Esoteric Herbology Book?

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

>

> Sharon,

>

>

>

> Thanks for bringing some substantial examples to the table that we can

> discuss. However, I do not think that Dr. Huang is coming up with any great

> revelation when he says that ¡ÈBan Xia as an herb that is used for patients

> who have a sense of something being there that is not there¡É especially

> since it is the chief herb for ban xia hou po tang which is specifically

> indicated for plum-pit qi (Çß³ËÝæ) and is said to be ¡Èthe result of

> emotional upset due to circumstances that the patient figuratively cannot

> swallow [MMIII]¡É- this is actually fairly straightforward understanding

> from the source text (Essentials from the Golden Cabinet) at least from the

> numerous past and present commentators who have discussed this issue and

> actually named it plum-pit qi.

>

>

>

> There have been many additions and commentaries to this relatively vague

> symptom over the years, many of them discussing some emotional component,

> but also numerous other miscellaneous throat problems. Huang Huang is merely

> one of many. Although, I do question that if all of the deeper understanding

> of plum-pit qi and ban xia hou po tang can be simplified to indications for

> ¡Èban xia¡É (if that is indeed what he is saying).

>

>

>

> Actually one of the biggest mistakes that I see clinically is when people

> see plum-pit qi and assume an herb like ban xia or a formula like ban xia

> hou po tang is indicated. Let us not forget that one symptom means nothing

> and plum-pit qi can be caused from hyperactive yang with yin deficiency, qi

> and blood deficiency, constraint from fire.

>

>

>

> Consequently, I do not find plum pit qi a good example because of the wide

> range of commentaries that exist on it. This actually demonstrates precisely

> my point. When a term like this occurs in a text. People all throughout

> history, past and present, weigh in on discussing the intricacies and ideas

> behind it. As I've stated, these terms do exist in Chinese medicine, no

> doubt. But if ¡Ætu xue¡Ç (and other basic standard terms) also had such wide

> scope of meaning, you would also have a multitude of people discussing it.

> When we do not see this discussion, it is hard to imagine that the original

> Dr. meant anything but the obvious.

>

>

>

> However, I would love to hear more examples from Sharon because I think the

> SHL text is a perfect avenue because there is so much commentary written on

> it and Dr. Huang is great at riffing on things. For example, I would love to

> hear more about ¡ÈThis " bitter taste in the mouth " is " something

> like " suffering in the spiritual sense.¡É - however, it would be very

> surprising to me if ZZJ was thinking anything like this¡Ä

>

>

>

> Thoughts?

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

> Actually, the fact that this kind of reasoning has so much precedent and is

not such a profound revelation was my point.

 

As for the bitter taste in the mouth ideas, this is from a book by Liu Lihong

called Yi Cao Zhong Yi. I'm in Taiwan now and saw this book at a local book

store. Would you like me to pick you up a copy?

 

Best

 

Sharon

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

>

> Sharon,

>

>

>

> Thanks for bringing some substantial examples to the table that we can

> discuss. However, I do not think that Dr. Huang is coming up with any great

> revelation when he says that ¡ÈBan Xia as an herb that is used for patients

> who have a sense of something being there that is not there¡É especially

> since it is the chief herb for ban xia hou po tang which is specifically

> indicated for plum-pit qi (Çß³ËÝæ) and is said to be ¡Èthe result of

> emotional upset due to circumstances that the patient figuratively cannot

> swallow [MMIII]¡É- this is actually fairly straightforward understanding

> from the source text (Essentials from the Golden Cabinet) at least from the

> numerous past and present commentators who have discussed this issue and

> actually named it plum-pit qi.

>

>

 

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

> Actually, the fact that this kind of reasoning has so much precedent and is

not such a profound revelation was my point.

 

As for the bitter taste in the mouth ideas, this is from a book by Liu Lihong

called Yi Cao Zhong Yi. I'm in Taiwan now and saw this book at a local book

store. Would you like me to pick you up a copy?

 

Best

 

Sharon

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

I have a copy of it, I think, but it is called si2 kao3 zhong yi/'Contemplating

' ( æ€è€ƒ 中医 ). If it is a different book, let me know,

I'd like to get it. .. .

 

Love your blog,

 

Z'ev

On Dec 31, 2009, at 4:56 PM, swzoe2000 wrote:

 

>

>

>

> As for the bitter taste in the mouth ideas, this is from a book by Liu Lihong

called Yi Cao Zhong Yi. I'm in Taiwan now and saw this book at a local book

store. Would you like me to pick you up a copy?

>

> Best

>

> Sharon

>

> >

>

>

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, <zrosenbe wrote:

>

> I have a copy of it, I think, but it is called si2 kao3 zhong

yi/'Contemplating ' ( æ€è€ƒ 中医 ). If it is a different

book, let me know, I'd like to get it. .. .

>

> Love your blog,

>

Hi Ze'v

 

Yes that's the one. Thanks Ze'v

 

Sharon

 

 

>

[Guest guest]

Trevor, did you read Greg's post about the listing or symptoms being

for the sake of the elucidation of pathomechanism? This directly

addresses your concerns; to wit, it has nothing to do with objective

versus subjective. What matters is giving a clear profile.

 

 

Thea Elijah

 

 

On Dec 31, 2009, at 1:38 PM, trevor_erikson wrote:

 

> I would also add that " Plum Pit " is a " subjective " feeling from the

> patient. When the doctor looks into their throat there is nothing to

> see. This differs from " tu xue " or spitting of blood, which is a

> very " objective " symptom that both the patient and Doctor can

> witness with their own eyes. Thus I find it hard to understand how

> something so defined and visible as Tu Xue could be taken to mean

> anything other than what it is- blood coming out of the mouth.

>

> Even a " bitter " taste in the mouth is a " subjective " symptom that

> only the patient can experience, thus leaving a larger arena of

> interpretation from the Doctor.

>

> Trevor

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Fantastic. I knew we could make it if we try. I think we are on the

verge of seeing in the same light. From this post below, I think we

are actually on the same page.

 

 

On Dec 31, 2009, at 10:06 AM, wrote:

 

>

>

> I do not think that anyone can deny that doctors have not expanded

> upon uses

> for ancient formulas.

>

double negative here-- I think this is an error? (not a big deal--

just clarifying)

 

 

 

> For example, look at the wide range of uses now for

> Xiao Chai Hu Tang, based on just a few lines of text. ZZJ could have

> never

> imagined how far it has come. Furthermore, there is no doubt that a

> whole

> host of what we now call psychological issues can be dealt with from

> basic

> formulas that did not originally discuss these. Quite simply, as we

> know

> mind, emotions, spirit, and physical body are one and the same. This

> is also

> CM 101. Furthermore, the pathodynamic, as Sharon and Greg point out,

> is the

> most important thing to grasp. Understanding this allows one to use a

> formula in a wide variety of ways. This is CM 102.

>

yes

 

 

>

>

> First, quite simply if one understands the pathodynamic one can

> treat any

> sort of psychological disorder because as stated above, it is just

> part of

> the normal pathology mapped out by Chinese medicine.

>

YES precisely, absolutely, exactly.

 

In essence that is ALL I AM SAYING. It is just that, frequently, in

the text, the psycho-spiritual symptoms are not listed BECAUSE THEY

ARE ALREADY IMPLIED by the profile of the pathomechanism.

 

I think that I am, above, saying the exact same thing that you are.

If we both recognize this, we have a solid foundation between us for

further possible agreement.

 

 

 

 

> However what happens

> quite frequently is that these proponents of psycho-spiritual

> indications

> rarely understand the pathodynamics. They simply state things like

> yu jin is

> good for depression because it is called " depression gold. " When you

> associate a treatment with a " psycho-spiritual indication " you are

> assigning

> a symptom to a treatment designed for a pathodynamic/pattern. Rarely

> in

> Chinese medicine are herbs/ formulas attributed to one symptom/

> disease (e.g.

> anxiety). It is always within a context of multiple symptoms making

> up a

> pattern.

>

Yes, of course, absolutely! Do me a favor, esteemed colleague--

after 20 years of clinical practice with herbs and 13 years as an herb

teacher including supervision in busy student clinics, spare me

association with such utterly superficial diagnostics or usages of

herbs! Please! I have only been on this list for a few months, but I

have not seen evidence of anyone being as superficial and ridiculous

as to suppose such cheap herbal associations here; at the very least,

after being for many years the director of two AACOM accredited

Chinese herbal programs, spare me.

 

I don't think anyone here is that kind of silly joker.

 

Are you really saying that this is what Jeffrey Yuen is doing--

just taking such terms and running with them, rather than

understanding the complex underlying patterns of disharmony and

explicating upon them, just like Huang Huang and the many many other

fine practitioners of our lineage?

 

 

>

> Actually redefining herbs in a psycho emotional framework is a bit

> strange

> to Chinese medicine. Therefore we frequently see people just giving

> an herb

> (or stating) such as yu jin for depression. This is a mistake!

> Actually,

> what herb is not good for depression? If the pattern fits any

> formula/herb

> can work. Simplifying things in this manner does us no good.

>

OF COURSE, Jason. Jeffrey Yuen is not redefining these herbs in a

psycho-emotional framework. Just giving someone yu jin for depression

is idiocy. Of course it is a mistake. Of course any herb might be

good for depression, depending on the profile of the client. Spare

me, Jason, all association with those who " simplify things in this

manner. "

 

 

 

 

>

> However, there still are specifics in Chinese medicine that we must

> honor.

> For example in the Jin Gui Yao Lue there is the formula, bai ye

> tang, for

> unrelenting the vomiting of blood (from middle burner cold from

> deficiency).

> This includes specific stop bleeding herbs as well as herbs to

> address the

> underlying root cause. An elegant formula. However, just because we

> understand the pathodynamic does not mean we can use this for other

> psychospiritual problems that have a cold deficient pattern.

> Actually it is

> very specific for bleeding and I would be surprised if it has much use

> beyond that. Even if we did use this for other psycho emotional

> problems

> there is little question in my mind that ZZJ WAS NOT thinking in

> this way.

> This is the point of specific terminology in Chinese medicine. To do

> anything other than use the formula for its indications and pattern it

> addresses is of course purely an experiment.

>

I studied herbs frequently with Ted Kaptchuk. Beginning in 1989 I

took his entire herb course 4 times (he made me his teaching assistant

the 3rd time through and then faculty the 4th time through). I took

his course over and over again basically to have the right to ask him

endless questions about how to understand formula descriptions as

portraits of an energetic pattern. These energetic patterns naturally

have body mind and spirit correlates. We discussed all patterns,

including various different kinds of bleeding, in terms of the

bodymindspirit energetics. There are no patterns in Chinese medicine

which are " only physical, " just as there are no patterns with are

" only emotional. " All patterns exist on all levels, although they may

take their primary manifestation on one level or another (or

several). I do not think there can be any argument about this, but I

will wait and see!

 

>

> So it is not Elizabeth I have a beef with, for I have no idea what

> she said

> and in what context. It is the take away message that I seem to

> question.

>

I think you have taken away a very different message than I did,

brother-in-herbs.

 

 

 

> Maybe we all agree, but I do not think we have free reign to read the

> classics as parables or fractals or whatever else.

>

I think you do not understand what I mean by parables, or what a

fractal is. It is exactly what you are talking about-- an exact

replica of a pattern that repeats itself on many levels, e.g. a

pattern of disharmony. I am not saying anything different than what

you are saying by my use of these words.

 

 

 

> There is a specific

> language and logic that we must follow and I agree with Thea etc.

> that if

> one is merely trying to find the underlying pathodynamic of the

> passage, by

> using the symptoms that are listed, then we are on the same page as

> this is

> just an obvious achievement.

>

1) yes, we are " merely " trying to find the underlying pathodynamic of

the passage, and

 

2) now that we know the underlying pathodynamic of the passage, we are

applying it in physical as well as non-physical symptomatology as it

applies to clients who fit this profile.

 

Yes, this is an obvious achievement, but for some reason it becomes

extremely volatile when we TALK ABOUT IT, as in the case of Jeffrey

Yuen et alia who speak out loud about some of the psycho-emotional

symptomatology associated differentially with various patterns of

disharmony.

 

I am not sure why people get so volatile about this, since yes it is

an obvious achievement, but perhaps that volatility is because of the

silly jokers who go around giving yu jin for depression and feeling

very spiritual about it. When this sort of work is done with

attention and rigor, in the traditional Chinese manner of keen

attention to a differential analysis of underlying pattern, I cannot

see why there would be any objection.

 

We all, here, share the concern that no one be making things up. We

all have concern that traditional Chinese ways of thinking be

followed. I do not think that Jeffrey Yuen, Sharon Weisenbaum, Ted

Kaptchuk, Huang Huang or any other practitioner who, understanding the

pathomechanism of a formula, uses it for symptoms that 1) were not

mentioned in the original text, or 2) for congruently appropriate

psycho-emotional symptomatology is " making things up. " In fact, it's

called doing a good job at diagnosis.

 

 

 

> If this happens to line up with a modern day

> psychological problem then this is also obvious usage for that

> formula.

> However saying that 'tu xue' or other terms have broader physcho-

> spirtual

> meanings is a bit far-fetched. I am not saying that Thea intended

> this, but

> many practitioners like to riff in this manner.

>

I cannot answer for " many practitioners who like to riff in this

manner. " I got into this discussion because of commentary doubting

the validity of Jeffrey Yuen's work because he says things about

psycho-spiritual matters that cannot be directly and explicitly

supported by classical text.

 

Every term in Chinese medicine is used as part of the creation of a

symptom picture which will elegantly convey to later practitioners the

potentialities of the energetic patterns addressed by the formula (or

acupuncture point). tu xue is no exception; if it were left out of

the description, the picture would be energetically different.

 

 

Are we in accord thus far?

 

 

 

Thea Elijah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> Thoughts?

>

> -Jason

>

> Acupuncture

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> On Behalf Of

>

> Sharon, great response but you kind of lost me at the end. Although

> I can

> relate to deeper, alternative meanings of meat stuck or not stuck in

> the

> throat, bitterness and tree sap, vomiting blood is so graphic and

> specific,

> I feel like I still need a Eureka breakthrough here.

>

> And to you and everyone on CHA... Happy New Year.... Metal Tiger

> coming up!

>

> Doug

>

>

[Guest guest]

Ray, Sharon, Bob and Jason

 

As the torch keepers of this dialog, I appreciate it. Ray is right, Thea's

approach to humanity is a breath of fresh air, similar to Dr. Shen's. She brings

a creative way of building knowledge. I think that it is good for it to be

tempered in forums like this. It is a form of participatory action research,

where the validity of the thinking is ironed out amongst peers. It is good to

question the thinker. I would also like pay attention to the questioner.

 

In the end, medicine is a socially constructed phenomena. I often say that we

make all of this stuff up. We do it in every moment of our lives and practices.

Is old made up stuff better than new made up stuff? Sometimes, especially if it

was Zhong Zhong Jing. But, not always, because it is very relative.

 

Now, if Jeffery Yuen made some stuff up, or read contemporary thought that was

made up and included it, this is fine - provided the community accepts it and,

most importantly, that it leads to improved clinical outcomes.

 

Bob mentioned Shanghai TCM University as a credential that we could rely upon in

order to understand and validate Yuen's contributions. I submit that the type of

knowledge products coming out of the major TCM baccalaureate programs is largely

reproductive of committee processed, state approved knowledge. As a result, the

type of syncretic, creative and unique thinking that someone like Yuen brings to

the table is not possible when formed by major TCM institutions, primarily

because of the focus upon reproductive rather than creative forms of inquiry and

knowledge building.

 

Jason mentioned the rigors of linguistics and anthropology in the study of

classics as means to a valid work product (paraphrase). These are important, as

is translation focused upon the language of origin. This is reproductive

knowledge and there is a need for the highest accuracy possible. One of the

problems, of course, is that when we are talking about knowledge framed in a

period 2,000 years ago, much of it is speculative.

 

In the end all we can ever do, is take knowledge from our studies and

experiences and construct it in a way that is meaningful for us and our

patients. Whether we draw upon speculations - even professionally informed ones

- or, we draw upon contemporary biomedical concepts synthesized with Chinese

medicine, or we take some contemporary European interpretation --- it is ours,

now, if we choose. We are responsible.

 

From a transdisciplinary view, where the two opposites have an included middle,

both reproductive and creative knowledge have a place in our dialog and

practice. Here, we see a perfect example of it bringing people to question their

through processes. Good. The opposites refine each other, bind and transform

each other.

 

Happy New Year All

 

Doug, thanks for managing the list...

 

Warmly,

 

Will

[Guest guest]

Hi Sharon,

 

 

 

I do have a digital copy, however if you see a jiantizi version (maybe hard

to find in Taiwan) I would love it. Do you know where the ¶ì discussion

is?

I think there are many aspects of this book that might be useful discussing

here on the CHA.

 

 

 

Thanks, and happy new year

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of swzoe2000

Friday, January 01, 2010 12:37 AM

 

Re: Esoteric Herbology Book?

 

 

 

 

 

Hi Jason,

 

I meant my reply to be to your post regarding getting the book Si Kao Zhong

Yi - if you'd like it, I could pick it up for you I'm pretty sure.

 

Best

 

Sharon

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

William,

I also appreciate all the voices in the dialog. But I want to return to the

ground of this discussion, and that is the original comment by Elisabeth Rochat

de la Vallee.

 

If we don't have the original context of her comment, or have her to explain

exactly what she meant by it, we can have an interesting dialogue, but we are

not going to have resolution of the conflict over 'tu xue' and its meaning in

contextual reality.

 

I would just add that for myself some of the beauty of Chinese medicine is

not just the creativity, but the source literature such as the Shang Han Lun

itself. I continue to be amazed when I use prescriptions such as Dang gui si ni

tang and see wonderful results, according to the patterns Zhang Zhong Jing

observed, in modern patients, 1800 years or so later. It points to a longevity

in the medicine that modern biomedicine has yet to achieve. It connects me to a

tradition, a living stream, and, yes a creative future built on strong

foundations.

 

We need our oracles and inspiring teachers, but they too build on the ancient

foundations of our art/science. Chinese medicine again is a literary tradition,

canonical, as well as clinical.

 

 

On Jan 1, 2010, at 5:14 AM, William wrote:

 

> Ray, Sharon, Bob and Jason

>

> As the torch keepers of this dialog, I appreciate it. Ray is right, Thea's

approach to humanity is a breath of fresh air, similar to Dr. Shen's. She brings

a creative way of building knowledge. I think that it is good for it to be

tempered in forums like this. It is a form of participatory action research,

where the validity of the thinking is ironed out amongst peers. It is good to

question the thinker. I would also like pay attention to the questioner.

>

> In the end, medicine is a socially constructed phenomena. I often say that we

make all of this stuff up. We do it in every moment of our lives and practices.

Is old made up stuff better than new made up stuff? Sometimes, especially if it

was Zhong Zhong Jing. But, not always, because it is very relative.

>

> Now, if Jeffery Yuen made some stuff up, or read contemporary thought that was

made up and included it, this is fine - provided the community accepts it and,

most importantly, that it leads to improved clinical outcomes.

>

> Bob mentioned Shanghai TCM University as a credential that we could rely upon

in order to understand and validate Yuen's contributions. I submit that the type

of knowledge products coming out of the major TCM baccalaureate programs is

largely reproductive of committee processed, state approved knowledge. As a

result, the type of syncretic, creative and unique thinking that someone like

Yuen brings to the table is not possible when formed by major TCM institutions,

primarily because of the focus upon reproductive rather than creative forms of

inquiry and knowledge building.

>

> Jason mentioned the rigors of linguistics and anthropology in the study of

classics as means to a valid work product (paraphrase). These are important, as

is translation focused upon the language of origin. This is reproductive

knowledge and there is a need for the highest accuracy possible. One of the

problems, of course, is that when we are talking about knowledge framed in a

period 2,000 years ago, much of it is speculative.

>

> In the end all we can ever do, is take knowledge from our studies and

experiences and construct it in a way that is meaningful for us and our

patients. Whether we draw upon speculations - even professionally informed ones

- or, we draw upon contemporary biomedical concepts synthesized with Chinese

medicine, or we take some contemporary European interpretation --- it is ours,

now, if we choose. We are responsible.

>

> From a transdisciplinary view, where the two opposites have an included

middle, both reproductive and creative knowledge have a place in our dialog and

practice. Here, we see a perfect example of it bringing people to question their

through processes. Good. The opposites refine each other, bind and transform

each other.

>

> Happy New Year All

>

> Doug, thanks for managing the list...

>

> Warmly,

>

> Will

>

>

 

 

Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

1. Double neg is correct. Sorry for the confusion, this is a very

Chinese way of saying this and is a little awkward in English, but it is

correct.

 

2. My comments are not directed at you or anyone else personally.

Quite simply there are many levels of herbalism and I have seen many very

simplified thinkers (silly jokers as you say) make all sort of assumptions,

especially when applying psycho-spiritual attributes.

 

3. On a side (netiquette) note, consider not using ALL CAPS.

 

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Thea Elijah

Friday, January 01, 2010 6:08 AM

 

Re: Re: Esoteric Herbology Book?

 

 

 

 

 

Fantastic. I knew we could make it if we try. I think we are on the

verge of seeing in the same light. From this post below, I think we

are actually on the same page.

 

On Dec 31, 2009, at 10:06 AM, wrote:

 

>

>

> I do not think that anyone can deny that doctors have not expanded

> upon uses

> for ancient formulas.

>

double negative here-- I think this is an error? (not a big deal--

just clarifying)

 

> For example, look at the wide range of uses now for

> Xiao Chai Hu Tang, based on just a few lines of text. ZZJ could have

> never

> imagined how far it has come. Furthermore, there is no doubt that a

> whole

> host of what we now call psychological issues can be dealt with from

> basic

> formulas that did not originally discuss these. Quite simply, as we

> know

> mind, emotions, spirit, and physical body are one and the same. This

> is also

> CM 101. Furthermore, the pathodynamic, as Sharon and Greg point out,

> is the

> most important thing to grasp. Understanding this allows one to use a

> formula in a wide variety of ways. This is CM 102.

>

yes

 

>

>

> First, quite simply if one understands the pathodynamic one can

> treat any

> sort of psychological disorder because as stated above, it is just

> part of

> the normal pathology mapped out by Chinese medicine.

>

YES precisely, absolutely, exactly.

 

In essence that is ALL I AM SAYING. It is just that, frequently, in

the text, the psycho-spiritual symptoms are not listed BECAUSE THEY

ARE ALREADY IMPLIED by the profile of the pathomechanism.

 

I think that I am, above, saying the exact same thing that you are.

If we both recognize this, we have a solid foundation between us for

further possible agreement.

 

> However what happens

> quite frequently is that these proponents of psycho-spiritual

> indications

> rarely understand the pathodynamics. They simply state things like

> yu jin is

> good for depression because it is called " depression gold. " When you

> associate a treatment with a " psycho-spiritual indication " you are

> assigning

> a symptom to a treatment designed for a pathodynamic/pattern. Rarely

> in

> Chinese medicine are herbs/ formulas attributed to one symptom/

> disease (e.g.

> anxiety). It is always within a context of multiple symptoms making

> up a

> pattern.

>

Yes, of course, absolutely! Do me a favor, esteemed colleague--

after 20 years of clinical practice with herbs and 13 years as an herb

teacher including supervision in busy student clinics, spare me

association with such utterly superficial diagnostics or usages of

herbs! Please! I have only been on this list for a few months, but I

have not seen evidence of anyone being as superficial and ridiculous

as to suppose such cheap herbal associations here; at the very least,

after being for many years the director of two AACOM accredited

Chinese herbal programs, spare me.

 

I don't think anyone here is that kind of silly joker.

 

Are you really saying that this is what Jeffrey Yuen is doing--

just taking such terms and running with them, rather than

understanding the complex underlying patterns of disharmony and

explicating upon them, just like Huang Huang and the many many other

fine practitioners of our lineage?

 

>

> Actually redefining herbs in a psycho emotional framework is a bit

> strange

> to Chinese medicine. Therefore we frequently see people just giving

> an herb

> (or stating) such as yu jin for depression. This is a mistake!

> Actually,

> what herb is not good for depression? If the pattern fits any

> formula/herb

> can work. Simplifying things in this manner does us no good.

>

OF COURSE, Jason. Jeffrey Yuen is not redefining these herbs in a

psycho-emotional framework. Just giving someone yu jin for depression

is idiocy. Of course it is a mistake. Of course any herb might be

good for depression, depending on the profile of the client. Spare

me, Jason, all association with those who " simplify things in this

manner. "

 

>

> However, there still are specifics in Chinese medicine that we must

> honor.

> For example in the Jin Gui Yao Lue there is the formula, bai ye

> tang, for

> unrelenting the vomiting of blood (from middle burner cold from

> deficiency).

> This includes specific stop bleeding herbs as well as herbs to

> address the

> underlying root cause. An elegant formula. However, just because we

> understand the pathodynamic does not mean we can use this for other

> psychospiritual problems that have a cold deficient pattern.

> Actually it is

> very specific for bleeding and I would be surprised if it has much use

> beyond that. Even if we did use this for other psycho emotional

> problems

> there is little question in my mind that ZZJ WAS NOT thinking in

> this way.

> This is the point of specific terminology in Chinese medicine. To do

> anything other than use the formula for its indications and pattern it

> addresses is of course purely an experiment.

>

I studied herbs frequently with Ted Kaptchuk. Beginning in 1989 I

took his entire herb course 4 times (he made me his teaching assistant

the 3rd time through and then faculty the 4th time through). I took

his course over and over again basically to have the right to ask him

endless questions about how to understand formula descriptions as

portraits of an energetic pattern. These energetic patterns naturally

have body mind and spirit correlates. We discussed all patterns,

including various different kinds of bleeding, in terms of the

bodymindspirit energetics. There are no patterns in Chinese medicine

which are " only physical, " just as there are no patterns with are

" only emotional. " All patterns exist on all levels, although they may

take their primary manifestation on one level or another (or

several). I do not think there can be any argument about this, but I

will wait and see!

 

>

> So it is not Elizabeth I have a beef with, for I have no idea what

> she said

> and in what context. It is the take away message that I seem to

> question.

>

I think you have taken away a very different message than I did,

brother-in-herbs.

 

> Maybe we all agree, but I do not think we have free reign to read the

> classics as parables or fractals or whatever else.

>

I think you do not understand what I mean by parables, or what a

fractal is. It is exactly what you are talking about-- an exact

replica of a pattern that repeats itself on many levels, e.g. a

pattern of disharmony. I am not saying anything different than what

you are saying by my use of these words.

 

> There is a specific

> language and logic that we must follow and I agree with Thea etc.

> that if

> one is merely trying to find the underlying pathodynamic of the

> passage, by

> using the symptoms that are listed, then we are on the same page as

> this is

> just an obvious achievement.

>

1) yes, we are " merely " trying to find the underlying pathodynamic of

the passage, and

 

2) now that we know the underlying pathodynamic of the passage, we are

applying it in physical as well as non-physical symptomatology as it

applies to clients who fit this profile.

 

Yes, this is an obvious achievement, but for some reason it becomes

extremely volatile when we TALK ABOUT IT, as in the case of Jeffrey

Yuen et alia who speak out loud about some of the psycho-emotional

symptomatology associated differentially with various patterns of

disharmony.

 

I am not sure why people get so volatile about this, since yes it is

an obvious achievement, but perhaps that volatility is because of the

silly jokers who go around giving yu jin for depression and feeling

very spiritual about it. When this sort of work is done with

attention and rigor, in the traditional Chinese manner of keen

attention to a differential analysis of underlying pattern, I cannot

see why there would be any objection.

 

We all, here, share the concern that no one be making things up. We

all have concern that traditional Chinese ways of thinking be

followed. I do not think that Jeffrey Yuen, Sharon Weisenbaum, Ted

Kaptchuk, Huang Huang or any other practitioner who, understanding the

pathomechanism of a formula, uses it for symptoms that 1) were not

mentioned in the original text, or 2) for congruently appropriate

psycho-emotional symptomatology is " making things up. " In fact, it's

called doing a good job at diagnosis.

 

> If this happens to line up with a modern day

> psychological problem then this is also obvious usage for that

> formula.

> However saying that 'tu xue' or other terms have broader physcho-

> spirtual

> meanings is a bit far-fetched. I am not saying that Thea intended

> this, but

> many practitioners like to riff in this manner.

>

I cannot answer for " many practitioners who like to riff in this

manner. " I got into this discussion because of commentary doubting

the validity of Jeffrey Yuen's work because he says things about

psycho-spiritual matters that cannot be directly and explicitly

supported by classical text.

 

Every term in Chinese medicine is used as part of the creation of a

symptom picture which will elegantly convey to later practitioners the

potentialities of the energetic patterns addressed by the formula (or

acupuncture point). tu xue is no exception; if it were left out of

the description, the picture would be energetically different.

 

Are we in accord thus far?

 

Thea Elijah

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

>

> Hi Sharon,

>

>

>

> I do have a digital copy, however if you see a jiantizi version (maybe hard

> to find in Taiwan) I would love it. Do you know where the ¶ì discussion is?

> I think there are many aspects of this book that might be useful discussing

> here on the CHA.

>

>

>

> Thanks, and happy new year

>

>

>

> -Jason

>

 

> On Behalf Of swzoe2000

> Friday, January 01, 2010 12:37 AM

>

 

 

The copy here is Jiantizi and I will do my best to get you a copy.

[Guest guest]

It is fascinating to read through these posts.

 

What I find most interesting is that the very tones of the word

choices and the sentence structures of each participant and the

contrast between them vivify and illuminate the topic.

 

Resonates like a discussion between people about a group of beautiful

plants where some are mostly focused on knowing the names and

terminology to describe the plants and what they are " good for " and

others (particularly one other) are saying " yes, that's true but take

a look/smell/feel........ " Both/And or as the Japanese say " This

plus alpha "

 

--

Duncan E

 

" We are here to help each other get though this thing, whatever it is. "

-Mark Vonnegut

[Guest guest]

Hi Sharon,

There are three Jiantizi book stores near Taida. You can ask Anthony where

they are.

Gabe Fuentes

 

 

 

________________________________

 

 

Fri, January 1, 2010 6:14:59 AM

RE: Re: Esoteric Herbology Book?

 

 

Hi Sharon,

 

I do have a digital copy, however if you see a jiantizi version (maybe hard

to find in Taiwan) I would love it. Do you know where the 苦 discussion is?

I think there are many aspects of this book that might be useful discussing

here on the CHA.

 

Thanks, and happy new year

 

-Jason

 

 

[] On Behalf Of swzoe2000

Friday, January 01, 2010 12:37 AM

 

Re: Esoteric Herbology Book?

 

Hi Jason,

 

I meant my reply to be to your post regarding getting the book Si Kao Zhong

Yi - if you'd like it, I could pick it up for you I'm pretty sure.

 

Best

 

Sharon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi all,

 

I'd like to address the issue of what kinds of statements regarding

psycho-spiritual issues seem faulty to me and which kinds don't. I want to do

this because it doesn't seem right that those who have a problem with faulty

statements are made out to be anti-psycho-spirtual or even worse

" fundamentalists " (yikes!).

 

For me, it's not the fact that psycho-spiritual matters are talked about that

causes me to cringe or makes me feel this is MSU or new-age indulgences. It is

more the foundation from which these matters are sometimes talked about. There

is a way that these psycho-spiritual things are talked about that seems faulty

to me. It feels faulty to many practitioners but when we cringe at it or speak

out about it, we risk being thought of as not spiritual enough or to not think

that the psycho-spiritual is important. What I mean is as follows.

 

When Dr. Huang Huang talks about Ban Xia being used for " the feeling of

something being there that is not there " and relating this to " something like "

hypochondria and paranoia, he does something else before, during and after. He

makes it clear, over and over, that any Ban Xia formula is used for this symptom

only in the context of the complete presentation. Dr. Huang Huang is relentless

about this concept. He does not refer back to the basics because he thinks we,

as students, don't get it. Rather he refers back because that is the deeper

well of context that any particular indication comes from. Liu Lihong as well

does not leave statements about bitterness and suffering in relationship to Shao

Yang out there without context. So, as Trevor was saying earlier, plum pit Qi or

this feeling of something being there that isn't, can come from many

patho-mechanisms.

 

What I see being done with psycho-emotional symptoms that is different from the

immense care so many doctors like Dr. Huang take in making sure students always

have this base is that broad statements about psycho-emotional symptoms are made

without referring to any context or presentation.

 

 

So things like

 

Chuan Xiong Cha Tiao Wan being recommended when someone isn't hearing someone

else. Hu Po being recommended for recovering forgotten memories. Ban Xia Hou

Po Tang being recommended for unresolved feelings of resentment, Sheng Mai San

is for when you feel you've been " burnt " ......this all sounds silly to me at

best and really quite misleading. These kinds of statements abound and, for me,

they are off putting. But the reasons they are off putting has absolutely

nothing to do with whether I value the psycho-emotional aspects of illness and

health or not. There are several reasons why these statements and the many like

them sound sound off base to me.

 

One is that the fact that an inability to hear what someone is saying, lack of

access to memories, feeling burnt and unresolved feelings of resentment are not

symptoms that are tied uniquely to these herbs and formulas or even to the

patho-mechanisms represented by these formulas - as is put forward in the above

statements. These emotional symptoms are just stories that arise from a dynamic

and the same story can arise from a different dynamic than the one listed.

 

Secondly, in terms of diagnosis, psycho-emotional symptoms like the ones above

mean nothing by themselves about the patho-mechanisms at work. The doctor must

be able to see the movement or lack of movement or the quality of movement of

the Qi (in the broad sense of Qi) in order to use psycho-emotional symptoms to

inform a diagnosis. The more personalized and story-like the description of an

emotion is the farther away from the root dynamic it is. The job of the doctor

is to translate and connect the patient's personalized description of an emotion

or habitual psycho-emotional pattern, into a view of the movements of the Qi. We

certainly should not jump from something like unresolved resentment straight to

a formula.

 

Thirdly, to me, the more personalized the psycho-emotional description is, the

easier it is to identify with it for us and for our patients. Emotions are

seductive. Our patient's emotional life and our own can feel so rich, deep and

textured. It can feel juicier than the simple movement of Qi. So, when I read

or hear statements like the ones above, I find myself wondering why the author

is so intoxicated with emotions - as if they are more real than the basic

dynamics. It feels actually less connected to spirit to me because it shows a

lack of trust that the spirit is innate in the basic dynamics. I see that

students who are looking for a more spiritual medicine are seduced by such talk.

It has the appearance of being deep and full with wisdom when really it not so

useful. The movements of Qi are profoundly rich in their manifestations and the

power to promote healing on psycho-emotional levels is just there. It doesn't

add to our ability to help facilitate this type of healing to talk about it out

of context of a grounded understanding. In fact, I feel it takes us further

away.

 

We should never assume that a practitioner who does not talk about

psycho-spiritual things is not aware of them and working with them in amazing

ways. Nor should we assume that someone who does reference them a lot

automatically must have deep insight. Not that we should assume the opposite

either.

 

Fourthly, to me, statements like the ones above point us away from clarity into

the rich, juicy, textured world of our patient's emotional miasmas. Something I

love about Chinese medicine is that we can, hopefully, hold a kind of

un-entangled place of clarity for and with our patients. We can hear the

emotional confusions and have it point us back toward the clarity instead of

pushing us into the fray. We do this by listening/looking/feeling for the whole

context and presentation. Quickly jumping to some conclusion about what

unresolved bitterness means just leaves us in a muddle.

 

Finally, to me, trying to give an herb to help someone recover memories is the

same as trying to give an herb to bring down someone's blood pressure. What is

the good blood pressure herb? There isn't one. That's the point of Chinese

medicine. For the most part, don't treat symptoms as primary- whether they are

psycho-emotional or physical. We treat presentations and the people who are

manifesting the presentation. The symptoms work themselves out this way. So,

statements like the one above indicate that the practitioner treats

symptomatically rather than holistically. In other words, just because you are

treating an emotional symptom does not make your medicine holistic.

 

If such statements were qualified and expanded on as many teachers and writers

do, they would hold weight for me. I think that those who want to do more to

include the psycho-emotional-spiritual aspects of our medicine should be

disciplined about this in order to stabilize credibility.

 

I experience the medicine as very rich in many levels but it's taken a lot of

time for me to even start to touch this in a way that feels real. It takes time

and patience and mindful clinical work to let the medicine deepen in us. We

can't plaster the psycho-emotional-spiritual onto it out of impatience or

spiritual emptiness. It has always been there and it will reveal itself to us

in time.

 

I appreciate the chance to think this through and welcome other's thoughts.

 

Sharon

[Guest guest]

Great post Sharon!

[Guest guest]

Hi Z'ev

-

Good strategy, return to the basis of the conversation. I think that you have

already put in the place holder on that, and we wait to hear from Elisabeth

Rochat de la Vallee on that. Agreed.

 

I agree with , as you say, " We need our oracles and inspiring teachers, but they

too build on the ancient foundations of our art/science. Chinese medicine again

is a literary tradition, canonical, as well as clinical. " I just think that we

need to apply as much of a grain of salt there as we do to modern creative

contributors.

 

So, as I said, and sorry for the jargon, " From a transdisciplinary view, where

the two opposites have an included middle, both reproductive and creative

knowledge have a place in our dialog and practice. Here, we see a perfect

example of it bringing people to question their through processes. Good. The

opposites refine each other, bind and transform each other. "

 

Warmly,

 

Will

[Guest guest]

Sharon and others,

 

 

 

This is one of the best posts I've seen on this topic, nice job. I think it

sums up everything quite well and I have little more to say. As you are some

final thoughts...

 

 

 

I also find it quite humorous that if one questions the rigor (which

certainly needs to happen) of those who assign psycho-emotional attributes

then they are labeled as technicians, fundamentalists, anti-spiritual, or

not understanding the " deep " aspects of medicine. Not only does this

completely miss the boat, but it polarizing this discussion into two camps.

 

 

 

Quite simply, I do not think anyone is stating that there is not deeper

meanings within Chinese medicine/classical texts, then the mere words on the

page. It is as Sharons states, how we go about figuring this out is the real

issue. There are obviously problems with some modern approaches to learning

CM. However, merely rubbing on rosemary oil for " liver and gallbladder

problems " is far from any solution in my book.

 

 

 

I think (as Sharon's brings up) the overly ambitious goal for emphasizing

psycho-spiritual aspects in CM / Herbs must be looked at. More times than

not, these people do not know the basics, are not experts like Huang Huang,

and are constantly talking about the communist destroying Chinese medicine.

They can quote Larre, yet have not the first idea about what herbs are in

siwutang. Is " regular " Chinese medicine really incapable of addressing such

issues? I don't think so... For the record, I have every Larre book and

enjoy them greatly.

 

 

 

So when I hear someone say " tu xue " does not really mean " tu xue " and that

we can understand the deeper psycho-emotional-spiritual aspects if we learn

to read between the lines, I hope you can see that this just shoots up a red

flag. It is impossible for us to know the understanding of participants on

this list (especially someone new to) therefore I hope when ideas are

confronted they are not taken personally. For example it is clear that Thea

he has a deeper understanding of herbs compared to many who talk in a

similar manner.

 

 

 

Finally, if J. Yuen, or anyone else for that matter, presents an idea that

makes little sense from the volumes of Chinese medicine past and present

texts, this must be examined and questioned. Just because someone is a

" daoist priest " and believes in the " deeper meaning in Chinese medicine "

gives them in my opinion no free pass. Proponents of oral traditions often

say things such as, we can't just believe it because it's written down on a

piece of paper, somehow devaluing the rigor of CM's past. Let us not forget

that things written down on a piece of paper are evaluated by tens of

thousands of doctors over sometimes 1800+ years. This is no small matter.

Oral tradition on the contrary has no check and balance system. In quite

simply, because of this, it should be questioned with even more strictness.

It seems too often that because it is " oral tradition " that somehow it is

from the word of God and must be true because their grandfather said it was

so. Ha.

 

 

 

Finally the argument that only clinical results matter, is a valid argument.

But I do have a hard time believing that in general oral tradition odd-ball

ideas will generally outperform tried and true written tradition. But of

course, everything must be evaluated with a stern eye. I just find that many

oral tradition proponents do not rigorously evaluate their " teachings. " This

is just my observation and not pointed at anyone directly but anyone in

Chinese medicine in the West (with the many multiple modalities that are

used on a given patient) know how difficult it is to actually evaluate a

specific technique or treatment idea. Most of the time attachment to

something trumps actual rigorous valuation.

 

 

 

Back to work...

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Acupuncture

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of swzoe2000

Saturday, January 02, 2010 1:59 AM

 

Re: Esoteric Herbology Book?

 

 

 

 

 

Hi all,

 

I'd like to address the issue of what kinds of statements regarding

psycho-spiritual issues seem faulty to me and which kinds don't. I want to

do this because it doesn't seem right that those who have a problem with

faulty statements are made out to be anti-psycho-spirtual or even worse

" fundamentalists " (yikes!).

 

For me, it's not the fact that psycho-spiritual matters are talked about

that causes me to cringe or makes me feel this is MSU or new-age

indulgences. It is more the foundation from which these matters are

sometimes talked about. There is a way that these psycho-spiritual things

are talked about that seems faulty to me. It feels faulty to many

practitioners but when we cringe at it or speak out about it, we risk being

thought of as not spiritual enough or to not think that the psycho-spiritual

is important. What I mean is as follows.

 

When Dr. Huang Huang talks about Ban Xia being used for " the feeling of

something being there that is not there " and relating this to " something

like " hypochondria and paranoia, he does something else before, during and

after. He makes it clear, over and over, that any Ban Xia formula is used

for this symptom only in the context of the complete presentation. Dr. Huang

Huang is relentless about this concept. He does not refer back to the basics

because he thinks we, as students, don't get it. Rather he refers back

because that is the deeper well of context that any particular indication

comes from. Liu Lihong as well does not leave statements about bitterness

and suffering in relationship to Shao Yang out there without context. So, as

Trevor was saying earlier, plum pit Qi or this feeling of something being

there that isn't, can come from many patho-mechanisms.

 

What I see being done with psycho-emotional symptoms that is different from

the immense care so many doctors like Dr. Huang take in making sure students

always have this base is that broad statements about psycho-emotional

symptoms are made without referring to any context or presentation.

 

So things like

 

Chuan Xiong Cha Tiao Wan being recommended when someone isn't hearing

someone else. Hu Po being recommended for recovering forgotten memories. Ban

Xia Hou Po Tang being recommended for unresolved feelings of resentment,

Sheng Mai San is for when you feel you've been " burnt " ......this all sounds

silly to me at best and really quite misleading. These kinds of statements

abound and, for me, they are off putting. But the reasons they are off

putting has absolutely nothing to do with whether I value the

psycho-emotional aspects of illness and health or not. There are several

reasons why these statements and the many like them sound sound off base to

me.

 

One is that the fact that an inability to hear what someone is saying, lack

of access to memories, feeling burnt and unresolved feelings of resentment

are not symptoms that are tied uniquely to these herbs and formulas or even

to the patho-mechanisms represented by these formulas - as is put forward in

the above statements. These emotional symptoms are just stories that arise

from a dynamic and the same story can arise from a different dynamic than

the one listed.

 

Secondly, in terms of diagnosis, psycho-emotional symptoms like the ones

above mean nothing by themselves about the patho-mechanisms at work. The

doctor must be able to see the movement or lack of movement or the quality

of movement of the Qi (in the broad sense of Qi) in order to use

psycho-emotional symptoms to inform a diagnosis. The more personalized and

story-like the description of an emotion is the farther away from the root

dynamic it is. The job of the doctor is to translate and connect the

patient's personalized description of an emotion or habitual

psycho-emotional pattern, into a view of the movements of the Qi. We

certainly should not jump from something like unresolved resentment straight

to a formula.

 

Thirdly, to me, the more personalized the psycho-emotional description is,

the easier it is to identify with it for us and for our patients. Emotions

are seductive. Our patient's emotional life and our own can feel so rich,

deep and textured. It can feel juicier than the simple movement of Qi. So,

when I read or hear statements like the ones above, I find myself wondering

why the author is so intoxicated with emotions - as if they are more real

than the basic dynamics. It feels actually less connected to spirit to me

because it shows a lack of trust that the spirit is innate in the basic

dynamics. I see that students who are looking for a more spiritual medicine

are seduced by such talk. It has the appearance of being deep and full with

wisdom when really it not so useful. The movements of Qi are profoundly rich

in their manifestations and the power to promote healing on psycho-emotional

levels is just there. It doesn't add to our ability to help facilitate this

type of healing to talk about it out of context of a grounded understanding.

In fact, I feel it takes us further away.

 

We should never assume that a practitioner who does not talk about

psycho-spiritual things is not aware of them and working with them in

amazing ways. Nor should we assume that someone who does reference them a

lot automatically must have deep insight. Not that we should assume the

opposite either.

 

Fourthly, to me, statements like the ones above point us away from clarity

into the rich, juicy, textured world of our patient's emotional miasmas.

Something I love about Chinese medicine is that we can, hopefully, hold a

kind of un-entangled place of clarity for and with our patients. We can hear

the emotional confusions and have it point us back toward the clarity

instead of pushing us into the fray. We do this by listening/looking/feeling

for the whole context and presentation. Quickly jumping to some conclusion

about what unresolved bitterness means just leaves us in a muddle.

 

Finally, to me, trying to give an herb to help someone recover memories is

the same as trying to give an herb to bring down someone's blood pressure.

What is the good blood pressure herb? There isn't one. That's the point of

Chinese medicine. For the most part, don't treat symptoms as primary-

whether they are psycho-emotional or physical. We treat presentations and

the people who are manifesting the presentation. The symptoms work

themselves out this way. So, statements like the one above indicate that the

practitioner treats symptomatically rather than holistically. In other

words, just because you are treating an emotional symptom does not make your

medicine holistic.

 

If such statements were qualified and expanded on as many teachers and

writers do, they would hold weight for me. I think that those who want to do

more to include the psycho-emotional-spiritual aspects of our medicine

should be disciplined about this in order to stabilize credibility.

 

I experience the medicine as very rich in many levels but it's taken a lot

of time for me to even start to touch this in a way that feels real. It

takes time and patience and mindful clinical work to let the medicine deepen

in us. We can't plaster the psycho-emotional-spiritual onto it out of

impatience or spiritual emptiness. It has always been there and it will

reveal itself to us in time.

 

I appreciate the chance to think this through and welcome other's thoughts.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Thank you Sharon for your clear perspective and analysis, tempered by years

of experience and experimentation and solid grounding in classical training.

 

I really enjoyed reading your post, like being in a story-circle listening

to a wisdom-fable.

 

I also applaud Thea for listening to the " spirit of the plants " . I think

that there are many ways to listen to the plants and one of the most

effective is by seeing their inter-relationships within formulas. Huang

Huang's " 50 Medicinals " book has taught me more about the " personality " of

the herbs that Zhang Zhong Jing uses time and time again, more than almost

any other means. It's the patterns and interplay between Gui zhi and Gan

cao or Gui zhi and Bai shao that tells you the character of both. I think

that this type of knowing is so much more complex and clinically relevant

than coloring the personality of an herb with our projection of what it

could be based on what we've been conditioned to know about it already. For

instance, Shu di can be a dark, abyss-like spirit as mysterious as the Dao

and heavy as a rock falling down into a deep well, but how much of the

metaphorical elaboration of the herb is based on appearances or the

functions that we've heard before? Rehmannia is actually a tan-white juicy

root that oxidizes and is processed into the black rock we use in clinic.

That's why if anything, I'm for a large-scale double-blinded study which

could give us more information about how Gui zhi for instance makes people

" feel " on a psycho-dynamic level in the interaction between the plant and

the human host... like a prooving. Otherwise, these metaphors we ascribe to

the herbs can help us connect to them and empathize with them in a deeper

way in our own psyche and help us remember their traditional functions

easier with analogous-learning, but the buck would stop there.

 

In " 50 Medicinals " , Huang Huang references everything back to a quote from

Zhang Zhong Jing. His only interpretation as far as I can see is saying

that if all of these Gui zhi ingredient formulas are used by ZZJ for these

indications, then there must be some clinical purpose and character of the

herb. He also lists commentary by historical commentators.

Can somebody who has studied with him discuss how the 10 personality types

of the herbs were formulated?

 

K

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Jan 2, 2010, at 3:59 AM, swzoe2000 wrote:

 

> Hi all,

>

> I'd like to address the issue of what kinds of statements regarding

> psycho-spiritual issues seem faulty to me and which kinds don't. I

> want to do this because it doesn't seem right that those who have a

> problem with faulty statements are made out to be anti-psycho-

> spirtual or even worse " fundamentalists " (yikes!).

>

Speaking entirely personally-- which seems right at the moment since

it is I who brought the term " fundamentalist " into usage here, I give

deepest apologies if it has come across to others that I use this term

to describe people who have problems with faulty statements. For such

people I use the term " rigorous, " and give my highest respect.

 

Any unclarity about this from my communications is an occasion of

sincere regret for me.

 

From my original post on the subject:

 

" The main point is, one is rarely ever going to be able to point to

classical source texts in order to find direct citations of the more

" esoteric " uses of the herbs-- if by this we are meaning the more

psycho-spiritual indications. These are all inherent directly within

the physical descriptions; it is a matter of understanding how to read

them. "

 

As stated in that first post, I have used the term " fundamentalist " to

describe those who do not believe that the psycho-spiritual

indications are inherent within the physical descriptions.

 

Fundamentalism is a form of rigid literalism, a refusal to understand

text as matrix for patterned meaning in exactly the way that you,

Sharon, describe as no big Eureka.

 

I hope that this is more clear.

 

 

 

As to the rest of this wonderful letter, below, I confess that

although it is clear that you wrote it as a matter of principle, I am

so moved by it that at this time I am incapable of responding other

than personally. #3 was especially a kicker; I hadn't thought of that

one before, and a moral inventory on this point will surely take some

time. Whew!

 

In general I would like to say that I aspire to live by these

standards, and feel grateful to be in a community that will hold me to

them. I pledge that it be my continuous work to become a better

practitioner and more conscious teacher by these standards.

 

 

.....one other thing....

 

You did not say this, but I cannot help reflecting that the 5 Element

portion of the Chinese medicine community (which I still consider

myself to be part of, although many 5 element folk consider me heretic

and apostate) has, generally speaking, been guilty of a high degree of

ignorant self-righteousness and arrogance around " spiritual " aspects

of Chinese medicine. I don't think we are all like that, but it does

make sense that even the ones who aren't like that need to be willing

to take the heat for what others in the 5 element community dish out.

On behalf of past or present 5 Element practitioners who have been

obnoxious insulting snot heads who did not understand that the rest of

Chinese medicine is not an infidel wasteland devoid of spirit, I am

very, very sorry. There has been some true genius, I do believe, but

there has also been pathology that still needs to be looked at. I

acknowledge it, and I apologize, and hope that over time a

relationship of greater trust and more sane exchange can be fostered.

 

 

Thanks again, and in time I hope to respond more impersonally about

the " issues. " Right now, I am pure personal feeling: grateful and

committed.

 

 

Thea Elijah

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> What I see being done with psycho-emotional symptoms that is

> different from the immense care so many doctors like Dr. Huang take

> in making sure students always have this base is that broad

> statements about psycho-emotional symptoms are made without

> referring to any context or presentation.

>

> So things like

>

> Chuan Xiong Cha Tiao Wan being recommended when someone isn't

> hearing someone else. Hu Po being recommended for recovering

> forgotten memories. Ban Xia Hou Po Tang being recommended for

> unresolved feelings of resentment, Sheng Mai San is for when you

> feel you've been " burnt " ......this all sounds silly to me at best

> and really quite misleading. These kinds of statements abound and,

> for me, they are off putting. But the reasons they are off putting

> has absolutely nothing to do with whether I value the psycho-

> emotional aspects of illness and health or not. There are several

> reasons why these statements and the many like them sound sound off

> base to me.

>

> One is that the fact that an inability to hear what someone is

> saying, lack of access to memories, feeling burnt and unresolved

> feelings of resentment are not symptoms that are tied uniquely to

> these herbs and formulas or even to the patho-mechanisms represented

> by these formulas - as is put forward in the above statements. These

> emotional symptoms are just stories that arise from a dynamic and

> the same story can arise from a different dynamic than the one listed.

>

> Secondly, in terms of diagnosis, psycho-emotional symptoms like the

> ones above mean nothing by themselves about the patho-mechanisms at

> work. The doctor must be able to see the movement or lack of

> movement or the quality of movement of the Qi (in the broad sense of

> Qi) in order to use psycho-emotional symptoms to inform a diagnosis.

> The more personalized and story-like the description of an emotion

> is the farther away from the root dynamic it is. The job of the

> doctor is to translate and connect the patient's personalized

> description of an emotion or habitual psycho-emotional pattern, into

> a view of the movements of the Qi. We certainly should not jump from

> something like unresolved resentment straight to a formula.

>

> Thirdly, to me, the more personalized the psycho-emotional

> description is, the easier it is to identify with it for us and for

> our patients. Emotions are seductive. Our patient's emotional life

> and our own can feel so rich, deep and textured. It can feel juicier

> than the simple movement of Qi. So, when I read or hear statements

> like the ones above, I find myself wondering why the author is so

> intoxicated with emotions - as if they are more real than the basic

> dynamics. It feels actually less connected to spirit to me because

> it shows a lack of trust that the spirit is innate in the basic

> dynamics. I see that students who are looking for a more spiritual

> medicine are seduced by such talk. It has the appearance of being

> deep and full with wisdom when really it not so useful. The

> movements of Qi are profoundly rich in their manifestations and the

> power to promote healing on psycho-emotional levels is just there.

> It doesn't add to our ability to help facilitate this type of

> healing to talk about it out of context of a grounded understanding.

> In fact, I feel it takes us further away.

>

> We should never assume that a practitioner who does not talk about

> psycho-spiritual things is not aware of them and working with them

> in amazing ways. Nor should we assume that someone who does

> reference them a lot automatically must have deep insight. Not that

> we should assume the opposite either.

>

> Fourthly, to me, statements like the ones above point us away from

> clarity into the rich, juicy, textured world of our patient's

> emotional miasmas. Something I love about Chinese medicine is that

> we can, hopefully, hold a kind of un-entangled place of clarity for

> and with our patients. We can hear the emotional confusions and have

> it point us back toward the clarity instead of pushing us into the

> fray. We do this by listening/looking/feeling for the whole context

> and presentation. Quickly jumping to some conclusion about what

> unresolved bitterness means just leaves us in a muddle.

>

> Finally, to me, trying to give an herb to help someone recover

> memories is the same as trying to give an herb to bring down

> someone's blood pressure. What is the good blood pressure herb?

> There isn't one. That's the point of Chinese medicine. For the most

> part, don't treat symptoms as primary- whether they are psycho-

> emotional or physical. We treat presentations and the people who are

> manifesting the presentation. The symptoms work themselves out this

> way. So, statements like the one above indicate that the

> practitioner treats symptomatically rather than holistically. In

> other words, just because you are treating an emotional symptom does

> not make your medicine holistic.

>

> If such statements were qualified and expanded on as many teachers

> and writers do, they would hold weight for me. I think that those

> who want to do more to include the psycho-emotional-spiritual

> aspects of our medicine should be disciplined about this in order to

> stabilize credibility.

>

> I experience the medicine as very rich in many levels but it's taken

> a lot of time for me to even start to touch this in a way that feels

> real. It takes time and patience and mindful clinical work to let

> the medicine deepen in us. We can't plaster the psycho-emotional-

> spiritual onto it out of impatience or spiritual emptiness. It has

> always been there and it will reveal itself to us in time.

>

> I appreciate the chance to think this through and welcome other's

> thoughts.

>

> Sharon

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

On Jan 1, 2010, at 2:35 PM, wrote:

 

> William,

> I also appreciate all the voices in the dialog. But I want to

> return to the ground of this discussion, and that is the original

> comment by Elisabeth Rochat de la Vallee.

>

> If we don't have the original context of her comment, or have her

> to explain exactly what she meant by it, we can have an interesting

> dialogue, but we are not going to have resolution of the conflict

> over 'tu xue' and its meaning in contextual reality.

 

I am in the process of taking steps to achieve

 

1) contact/verification from Elisabeth, and

 

2) contact/commentary from Heiner Fruehauf on the subject. Heiner has

just gotten back from a trip to Mexico and has a house full of his

wife's family now, so for a while longer he is out of the picture.

I've spoken with his academic dean, though, and she thinks that it is

very likely that once his relatives have cleared out and he has had a

bit of time to settle, he'd be glad to do a 5 minute interview which I

can transcribe, or perhaps write something.

 

If we manage something really clear and coherent that makes sense to

this group, maybe we will use it as promo for a class we are

planning. We are still tossing around ideas at this stage-- and it

arises out of the same conversation that led me to speak up on the

list serve. Heiner and I are looking at doing a two-day weekend

class together in which we would pick a topic, and Heiner's style of

teaching would predominate in the morning-- chock full of classical

quotations and references and correctly-drawn Chinese characters

(which I would only butcher beyond recognition). Then in the

afternoon my style of teaching would predominate, covering the same

material, using my own talents for performance art, experiential class

exercises, and direct transmission. I won't be making things up (with

God willing and Heiner watching), but I will sometimes be using

metaphors and means unavailable to Han dynasty Chinese (i.e. modern

metaphors and means) to convey various ideas rooted in the classics.

 

At the moment I am motivated to suggest that we take the Large

Intestine meridian as our topic.... I had previously been inclining

to the Gall Bladder. I will, of course, defer to Heiner's preferences.

 

Collaboration with Heiner (and other colleagues who would have the

knowledge and the capacity to evaluate my work) is absolutely

essential to the interdisciplinary rigor we all need to cultivate on a

regular basis. It is part of my interest in engaging in this group.

It is exciting and helpful to be questioned in both ones methodology

and one's results. (As Will pointed out, however, one must just as

closely question the questioners.)

 

 

Regarding Elisabeth and the original comment, I am concerned with the

question of exactly what I should ask Elisabeth once I secure the

opportunity. Given that the conversation about the vomiting of blood

took place nearly 20 years ago, and given that it most likely made a

much deeper impression on me than on Elisabeth (given that it was a

Great Grand Eureka moment for me and probably just another moron

student moment for her), it seems unlikely that Elisabeth would have

any reason at all to recall the exchange. Fortunately I do not think

that a knowledge of the text that she was quoting is in any way

material to the main point of the discussion. The question is whether

tu xue means only and literally tu xue, not in one particular text,

but consistently in Chinese medical writing. This is not about

identifying a single tree (tu xue), but in seeing the whole forest

(how to read Chinese medical descriptors).

 

It this correct? I wouldn't want to blow my chance when it comes. I

welcome any advice on exactly what to ask, in order to bring generally

accepted clarity.

 

 

 

Thea Elijah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

> I would just add that for myself some of the beauty of Chinese

> medicine is not just the creativity, but the source literature such

> as the Shang Han Lun itself. I continue to be amazed when I use

> prescriptions such as Dang gui si ni tang and see wonderful results,

> according to the patterns Zhang Zhong Jing observed, in modern

> patients, 1800 years or so later. It points to a longevity in the

> medicine that modern biomedicine has yet to achieve. It connects me

> to a tradition, a living stream, and, yes a creative future built on

> strong foundations.

>

> We need our oracles and inspiring teachers, but they too build on

> the ancient foundations of our art/science. Chinese medicine again

> is a literary tradition, canonical, as well as clinical.

>

>

> On Jan 1, 2010, at 5:14 AM, William wrote:

>

>> Ray, Sharon, Bob and Jason

>>

>> As the torch keepers of this dialog, I appreciate it. Ray is right,

>> Thea's approach to humanity is a breath of fresh air, similar to

>> Dr. Shen's. She brings a creative way of building knowledge. I

>> think that it is good for it to be tempered in forums like this. It

>> is a form of participatory action research, where the validity of

>> the thinking is ironed out amongst peers. It is good to question

>> the thinker. I would also like pay attention to the questioner.

>>

>> In the end, medicine is a socially constructed phenomena. I often

>> say that we make all of this stuff up. We do it in every moment of

>> our lives and practices. Is old made up stuff better than new made

>> up stuff? Sometimes, especially if it was Zhong Zhong Jing. But,

>> not always, because it is very relative.

>>

>> Now, if Jeffery Yuen made some stuff up, or read contemporary

>> thought that was made up and included it, this is fine - provided

>> the community accepts it and, most importantly, that it leads to

>> improved clinical outcomes.

>>

>> Bob mentioned Shanghai TCM University as a credential that we could

>> rely upon in order to understand and validate Yuen's contributions.

>> I submit that the type of knowledge products coming out of the

>> major TCM baccalaureate programs is largely reproductive of

>> committee processed, state approved knowledge. As a result, the

>> type of syncretic, creative and unique thinking that someone like

>> Yuen brings to the table is not possible when formed by major TCM

>> institutions, primarily because of the focus upon reproductive

>> rather than creative forms of inquiry and knowledge building.

>>

>> Jason mentioned the rigors of linguistics and anthropology in the

>> study of classics as means to a valid work product (paraphrase).

>> These are important, as is translation focused upon the language of

>> origin. This is reproductive knowledge and there is a need for the

>> highest accuracy possible. One of the problems, of course, is that

>> when we are talking about knowledge framed in a period 2,000 years

>> ago, much of it is speculative.

>>

>> In the end all we can ever do, is take knowledge from our studies

>> and experiences and construct it in a way that is meaningful for us

>> and our patients. Whether we draw upon speculations - even

>> professionally informed ones - or, we draw upon contemporary

>> biomedical concepts synthesized with Chinese medicine, or we take

>> some contemporary European interpretation --- it is ours, now, if

>> we choose. We are responsible.

>>

>> From a transdisciplinary view, where the two opposites have an

>> included middle, both reproductive and creative knowledge have a

>> place in our dialog and practice. Here, we see a perfect example of

>> it bringing people to question their through processes. Good. The

>> opposites refine each other, bind and transform each other.

>>

>> Happy New Year All

>>

>> Doug, thanks for managing the list...

>>

>> Warmly,

>>

>> Will

>>

>>

>

>

> Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine

> Pacific College of Oriental Medicine

> San Diego, Ca. 92122

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

I definitely agree with you that there are few checks and balances in oral

traditions, but written traditions have their own issues as well.

I'd like to just put forth a couple of ideas...

The Nei jing is a collection of oral teachings that were written down

somewhere between the Warring states period

and the Han dynasty. Somehow, we believe word for word these writings.

I would say that there are a few reasons to believe in the validity of these

teachings

and a few reasons to challenge them.

 

For one, we can hope that those who wrote down these teachings were more

enlightened then us.

Maybe they were great doctors or sages or heirs of the Yellow Emperor.

Secondly, they have been scrutinized for millennia with many interpretations

of what the characters actually mean

and many versions evolving through history. This doesn't validate them or

discredit them,

but it does show that they are also open to scrutiny. The Su wen might be

interpreted to have contradictory statements, since the issues come from

separate mouths with different views on the nature of the medicine.

 

Do we believe in teachings because they are written down? In this case, it

seems ... yes.

Do we believe in teachings because they're old? Possibly yes.

Do we believe in teachings because they are claimed from a divine source?...

yes.

 

I love the Nei jing.. not trying to profane what is considered sacred.

Just finding out why we have faith in a collection of oral teachings that

were written down a long time ago, but are so skeptical in oral teachings

today?

We can say that the Nei jing has survived the scalpel of thousands of

minds... but what about the argument that since it's old and claimed from

the mouth of the Yellow emperor, it's the mandate of heaven. It's been

commented on, but immune to discredit-ation? Thoughts?

 

K

[Guest guest]

Thea,

 

I have read and totally agree with Greg's posting. He sums up in a clearer

language what I had already mentioned in a previous post:

 

" .. we start with a symptom, like vomiting blood, and then we add onto it all

the other symptoms manifesting in the body, put them all together (as much as

possible) and put together a pattern. Finally we treat the pattern. If we are

correct in our pattern recognition and the treatment applied matched the

pattern, then the main symptom, ie vomiting of blood, will have ceased.. "

 

The underlining pathomechanism behind any given symptom is fundamental in

deciding a treatment, but it is still important to label and define our

objective, ie disease name. Without knowing the disease/ symptom that we

treating, we may be unable to come up with a pattern and thus effective

treatment.

 

An example would be something that I see on an almost daily basis, Psoriasis. I

have definitely found that Chinese medicine can treat this very chronic,

virulent, and stubborn skin disease quite effectively, when approached properly.

However, I have talked with countless practitioners who; firstly do not know how

to even diagnose psoriasis; secondly, think that because psoriasis tends to be a

dry looking skin problem, they assume blood deficiency must be the predominant

pathomechanism, and are constantly let down when simple blood nourishing

formulas do not clear their patients psoriasis.

 

By knowing the correctly defined disease name allows the practitioner to

understand how to figure out the correct pattern. The formula that treats that

particular pattern is the key to heal the disease in question. The formula is

the actual key, the pattern is the design of the key, and the disease is the

lock on the door. They all work together. Without a lock (disease name) how, or

why, does one design a key?

 

The disease name helps to determine which herb or formula would be more

appropriate. For instance, the pattern name for some types of psoriasis and

atopic eczema can be identical, but the approach to treatment may be totally

different. Fire Toxin is a common pattern in the manifestation of both the above

skin diseases and, to treat this, it is way more common and effective to use Zi

hua Di Ding for eczema than it is Psoriasis, just as it is way more common and

effective to use Ban Lan Gen for psoriasis than it is Eczema. Just knowing the

pattern/ pathomechanism does not always lead to the correct treatment path.

IMHO, one needs to know and clearly understand the disease name as well.

 

Which comes to why correct terminology of symptoms and/ or diseases are very

important, and it is why I question that the scholar physicians of past would

use anything but the obvious when talking about medical issues. Particularly

" objective " signs, as compared to the " subjective ones which rely on the

patients ability to " explain " their symptoms. How do you trust that a patient is

really tasting a bitter taste in their mouth as compared to a sour one? Compare

this to seeing with ones own eyes the presence of blood in ones spit or not.

 

The treatment of liver attacking the stomach will be very different depending on

whether the main disease is constipation, vomiting, or " tu Xue " - spitting blood.

The correctly defined disease name combined with the underlining pathomechansim

dictates the effective treatment.

 

Trevor

 

 

 

, Thea Elijah <parkinglot wrote:

>

> Trevor, did you read Greg's post about the listing or symptoms being

> for the sake of the elucidation of pathomechanism? This directly

> addresses your concerns; to wit, it has nothing to do with objective

> versus subjective. What matters is giving a clear profile.

>

>

> Thea Elijah

>

>

> On Dec 31, 2009, at 1:38 PM, trevor_erikson wrote:

>

> > I would also add that " Plum Pit " is a " subjective " feeling from the

> > patient. When the doctor looks into their throat there is nothing to

> > see. This differs from " tu xue " or spitting of blood, which is a

> > very " objective " symptom that both the patient and Doctor can

> > witness with their own eyes. Thus I find it hard to understand how

> > something so defined and visible as Tu Xue could be taken to mean

> > anything other than what it is- blood coming out of the mouth.

> >

> > Even a " bitter " taste in the mouth is a " subjective " symptom that

> > only the patient can experience, thus leaving a larger arena of

> > interpretation from the Doctor.

> >

> > Trevor

> >

> >

> >

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

We are close now, I think.

 

The part that is not yet semantically clear to me is the difference

between treating the pattern, and treating the disease name. As far

as I know, what I do is treat the pattern. The disease name does not

matter e.g. psoriasis. But I think you mean something different by

disease name.

 

For instance below:

 

On Jan 3, 2010, at 12:28 AM, trevor_erikson wrote:

>

> The disease name helps to determine which herb or formula would be

> more appropriate. For instance, the pattern name for some types of

> psoriasis and atopic eczema can be identical, but the approach to

> treatment may be totally different. Fire Toxin is a common pattern

> in the manifestation of both the above skin diseases and, to treat

> this, it is way more common and effective to use Zi hua Di Ding for

> eczema than it is Psoriasis, just as it is way more common and

> effective to use Ban Lan Gen for psoriasis than it is Eczema. Just

> knowing the pattern/ pathomechanism does not always lead to the

> correct treatment path. IMHO, one needs to know and clearly

> understand the disease name as well.

>

I think I am not understand your use of the term disease name. But

otherwise I sense that we are circling the same block in the same

neighborhood, and that there is a parking space big enough for both of

us around here somewhere.

 

 

......I think-- I think-- what you are meaning to say is something I

would say like this: sometimes we think we have made a diagnosis when

we have determined the gross patterns of disharmony, e.g blood

deficiency and fire toxin, and then some might just find a formula

" for blood deficiency and fire toxin " and expect it to be fully

effective. It might be, somewhat, in a ballpark sort of way, but to

understand the pattern of the illness and prescribe with accuracy like

a key in the lock, we need to understand " pattern " on a much more

subtle level. We need to look at the patterns giving rise to the

pattern, and differentiate within the pattern category more subtly.

E.g. if it is blood deficiency, why is there blood deficiency-- what

is its nature as reflected up from the matrix of its origin, and what

are its qualities such that we choose a particular herbal strategy for

addressing it? Same with the Fire Toxin-- all of the herbs represent

a resonance with different nuances within the gross categories of the

patterns.

 

Ideally, every single herb and formula is a pattern of disharmony

category unto itself. The name if the formula IS the disease name.

But this is not an early stage of understanding; most students are

taught to use diagnostic parameters much like a dating service between

the client and the prescription: Hm, this person has patterns x y and

z, so let's give them a formula that Bensky says will treat x y and

z. Sometimes that will cut it, but it's not really good herbalism.

It misses the uniqueness of the situation despite the common names,

and lacks that fabulous key-in-the-lock precision which makes for a

bulls-eye level of efficacy.

 

I think what I am saying here is in the same territory of which you

speak-- can you help me find you in the dark?

 

 

Thea Elijah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

> Which comes to why correct terminology of symptoms and/ or diseases

> are very important, and it is why I question that the scholar

> physicians of past would use anything but the obvious when talking

> about medical issues. Particularly " objective " signs, as compared to

> the " subjective ones which rely on the patients ability to " explain "

> their symptoms. How do you trust that a patient is really tasting a

> bitter taste in their mouth as compared to a sour one? Compare this

> to seeing with ones own eyes the presence of blood in ones spit or

> not.

>

> The treatment of liver attacking the stomach will be very different

> depending on whether the main disease is constipation, vomiting, or

> " tu Xue " - spitting blood. The correctly defined disease name

> combined with the underlining pathomechansim dictates the effective

> treatment.

>

> Trevor

>

> , Thea Elijah

> <parkinglot wrote:

> >

> > Trevor, did you read Greg's post about the listing or symptoms being

> > for the sake of the elucidation of pathomechanism? This directly

> > addresses your concerns; to wit, it has nothing to do with objective

> > versus subjective. What matters is giving a clear profile.

> >

> >

> > Thea Elijah

> >

> >

> > On Dec 31, 2009, at 1:38 PM, trevor_erikson wrote:

> >

> > > I would also add that " Plum Pit " is a " subjective " feeling from

> the

> > > patient. When the doctor looks into their throat there is

> nothing to

> > > see. This differs from " tu xue " or spitting of blood, which is a

> > > very " objective " symptom that both the patient and Doctor can

> > > witness with their own eyes. Thus I find it hard to understand how

> > > something so defined and visible as Tu Xue could be taken to mean

> > > anything other than what it is- blood coming out of the mouth.

> > >

> > > Even a " bitter " taste in the mouth is a " subjective " symptom that

> > > only the patient can experience, thus leaving a larger arena of

> > > interpretation from the Doctor.

> > >

> > > Trevor

> > >

> > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

1) It is my understanding that Dr. Huang developed this system to teach MDs

in Japan that had little understanding of Chinese herbs. This system is

cohesive enough that they could start using it right away.

 

 

 

2) Sorry about my previous post, an un-edited version was accidentally sent.

Although I think the ideas are clear enough, there are quite a few typos.

Please ask me if I need to clarify anything. My apologies.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

 

 

 

 

Can somebody who has studied with him discuss how the 10 personality types

of the herbs were formulated?

 

K

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

K,

 

 

 

You bring up some questions that definitely should be discussed. Here are my

thoughts:

 

 

 

1) I think it is a mistake to believe that the NeiJing is from some

divine source / sacred. I am not sure who says this, but I disagree. First,

one must understand that the Huang Di Nei Jing is only one of many books of

its time (there were many other NeiJings). It is just the one that has

survived for us to read. Books survive that are good and consequently, there

were probably books before this that the Nei Jing was based on. However, it

does not matter where it came from (oral or other books).

 

2) I do think the biggest point (of a book such as the Nei Jing) is

that it has stood the test of time with a evaluation. There are clearly

contradictions (which had to be worked out), and clearly parts that are not

used. However, there are certainly core concepts that laid the foundation

for the medicine that we practice today. In regard to herbs, it is

impossible to treat from this book since there are only 3-5 formulas

included in it. Most herbalists use material from all 1800 years. Actually

most CM practitioners use a variety of the best ideas over the centuries.

 

 

 

To me it is obvious why we should be skeptical of a modern oral teaching.

Please do not mistake skeptical for not open.

 

A) it is the same reason we should be skeptical of anything. Blind faith is

detrimental to true progress. Why do you think EC left?

 

B) it has not stood the test of time and evaluated by hundreds of thousands

of doctors.

 

C) if the oral teaching presents an strange idea for CM, one has to wonder

why no one wrote anything like this down in the tens of thousands of books

in the past. The chance of someone having seminars of information that

slipped through the cracks of CM is very unlikely. Especially if it is

someone like J. Yuen, who does not seems to be primarily an herbalist,

presenting " secret " ideas in Chinese herbs. Or for that matter, seminars (or

classes) of pysco-spirtual indications of herbs from people who do not know

fundamental Chinese herbalism and cannot read Chinese.

 

 

 

It also should be considered that many of J.Yuen's ideas are not from his

lineage, but in his own ideas. I am unsure why he even states that he is a

daoist priest or 88 generation lineage holder (homepage of his website as

well as introduction to some seminars). What does this have to do with

anything? In a sense, it's like hiding behind a cloak. Meaning " my

information must be correct because I have this title. "

 

 

 

But when he starts talking about " Coq10 builds heart yang " or " the most

primitive amino acid is glycine " or " glutathione can be used for HIV " or a

whole host of other " modern concepts " and his own ideas, this has nothing to

do with his lineage. As far as my exposure does, he is not clear on what is

his information, his ideas, and what is from his lineage. (Please correct me

if I'm wrong). I would love to see case studies from his lineage in herbal

treatments and discuss the differences between these vs. normal CM. For

example, look what Volker Scheid is doing with the menghe tradition. He is

really demonstrating a different way of thinking about Chinese herbs through

rigorous analysis and presentation of case studies.

 

 

 

Furthermore, most daoist lineages (that I know about) do not allow public

transmission of their information. What is he really presenting that is from

this lineage?

 

 

 

But my point is this, when someone starts riffing one must be very critical,

no matter if it is written record or spoken word. There is no doubt that

past doctors discovered new ideas and wrote these riffs down. But I come

back to my fundamental argument, these ideas have been tested by

thousands/tens of thousands/hundreds of thousands of doctors after the fact.

Consequently, we no longer rub dog feces under a full moon to cure night

blindness. We have figured out that this is just incorrect. It is the

distillation process that makes literary CM so strong. Even modern ideas in

China go through an evaluation process (journals, hospitals, clinical

trials, Dr. experimentation etc.).

 

 

 

What is the allure of oral traditions? Is it that you are getting some

secret information that no one has? Or do you just believe all of written CM

is incorrect? I would really like to hear why people think this information

is so valuable.

 

 

 

If anything it is not written records that is immune to discreditation, it

is oral tradition. Wasn't it you John, who originally stated that J. Yuen's

information may not be able to be checked but he is a " lineage holder in two

major daoist lineages as a priest " , with the point that this somehow makes

his information " true " because this was a way that traditional Chinese

respected knowledge. I just disagree and information (from any source)

should be evaluated for what it is, titles aside.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of

 

 

 

Jason,

I definitely agree with you that there are few checks and balances in oral

traditions, but written traditions have their own issues as well.

I'd like to just put forth a couple of ideas...

The Nei jing is a collection of oral teachings that were written down

somewhere between the Warring states period

and the Han dynasty. Somehow, we believe word for word these writings.

I would say that there are a few reasons to believe in the validity of these

teachings

and a few reasons to challenge them.

 

For one, we can hope that those who wrote down these teachings were more

enlightened then us.

Maybe they were great doctors or sages or heirs of the Yellow Emperor.

Secondly, they have been scrutinized for millennia with many interpretations

of what the characters actually mean

and many versions evolving through history. This doesn't validate them or

discredit them,

but it does show that they are also open to scrutiny. The Su wen might be

interpreted to have contradictory statements, since the issues come from

separate mouths with different views on the nature of the medicine.

 

Do we believe in teachings because they are written down? In this case, it

seems ... yes.

Do we believe in teachings because they're old? Possibly yes.

Do we believe in teachings because they are claimed from a divine source?...

yes.

 

I love the Nei jing.. not trying to profane what is considered sacred.

Just finding out why we have faith in a collection of oral teachings that

were written down a long time ago, but are so skeptical in oral teachings

today?

We can say that the Nei jing has survived the scalpel of thousands of

minds... but what about the argument that since it's old and claimed from

the mouth of the Yellow emperor, it's the mandate of heaven. It's been

commented on, but immune to discredit-ation? Thoughts?

 

K