RE: yin fire & dx.

[Guest guest]

 

jramholz [jramholz]

Monday, July 16, 2001 12:17 AM

 

Re: yin fire

 

 

 

We're both on the same side of this issue. The entire second

paragraph in my last post was a quotation from the Flaws

article, " Yin Fire Case Histories from China. " I never thought he

made it up; and he is the one who says there are few antecedents.

 

Just because a theory hasn't received wide-spread acclaim, doesn't

mean it is not important. It's to Flaws' credit that he saw the value

of yin fire and promoted it in TCM.

 

[Jason]

How do we know the value? Theory is theory.. It might sound quite nice on

paper, but what about in the clinic?

a) was it ever popular?

B) If so where did it go?

C) I don't think it is popular now anywhere, except the Flaws circle... It

might quite well be the best kept secret in Chinese medicine... But we have

to ask why it now (or ever) was not used...

D) And I will once again I say: I have never seen evidence that the Pi wei

lun was ever a monumental book, and it was only 1 out of 8 of his books, not

even being the most important. His theory never caught hold, maybe for a

reason?

E) I see a theory that sounds intriguing, very very very few clinical

usages (flaws admits this), can't find any popular use ever in history,

seems to make thing much more complicated than needed (see below), and a man

Flaws who likes to feel special. IF this is true... IS our modern usage of

tx not working ... Has the true and tested way been failing? If so lets do

some real research and test some of this stuff.. otherwise just dabbling in

yin-fire and theory and formulas seems moot.

F) Why is the yin-fire theory not discussed in any theory books throughout

history or now? I don't find it anywhere.. I have read the BP's pi wei lun

and the translation is atrocious, who knows what is actually being said. I

would like to find others sources besides what Bob writes on his website.

G) I don't believe Americans need fancy complicated dx. because they are so

complicated...

My take is it overcomplicates issues. Things can looked at much simpler

than this current Li Dong Yuan / include-everything in the dx trend- (i.e.

Lv qi stag with sp qi xu with damp sinking congealing turning to heat,

damaging fluids, lets not forget the heart involvement for the heat. And

the kidney has been weakened by the damp heat and chonicity of the problem

so we have [lv qi stag, sp qi xu, damp-heat, heat in the heart, kidney yin

& yang xu etc. etc.])... Just an example (not a real case).. of the type of

dx. that seems to go along with that style... I am not saying this is wrong

but I have never seen any of my Chinese teachers dx. like this... They dx.

even the most complicated problems with 1 or 2 syndromes- that is it.

Creating a very focused treatment, instead of 1 herb for this 1 herb for

that 1 herb for that etc. I am currently struggling with this difference

myself and trying to understand both sides.

There are crazy fringe theories all through the medicine in a whole spectrum

of sources.. Why is this one so important? History does not support it,

modern clinic does not support it? Does it appeal to our western

complicated mind? Why would I embrace a theory that doesn't fit with the

rest- or severely complicates things? [at this point individual western

successful application of his theory / formulas do not interest me- for

obvious reasons] I think it sounds cooler that it actually is...

comments?

-

 

 

Now, what about other " orphan " theories? For example, who uses the

Yun Chi (Su Wen chapters 64-71) in clinical practice?

 

Jim Ramholz

[Guest guest]

On Monday, July 16, 2001, at 08:58 AM, wrote:

 

> [Jason]

> How do we know the value?  Theory is theory.. It might sound quite nice

> on

> paper, but what about in the clinic?

> a) was it ever popular?

> B) If so where did it go?

 

(Z'ev) These are very good questions, Jason. It depends what you mean

by popular.. .it would take a major historical study by someone like

Paul Unschuld or Marta Hansen to be truly accurate. But I see no

evidence that it ever went away.

 

> C)  I don't think it is popular now anywhere, except the Flaws

> circle... It

> might quite well be the best kept secret in Chinese medicine...  But we

> have

> to ask why it now (or ever) was not used..

 

I don't know about that. . . .I've also found articles on spleen/stomach

theory in Chinese journals. My own understanding of the seeming

opposition to the theory has to do more with politics than anything

else. Dr Li utilized five phase theory extensively, and in some circles

in China five phase theory is still considered politically subversive.

> .

> D) And I will once again I say: I have never seen evidence that the Pi

> wei

> lun was ever a monumental book, and it was only 1 out of 8 of his

> books, not

> even being the most important.  His theory never caught hold, maybe

> for a

> reason?

 

It is true that Pi Wei Lun was only one out of eight books. All of them

are combined in a modern Chinese text, " The Complete Works of

Dong-yuan " , which I have been trying to get for some time. I still

haven't succeeded.

 

> E)  I see a theory that sounds intriguing, very very very few clinical

> usages (flaws admits this), can't find any popular use ever in history,

> seems to make thing much more complicated than needed (see below), and

> a man

> Flaws who likes to feel special. IF this is true... IS our modern usage

> of

> tx not working ... Has the true and tested way been failing?  If so

> lets do

> some real research and test some of this stuff.. otherwise just

> dabbling in

> yin-fire and theory and formulas seems moot.

 

Like the other Jin-Yuan physicians, such as Zhu Dan-xi, Dr. Li's work

has been influential and controversial. But even one of the architects

of modern TCM, Qin Bo-wei, says the following: " It is generally

acknowledged that Li Dong-yuan used a relatively large number of

medicinals; nonetheless, his prescriptions were well integrated and not

in the least chaotic. As such, they merit emulation. "

 

> F) Why is the yin-fire theory not discussed in any theory books

> throughout

> history or now?  I don't find it anywhere.. I have read the BP's pi wei

> lun

> and the translation is atrocious, who knows what is actually being

> said.  I

> would like to find others sources besides what Bob writes on his

> website.

 

I agree that the translation could have been better. . . .but remember

it came out quite some time ago by western standards. As you know, I

think all classics should be published with the chinese text and

commentary. As for other sources, you'll have to learn medical Chinese.

 

> G)  I don't believe Americans need fancy complicated dx. because they

> are so

> complicated...

> My take is it overcomplicates issues.  Things can looked at much simpler

> than this current Li Dong Yuan / include-everything in the dx trend- 

> (i.e.

> Lv qi stag with sp qi xu with damp sinking congealing turning to heat,

> damaging fluids, lets not forget the heart involvement for the heat. 

> And

> the kidney has been weakened by the damp heat and chonicity of the

> problem

> so we have  [lv qi stag, sp qi xu, damp-heat, heat in the heart, kidney

> yin

> & yang xu etc. etc.])... Just an example (not a real case).. of the

> type of

> dx. that seems to go along with that style...  I am not saying this is

> wrong

> but I have never seen any of my Chinese teachers dx. like this...  They

> dx.

> even the most complicated problems with 1 or 2 syndromes- that is it.

> Creating a very focused treatment, instead of 1 herb for this 1 herb for

> that 1 herb for that etc.  I am currently struggling with this

> difference

> myself and trying to understand both sides.

 

I don't look at it that way at all. I was first introduced to a similar

approach by studying with Nguyen Van Nghi, the famous French/Vietnamese

physician, who combined five phase and eight principle theories. What is

important to me is that especially in chronic disease, which is 80% or

more of western patients, you have several mutually engendering patterns

that are causing a condition to remain entrenched. Rather than try to

treat only one or two patterns, which will not only be ineffective but

even aggravate the overall condition, one tries to unravel the complex

pattern as it exists. A more simple approach applies more to external

or acute disorders. This is also part of Chinese medicine, but I would

assume that in China more acute diseases were treated until recently,

and is reflected in the bias of many Chinese physicians.

 

 

> There are crazy fringe theories all through the medicine in a whole

> spectrum

> of sources.. Why is this one so important?  History does not support it,

> modern clinic does not support it?  Does it appeal to our western

> complicated mind?  Why would I embrace a theory that doesn't fit with

> the

> rest- or severely complicates things? [at this point individual western

> successful application of his theory / formulas do not interest me- for

> obvious reasons]  I think it sounds cooler that it actually is...

 

I don't think this is a crazy fringe theory. My attitude is that we

should be open at this juncture of history to the full spectrum of

approaches developed historically in Chinese medicine, and not dismiss

anything outright, especially on the biases of individual teachers. I

have no problem with simple zang-fu pattern diagnosis when

indicated. . . it is just too limited for everything that comes in the

clinic. The Nan Jing theories that inspired Japanese acupuncture, the

yin fire theories, reading the shen from the Nei Jing, everything has

merit. Let's examine it all with an open mind.

 

Michael Broffman once advised me on a lupus case, when I had asked him

about using Dong-yuan theory. It was a later stage of lupus, where it

had entered the shao yin/kidney, and he said that in the Chinese

literature that Dong-yuan theory is used at earlier stages, and blood

stasis theory a la Wang Qing-ren used at later stages. He feels an

eclectic approach to the various theories in Chinese medicine are

required at this point in time. I fully agree.

 

 

>