Subject: Medicine is a noble profession - herbology

[Guest guest]

Fri, 31 Dec 2004 15:04:55 -0800, " " <zrosenbe

wrote:

 

>The basis of the CM use of herbs is the Shang Han Lun, and you have to

study the [i.e. " this " ?] theory carefully to practice effectively any form

of Chinese herbal medicine

 

SHL is the earliest, and highly elaborate theory of process-patterning and

systemic correspondence herbal medicine. But, as Unschuld notes often, this

book appears to have been out of the mainstream of herbal usage until the

large scale appropriation into neo-confucian medical theory in the

song-jin-yuan. Prior (pre-han thru tang), and even after, and into the

present, it can be argued that fang-ji, or symptomatic-prescriptive

application was/is the most common practice. Note I don't call this

" medicine " , in deference to Unschuld's narrow definition of medicine as a

complex of natural law theory applied to healing arts. These other

applications he terms just " healing arts " (Heilpraxis). But the high level

medical theory and practice appears to have been a narrowly applied, elite

and literary medicine, at least up to the TCM revolution (a term I think we

can consider justly using, in deference to Kim Tayor's work).

 

>I know this first hand as a professor of herbal medicine for seventeen

years. Students cannot understand how to prescribe Chinese herbs without

some training in the Shang Han Lun.

 

After granting that this methodology is a primal archetype in CM herbal

theory, I disagree that study of the SHL specifically is sine qua non to

adequate understanding and practice. That is, I argue, that the principles

used there (SHL) are evident and can be imparted/mastered at/from a number

of points throughout the traditions.

 

The SHL, per se, wasn't taught to any extent when I studied at PCOM. Two

other, distinct models I believe gave me a good working basis:

 

1) Ted Kaptchuk's exposition of prototypical core formulas for each of the

zang complexes, and a spectrum of classical variations surrounding each of

those. E.g. SiJunZiTang for the Spleen, with other formulas surrounding is

along the spectrum from dryness to increasing dampness to toxicity.

Together with detailed consideration of how the constituent herbs and

multi-herb modules contribute to the core functions and the variations.

This was not SHL, though some of the material traces to there.

 

In another context, Ted used a six-stage model to depict his understanding

of the levels of practice of (mainly, I recall) acupuncture. I.e. from

simple ah-shi, through channel theory, more elaborate depth of diagnosis,

to more 'spiritual' levels (by which I mean not religious, per se, but at

the level of deep human issues). He actually outlined 5 levels, reserving

the 6th for an unnameable, ultimate level. I recall he modeled this on a

tradition in which one of the Hebrew names for the deity is not to be

uttered, rather than the Daoist notion (1st chapter of the TaoDeJing).

 

2) The third-year advanced herbal Dx series (as taught by James Williams) -

a somewhat rigorous method of differential Dx -> treatment principles ->

matching with prototypical classical formulas, and the principles for

modification.

 

Post-graduate study and practical models have added flexibility on those

foundations. For instance, learning some of Lam Kong's formulas and

additive modules (often involving substitutions for particular classical

components, and some Cantonese herbs not in the TCM curriculum). (This

through inheriting/training in an office/practice heavily influenced by Dr.

Kong's mentorship.)

 

Also, the way Jeffery Yuen demonstrates formula building in many of his

lectures would appear, at first glance, to be at another extreme. He takes

the Dx into its treatment principles, and then translates them one by one

into specific herbs. (As examples - he regularly states that he does not

like to dictate protocols, but rather demonstrate principles. He often says

(paraphrased), " this is an example of an herb to, say, transform phlegm,

but use which ever one you have a cultivated understanding of for that

purpose. " ) This could be taken as resembling a sort of combinatoric formula

methodology that was roundly attacked a couple of months ago in this forum.

But he is speaking generally to advanced students / practitioners; and he

can readily compare and justify what he's saying in the context of the SHL

or other sources. In the context of the Imperial School and the 4 Great

Masters, for instance, he often points out how each built upon (and/or

contradicted and departed from) the SHL, and each other.

 

My point, in brief, is that I believe it possible to find and learn the

spirit of the SHL throughout the history. Specific study of it is an

excellent, perhaps in the context of educational standardization a logical,

but not unconditionally necessary pedagogical strategy.

 

 

[Guest guest]

I've also taught by this method, first introduced by Zhu Dan-xi, the

great Jin-Yuan physician, in his Dan xi xin fa/Heart-felt Treatment

Method of Zhu Dan-xi. I call it the 'family tree' method of

classifying and learning herbal prescriptions.

 

 

On Jan 1, 2005, at 3:23 PM, wrote:

 

> Ted Kaptchuk's exposition of prototypical core formulas for each of

> the

> zang complexes, and a spectrum of classical variations surrounding

> each of

> those. E.g. SiJunZiTang for the Spleen, with other formulas

> surrounding is

> along the spectrum from dryness to increasing dampness to toxicity.

> Together with detailed consideration of how the constituent herbs and

> multi-herb modules contribute to the core functions and the

> variations.

> This was not SHL, though some of the material traces to there.

>

>