Truth? Talmud...

[Guest guest]

 

 

 

Z'ev

Rosenberg [zrosenbe]

 

 

It is debatable to say that "classic texts provide more

controversy than truth". . .that is simply

opinion. It depends on what you define as truth in this context.

 

 

Yes I agree… What is

truth??  I will explain… What

I have noticed is that there is a considerable amount of passages that have

incredible debate.  This is evidenced

by my reading of commentary on the nanjing and SHL, as well as my studies in a formal setting

of the neijing (in classical Chinese) and SHL (in

English). Examples:

 

1)    

There are passages that experts are unsure of the correct order of the lines.

When changed around the meaning and implications are drastically changed. This

is clear in the commentary in the SHL and my teacher’s commentary. Note:

most of my teacher’s commentary comes from a Chinese version of the text, that he is reading.

2)    

There are controversies in what has been implied… I.e. symptoms

that the author (may) believe you should understand before you even open the

book… Dan Bensky supports this idea.

3)    

There are controversies on what the actual character means, due to a

character substitution, because of damaged bamboo, or a substitution due to not

having a written character to represent the spoken one, or a possible copying error.

4)    

There are controversies on what the authors

just straight out meant, due to nuances of the (classical) language.

5)    

There are more and more… ( I think the point is made)

 

 

So…

 

The controversies represent two,

sometimes 3 or 4, ideas of what is written.  Many times they are totally contradictory,

to the Western Mind.  The Chinese

way, as I understand it, and practice, is to embrace as many as your mind can

handle, and be flexible enough to understand all of them, exploring the intricacies

within them (debate).

 

I use the phrase ‘no truth’, to mean there is not one right

interpretation for many of these issues. 

When there is acknowledged controversy that experts on the subject

cannot agree, I say there are no facts/truth.  This is due to FACT that we cannot dig

up the original author and ask him. One can only speculate.

 

People, I feel, forget that all those commentaries explore these controversies

in detail.  Westerners only get exposed

to a fraction of them- unless we read Chinese.  So what I find humorous is all the Westerners

(or even Chinese) who read such a translation, or have a scholarly teacher they

respect tell them some ‘supposed truth/fact’, and believe it so (fact).  They hear something different, freak out,

feel threatened, and find every possible way they can hold onto their belief. They

quote their teacher demonstrating how much smarter he/she is than another.. etc… I personally

don’t understand this… But my teacher had 13 Chinese teachers that

were scholars in classical Chinese and they taught the European scholars…

My teacher told me how these 13 Chinese joking told the Europeans wrong

information, to preserve the truth for themselves,

laughing at the westerner… J

 

This is not at all directed at Z’ev (because I am replying to his

post)), because I think Z’ev understands these concepts well… but

others who do not read Chinese, have not studied the classics, etc. and think

they have some greater understanding, I wonder.  I realize how little we (including I) know,

and how little they know.

 

Although, at the same time there are passages that are pretty well

universally understood to be TCM statements of FACT,  we must be open to questioning

even these.

 

So finally, more controversy than truth? Well these classical texts provide us with a rich

multi-faceted, multi-dimensional way to practice medicine, where there is not

JUST one way, as the western mind seems to gravitate towards.  This then is applied to the clinical practice,

testing our ideas/interpretations. 

And because of changing times, populations, technology, new ways of

administering medicinals, these interpretations are

even more important.

 

:

As far as "Bible philosophy". . . .Jewish

philosophy on the Torah and Talmud is commentary and debate, but still anchored

in the source texts. A literal reading may not always hit the mark. I actually

think that Jewish Bible philosophy and Chinese philosophy are very close with

the centuries of debate, cross-referencing and finding of new ideas in the

canons. And, of course, both approaches require scholarship.

 

 

I agree with Z’ev 100%. 

Imagine trying to understand the Talmud without any commentary at all.  This is what the majority of Westerners

have been doing for quite some time. 

Only until the last couple of years have there been any translations

that include decent commentary (except the nanjing).  And these commentaries only represent a

fraction of the debates out there. 

I believe, these commentaries and debates

represent the essence of Chinese medicine theory.

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Beautifully put Jason

Alon

 

-

 

traditional chinese herbs

Friday, November 23, 2001 10:51 PM

Truth? Talmud...

 

 

 

 

[zrosenbe]

It is debatable to say that "classic texts provide more controversy than truth". . .that is simply opinion. It depends on what you define as truth in this context.

 

 

Yes I agree… What is truth?? I will explain… What I have noticed is that there is a considerable amount of passages that have incredible debate. This is evidenced by my reading of commentary on the nanjing and SHL, as well as my studies in a formal setting of the neijing (in classical Chinese) and SHL (in English). Examples:

1) There are passages that experts are unsure of the correct order of the lines. When changed around the meaning and implications are drastically changed. This is clear in the commentary in the SHL and my teacher’s commentary. Note: most of my teacher’s commentary comes from a Chinese version of the text, that he is reading.

2) There are controversies in what has been implied… I.e. symptoms that the author (may) believe you should understand before you even open the book… Dan Bensky supports this idea.

3) There are controversies on what the actual character means, due to a character substitution, because of damaged bamboo, or a substitution due to not having a written character to represent the spoken one, or a possible copying error.

4) There are controversies on what the authors just straight out meant, due to nuances of the (classical) language.

5) There are more and more… ( I think the point is made)

 

 

So…

The controversies represent two, sometimes 3 or 4, ideas of what is written. Many times they are totally contradictory, to the Western Mind. The Chinese way, as I understand it, and practice, is to embrace as many as your mind can handle, and be flexible enough to understand all of them, exploring the intricacies within them (debate).

 

I use the phrase ‘no truth’, to mean there is not one right interpretation for many of these issues. When there is acknowledged controversy that experts on the subject cannot agree, I say there are no facts/truth. This is due to FACT that we cannot dig up the original author and ask him. One can only speculate.

 

People, I feel, forget that all those commentaries explore these controversies in detail. Westerners only get exposed to a fraction of them- unless we read Chinese. So what I find humorous is all the Westerners (or even Chinese) who read such a translation, or have a scholarly teacher they respect tell them some ‘supposed truth/fact’, and believe it so (fact). They hear something different, freak out, feel threatened, and find every possible way they can hold onto their belief. They quote their teacher demonstrating how much smarter he/she is than another.. etc… I personally don’t understand this… But my teacher had 13 Chinese teachers that were scholars in classical Chinese and they taught the European scholars… My teacher told me how these 13 Chinese joking told the Europeans wrong information, to preserve the truth for themselves, laughing at the westerner… J

 

This is not at all directed at Z’ev (because I am replying to his post)), because I think Z’ev understands these concepts well… but others who do not read Chinese, have not studied the classics, etc. and think they have some greater understanding, I wonder. I realize how little we (including I) know, and how little they know.

 

Although, at the same time there are passages that are pretty well universally understood to be TCM statements of FACT, we must be open to questioning even these.

 

So finally, more controversy than truth? Well these classical texts provide us with a rich multi-faceted, multi-dimensional way to practice medicine, where there is not JUST one way, as the western mind seems to gravitate towards. This then is applied to the clinical practice, testing our ideas/interpretations. And because of changing times, populations, technology, new ways of administering medicinals, these interpretations are even more important.

 

:As far as "Bible philosophy". . . .Jewish philosophy on the Torah and Talmud is commentary and debate, but still anchored in the source texts. A literal reading may not always hit the mark. I actually think that Jewish Bible philosophy and Chinese philosophy are very close with the centuries of debate, cross-referencing and finding of new ideas in the canons. And, of course, both approaches require scholarship.

 

 

I agree with Z’ev 100%. Imagine trying to understand the Talmud without any commentary at all. This is what the majority of Westerners have been doing for quite some time. Only until the last couple of years have there been any translations that include decent commentary (except the nanjing). And these commentaries only represent a fraction of the debates out there. I believe, these commentaries and debates represent the essence of Chinese medicine theory.

 

-Jason

 

 

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.

[Guest guest]

, " " <@o...> wrote:

>

 

>

> 1) There are passages that experts are unsure of the correct order

> of the lines. When changed around the meaning and implications are

> drastically changed. This is clear in the commentary in the SHL and my

> teacher's commentary. Note: most of my teacher's commentary comes from a

> Chinese version of the text, that he is reading.

 

A point that has been made by Mitchell, Fruehauf, Unschuld and numerous

others. I think we all agree with this.

 

> 2) There are controversies in what has been implied. I.e. symptoms

> that the author (may) believe you should understand before you even open

> the book. Dan Bensky supports this idea.

 

As does Fruehauf. In fact, since the SHL and jin gui yao lue were once

a single text, Fruehauf feels that six division theory is implicit in

the JGYL, though it is not mentioned. So when a formula is used for a

chronic illness in JGYL, if that same formula is used in the SHL, then

the division it treated is implied. So this forms the basis for the

school of thought amongst many senior chengdu professors that six

division theory was meant as a template for understanding the

progression of chronic illness as well as cold damage. This position

is based on what he learned from his teachers and his role as a scholar

with a Phd in Chinese Language and Philosophy. It is not accepted

amongst many Chinese (and some americans) I have spoken with, who argue

that six division theory is for cold damge only. It lends itself to

typology, for better or for worse.

 

Similarly,a symptom like alt. chills and fever being implied in any SHL

discussion of shaoyang disease is not standard interpretation as far as

I can tell. That doesn't make it incorrect, but it also offers no

incontrovertible evidence that it has merit, either. I can offer no

chinese source to support the general consensus on this matter (and I

think that is what Jason wanted), but I'll have to assume that Bensky

understood it this way also. If not, he would have written alt. chills

and fever plus one other symptom when he passed on this oft repeated

herbal aphorism about XCHT. Ma Shou chun, a noted chinese expert on

the SHL consulted with Bensky on this book, especially when it came to

SHL formulas. I am still unclear if any of the mitchell commentaries

support either position.

 

I think Heiner Fruehauf wouldn't accept the contention that alt. chills

and fever was mandatory to diagnose shaoyang as his scheme of things

includes a much broader interpretation of shaoyang. His formula notes

in fact list quite a few illnesses that normally present without any

fever symptoms at all as shaoyang level chronic diseases. Fruehauf

translates zhang zhong jing's statment of such contention, " not all of

the defining symptoms have to be there at the same time, one of them

will suffice. "

 

>

The Chinese way, as I understand it, and practice, is to embrace

> as many as your mind can handle, and be flexible enough to understand

> all of them, exploring the intricacies within them (debate).

 

The chinese do not always have this holistic embrace of paradoxes. I

think has been true of chinese philosophers and certainly many, but not

all physicians. According to Unschuld, there are numerous examples in

the literature of CM that demonstrate a more linear right and wrong

type of logic. For myself,it is one thing to accept the various

methods of selecting herbs and using the one that seems most useful to

interpet the case at hand. And this may include consideration of zang-

fu, modern clinical research, pharmacology, five phases, six divisions,

four levels, even entering channels. It is a little harder to accept

that one can believe that alt. chills, etc. are necessary to diagnose

shaoyang and also believe that they are not. Because if you believe

the latter is correct, that you can treat shaoyang w/o the fever even

once, then you can never claim allegiance to the former rule. this is

very different from sometimes using five phases,other times using zang-

fu. I don't think chinese logic calls for that kind of embrace. So

while it may never be settled that one is right, the other wrong, I

think this is a case where one either adheres to one position or the

other. You can't treat something and also not treat something at the

same time, can you. Interesting koan, though.

 

 

> Although, at the same time there are passages that are pretty well

> universally understood to be TCM statements of FACT, we must be open to

> questioning even these.

 

question everything

 

And these commentaries only represent a fraction of the

> debates out there. I believe, these commentaries and debates represent

> the essence of Chinese medicine theory.

>

 

I agree. Luckily we see more and more of this. Wait till you see

Unschuld's nei jing. However, I also think those who select

commentaries select those that reflect a range of widely accepted

ideas. Not that all dr. accept all the different ideas, but those

included are those that have large groups of adherents. In fact, Craig

told me this when I asked him about the idea of six division for

chronic illness. It is just not widely accepted. I hope more people

who are so inclined access more sources so I can look forward to

reading their reports on these literary debates.

 

[Guest guest]

mitchell

>>>Who is he?

 

-

 

Saturday, November 24, 2001 4:35 PM

Re: Truth? Talmud...

, "" <@o...> wrote:> > > 1) There are passages that experts are unsure of the correct order> of the lines. When changed around the meaning and implications are> drastically changed. This is clear in the commentary in the SHL and my> teacher's commentary. Note: most of my teacher's commentary comes from a> Chinese version of the text, that he is reading.A point that has been made by Mitchell, Fruehauf, Unschuld and numerous others. I think we all agree with this.> 2) There are controversies in what has been implied. I.e. symptoms> that the author (may) believe you should understand before you even open> the book. Dan Bensky supports this idea.As does Fruehauf. In fact, since the SHL and jin gui yao lue were once a single text, Fruehauf feels that six division theory is implicit in the JGYL, though it is not mentioned. So when a formula is used for a chronic illness in JGYL, if that same formula is used in the SHL, then the division it treated is implied. So this forms the basis for the school of thought amongst many senior chengdu professors that six division theory was meant as a template for understanding the progression of chronic illness as well as cold damage. This position is based on what he learned from his teachers and his role as a scholar with a Phd in Chinese Language and Philosophy. It is not accepted amongst many Chinese (and some americans) I have spoken with, who argue that six division theory is for cold damge only. It lends itself to typology, for better or for worse. Similarly,a symptom like alt. chills and fever being implied in any SHL discussion of shaoyang disease is not standard interpretation as far as I can tell. That doesn't make it incorrect, but it also offers no incontrovertible evidence that it has merit, either. I can offer no chinese source to support the general consensus on this matter (and I think that is what Jason wanted), but I'll have to assume that Bensky understood it this way also. If not, he would have written alt. chills and fever plus one other symptom when he passed on this oft repeated herbal aphorism about XCHT. Ma Shou chun, a noted chinese expert on the SHL consulted with Bensky on this book, especially when it came to SHL formulas. I am still unclear if any of the mitchell commentaries support either position. I think Heiner Fruehauf wouldn't accept the contention that alt. chills and fever was mandatory to diagnose shaoyang as his scheme of things includes a much broader interpretation of shaoyang. His formula notes in fact list quite a few illnesses that normally present without any fever symptoms at all as shaoyang level chronic diseases. Fruehauf translates zhang zhong jing's statment of such contention, "not all of the defining symptoms have to be there at the same time, one of them will suffice." > The Chinese way, as I understand it, and practice, is to embrace> as many as your mind can handle, and be flexible enough to understand> all of them, exploring the intricacies within them (debate). The chinese do not always have this holistic embrace of paradoxes. I think has been true of chinese philosophers and certainly many, but not all physicians. According to Unschuld, there are numerous examples in the literature of CM that demonstrate a more linear right and wrong type of logic. For myself,it is one thing to accept the various methods of selecting herbs and using the one that seems most useful to interpet the case at hand. And this may include consideration of zang-fu, modern clinical research, pharmacology, five phases, six divisions, four levels, even entering channels. It is a little harder to accept that one can believe that alt. chills, etc. are necessary to diagnose shaoyang and also believe that they are not. Because if you believe the latter is correct, that you can treat shaoyang w/o the fever even once, then you can never claim allegiance to the former rule. this is very different from sometimes using five phases,other times using zang-fu. I don't think chinese logic calls for that kind of embrace. So while it may never be settled that one is right, the other wrong, I think this is a case where one either adheres to one position or the other. You can't treat something and also not treat something at the same time, can you. Interesting koan, though. > Although, at the same time there are passages that are pretty well> universally understood to be TCM statements of FACT, we must be open to> questioning even these.question everythingAnd these commentaries only represent a fraction of the> debates out there. I believe, these commentaries and debates represent> the essence of Chinese medicine theory.> I agree. Luckily we see more and more of this. Wait till you see Unschuld's nei jing. However, I also think those who select commentaries select those that reflect a range of widely accepted ideas. Not that all dr. accept all the different ideas, but those included are those that have large groups of adherents. In fact, Craig told me this when I asked him about the idea of six division for chronic illness. It is just not widely accepted. I hope more people who are so inclined access more sources so I can look forward to reading their reports on these literary debates. Todd 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.

[Guest guest]

On Saturday, November 24, 2001, at 02:35 PM, wrote:

 

>

>

> > 2)     There are controversies in what has been implied. I.e. symptoms

> > that the author (may) believe you should understand before you even

> open

> > the book. Dan Bensky supports this idea.

>

> As does Fruehauf.  In fact, since the SHL and jin gui yao lue were once

> a single text, Fruehauf feels that six division theory is implicit in

> the JGYL, though it is not mentioned.  So when a formula is used for a

> chronic illness in JGYL, if that same formula is used in the SHL, then

> the division it treated is implied. 

 

Many of the other prescriptions in the JGYL are modifications of SHL

prescriptions applied to internal disorders. For examples, da huang fu

zi tang and da huang mu dan tang. Clearly, while the six channels are

not mentioned directly in the chapters of JGYL, there is a continuity to

the prescriptions and the logic that makes a lot of sense when one

considers that they were originally part of the same text (Shang han za

bing lun).

 

 

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/24/01 6:42:12 PM Pacific Standard Time, zrosenbe writes:

 

 

 

Many of the other prescriptions in the JGYL are modifications of SHL prescriptions applied to internal disorders. For examples, da huang fu zi tang and da huang mu dan tang. Clearly, while the six channels are not mentioned directly in the chapters of JGYL, there is a continuity to the prescriptions and the logic that makes a lot of sense when one considers that they were originally part of the same text (Shang han za bing lun).

 

 

Yes....especially modification of Xiao Chai Hu Tang into the Ban Xia Xie Xin Tang combinations.

The primary distinction between SHL and JGYL is whether the disease is in a process of transformation. It is based on clinical reality.

Will

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 11/25/01 6:40:26 PM Pacific Standard Time, writes:

 

 

> > The primary distinction between SHL and JGYL is whether the disease is in a > process of transformation. It is based on clinical reality. > could you elaborate on this? Fruehauf considered six stages to also describe the process of change in chronic illness.

 

and others'''''

 

One of my SHL - JGYL teachers used fixed vs transforming as a primary designator between the two. Fixed is obviously the chronic conditions of JGYL. His next level of the decision tree was to consider seriousness of the condition. Generally speaking, life threatening conditions were dealt with from the SHL model even if chronic. For instance, congestive heart failure is typically dealt with as a Shao Yin condition.

 

He did not consider alternating chills and fever to be a necessary component of Shao Yang disorder.....And my clinical experience strongly confirms this opinion.

None of the teachers I have come across have designated textual lacunae in the Shao Yang section. Is there a citation of this issue? I know the Tai Yin section does not even give treatment recommendations in many versions.

 

Will

[Guest guest]

, WMorris116@A... wrote:

 

 

>

> The primary distinction between SHL and JGYL is whether the disease is in a

> process of transformation. It is based on clinical reality.

>

could you elaborate on this? Fruehauf considered six stages to also

describe the process of change in chronic illness.