Guest guest Posted June 2, 2000 Report Share Posted June 2, 2000 Well said Ken.. Further comments.. (As a (life-long) student and a 'very-active observer').... Bob wrote: Once one has identified the various patterns a patient is presenting, one next states the treatment principles that logically rememdy each of those patterns. These principles should be stated in the order of severity or predominance of each pattern. The standard words of these treatment principles are the same words that are used for the chapter titles in our materia medicas (at least in Chinese) and our formulas and prescriptions (fang ji xue) books. Therefore, one simply picks appropriate medicinals for each of the stated treatment principles. By appropriate, I mean meds which do the required functions AND are empirically know to address the patient's personal symptoms and complaints. Voila. Easy as pie. Are you saying that you pick herbs for all 5-10 patterns that you see? My current supervisor says the body gets confused when you try to do too much, that is why she always picks the main problem (usually root) and treats this and if done properly other problems disappear... Usually 1 simple Dx. Where does this concept come from, treating 5-10 patterns... I have read Pi Wei Lun, and personally I don't see this 5-10 pattern complex idea demonstrated... can someone please give some specific examples on how this is demonstrated in classics. Without specific examples of how you actually use this in practice, which would be nice, I can only hypothesize on exactly what one means by this. It seems that our modern differentiations, are based on past doctors differentiations, and they do not always exactly lineup with the patient. When this happens we seem to start grasping at extra symptoms and adding extra patterns. I.e. we see SOB and palpitations istead of exception that it is a by-product of the main pattern, we many times start adding in Lung or Heart (upper burner) pattersn and then start to treat this. My previous example of the sp qi xu, lv qi shi, xue xu, ht xue xu, with kid xu, and dampness, was a by-product of this thinking... classics still have all these issues but they focus in on the root (this is what I have percieved so far... As far as dampness only being related to aristocratics, I might have to question this idea. In the PI Wei Lun , Li Dong-yuan mentions the environment as creating many damp conditions. Also are people saying damp diseases are most complex? Why do people believe that Americans are more complex, what about Mexicans, what about people with serious deficiencies getting life threatening diseases/ plagues. Do Chinese belief this.?. Also why do people who have very healthy diet and lifestyles come down with these supposed complex patterns. How is that our modern society is complex and past Chinese are not? Yet we are using those formulas to treat our modern society? I also would like to question the worshipping of the Pi wei Lun in this country (on the back of mine it says it is one of the most important books and a history of Chinese medicine. " ) Is this true? It is my understanding that a visible only one of 8 (possibly 10) books that a Li Dong-Yuan wrote. And it is not even his main text it is a supplementary text. And supposedly his theories (specifically yin fire) are highly controversial and are not even included in mainstream Chinese theory. " One of my teachers says it is just a fringe theory that is controversial and one can see how he just renamed other classical theories. " (Professor from Nanjing) Is this true? I do not know. As For Easy... Easy. This is very perplexing.. Especially here in the west... Everything here is made easy right? Especially our TCM schools and I hear this everyday, " why should I read anything extra, why should I memorize these formulas, it will not help be a better practitioner " ... Woooo.. is it that easy if we just believe in something it is easy to 'cure' people. TCM is a very intellectually grueling process, My Chinese teachers constantly remind of this..My Jin Gui teacher had to memorize all major classics, Jin Gui, Shang Han Lun, Nei Jing etc... IS this pointless? Something has made this man a great scholar, teacher, and practitioner. My current herb's teacher has us memorize everything, period (pin yin , ingredients, dose, ci, source text, fx, etc, etc,.. people whine and whine.. ) I asked how it was when she went to school.. her reply was that it was medical school.. every class she had was like that (memorizing everything)... It is grueling... But well worth it, Mastery in anything IS NOT EASY and I would say anyone who is selling this idea, be leery of (i.e. learn everything in a weekend)... Religion? Let us not forget that this is energy medicine and it is Magical... complex or simple... -Jason Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 >Well said Ken.. Further comments.. (As a (life-long) student and a >'very-active observer').... > >Bob wrote: > >Once one has identified the various patterns a patient is presenting, one >next states the treatment principles that logically rememdy each of those >patterns. These principles should be stated in the order of severity or >predominance of each pattern. The standard words of these treatment >principles are the same words that are used for the chapter titles in our >materia medicas (at least in Chinese) and our formulas and prescriptions >(fang ji xue) books. Therefore, one simply picks appropriate medicinals for >each of the stated treatment principles. By appropriate, I mean meds which >do the required functions AND are empirically know to address the patient's >personal symptoms and complaints. Voila. Easy as pie. > >Are you saying that you pick herbs for all 5-10 patterns that you see? My >current supervisor says the body gets confused when you try to do too much, >that is why she always picks the main problem (usually root) and treats this >and if done properly other problems disappear... Usually 1 simple Dx. Where >does this concept come from, treating 5-10 patterns... I have read Pi Wei >Lun, and personally I don't see this 5-10 pattern complex idea >demonstrated... can someone please give some specific examples on how this >is demonstrated in classics. Without specific examples of how you actually >use this in practice, which would be nice, I can only hypothesize on exactly >what one means by this. Jason, There are a few points here I'd like to make. 1) In five phase theory, we learn that when one phase or viscera is in disharmony, it effects at least one or two other viscera, or all other phases. For example, when the liver is replete, it will overact on the spleen, causing spleen vacuity, and may 'insult' the lung/metal phase, also causing vacuity, drain the mother phase (kidney/water). Illnesses do not exist in isolation. . . .they always have an effect on the entire system, so you have to treat the entire system. Otherwise, symptoms will reappear in different form. This is called a bian zheng/transmuted pattern, where you have complicated a formerly simple condition. 2) It is easy to SAY treat the root, hard in practice. . . .sometimes there is a lot of branch symptomology. How do we know what the main problem is? And if it is truly the root? Sometimes the root is not visible. 3) A typical female patient that I see may have a pattern such as sp qi xu with damp, transforming to damp heat in the lower burner, which causes the blood to stagnate. The damp heat weakens the kidney qi, interferes with the free flow of liver qi, causing liver qi depression which further weakens the spleen via the ke/control cycle. What we are talking about is seeing health and disease as movement and process, not a fixed, one-dimensional view. Both the Nan Jing in acupuncture literature and Pi Wei Lun in internal medicine literature share this view. And yes, Pi Wei Lun is one of several books by Li Dong-yuan. But the others are not yet translated. . . ..so, this will do for now. For me, with my background in macrobiotics and nutrition, and my observations of damaged spleen in relatively affluent westerners (including Mexicans, Jews, Blacks and everyone else I see), this teaching resonates with my practice. Who knows what the 'teacher in Nanjing is thinking, and what his reasons are? Is this a reason to dismiss such a vital teaching outright? I, for one, am thankful for bu zhong yi qi tang. If it were the only herbal prescription I had, I could still help most of my patients. > >As far as dampness only being related to aristocratics, I might have to >question this idea. In the PI Wei Lun , Li Dong-yuan mentions the >environment as creating many damp conditions. >Also are people saying damp diseases are most complex? >Why do people believe that Americans are more complex, what about Mexicans, >what about people with serious deficiencies getting life threatening >diseases/ plagues. Do Chinese belief this.?. Also why do people who have >very healthy diet and lifestyles come down with these supposed complex >patterns. How is that our modern society is complex and past Chinese are >not? Yet we are using those formulas to treat our modern society? Spleen/stomach damage, i.e. post-natal qi is damaged by consuming more than what is necessary for life in health. There have been periods in Chinese history that have had high consumption levels as a result of affluence, as well. As far as people with 'healthy lifestyles and diets' coming down with complex diseases, you will have to explain further. > > > >I also would like to question the worshipping of the Pi wei Lun in this >country (on the back of mine it says it is one of the most important books >and a history of Chinese medicine. " ) Is this true? It is my understanding >that a visible only one of 8 (possibly 10) books that a Li Dong-Yuan wrote. >And it is not even his main text it is a supplementary text. And supposedly >his theories (specifically yin fire) are highly controversial and are not >even included in mainstream Chinese theory. " One of my teachers says it is >just a fringe theory that is controversial and one can see how he just >renamed other classical theories. " (Professor from Nanjing) Is this true? >I do not know. I am unaware of anyone who worships the Pi Wei Lun. Perhaps inspired would be a better term It inspires me, certainly. But so does the Nei Jing, Nan Jing, Shang Han Lun, and lots of other texts. I only worship the G-d of Israel. > >As For Easy... >Easy. This is very perplexing.. Especially here in the west... Everything >here is made easy right? Especially our TCM schools and I hear this >everyday, " why should I read anything extra, why should I memorize these >formulas, it will not help be a better practitioner " ... Woooo.. is it that >easy if we just believe in something it is easy to 'cure' people. Bob and Ken have been trading posts on this topic, and I'll sit this one out and watch with bated breath from the sidelines. . . . . TCM is a >very intellectually grueling process, My Chinese teachers constantly remind >of this..My Jin Gui teacher had to memorize all major classics, Jin Gui, >Shang Han Lun, Nei Jing etc... IS this pointless? Something has made this >man a great scholar, teacher, and practitioner. My current herb's teacher >has us memorize everything, period (pin yin , ingredients, dose, ci, source >text, fx, etc, etc,.. people whine and whine.. ) I asked how it was when she >went to school.. her reply was that it was medical school.. every class she >had was like that (memorizing everything)... It is grueling... But well >worth it, Mastery in anything IS NOT EASY and I would say anyone who is >selling this idea, be leery of (i.e. learn everything in a weekend)... I agree with your Jin Gui teacher, that reciting the classics would be a great way to teach Chinese medicine. . . .if you want, I'd be glad to do it with you. It appeals to me, because this is how the Talmud is studied as well. . . .reciting a section, then debating it. Many great teachers of Chinese medicine will choose a section of a classical text, and build a lecture on it. Luke described how his teacher, Sun Baek, taught the Nei Jing this way. I'm all for it. I am not so sure, however, that memorizing everything in every prescription in a class is such a great idea. Unless the student learns the PRINCIPLES, character and qualities of each prescription as well. Just quantitative knowledge, without understanding, will fade from memory. A gallon of gingko leaf tea won't bring it back. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 3, 2000 Report Share Posted June 3, 2000 Jason, Just a general comment on the cyclical modernization of Chinese medicine that has occurred repeatedly in China over the past many centuries... Well, that's the first comment, i.e. that those who wish to study and apply Chinese medicine are constantly faced with the challenge of bringing ancient ideas into harmony with contemporary conditions. That was the problem facing the authors of the Nei Jing. That was the problem facing Hua Tuo, Zhang Zhong Jing, and others from the Han forward. We face the same challenge today. We now have the benefit of the accumulated best efforts of centuries' of scholars. We also have the benefit of modern scientific methods and rigors. Are you familiar with The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas Kuhn? In it he describes in general terms the kinds of issues that we find ourselves face to face with. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.