Guest guest Posted June 21, 2000 Report Share Posted June 21, 2000 It would seem the negative effects of herbs are deducible from the positive effects. Drying herbs generally deplete yin. Strong dispersing herbs generally deplete qi. Moistening herbs aggravate dampness. The issue of specific negative organ effects seems less apparent. I have never heard of a drying herb affecting only liver yin, for example. But is raises an interesting philosophical and historical point. The positive attribution of herbal effects on organs is a rather recent addition to TCM, occurring mainly in the last 600-700 years or so. While much of this systematization of herbology is considered mainstream TCM today, the issue of organ affinity is still debated. No less an authority than 18th century Hsu Ta Chun (sorry, the pinyin escapes me here) completely dismissed this issue of entering channels and organs, stating, " herbs that move qi move all qi; herbs that dissolve phlegm dissolve all phlegm anywhere in the body... a particular drug may be indicated for a particular organ/channel, ... but to say that a particular herb does not enter into (all) other channels (as well), that is impossible. " Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2000 Report Share Posted June 21, 2000 Of course, As Xu Da-chun (that's the Pinyin for you, Todd) also says, however, most medicinals are used in combination which tempers their effects. His book has an interesting chapter on the use of single medicinals (dan xing/ " goes alone " ). And, yes, medicinals entering channels is speculative. . . ..different texts sometimes list different channels for a medicinal. And, yet, state boards in California require knowing which channels are entered by medicinals as if engraved in stone. >It would seem the negative effects of herbs are deducible from the >positive effects. Drying herbs generally deplete yin. Strong >dispersing herbs generally deplete qi. Moistening herbs aggravate >dampness. The issue of specific negative organ effects seems less >apparent. I have never heard of a drying herb affecting only liver yin, >for example. But is raises an interesting philosophical and historical >point. The positive attribution of herbal effects on organs is a rather >recent addition to TCM, occurring mainly in the last 600-700 years or >so. While much of this systematization of herbology is considered >mainstream TCM today, the issue of organ affinity is still debated. No >less an authority than 18th century Hsu Ta Chun (sorry, the pinyin >escapes me here) completely dismissed this issue of entering channels >and organs, stating, " herbs that move qi move all qi; herbs that >dissolve phlegm dissolve all phlegm anywhere in the body... a particular >drug may be indicated for a particular organ/channel, ... but to say >that a particular herb does not enter into (all) other channels (as >well), that is impossible. " > >Todd > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 21, 2000 Report Share Posted June 21, 2000 A major difference between western herbs and TCM is the use of formulas of herbs rather than the western use of a single herb. Aside from the distinction of a the single herb, the effect of a single herb is carried out through a combination of herbs unified in a formula. The affect of the formula comes form the synergist of the herbs - not the simple addition of herbs. Thus a simple herb may have different effects in different formulas. To me western herbalist (western thinking) attempt to pinpoint and isolate affect. My teacher attempted to impart in me a feeling of herbs that worked together, like a family (or army). If one knows the strength and weakness the General is better suited to mobilize and employ. Besides the character of a single herb, TCM literature encompasses not only the single herb character, but dual and triple combinations and of course formulas. and then things change as the dosage is adjusted and the preparation of the herb. I do not envy the person who can determine all the potential characteristics of say Ma Huang. A noble undertaking to say the least. [herb-t] Wednesday, June 21, 2000 9:43 PM cha other organs It would seem the negative effects of herbs are deducible from the positive effects. Drying herbs generally deplete yin. Strong dispersing herbs generally deplete qi. Moistening herbs aggravate dampness. The issue of specific negative organ effects seems less apparent. I have never heard of a drying herb affecting only liver yin, for example. But is raises an interesting philosophical and historical point. The positive attribution of herbal effects on organs is a rather recent addition to TCM, occurring mainly in the last 600-700 years or so. While much of this systematization of herbology is considered mainstream TCM today, the issue of organ affinity is still debated. No less an authority than 18th century Hsu Ta Chun (sorry, the pinyin escapes me here) completely dismissed this issue of entering channels and organs, stating, " herbs that move qi move all qi; herbs that dissolve phlegm dissolve all phlegm anywhere in the body... a particular drug may be indicated for a particular organ/channel, ... but to say that a particular herb does not enter into (all) other channels (as well), that is impossible. " ------ SALESFORCE.COM MAKES SOFTWARE OBSOLETE Secure, online sales force automation with 5 users FREE for 1 year! http://click./1/2658/11/_/542111/_/961649025/ ------ Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 22, 2000 Report Share Posted June 22, 2000 Z'ev, and everyone, I find in the current thread about the term " gui jing " an illustrative example of how a little rooting around the substrate of Chinese medical terms can be useful in developing an understanding of what past theorists were trying to describe when such terms were coined, as well as how their meanings have evolved over the ages and how we should understand and use them today. Chinese words, like words in all languages, are constantly undergoing evolutionary changes. These changes have been going on for thousands of years in many cases. In the case of the word " gui " as in " gui jing, " the root meaning is identified in Shuo Wen Jie Zi, as " a woman leaving the family, " i.e. getting married. Other meanings of the word include " return to; " " belong to; " and " store up, " to name just a few of many meanings that are given in Han Yu Da Zi Dian. The mind begins to engage with this material, particularly when we confront the commonly used English equivalent: " enter. " What does it mean that herbs " enter " channels? Well, to the English-speaking mind, the concept of " enter " means something. It implies certain spatial, physical relationships. If an herb enters a channel, then at one point in time the herb is outside the channel and at a subsequent point in time it has moved inside of the channel. [We'll just have to leave for another time the meaning of the word " jing. " But note in passing that there is nothing about the Chinese word " jing " that we often translate as " channel " in English to suggest that such a thing as a jing even has an inside into which an herb could possibly enter.] And, we can see from the meanings that the Chinese have associated with the word " gui " that " enter " is not, strictly speaking, among them. In other words, the Chinese never really grappled with the problem of what it means that an herb " enters " a channel. The word " gui " does not mean " enter. " Enter was simply adopted at some point by someone who thought it was an adequate equivalent that summed up the original senses of the word " gui. " But does it? It's an important fact that the word does not really mean " enter. " What does it mean? One way to paraphrase the traditional concept of " gui jing " is that the active principle of an herb, i.e. it's qi, becomes abstracted or separated from the herb, in much the same way, figuratively speaking, that a woman leaves her family when she is betrothed. The herb's qi, like the bride, then returns to its new home where it can take up its appointed duties. It's not a description of little bits of herbs running around inside the body looking for someplace to enter. It's a poetical description of bio-dynamics that employs rich social and phenomenological metaphors to develop its true meaning. It becomes pretty clear pretty quickly that if one lacks a clear grasp of what the qi of an herb is, then the whole concept of " gui jing " loses its immediacy. So the resolution of the discussion of what it means that herbs " enter " certain channels begins with the recognition of a set of facts. Fact one: the term, like many in traditional Chinese medical nomenclature has a distinctively figurative or metaphoric character. Fact two: like many Chinese medical terms, the current commonly used English equivalent tends to mislead English speakers as to the true meanings of the Chinese term it is used to translate. Fact three: to understand the term and the theory of which it is an element, one has to grasp the ways in which such metaphoric terminology is used. You see, the Chinese meaning does not, as the improper English " equivalent " suggests, have anything to do with an herb entering a channel or anything else. Nothing goes anywhere. It is a transaction mitigated by the concept of qi. Fact four: if we lack an understanding of what qi is, we will never be able to construct anything like an understanding of what gui jing means. We'll argue and decide and curse and praise each other like medieval monks debating how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. There are, of course, many other facts that come to bear on the meaning and understanding of gui jing. I don't intend this brief rant to stand as any sort of explanation, only an illustration of the kinds of challenges we actually face when we decide to come to terms with what such words and phrases really mean. The term " gui " appears in the Shuo Gua or Commentaries on the Trigrams of the Yi Jing where it is used to describe the action of the ten thousand things as they " return to store up (gui chang) in the north, in the sign of Kan gua. " Wilhelm here translates the phrase " gui chang " as " subject to " (see p.270 of the third edition of the Baynes/Wilhelm translation). No doubt there will be some who protest that such minutiae are not pertinent to the modern practice of TCM or CCM or some other thing. Unfortunately, these tend to be the ones that get most bollixed up in trying to figure out what herb enters what channel. There is, indeed, an epistemology, in fact a whole cultural substrate that supports the terminology and theoretical architecture of Chinese medical principles. But you gotta know it before it matters that it exists. As Dr. Xu pointed out, even for Chinese doctors and scholars, misapprehension and misunderstanding of this idea is not just possible but a common fact. Everyone who studies such material has to wrestle with the meanings of these terms and phrases. And as Bob Felt has frequently and eloquently put it, what really matters is that those who discourse on such subjects must disclose their methodology. Otherwise meaning becomes lost in assumptions. Ken > Of course, > As Xu Da-chun (that's the Pinyin for you, Todd) also says, however, most > medicinals are used in combination which tempers their effects. His book > has an interesting chapter on the use of single medicinals (dan xing/ " goes > alone " ). And, yes, medicinals entering channels is speculative. . . > .different texts sometimes list different channels for a medicinal. And, > yet, state boards in California require knowing which channels are entered > by medicinals as if engraved in stone. > > > > > >It would seem the negative effects of herbs are deducible from the > >positive effects. Drying herbs generally deplete yin. Strong > >dispersing herbs generally deplete qi. Moistening herbs aggravate > >dampness. The issue of specific negative organ effects seems less > >apparent. I have never heard of a drying herb affecting only liver yin, > >for example. But is raises an interesting philosophical and historical > >point. The positive attribution of herbal effects on organs is a rather > >recent addition to TCM, occurring mainly in the last 600-700 years or > >so. While much of this systematization of herbology is considered > >mainstream TCM today, the issue of organ affinity is still debated. No > >less an authority than 18th century Hsu Ta Chun (sorry, the pinyin > >escapes me here) completely dismissed this issue of entering channels > >and organs, stating, " herbs that move qi move all qi; herbs that > >dissolve phlegm dissolve all phlegm anywhere in the body... a particular > >drug may be indicated for a particular organ/channel, ... but to say > >that a particular herb does not enter into (all) other channels (as > >well), that is impossible. " > > > >Todd > > > > > > ------ > SALESFORCE.COM MAKES SOFTWARE OBSOLETE > Secure, online sales force automation with 5 users FREE for 1 year! > http://click./1/2658/11/_/542111/_/961651722/ > ------ > > Chinese Herbal Medicine, a voluntary organization of licensed healthcare practitioners, matriculated students and postgraduate academics specializing in Chinese Herbal Medicine, provides a variety of professional services, including board approved online continuing education. > > > 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.