kampo style

[Guest guest]

I too am familiar with the phenmemological style of kampo you mention.

I also agree that many chinese physicians think of patients in terms of

formulae, but I think the internal process is different. In kampo, one

begins by memorizing formula conformations and the dx process is

essentially a matching one, like homeopathy. When a TCM doctor appears

to practice this style of prescribing, they are working on a level that

has transcended, but includes the rational TCM analysis. This is what I

consider intuition -- a simultaneous instantaneous processing of many

lines of logical thought. While the final product looks similar, the

mental state is quite different, I believe. Also, even if chinese say

such and such a pt. is liu wei .., it is a modified liu wei, not so in

kampo. So chinese may use pattern matching, but also always use

rationale to modify formulae.

 

I think the japanese minimalist school is strongly influenced by zen

buddhism, which eschews all intellectual thought in favor of direct

experience. Because it is inherently inflexible on the intellectual

level, I wonder how effective kampo is without the underpinning of zen

insight. I have always made use of the kampo info in hsu, etc. to add

to my understanding, but rarely prescribe unmodified formulae. My SHL

teacher, Heiner Fruehauf, also felt that the japanese method leaves a

lot to be desired in actual clinical practice despite the fact that he

uses almost exclusively SHL rx in his practice. Finally , the current

animosity between Chinese and Japanese clouds any opinion one has of the

other. So they are always trashing each others methods in my experience

and this is not particularly meaningful, because the trashing is so

obviously laden with emotions that have nothing to do with medicine.

 

 

[Guest guest]

--- <TLuger wrote:

> TLuger ()

>

> I too am familiar with the phenmemological style of

> kampo you mention.

> I also agree that many chinese physicians think of

> patients in terms of

> formulae, but I think the internal process is

> different. In kampo, one

> begins by memorizing formula conformations and the

> dx process is

> essentially a matching one, like homeopathy.

 

Yes, the formula is the basic unit in Koho Kampo,

rather than herb/MM classifications.

 

When a

> TCM doctor appears

> to practice this style of prescribing, they are

> working on a level that

> has transcended, but includes the rational TCM

> analysis. This is what I

> consider intuition -- a simultaneous instantaneous

> processing of many

> lines of logical thought. While the final product

> looks similar, the

> mental state is quite different, I believe.

 

Yes, of course one's mental state depends heavily on

one's training. Though I do think that In Koho Kampo

there is much in the way of intuitive processing,

perhaps moreso than in TCM (perhaps this is what you

meant). This depends on the individual as well,

regardless of the style they espouse.

 

>Also,

> even if chinese say

> such and such a pt. is liu wei .., it is a modified

> liu wei, not so in

> kampo. So chinese may use pattern matching, but

> also always use

> rationale to modify formulae.

 

Yes, in modern times Kampo formulas are not often

modified, though I'm not sure this was always the way.

Regulations banning the practice of Kampo by other

than " medically trained " personnel as well as limiting

national health coverage to about 150 formulas has

contributed to this process.

 

I think Gosei style Kampo practitioners are more into

modifying formulae, seeing that they follow Li

Dong-Yuan and Zhu Dan-xi (not Liu as I said earlier...

I get the " cool " guys mixed up sometimes), so much so

that they are known as " Li-Zhu " style practitioners

sometimes. There is more of a systematic correpondence

at work, though, again, admittedly less so than in

TCM.

 

> I think the japanese minimalist school is strongly

> influenced by zen

> buddhism, which eschews all intellectual thought in

> favor of direct

> experience.

 

Chinese medicine arrived with Buddhism in Japan, so

this is natural. Confucianism was not really a very

strong influence in Japan, AFAIK.

 

>Because it is inherently inflexible on

> the intellectual

> level, I wonder how effective kampo is without the

> underpinning of zen

> insight.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by this, Kampo is generally

prescribed by doctors rather than monks these days ;-)

 

It is very popular in Japan, much more so than

acumoxa, I think >30% vs <15% of the population

respectively. So it is obviously effective on some

level. Much as one can look at meridian therapy as a

sort of " simplified " acupuncture, it arose out of an

historic situation as a framework for effective

clinical intervention using needles and moxa which is

pragmatic and ultimately extendable, one can see Koho

kampo as a similar movement away from excessive

philosophizing towards a practical solution for

healthcare needs. In fact, one can argue that the Koho

school is as extendable as any in Japanese history,

since they were the first to investigate " Rampo " or

Dutch medicine, and became among the first surgeons in

Japan. The fact that few today adhere to this spirit

of " let's focus on what works " in favor of " what's

easy " IMHO shouldn't dissuade one from studying Kampo

sho along with TCM indications for the formulae.

 

 

>I have always made use of the kampo info

> in hsu, etc. to add

> to my understanding, but rarely prescribe unmodified

> formulae. My SHL

> teacher, Heiner Fruehauf, also felt that the

> japanese method leaves a

> lot to be desired in actual clinical practice

> despite the fact that he

> uses almost exclusively SHL rx in his practice.

 

Perhaps, however, my biggest complaint with modern TCM

practice (except for Tuina) is that people have very

little palpatory skill, and for people to ignore Kampo

sho as simplistic or whatever are IMHO missing out on

valuable diagnostic and feedback information which

could lead to a deeper understanding of the nature of

the disease as well as effects of our chosen

therapeutic interventions on the course of the

disease.

 

> Finally , the current

> animosity between Chinese and Japanese clouds any

> opinion one has of the

> other. So they are always trashing each others

> methods in my experience

> and this is not particularly meaningful, because the

> trashing is so

> obviously laden with emotions that have nothing to

> do with medicine.

>

 

Absolutely, I agree 100% here. I would add that we in

the West have at this time a great opportunity to

transcend the political baggage and look at a number

of different streams of Chinese medicine with an eye

toward improving our practice and showing the validity

of these approaches.

 

My position is that people who study and practice

classically-based styles of Chinese medicine and its

derivatives need to stand together, because ultimately

what has happened to much of Kampo practice in Japan

can easily happen here: the practice may be left in

the hands of M.D.s and R.Ph.s, most of whom who,

whatever their inclination for prescribing herbs or

acumoxa in the first place, lack the time to properly

study and practice these modalities and fall back on a

rote prescribing-per-symptom method. I think we need

to stop dissing each other and learn to respect and

appreciate the multiplicity of approaches to the

classical material, the total corpus of which nobody

can lay claim to.

 

and with that poorly placed prepositional phrase, I

respectfully end my rant... ;o)

 

 

 

=====

regards,

Robert Hayden, Dipl. Ac.

kampo36

[Guest guest]

I think koho kanpo could be considered insight oriented in the sense

that one immediately apprehends the pattern which equals the treatment.

However, my use of intuition is very specific. I think intuition

transcends, but includes logic as its basis. What many people call

intuition, I call either insight or feelings. Insight refers to a

transcendant knowing that has no basis in logic, per se. Most people do

not possess insight in my opinion, as it requires spiritual training.

Thus, the most common usage of intuition seems to refer to feelings,

emotions and hunches. I think this type of " intuition " is not a higher

form of knowledge and often leads to erroneous clinical choices.

 

Many new agers equate emotions, insight, intuition in opposition to

rationale, logic and discipline. This is not the asian tradition,

though. That is why I said I wonder about the efficacy of kampo when it

is practiced without insight, logic or intuition, but just rotely.

Since there is no way that any modern medical system will require the

spiritual training necessary for insight, we are left to rely on logic

which can lead to holistic intuition. In this sense, we are almost

lucky that logical antimystical confucianism dominated the history of

TCM in china.

 

I think many of us who were involved with chinese herbs before any TCM

books were available only had access to kampo sources like hsu. I think

most of us also discovered that this method was dry and formulaic when

studied from an intellectual perspective. I agree that with the

addition of palpation and apprenticeship and zazen, this style no doubt

comes alive, but such things are of no interest to me, so I prefer

confucian style booklearning and practice, practice, practice.

 

So we need to realize that different styles are not appropriate for

everyone. Some intellectuals have problems with kanpo and

phenomenologists with TCM. We definitely need to respect these

differences, but not necessarily expect integration of ideas at any

time.