.

> I remember supervisors when i was a student putting in very

> cold herbs to address a cold presentation of nasal discharge

> because they insist the only cause of a chronic infection was a

> 'bacterial infection' which required cold 'antibiotic' herbs. on

> the

> contrary, when we were given the opportunity to treat cold

> presentations with appropriate warm herbs, the conditions

> improved.

> but back to the point, i believe that the formulas exist, where the

> herbs are chosen for their function rather than to completely

> match the condition they are treating. the reason for which must

> be pharmacological (on a basic level) rather than the holistic

> approach of most formulas.

>

> Brett Jackson

>

>

>

> , " Z'ev

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

>> Show me one prescription that is designed according to

> pharmacological

>> reasoning. I am not talking about pharmacological properties

> of

>> individual herbs.

>>

>>

>>

>> On Jan 11, 2004, at 12:30 PM, wrote:

>>

>>> This is not true, there is a whole (huge) sect of prescribing

> herbs

>>> based on pharmacological properties and WM. This is just

> as valid…

>

>

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Of course not. Or any 'Western' or Tibetan/Ayurvedic as well. But it

takes time to 'integrate' them into prescriptions and classify them.

Newer 'foreign' entries in the zhong yao da ci dian have less

information listed.

 

 

On Jan 12, 2004, at 10:14 AM, ALON MARCUS wrote:

 

> should we ignore all the herbs that entered CM from other regions?

> Alon

[Guest guest]

, @v... wrote:

 

>

> In some previous posts about Elisabeth Hsu there was mention of one

> style of chinese medicine as being " secret transmission " .

> How would one like to handle the knowledge transmitted in this way

> because it is likely not to be found in any CM-text and how would it

> have to be subjected to scrutiny to be allowed into traditional /

> mainstream / academic / modern CM?

 

Alwin

 

that is an excellent question. I have no interest in secret knowledge myself,

though I

do temper my TCM with personal teachings, none of which are very radical.

However

if secret knowledge is part of CM, there must be some mechanism for allowing it

to

continue to develop. to an outsider, some secret methods would no doubt appear

empirical.

 

[Guest guest]

Must have been a limited edition of the Bible, since in the " standard "

version, it says King David played the harp and Miriam the tamborine, etc.,

for only a couple of examples. But I have heard this line too, which

convinced me very early on (i.e., childhood) that there are often ulterior

(mostly political) motives operating in " true " churches, quite apart from

issues of worship, correct or not. A good example of why it is important

to examine everything critically and have open access to all sources.

 

Pat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

This is a true story:

 

I grew up and the church I briefly went to believed that any church

that had musical instruments was not a true church, because in the

bible there were no musical instruments. Correct worship was

supposed to be only based on a literal and strict interpretation of

the BIBLE. Anything else was just wrong and not considered the true

Christianity.

 

Does this sound familiar to anyone?

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

==============================================================================

NOTE: The information in this email is confidential and may be legally

privileged. If you are not the intended recipient, you must not read, use or

disseminate the information. Although this email and any attachments are

believed to be free of any virus or other defect that might affect any computer

system into which it is received and opened, it is the responsibility of the

recipient to ensure that it is virus free and no responsibility is accepted by

Cadwalader, Wickersham & Taft LLP for any loss or damage arising in any way from

its use.

 

==============================================================================

[Guest guest]

You could have been writing my experience as it is almost identical. I

can tolerate only so much coffee. If I surpass that, I get sick. Reparatory

illness. I know it is coming when I feel the heaviness in my chest. I will

get well quickly with diet of sushi, WASABI, and green tea. No coffee.

I can tolerate caffeine in other forms. Coffee is the big bad for me.

Chocolate is good. (Dove Dark) ;-))

 

Chris

 

In a message dated 1/13/2004 4:36:01 PM Eastern Standard Time,

writes:

When I drink coffee, it is only a short time until I develop a respiratory

illness. It doesn't matter whether the coffee is decaf or regular. It creates

too much internal heat for me, makes my nose run, and generates much more yang

activity than my deficient constitution can handle, and so I will get very

run-down in short order. If I keep it up, I will get sick. If I can use my own

experience as verification of a substance's effects, I cannot say coffee is

tonifying. By the way, if I drink caffeinated sodas or teas, I do not get sick.

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

When I drink coffee, it is only a short time until I develop a respiratory

illness. It doesn't matter whether the coffee is decaf or regular. It creates

too much internal heat for me, makes my nose run, and generates much more yang

activity than my deficient constitution can handle, and so I will get very

run-down in short order. If I keep it up, I will get sick. If I can use my own

experience as verification of a substance's effects, I cannot say coffee is

tonifying. By the way, if I drink caffeinated sodas or teas, I do not get sick.

 

 

 

James Ramholz <jramholz wrote:

, ross rosen

<rossrosen> wrote:

> Wondering if anyone read Subhuti Dharmananda's recent article on

the TCM perspective of coffee. He questions the idea that coffee

depletes the Kidneys and puts forth the argument that coffee

actually purges the Liver and Gall Bladder thus providing the energy

boosting effects. He also notes some strengthening effects on the

Heart and mild Spleen supplementation. I would love to know others'

opinions on the subject, especially with the recent thread on

understanding fatigue.>>>

 

 

Ross:

 

I often see people who drink coffee, and drink it often myself. It

can fondly be thought of as " the other vitamin C " . Their pulses (and

mine) show that the caffine stimulates the adrenals [kidney yang],

which then can affect the heart; the bitter oils affect the liver

and GB then, in turn, sometimes the heart; and, if we believe the

recent research, it helps prevent diabetes so it can stimulate the

pancreas.

 

But I think we have to carefully distinguish between stimulation and

supplementation for coffee. IMO, there doesn't seem to be much in

coffee for supplementation. Usually, kidney and liver yin can easily

become exhausted by its astringing action.

 

But to be fair to Subhuti, I haven't seen his article or heard his

arguments to consider otherwise.

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including board

approved continuing education classes, an annual conference and a free

discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.