Digest Number 613

[Guest guest]

>

 

i agree with Joseph. I also find that the tongue diagnosis is more a " spleen

school " and the pulse more " kidney " or perhaps " kidney/heart " way of diagnosis.

It makes sense that mainland China recently put more emphasis on the tongue.

Getting enough to eat would favor the

spleen/stomach. As well, trying to convey the medicine to large numbers of

people in a short amount of time favors a " scientific " or " objective " approach.

People come to the schools from far away and then leave their teachers within

4-8 years. (much like we have here) Is it a

coincidence that most of the Shen/Hammer practitioners have been with the

teachers for years or decades?

 

I happen to be reading the Shudo Denmei, Japenese Classical Introduction to

Meridian Therapy/Eastland Press. (just last night: the pulse section!) I would

agree about how good it is.

It does seem weak on the follow through into treatment. But that is because its

a Japanese treatment, where as I could grasp TCM better.

 

Another book which is probally more relevant for discussion for TCM would be

Deng's Practical Diagnosis/ Churchill Livingston.

I would be interested to know what the " pulse people " think of it.

 

>

> Re: Pulses vs Tongue readings

>

> 1) We have a phenomenon " down to a science " when we understand it to the

> degree that another person can use our understanding to interact with the

> phenomenon and reliably obtain the same outcome as we did. (e.g. " Here, use

> this formula to calculate trajectory. " )

>

> 2) We have a phenomenon " down to an art " when our understanding of it,

> and/or the transfer of that understanding, isn't sufficient to enable

> another person to reliably obtain the same outcome as we did. (e.g. " No,

> don't pound the piano keys, caress them. Passion isn't always raw, it's

> just as often refined. " )