the role of science in advancing the classics

[Guest guest]

Some of this discussion about whether we should show primary allegiance

to either science or the classics strikes as somewhat of a false

dichotomy. In the mission statement of the CHA, I mention a modern

classicist, zhang Xichun, who believed in using science to advance and

enhance TCM, not reduce it or standardize it. In this light, I am

reminded of the story of wang qing ren, who wrote a book called

corrections of former medical errors (yi lin gai cuo 1830) which

detailed the errors of TCM. Wang also introduced the use of xue fu zhu

tang and related blood invigorating formulae. according to Heiner

Fruehauf, " wang was a local government official with a keen interest in

health. his training in TCM was rudimentary, but he displayed an

exceptional devotion to the quest for the hidden mechanisms of the

body. His position allowed him to conduct autopsies and what he saw

astonished him so much that he set out to rewrite some of the basic

principles of TCM...but even though wang's enthusiasm has become a

standard joke among later commentators, his work has by now means become

the laughing stock of the trade. ...xue fu zhu yu tang, for instance,

has surpassed classic blood vitalizers in popularity and is often

considered one of the most versatile formulas of all time (TL: I agree

with this, but it is quite remarkable coming from Fruehauf, an avowed

shang han lun style px). "

 

fruehauf goes on to explain that wang's term xue fu (mansion of blood),

was a term he coined to describe an area of congealed blood he found in

the upper chest of his autopsy specimens. Apparently, he actually

caused this artifact with his poor dissecting technique. Well, Wang's

ideas didn't get much play with TCM docs until the early 20th century.

The western knowledge of the role of blood clots in cardiac disease and

stroke led the reemergence of wang's texts. Wang had also identified

clots in the brains of windstroke victims and " by emphasizing the

etiological significance of blood stasis and significantly downgrading

fears about the traditionally exaggerated effects of blood vitalizing

herbs... his work now takes up a prominent place " (all quotes

attributed to Fruehauf, originally circulated in draft form at ITM,

later published by JCM)

 

So it wasn't until western science provided the impetus that blood

stasis began to be taken seriously. this has resulted in two trends.

One is that extensive research has been done on blood vitalizing herbs

and their now well documented role in diseases like autoimmunity of all

kinds (scleroderma, lupus, RA, MS), chronic pain syndromes, chronic

hepatitis and cirrhosis, heart disease, stroke prevention, stroke

recovery, diabetes, chronic depression. Another is that modern

classical scholars like yan de xin (Yan De Xin, Aging and Blood Stasis:

A New TCM Approach to Geriatrics/ Boulder, CO: Blue Poppy Press 1995 )

have laid out a detailed understanding of the use of blood moving

therapy that is deeply rooted in the nei jing and later classics. Yet

yan remains ever mindful of the role science played in the advancement

of this therapy. His book is a masterpiece will probably be considered

a classic itself someday (I already do).

 

I originally became aware of the preeminence of blood moving in modern

TCM through the prolific work of subhuti dharmananda

(http//:www.itmonline.org), who has been providing information about

clinical research in china for about 15 years. Much of this information

was derived from a now defunct Journal called Abstracts of Chinese

Medicine, which few people had access to because of the great expense.

It still remains a treasure trove of info not available elsewhere in

english. SD also had translators working in china for him and fruehauf

did quite a bit of work for ITM in the early to mid 90's. flaws has

also been providing clinical audits for about half a decade and his work

also reveals the blood moving trend.

 

 

--

 

Chinese Herbal Medicine

 

[Guest guest]

 

I don't think there is an either/or issue here, at least not to me. It's

a no-brainer to be cognizant with the latest scientific research. Like

yourself, I am a fan of the work of Zhang Xi-chun, and even have a copy of

his book which I hope to translate some day. For me, the issue here is a

reflection of the current situation. Scientific information in biomedicine

is readily available to anyone, medical professional or layperson, at the

click of a mouse or in any bookstore. Chinese medical information is much

more rare and precious. There are few Westerners with the ability to grasp

medical Chinese, none-the-less few reliable classical works translated into

English. There are few who are conversant with Confucianist and Taoist

texts, and the philosophical underpinnings of Chinese medicine. The roots

are weak, and need tending to, so that the branches may grow. In my

opinion, that is a major part of the work we need to do at this point.

 

 

>

> Some of this discussion about whether we should show primary allegiance

> to either science or the classics strikes as somewhat of a false

> dichotomy. In the mission statement of the CHA, I mention a modern

> classicist, zhang Xichun, who believed in using science to advance and

> enhance TCM, not reduce it or standardize it. In this light, I am

> reminded of the story of wang qing ren, who wrote a book called

> corrections of former medical errors (yi lin gai cuo 1830) which

> detailed the errors of TCM. Wang also introduced the use of xue fu zhu

> tang and related blood invigorating formulae. according to Heiner

> Fruehauf, " wang was a local government official with a keen interest in

> health. his training in TCM was rudimentary, but he displayed an

> exceptional devotion to the quest for the hidden mechanisms of the

> body. His position allowed him to conduct autopsies and what he saw

> astonished him so much that he set out to rewrite some of the basic

> principles of TCM...but even though wang's enthusiasm has become a

> standard joke among later commentators, his work has by now means become

> the laughing stock of the trade. ...xue fu zhu yu tang, for instance,

> has surpassed classic blood vitalizers in popularity and is often

> considered one of the most versatile formulas of all time (TL: I agree

> with this, but it is quite remarkable coming from Fruehauf, an avowed

> shang han lun style px). "

>

> fruehauf goes on to explain that wang's term xue fu (mansion of blood),

> was a term he coined to describe an area of congealed blood he found in

> the upper chest of his autopsy specimens. Apparently, he actually

> caused this artifact with his poor dissecting technique. Well, Wang's

> ideas didn't get much play with TCM docs until the early 20th century.

> The western knowledge of the role of blood clots in cardiac disease and

> stroke led the reemergence of wang's texts. Wang had also identified

> clots in the brains of windstroke victims and " by emphasizing the

> etiological significance of blood stasis and significantly downgrading

> fears about the traditionally exaggerated effects of blood vitalizing

> herbs... his work now takes up a prominent place " (all quotes

> attributed to Fruehauf, originally circulated in draft form at ITM,

> later published by JCM)

>

> So it wasn't until western science provided the impetus that blood

> stasis began to be taken seriously. this has resulted in two trends.

> One is that extensive research has been done on blood vitalizing herbs

> and their now well documented role in diseases like autoimmunity of all

> kinds (scleroderma, lupus, RA, MS), chronic pain syndromes, chronic

> hepatitis and cirrhosis, heart disease, stroke prevention, stroke

> recovery, diabetes, chronic depression. Another is that modern

> classical scholars like yan de xin (Yan De Xin, Aging and Blood Stasis:

> A New TCM Approach to Geriatrics/ Boulder, CO: Blue Poppy Press 1995 )

> have laid out a detailed understanding of the use of blood moving

> therapy that is deeply rooted in the nei jing and later classics. Yet

> yan remains ever mindful of the role science played in the advancement

> of this therapy. His book is a masterpiece will probably be considered

> a classic itself someday (I already do).

>

> I originally became aware of the preeminence of blood moving in modern

> TCM through the prolific work of subhuti dharmananda

> (http//:www.itmonline.org), who has been providing information about

> clinical research in china for about 15 years. Much of this information

> was derived from a now defunct Journal called Abstracts of Chinese

> Medicine, which few people had access to because of the great expense.

> It still remains a treasure trove of info not available elsewhere in

> english. SD also had translators working in china for him and fruehauf

> did quite a bit of work for ITM in the early to mid 90's. flaws has

> also been providing clinical audits for about half a decade and his work

> also reveals the blood moving trend.

>

>

> --

>

> Director

> Chinese Herbal Medicine