Dose of herbs prescribed to Westerner in Beijing

[Guest guest]

Jason,

I am aware that ZZJ was a compiler of prescriptions, especially

those from the Tangye Jing, however, he revolutionized medicine by

applying Su Wen channel theory to herbal medicine (what Unschuld calls

'systematic correspondence') and producing a body of prescriptions

that are all inter-related with each other in formula 'families'. It

makes it a very useful way to look at herbal medicine, no matter what

one's influences are.

 

Of course we need the commentaries of the ages. That is the

beauty of pai/schools/currents, in that they continue to grow over

time without losing their essential nature. Growth and change is

paramount, but the current still has a course, an essence, that

shouldn't be lost. And we need the accomplishments and developments

of such physicians as Qin Bo-wei.

 

I'll look forward to your investigations of his work in the

future. . .

 

 

On Apr 22, 2009, at 1:48 PM, wrote:

 

>

>

> Z¡Çev¡¤

>

> Two issues¡¥¡¥¡¥

>

> 1) I think we are confusing effective doctor versus innovations (or an

> innovative doctor). Just because someone does not develop a new

> current in

> Chinese medicine does not make them any less of effective doctor.

> Really

> Min¡Çs point, I believe, is about being an effective clinician,

> and that is

> it. He is not comparing modern doctor¡Çs or his self¡Çs

> ability to come up

> with new ideas.

>

 

 

>

> But we also should not forget, ZZJ was also really just a compiler of

> formulas and strategies of that time period. It is suspected that

> around age

> 40 he became a government official and then accessed the massive

> libraries

> of the time. Over the next 7-10 years he wrote SHL/JGYL. It was not

> ZZJ

> himself that slaved 50+ years in the trenches developing theories and

> formulas based on his treatment of disease. He just documented

> mostly what

> was happening already, and I am sure added a bit. We don¡Çt

> even know how

> effective of a doctor he was, I suspect not as good in comparison to

> later

> famous physicians, and that is Min¡Çs point.

>

> 2) I personally find modern synthesizers such as Qin Bo-Wei to have a

> much more solid grasp of internal medicine than e.g. ZZJ¡Çs

> work. This is

> not only because they make use of the last 2000 years of development

> but

> also are able to deeply understand things that ZZJ had not a clue

> about.

> There is no question that if I had to pick between just the SHL/

> JGYL or Qin

> Bo-Wei¡Çs systematic approach into understanding internal

> medicine, I would

> hands down choose the later. Quite simple for example, QBW cherry

> picks the

> best ideas from SHL / JGYL as well as other historical texts. I find

> ZZJ a

> bit limited for internal medicine, but that is just me. However even

> Arnaud

> says that ZZJ¡Çs approach will only cure 50% of disease, but

> that is really

> neither here nor there.

>

> But we should not forget that actually most internal medicine usages

> of SHL

> formulas came after ZZJ. Almost all the really cool SHL stuff (e.g.

> what

> Huang Huang and Arnaud are teaching) are not in the SHL but come

> from people

> expanding its usage and theory. Should we say this again, ¡ÈNot

> in the SHL

> itself¡É However, there are oodles of JGYL and SHL commentaries

> that are

> extremely effective in the clinic but really have little to do with

> the way

> that someone like ZZJ would have used the formulas. These people are

> building on the basic foundation, stretching it as much as possible,

> seeing

> what works clinically, and expanding the way we look at these texts.

> Many

> times they are very different ideas. People like Dr. Qin for example

> have

> taken many SHL formulas and reworked them for the modern era, and

> hence they

> are now more effective. Most SHL experts, although respect the

> classic texts

> really utilize these later developments.

>

> If one were to try to use SHL / JGYL without commentary as a

> systematic

> roadmap to deal with internal medicine then one will have to try

> very very

> hard. It is like reading tea leaves. It is not easy, and there is a

> large

> array of varying opinions, hence why we have 100s-1000s of books

> written on

> the topic.

>

> -

>

>

> On Behalf Of Z'ev

> Rosenberg

> Wednesday, April 22, 2009 12:25 PM

>

> Re: Dose of herbs prescribed to Westerner in Beijing

>

> Min hasn't taught at PCOM in the last few years, but continues to give

> seminars. I personally take such statements with a grain of salt,

> because there are no physicians in the modern era who have been able

> to create such a systematic approach to internal medicine as Zhong

> Zhong-Jing. Even though we have access to more information, the

> ability to deeply penetrate the principles of Chinese medical theory

> is still quite challenging. Physicians such as Qin Bo-wei and Jiao

> Shu-de have done a great job of synthesizing and modifying gu fang for

> modern diseases, but they haven't really developed new currents as the

> Jin-Yuan physicians did. .

>

>

> On Apr 21, 2009, at 5:58 PM, wrote:

>

> > For those who know Min Fan from PCOM (is he still there?), he used

> > to always

> > say, " I am much better doctor than Zhang Zhong-Jing. " The first time

> > I heard

> > this I thought this guy is a bit arrogant , but really his point is

> > very

> > sound. He (as well as us) have all of CM that followed ZZJ at our

> > disposal

> > to study and to draw from to write prescriptions. Min, BTW, had some

> > very

> > nice formulas.

>

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes I agree and I also greatly enjoy ZZJ's formula families. I wonder though

if this was just kind of the way things were at the time because of the lack

of variety of herbs and not that many prescriptions had been around yet.

Almost by default they would be related. Either way, the modifications etc

are a great learning tool.

 

 

 

Also though I consider the meng-he tradition a current in and of itself.

Even though they have no new " big " theory, their ability to figure out how

to put everything together and use gentle prescriptions is unique in and of

itself. Maybe Volker knows if there is a specific name for these guys. This

is actually the most exciting current I have found to study.

 

 

 

I remember though talking with a SHL 'expert' and he asked what I studied,

and I told him meng-he / QBW / and that I liked the synthesizers. It was

funny the response. It was something along the lines " I am sorry you have

not find your way, maybe someday you will find a path to follow. " He really

only thought it was valid if one intensely studied 1 pai (school),

preferable SHL, and studied that one deeply. He of course favored neglecting

everything else. I guess to each their own.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:03 PM

 

Re: Dose of herbs prescribed to Westerner in Beijing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason,

I am aware that ZZJ was a compiler of prescriptions, especially

those from the Tangye Jing, however, he revolutionized medicine by

applying Su Wen channel theory to herbal medicine (what Unschuld calls

'systematic correspondence') and producing a body of prescriptions

that are all inter-related with each other in formula 'families'. It

makes it a very useful way to look at herbal medicine, no matter what

one's influences are.

 

Of course we need the commentaries of the ages. That is the

beauty of pai/schools/currents, in that they continue to grow over

time without losing their essential nature. Growth and change is

paramount, but the current still has a course, an essence, that

shouldn't be lost. And we need the accomplishments and developments

of such physicians as Qin Bo-wei.

 

I'll look forward to your investigations of his work in the

future. . .

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

As we know, Chinese medicine is not a religion, it is a constant

exploration into the nature of life, medicine and health/disease. It

is no longer the era of ancient vs. modern formula schools, five phase

vs. eight principle.

 

I just feel, like Doug, that study of classical medical

literature is very weak in the West, and these have been the

traditional foundations of study in Chinese medicine. We are no less

obligated than Chinese physicians to study these texts, and with

teachers who are experts in them. As you pointed out in an earlier

post, Liu He-jian studied the classical literature for forty years

before developing his own theories.

 

 

On Apr 22, 2009, at 2:23 PM, wrote:

 

> I remember though talking with a SHL 'expert' and he asked what I

> studied,

> and I told him meng-he / QBW / and that I liked the synthesizers. It

> was

> funny the response. It was something along the lines " I am sorry you

> have

> not find your way, maybe someday you will find a path to follow. " He

> really

> only thought it was valid if one intensely studied 1 pai (school),

> preferable SHL, and studied that one deeply. He of course favored

> neglecting

> everything else. I guess to each their own.

>

> -

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Z'ev,

 

 

 

We do agree that studying classic texts is important and I also find that

this is a missing link. However the most effective way that we go about this

is important and still unclear. IMO, learning from experts that have already

spent 40+ years studying the material and using it successful in the clinic

is the best, versus just trying to read the original texts themselves. As

important as the original texts are, they are still fairly cryptic to most

people. Greg L. was telling me the other day that his SHL teacher said the

best way to learn it is to start with the modern commentaries then work your

backwards to the original text. If Greg is listening, maybe he could

elaborate on this idea. Unfortunately commentaries and case studies are

what seem to be lacking the most in the West.

 

 

 

Yes 40+ years! I have seen people come up with an idea and then start

teaching it within about 4 months. J - I guess the West and East have major

differences.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

Wednesday, April 22, 2009 3:41 PM

 

Re: Dose of herbs prescribed to Westerner in Beijing

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Jason,

As we know, Chinese medicine is not a religion, it is a constant

exploration into the nature of life, medicine and health/disease. It

is no longer the era of ancient vs. modern formula schools, five phase

vs. eight principle.

 

I just feel, like Doug, that study of classical medical

literature is very weak in the West, and these have been the

traditional foundations of study in Chinese medicine. We are no less

obligated than Chinese physicians to study these texts, and with

teachers who are experts in them. As you pointed out in an earlier

post, Liu He-jian studied the classical literature for forty years

before developing his own theories.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

Yes... ZZJ wrote that if one was proficient with the formulas in the Shang

han za bing lun,

then one could treat at least 50% of all diseases (introduction by ZZJ in

the SHL)

but one is not limited to only 50% of all diseases.

I don't think that Arnaud would ever say that only 50% of disease could be

treated or cured with the SHZBL.

I remember asking him this exact question in a seminar.

 

Of course, I'm not an expert, but it seems as though dermatology is not

something that the SHZBL

covers as well as some other schools, since that is not its focus.

Its focus was to keep people alive, since half of ZZJ's family died from

epidemic diseases (SHL intro).

Otherwise, I think that some others would agree that the SHZBL is for

Internal Medicine as well as External Medicine...

since there are 3 Yin conformations in the SHL and the JGYL is composed of

formulas for complex dz patterns.

 

But, that is a big question of mine.. what are the limitations of the

SHZBL?

I guess we would have to be an expert in the texts and practice of using

them to answer that.

 

K

 

 

On Tue, Apr 21, 2009 at 10:21 PM, Eric Brand <smilinglotus wrote:

 

>

>

> > I don't disagree that the majority of TCM practitioners (in China) make

> use of a wide variety of theories and treatment methods, but I would argue

> that this is a characteristic of what is called the " School school " :^)

> (xue2 yuan4 pai4), meaning doctors who graduated from the formal higher

> education system in China. In my reading and from hearing professors'

> stories, it seems that most people who learned in a particular tradition or

> from one of their relatives tend to stick to one treatment method. When it

> works it works, if it doesn't work the patient goes somewhere else.

>

> I completely agree. My first teacher outside of school, the boss at the

> pharmacy DXD in San Diego, was a classic example of a lineage-trained master

> of his own style. When it worked, it was amazing, and he had a big

> following. But as I learned more, I realized that he had holes in his

> knowledge and theoretical understanding that limited his ability to treat

> some portion of the patients. These patients then went to other doctors

> until they found someone who could help (or not). Of course, despite the

> limitations of his formal education, he still changed the lives of thousands

> of people, and he saved several lives in diphtheria outbreaks in Vietnam

> when he was a young doctor. He is a treasure house of knowledge and I owe a

> lot to him- I even dedicated my first book to him. But even though he passed

> on his whole lineage of recipes to me over the years, I would never stop my

> studies there. Believe me, I have a lot of respect for outside-the-box

> thinking, just like you do.

>

> My main point is not that the " box " is correct, or doctors that think

> inside of standard TCM theory are better in any way. Forever, the thing that

> expanded and defined the shape of the " box " has been the influence of people

> that thought outside the box. Without people thinking of new theories like

> wen bing or spleen-stomach theories, we would have a much smaller box to

> work from today.

>

> To me, the key point is that these people thinking outside the box should

> expand the community, they should enrich the theories and practice of

> Chinese medicine. All too often, we see people using such theories to

> polarize the community, claim superiority, and suggest inferiority of other

> approaches. I'm certainly not saying anyone here is doing this, but we can

> clearly see many many examples of these people on the lecture circuit. In my

> view, this can be a destructive influence on our field as well as a

> productive influence.

>

> In Chinese society, these numerous theories co-exist in harmony. Each

> theoretical school has devotees contrasted with lots of people who take

> everything with a grain of salt. In the West, the discussion gets more

> polarized, more us vs. them. Often it seems to be akin to marketing and

> profiteering off of people that haven't had exposure to a diverse CM

> education.

>

> CHA tends to be a remarkably mature discussion group. People raise points

> that seek to truly expand our collective knowledge, to add new perspectives

> without detracting from other perspectives. But in the outer field beyond

> CHA, we see these acronyms and special, expensive schools and workshops that

> do indeed tend to create division within the profession. CM has always been

> diverse, but it has rarely been dogmatic.

>

> Eric Brand

>

> website: http://www.legendaryherbs.com

> blog: http://bluepoppy.com/blog/blogs/index.php

>

>

>

 

 

 

--

 

Turtle Island Integrative Health

 

 

TCM Review director

CA State Board Prep Courses

www.tcmreview.com