responding to phlegm

[Guest guest]

Well I didn't say " intelligence " I said " response. " Doesn't the most basic

theory of the body following the principles of Yin/Yang denote " response? "

I think you're having a kind of knee-jerk anti-Jeffrey moment here.

RoseAnne

 

 

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 5:19 AM, wrote:

 

> this is an issue i always harp on and one is where I disagree with how its

> expressed in the Yuen " school " . That is that dampness collects as a response

> or heat as a response to damp etc... To me this suggests a body

> " intelligence " of creating another, usually pathogenic substance, to correct

> an imbalance. I know that damp can follow heat or vice versa, whatever, but

> these can be explained in zang-fu, 5 element or more general CM terms rather

> than inherent responses to pathogens.

> Doug

>

>

> , RoseAnne Spradlin

> <roseanne.spradlin wrote:

> >

> > I wasn't going to write in on this one, since I consider myself not as

> > experienced in TCM/CM as many of you. But a thought came to me when this

> > subject came up. That is, from the Jeffrey Yuen point of view (and

> others,

> > I'm sure) there is always a relationship between heat and dampness in the

> > body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological process.

> > When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when there's

> > dampness, heat will come as a response. Phlegm in the LU or upper burner

> > can be a response to heat, maybe even a kind of insulation to the heat.

> If

> > the heat has penetrated to the ST as well, and is damaging the ST Yin,

> then

> > the phlegm could likely go there as well. The idea to swallow the phlegm

> > may be a way of acknowledging what the body is trying to do in its

> response

> > to heat. The more one spits it out, the harder the body has to work to

> make

> > more phlegm. Maybe 'digesting' the phlegm in the ST is beneficial in

> some

> > way.

> >

> > The above is all conjecture. I have no idea, but am just trying to think

> it

> > through.

> >

> > RoseAnne

> >

>

>

>

> ---

>

> Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services, including a

> practitioner's directory and a moderated discussion forum.

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Doug,

 

Thanks for your opinion, but the idea that the body responds to pathogenic

factors and that the result of that reaction is a complex pathology is not

part of a " Yuen " school of thought. It is core to much of the history of CM,

even if some modern students and practitioners may lose sight of life's

dynamic responsive nature while busy learning to classifying clinical

manifestations into diagnostic categories.

 

For instance, in SHL heat is not even considered a pathogenic factor, but a

physiological (yang) response which may not be successful in resolving wind

or cold that has internalized. Of course, there are many cold herbs used in

SHL, so there is clearly recognition that when yang becomes entangled rather

than simply releasing to the exterior, it generates clinical heat

manifestations that can be very problematic. All of life is responsive to

current circumstances, generally guided by various essential urges to

survive. Sometimes those responses don't fulfill their original goal, and

the individual exhibits what has now become a " complex " pathogenic factor.

During the vast majority of Chinese medical history pathology has been

understood as a progression, which often transforms (because of the

individual's physiological responses to it -- all of which can be sorted

out), rather than a manifestation to be classified.

 

Steven Alpern

CCMforHealing.com

 

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 2:19 AM, wrote:

 

>

>

> this is an issue i always harp on and one is where I disagree with how its

> expressed in the Yuen " school " . That is that dampness collects as a response

> or heat as a response to damp etc... To me this suggests a body

> " intelligence " of creating another, usually pathogenic substance, to correct

> an imbalance. I know that damp can follow heat or vice versa, whatever, but

> these can be explained in zang-fu, 5 element or more general CM terms rather

> than inherent responses to pathogens.

> Doug

>

> --- In

<%40>,

> RoseAnne Spradlin <roseanne.spradlin wrote:

> >

> > I wasn't going to write in on this one, since I consider myself not as

> > experienced in TCM/CM as many of you. But a thought came to me when this

> > subject came up. That is, from the Jeffrey Yuen point of view (and

> others,

> > I'm sure) there is always a relationship between heat and dampness in the

> > body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological process.

> > When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when there's

> > dampness, heat will come as a response. Phlegm in the LU or upper burner

> > can be a response to heat, maybe even a kind of insulation to the heat.

> If

> > the heat has penetrated to the ST as well, and is damaging the ST Yin,

> then

> > the phlegm could likely go there as well. The idea to swallow the phlegm

> > may be a way of acknowledging what the body is trying to do in its

> response

> > to heat. The more one spits it out, the harder the body has to work to

> make

> > more phlegm. Maybe 'digesting' the phlegm in the ST is beneficial in some

> > way.

> >

> > The above is all conjecture. I have no idea, but am just trying to think

> it

> > through.

> >

> > RoseAnne

> >

>

>

>

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I give RoseAnne ten points for the clarity of her explanation which bodes

well for her level of understanding of the topic.

 

I get what J. Yuan is teaching (as explained by RoseAnne) and in a way there

is some intuitive recognition that dampness may be created as a response to

other noxious factors. I am reminded of how when I get an allergen or

irritant in my throat, my eyes will water, my nose will start to run and

I'll cough up some phlegm.

 

Phlegm of course is also known as both a " thief and a victim " in that it is

the result of prior pathological processes as well as the cause of

additional pathologies.

 

However, at least from my particular perspective, phlegm damp is not created

in the Lungs as a protective response, but as in the case of so-called

" substantial fire " . The heat damages the yin of the lungs, which makes it

thicker and phlegmy.

 

As for this process taking place in the Stomach, that's news to me.

Important part of course is that there is a treatment principle and a

successful intervention for this condition.

 

RoseAnne, do you know what Jeffrey Yuan suggests for this particular

situation? Heat causing dampness or phlegm in the Stomach?

 

-al.

 

> >

> > --- In

<%40>

> <%40>,

> > RoseAnne Spradlin <roseanne.spradlin wrote:

> > >

> > > I wasn't going to write in on this one, since I consider myself not as

> > > experienced in TCM/CM as many of you. But a thought came to me when

> this

> > > subject came up. That is, from the Jeffrey Yuen point of view (and

> > others,

> > > I'm sure) there is always a relationship between heat and dampness in

> the

> > > body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological process.

> > > When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when

> there's

> > > dampness, heat will come as a response. Phlegm in the LU or upper

> burner

> > > can be a response to heat, maybe even a kind of insulation to the heat.

> > If

> > > the heat has penetrated to the ST as well, and is damaging the ST Yin,

> > then

> > > the phlegm could likely go there as well. The idea to swallow the

> phlegm

> > > may be a way of acknowledging what the body is trying to do in its

> > response

> > > to heat. The more one spits it out, the harder the body has to work to

> > make

> > > more phlegm. Maybe 'digesting' the phlegm in the ST is beneficial in

> some

> > > way.

> > >

> > > The above is all conjecture. I have no idea, but am just trying to

> think

> > it

> > > through.

> > >

> > > RoseAnne

>

 

 

--

, DAOM

Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

http://twitter.com/algancao

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Al et. al.,

 

I concur about RoseAnne's attempt to pull apart this issue. Good work! Yet,

as I stated on one of the other threads on this topic, this is not just

" Yuen's " school of thought. It really is more broadly how Chinese medicine

was thought about before various forces of modernization developed

contemporary clinical doctrine.

 

There have been many ways to think about how phlegm develops throughout CM

history, including the one that was eventually integrated into modern

theory. In our contemporary theory the spleen is responsible for

transporting fluids to the lungs; Li Dongyuan attributed part of that

responsibility to the stomach. According to him, the stomach is responsible

for initiating the process of separating pure from impure (which is done

further by the SI), and ascends each of them to fulfill their purposes. The

impure jin-fluids become tears and saliva and they go to the lungs domain to

transform into wei qi. When those turbid fluids are too turbid in the

stomach, they congeal their. In modern parlance that congealed material is

called phlegm, though historically it was generally referred to as turbidity

in the stomach.

 

In any case, that's why banxia goes to the stomach in addition to the spleen

and lungs. So, " phlegm " can come from the stomach, both from it's being

disharmonious (banxia) and as a response to control stomach heat (for which

Li Dongyuan suggested huanglian).

 

Steven Alpern

CCMforHealing.com

 

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 10:18 AM, Al Stone <al wrote:

 

>

>

> I give RoseAnne ten points for the clarity of her explanation which bodes

> well for her level of understanding of the topic.

>

> I get what J. Yuan is teaching (as explained by RoseAnne) and in a way

> there

> is some intuitive recognition that dampness may be created as a response to

> other noxious factors. I am reminded of how when I get an allergen or

> irritant in my throat, my eyes will water, my nose will start to run and

> I'll cough up some phlegm.

>

> Phlegm of course is also known as both a " thief and a victim " in that it is

> the result of prior pathological processes as well as the cause of

> additional pathologies.

>

> However, at least from my particular perspective, phlegm damp is not

> created

> in the Lungs as a protective response, but as in the case of so-called

> " substantial fire " . The heat damages the yin of the lungs, which makes it

> thicker and phlegmy.

>

> As for this process taking place in the Stomach, that's news to me.

> Important part of course is that there is a treatment principle and a

> successful intervention for this condition.

>

> RoseAnne, do you know what Jeffrey Yuan suggests for this particular

> situation? Heat causing dampness or phlegm in the Stomach?

>

> -al.

>

> > >

> > > --- In

<%40>

> <%40>

> > <%40>,

>

> > > RoseAnne Spradlin <roseanne.spradlin wrote:

> > > >

> > > > I wasn't going to write in on this one, since I consider myself not

> as

> > > > experienced in TCM/CM as many of you. But a thought came to me when

> > this

> > > > subject came up. That is, from the Jeffrey Yuen point of view (and

> > > others,

> > > > I'm sure) there is always a relationship between heat and dampness in

> > the

> > > > body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological

> process.

> > > > When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when

> > there's

> > > > dampness, heat will come as a response. Phlegm in the LU or upper

> > burner

> > > > can be a response to heat, maybe even a kind of insulation to the

> heat.

> > > If

> > > > the heat has penetrated to the ST as well, and is damaging the ST

> Yin,

> > > then

> > > > the phlegm could likely go there as well. The idea to swallow the

> > phlegm

> > > > may be a way of acknowledging what the body is trying to do in its

> > > response

> > > > to heat. The more one spits it out, the harder the body has to work

> to

> > > make

> > > > more phlegm. Maybe 'digesting' the phlegm in the ST is beneficial in

> > some

> > > > way.

> > > >

> > > > The above is all conjecture. I have no idea, but am just trying to

> > think

> > > it

> > > > through.

> > > >

> > > > RoseAnne

> >

>

> --

> , DAOM

> Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional.

> http://twitter.com/algancao

>

>

[Guest guest]

Group,

 

 

 

First, the original statement was talking about the relationship between

damp and heat, not phlegm and heat. IMO, phlegm and damp are separate

pathological substances.

 

 

 

It was stated, " there is always a relationship between heat and dampness in

the body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological process.

When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when there's

dampness, heat will come as a response. "

 

 

 

I do agree it is standard theory that heat can engender damp, and damp can

engender heat. The term " response " may be a little stange of a word choice

for my tastes, but I get the point. Heat dries fluids and produces phlegm

and damp creates constraint which leads to heat. Fairly straightforward. But

I am not sure I agree with the idea that there is ALWAYS a relationship

between heat and damp. Often these pathogens are not related, meaning both

can occur from their own separate etiological / pathological process and

then they combine. For example damp in a yin sticky substance that can

" attract " other pathogens such as cold, heat, or wind.

 

 

 

-

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Jason,

When you say " phlegm and damp are separate pathological substances " , do you mean

that as an absolute?

Can it be said that phlegm is a subset of damp?

ann

 

On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:26 PM, wrote:

 

> Group,

>

> First, the original statement was talking about the relationship between

> damp and heat, not phlegm and heat. IMO, phlegm and damp are separate

> pathological substances.

>

> It was stated, " there is always a relationship between heat and dampness in

> the body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological process.

> When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when there's

> dampness, heat will come as a response. "

>

> I do agree it is standard theory that heat can engender damp, and damp can

> engender heat. The term " response " may be a little stange of a word choice

> for my tastes, but I get the point. Heat dries fluids and produces phlegm

> and damp creates constraint which leads to heat. Fairly straightforward. But

> I am not sure I agree with the idea that there is ALWAYS a relationship

> between heat and damp. Often these pathogens are not related, meaning both

> can occur from their own separate etiological / pathological process and

> then they combine. For example damp in a yin sticky substance that can

> " attract " other pathogens such as cold, heat, or wind.

>

> -

>

>

[Guest guest]

My short answer to that question is that phlegm is a disorder of fluids.

Sometimes that involves damp.

Doug

 

 

> > Jason,

> > When you say " phlegm and damp are separate pathological substances " , do you

mean that as an absolute?

> > Can it be said that phlegm is a subset of damp?

> > ann

> >

> > On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:26 PM, wrote:

> >

> > > Group,

> > >

> > > First, the original statement was talking about the relationship between

> > > damp and heat, not phlegm and heat. IMO, phlegm and damp are separate

> > > pathological substances.

> > >

> > > It was stated, " there is always a relationship between heat and dampness

in

> > > the body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological

process.

> > > When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when there's

> > > dampness, heat will come as a response. "

> > >

> > > I do agree it is standard theory that heat can engender damp, and damp can

> > > engender heat. The term " response " may be a little stange of a word choice

> > > for my tastes, but I get the point. Heat dries fluids and produces phlegm

> > > and damp creates constraint which leads to heat. Fairly straightforward.

But

> > > I am not sure I agree with the idea that there is ALWAYS a relationship

> > > between heat and damp. Often these pathogens are not related, meaning both

> > > can occur from their own separate etiological / pathological process and

> > > then they combine. For example damp in a yin sticky substance that can

> > > " attract " other pathogens such as cold, heat, or wind.

> > >

> > > -

> > >

[Guest guest]

..... and the long answer? 8-)

 

On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:24 PM, wrote:

 

> My short answer to question is that phlegm is a disorder of fluids. Sometimes

that involves damp.

> Doug

>

> , " A. Brameier " <snakeoil.works

wrote:

> >

> > Jason,

> > When you say " phlegm and damp are separate pathological substances " , do you

mean that as an absolute?

> > Can it be said that phlegm is a subset of damp?

> > ann

> >

> > On Apr 16, 2010, at 3:26 PM, wrote:

> >

> > > Group,

> > >

> > > First, the original statement was talking about the relationship between

> > > damp and heat, not phlegm and heat. IMO, phlegm and damp are separate

> > > pathological substances.

> > >

> > > It was stated, " there is always a relationship between heat and dampness

in

> > > the body. One or the other can be seen as the primary pathological

process.

> > > When there's heat, dampness often collects as a response; or when there's

> > > dampness, heat will come as a response. "

> > >

> > > I do agree it is standard theory that heat can engender damp, and damp can

> > > engender heat. The term " response " may be a little stange of a word choice

> > > for my tastes, but I get the point. Heat dries fluids and produces phlegm

> > > and damp creates constraint which leads to heat. Fairly straightforward.

But

> > > I am not sure I agree with the idea that there is ALWAYS a relationship

> > > between heat and damp. Often these pathogens are not related, meaning both

> > > can occur from their own separate etiological / pathological process and

> > > then they combine. For example damp in a yin sticky substance that can

> > > " attract " other pathogens such as cold, heat, or wind.

> > >

> > > -

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

The long answer is read Stephen Claveys's book! ;-)

Doug

 

 

 

, " A. Brameier " <snakeoil.works

wrote:

>

> .... and the long answer? 8-)

>

> On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:24 PM, wrote:

>

> > My short answer to question is that phlegm is a disorder of fluids.

Sometimes that involves damp.

> > Doug

> >

[Guest guest]

haha... have to get back to that one....

just thought you'd like to give a summation... you know, w/ flow charts 'n stuff

:-)

 

On Apr 16, 2010, at 5:40 PM, wrote:

 

> The long answer is read Stephen Claveys's book! ;-)

> Doug

>

> , " A. Brameier " <snakeoil.works

wrote:

> >

> > .... and the long answer? 8-)

> >

> > On Apr 16, 2010, at 4:24 PM, wrote:

> >

> > > My short answer to question is that phlegm is a disorder of fluids.

Sometimes that involves damp.

> > > Doug

> > >

>

>

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steven said " For instance, in SHL heat is not even considered a pathogenic

factor, but a physiological (yang) response "

 

 

 

I agree that your idea is one way to the explain how SHL conceptualizes

heat, I know Arnaud likes to explain things in this manner. Hence it is not

unique to Yuen. However it is just as valid to view heat (a pathogen) as a

mere transmutation of the cold pathogen. I don't think the SHL says either

way and these are all the stories that we make up, to explain what we see.

But the " transformation idea " is not some modern creation, it is well

established in pre-modern literature. Furthermore there are numerous SHL

commentaries that discuss this concept of heat equaling a pathogen. Even,

for example, established commentary states that in certain situations when

the SHL mentions yang qi this is not defensive yang of the patient but

pathogenic qi.

 

 

 

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter, the treatment will be the same

either way. So whatever story you like, go for it, but remember it is not

the only story.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Steven Alpern

 

 

 

Thanks for your opinion, but the idea that the body responds to pathogenic

factors and that the result of that reaction is a complex pathology is not

part of a " Yuen " school of thought. It is core to much of the history of CM,

even if some modern students and practitioners may lose sight of life's

dynamic responsive nature while busy learning to classifying clinical

manifestations into diagnostic categories.

 

For instance, in SHL heat is not even considered a pathogenic factor, but a

physiological (yang) response which may not be successful in resolving wind

or cold that has internalized. Of course, there are many cold herbs used in

SHL, so there is clearly recognition that when yang becomes entangled rather

than simply releasing to the exterior, it generates clinical heat

manifestations that can be very problematic. All of life is responsive to

current circumstances, generally guided by various essential urges to

survive. Sometimes those responses don't fulfill their original goal, and

the individual exhibits what has now become a " complex " pathogenic factor.

During the vast majority of Chinese medical history pathology has been

understood as a progression, which often transforms (because of the

individual's physiological responses to it -- all of which can be sorted

out), rather than a manifestation to be classified.

 

Steven Alpern

CCMforHealing.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Doug and all,

 

I like your short answer: phlegm is a disorder of fluids. IT is clearcut. It is

subject to discussion as for the following sentence.'Sometimes that involves

damp'.

 

It is common to see phlegm-damp but the other way around becomes 'damp phelgm'.

There are also heat phlegm which refers to the causation and its nature. The

best way to describe phlegm should be phlegm-rehum as it is more neutral, not

referring to its cause.

 

It is important in Qigong practice that we engender and swallow our own saliva.

Saliva is considered as valuable fluid in our body. It is highly desirable when

we practice Qigong and are able to engender lots of saliva. Saliva has enzymes

that helps digestion (sorry to discuss biomedicine). However, phelgm is a

disorder of fluid that should be spitted out.

 

Dampness is one of the six evils (pathogens). Phlegm/phlegm-rheum is a

byproduct; also an excess. It can cause many symptoms in the lung, heart

(cardio) & brain (neuro) issues.

 

TCM has a lot to offer when it comes to phelgm. Zhang Zhong-jing has a thorough

discussion of phelgm-rheum in his publication, the Essentials of Golden Cabinet.

In the overview of Chapter 12, Pulses, Patterns, and Treatment of Phlegm-rheum

and Coughing of my book, Understanding the jin Gui Yao Lue, A Practical

Textbook,

 

Phlegm-rheum disease is a general term for conditions associated with

water-fluid retention in a localized area. It can manifest with coughing,

panting, vomiting, glomus, fullness, palpitation, dizziness, swelling, and

inhibited urination etc. This describes phlegm-rheum disease in a broad sense,

however, fluid retention limited to the stomach and intestines may also be

referred to as phlegm-rheum. In this chapter, phlegm-rheum disease can also be

divided into four main categories: phlegm-rheum (in the stomach and intestines),

suspended rheum, spillage rheum, and propping rheum.

 

Other rheum patterns include lodged rheum, deep-lying rheum, and mild rheum.

However, these terms are more descriptive in nature, and as such are not

included in the four major categories of phlegm-rheum disease.

 

As the disease name and pattern identification methods originated with Zhang

Zhong-jing, this chapter provided a solid foundation in the historical

development of phlegm theory.

 

This chapter provides an extensive discussion on the etiology, pathomechanism,

pulses, patterns, treatment, and prognosis of phlegm-rheum disease. Coughing, as

discussed in this chapter, should be considered only as a sign specifically

associated with phlegm disease.

 

There are over 20 formulas to tackle such an single excess. Very interesting and

powerful if we can use and even expand their usages.

 

Sung, Yuk-ming

[Guest guest]

In response to my previous comment concerning heat in SHL, Jason wrote:

 

I agree that your idea is one way to the explain how SHL conceptualizes

heat, I know Arnaud likes to explain things in this manner. Hence it is not

unique to Yuen. However it is just as valid to view heat (a pathogen) as a

mere transmutation of the cold pathogen. I don't think the SHL says either

way and these are all the stories that we make up, to explain what we see.

But the " transformation idea " is not some modern creation, it is well

established in pre-modern literature. Furthermore there are numerous SHL

commentaries that discuss this concept of heat equaling a pathogen. Even,

for example, established commentary states that in certain situations when

the SHL mentions yang qi this is not defensive yang of the patient but

pathogenic qi.

 

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter, the treatment will be the same

either way. So whatever story you like, go for it, but remember it is not

the only story.

 

Steven: Well, we may be having a difficulty with language and history. Of

course, Arnaud discusses heat in SHL the way I described, because that is

SHL. As I said, it isn't some " Yuen school of thought. " However, during the

past 1800 years there have been MANY commentaries inspired by SHL, including

many that were also heavily influenced by ideas that were current at the

time the commentary was written. So, in the case of SHL, there have been

modernizing influences for at least a thousand years. While all these ideas

warrant study (I think especially within their historical contexts), many

are not consistent with SHL theory, regardless of whether the author called

his work a study of SHL. I believe that Lui Wansu during the 12th century

was the first CM writer to introduce the idea of heat as a pathogenic

factor, rather than as a response to some blockage. Of course, this idea was

much developed and widely d to during the subsequent centuries, but

we can learn something (as Xu Dachun insisted) by going back to the

" pre-modern " ideas -- in his case the developments from the Jin-Yuan period

were what he considered " modern. "

 

We don't further our understanding of the nature of human life through the

study of Chinese medicine by limiting our focus to recent commentators

because they're easier to read and seem " juicier. " The Chinese medicine of

the Qing Dynasty included a lot of biases, and I also think we should

clearly understand that there was no academic freedom in Imperial China.

During any period, much of what was written and published was controlled by

the Imperial government, and since then there have been other historical

biases including the much discussed modern materialist influence.

 

If we want to understand the depth of wisdom in Chinese medicine, I believe

we have to do an extensive " thought experiment " by visualizing a

(pre-modern) worldview based on CM theory, including that the human body is

always responding to its circumstances (both external and internal) to

sustain life. Much of this was never written by Chinese authors, either

because it was historically understood or because Chinese intellectual

tradition was somewhat different from our western one -- much of philosophy

was generally considered personal and beyond languagerather than our current

discursive standard. " The dao that can be spoken is not the eternal dao " was

widely read, studied, and respected (beyond just " Daoists " ) in historical

China.

 

How can one make the claim that: " it doesn't really matter, the treatment

will be the same either way. So whatever story you like, go for it, but

remember it is not

the only story " unless one works to understand the older ideas? I'm aware

that there are multiple stories throughout the history of CM, and that they

lead to different ways of looking at real clinical manifestations. Are you

willing to openly check out some of the ones that don't agree with your

current beliefs?

 

Steven Alpern

CCMforHealing.com

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Steven,

 

 

 

Thanks for the thorough explanation. However I'm having a hard time

believing that there is some official (or true) interpretation of the SHL

and that the other commentaries are somehow false (not conforming to the

true ¡°SHL theory¡±). I'm sure these other commentators would say the same

about your position... Do not forget, Arnaud is a modern commentator also,

trying, like many others, to have the most accurate version. Do you think he

has a better ability to transcend time compared to a Qing or Song dynasty

physician? Actually, anyone that thinks they have the true understanding of

the SHL is suspect to me.

 

 

 

One of the reasons there are so many SHL commentaries is that when it popped

back onto the scene in the Song dynasty it was very unclear what the SHL was

actually saying and how it was really meant to be used clinically. Hence

many doctors scrambled to make sense of it (to deal with the current

epidemic). Furthermore, The SHL has so many versions (some cleaner than

others) of people trying to make sense of what it meant who can really say

who had the correct ideas? In addition, I think it is pretty much a fact

that we do not have the original text in today's time.

 

 

 

Finally, I'm not truly understanding your thinking behind Liu Wan-Su being

the first person to discuss ¡°heat as a pathogenic factor.¡± Your argument

really revolves around if heat is merely a response of the body or an actual

pathogen. Whatever created the pathogen is a relevant. If constraint created

a pathogen or the environment created the pathogen this is much different

than just a response of the body.

 

 

 

Isn¡¯t it well-established in the NeiJing that heat is one of the six qi

that invades the body? It also discussed for example, ¡®heat¡¯ (an entity)

entangling with grain qi. Clearly there are times when ¡°heat¡± is not a

response of the body but a pathological entity. Consequently, Unschuld

points out that the chapter on ¡°heat discourse¡± specifically discusses

heat as both a cause and result of disease. Furthermore, there are terms in

the NeiJing such as re qi (ÈÈÆø) and re du £¨Èȶ¾£©that are specifically

defined as pathogens/pathogenic qi by commentaries. So prior to the SHL this

idea seemed to exist.

 

 

 

I guess the real question would be, is there somewhere in the SHL that

clearly says that all the heat conditions are from the body¡¯s response and

NOT from viewing heat as a pathogen? If not, then it is up for debate.

 

 

 

So if you believe this point of view or not, the fact remains that there is

debate. If there is debate then how can you be so certain you point of view

is correct? Quite simply, a large percentage of commentators think they are

presenting the most accurate and authentic (old) version of what is written.

As far as my current belief, I have already said I think both are valid ways

to approach the SHL. I am not the one here, taking a specific side. I am

merely pointing out there are different ways to view this situation.

Therefore, I will ask back to you ¡°are you willing to openly check out some

of the ones that don't agree with your current beliefs¡±

 

 

 

This is a very interesting topic. However I will be traveling shortly and

may not be able to respond, but I think it is worthwhile examining.

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Steven Alpern

Sunday, April 18, 2010 9:31 AM

 

Re: responding to phlegm

 

 

 

 

 

In response to my previous comment concerning heat in SHL, Jason wrote:

 

I agree that your idea is one way to the explain how SHL conceptualizes

heat, I know Arnaud likes to explain things in this manner. Hence it is not

unique to Yuen. However it is just as valid to view heat (a pathogen) as a

mere transmutation of the cold pathogen. I don't think the SHL says either

way and these are all the stories that we make up, to explain what we see.

But the " transformation idea " is not some modern creation, it is well

established in pre-modern literature. Furthermore there are numerous SHL

commentaries that discuss this concept of heat equaling a pathogen. Even,

for example, established commentary states that in certain situations when

the SHL mentions yang qi this is not defensive yang of the patient but

pathogenic qi.

 

In my opinion, it doesn't really matter, the treatment will be the same

either way. So whatever story you like, go for it, but remember it is not

the only story.

 

Steven: Well, we may be having a difficulty with language and history. Of

course, Arnaud discusses heat in SHL the way I described, because that is

SHL. As I said, it isn't some " Yuen school of thought. " However, during the

past 1800 years there have been MANY commentaries inspired by SHL, including

many that were also heavily influenced by ideas that were current at the

time the commentary was written. So, in the case of SHL, there have been

modernizing influences for at least a thousand years. While all these ideas

warrant study (I think especially within their historical contexts), many

are not consistent with SHL theory, regardless of whether the author called

his work a study of SHL. I believe that Lui Wansu during the 12th century

was the first CM writer to introduce the idea of heat as a pathogenic

factor, rather than as a response to some blockage. Of course, this idea was

much developed and widely d to during the subsequent centuries, but

we can learn something (as Xu Dachun insisted) by going back to the

" pre-modern " ideas -- in his case the developments from the Jin-Yuan period

were what he considered " modern. "

 

We don't further our understanding of the nature of human life through the

study of Chinese medicine by limiting our focus to recent commentators

because they're easier to read and seem " juicier. " The Chinese medicine of

the Qing Dynasty included a lot of biases, and I also think we should

clearly understand that there was no academic freedom in Imperial China.

During any period, much of what was written and published was controlled by

the Imperial government, and since then there have been other historical

biases including the much discussed modern materialist influence.

 

If we want to understand the depth of wisdom in Chinese medicine, I believe

we have to do an extensive " thought experiment " by visualizing a

(pre-modern) worldview based on CM theory, including that the human body is

always responding to its circumstances (both external and internal) to

sustain life. Much of this was never written by Chinese authors, either

because it was historically understood or because Chinese intellectual

tradition was somewhat different from our western one -- much of philosophy

was generally considered personal and beyond languagerather than our current

discursive standard. " The dao that can be spoken is not the eternal dao " was

widely read, studied, and respected (beyond just " Daoists " ) in historical

China.

 

How can one make the claim that: " it doesn't really matter, the treatment

will be the same either way. So whatever story you like, go for it, but

remember it is not

the only story " unless one works to understand the older ideas? I'm aware

that there are multiple stories throughout the history of CM, and that they

lead to different ways of looking at real clinical manifestations. Are you

willing to openly check out some of the ones that don't agree with your

current beliefs?

 

Steven Alpern

CCMforHealing.com

 

[

 

<> Terms of Use

 

..

 

 

<http://geo./serv?s=97359714/grpId=201013/grpspId=1705060815/msgId=

48382/stime=1271608454/nc1=4025373/nc2=3848640/nc3=4836041>