Talmud, Classics

[Guest guest]

I've been out of the country and I'm just catching up with all these

interesting posts. In my studies in Nanjing in the early 90's, my

teachers

spent much time analyzing commentaries of the Shang Hun Lun and Jin

Gui. I

have been taught that there are many concepts that must be understood

as

implied when reading these texts. There is still debate on what is

implied

in much of these texts. In regard to the alternating fever and

chills debate,

my

teacher presented both viewpoints, but he himself believed one must,

at sometime, have alternating fever and chills to diagnose a shang

hun lun shaoyang level disorder. Minor Bupleurum Decoction can, of

course, be used in multiple situations that are not diagnosed as

shaoyang.

Z'ev, I like the analogy of Talmud and

commentaries of classic texts. One has to allow for multiple

viewpoints to

appreciate classic texts. I agree with Jason that embracing seemingly

contradictory viewpoints only enhances one's practice and

understanding of Medicine.

 

Avi

, @i... wrote:

> , " " <@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.

>