securing & astringing

[Guest guest]

, " pemachophel2001 " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

 

>

> On the one hand, you have the securing and astringing

medicinals which

> achieve their effect by supplementing the kidney qi vis a vis

those

> viscus's function of securing. Here I am talking about Fructus

> Schisandrae Chinensis (Wu Wei Zi), Fructus Corni Officinalis

(Shan Zhu

> Yu), and Semen Euryalis Ferocis (Qian Shi)

 

are you saying that these herbs do not directly astringe. the first

two are sour and also seem to have short term effects, which I

wouldn't expect if their only function was supplementation. that

would take longer to accomplish the effects.

 

>

> On the other hand, you have securing and astringing

medicinals which

> seem to work by astringing (se, but I would not say securing).

In this

> subcategory, I would include meds such as Os Draconis

> (Long Gu) and Concha Ostreae (Mu Li).... I do not think these

meds have any

> supplementing function but rather achieve their effect by

astringing

> the same way your mouth puckers if you try to eat a banana

peel.

 

I agree that these herbs have a direct astringing effect. I have

oftenused the puckering analogy to my students. However, I

think the former group is securing AND astringing (to use your

definitions) and the latter group is merely astringing. I do not

think the former group lacks astringency. Wu wei zi seems very

effecttive at stopping sweating , for example. the addition of this

herb makes all the difference in many of my perimeno pts. Here

is an empirical addition to base formulas to addess hot flash

and nightsweat (from my teacher): wu wei zi, xuan shen, di gu

pi.

 

I have seen these herbs classed according to burner. Sweating

attributed to lungs and upper. Middle attributed to spleen xu and

diarrhea. Lower to GU leakages (semen, urine, etc.). this is

merely an organization tool like the three yellows. It does not

distinguish between mechanisms as the scheme you proposed

does. I would be curious what others have to say about the

supplements in this category, whether they directly astringe or

not.

 

[Guest guest]

the first

> two are sour and also seem to have short term effects, which I

> wouldn't expect if their only function was supplementation. that

> would take longer to accomplish the effects.

 

 

 

In terms of stopping sweating, we are specifically talking about the

defensive qi securing the exterior. The defensive qi is defined in the

Nei Jing (Inner Classic) as being very quick. So I'm not sure that we

can make assumptions about supplementation of the defensive qi via

oral administration of medicinals taking a certain amount of time

and, therefore, Fructus Schisandrae Chinesis (Wu Wei Zi) must be both

securing and astringing. Radix Astragali Membranacei (Huang Qi) will

also commonly stop abnormal sweating due to (defensive) qi vacuity

after the very first dose, and I can't remember ever reading anyone

who said it is astringing.

 

Personally, at this point in my practice, I don't put much stock in

the flavors of the meds. While I generally agree that certain flavors

are the result of certain types of chemicals and certain types of

chemicals have certain types of actions, in every category of meds, we

have notable exceptions to the general rules of the functions of

flavors. I think this is one of the aspects of Chinese medicine that

got taken too far in the Jin-Yuan and later dynasties. Just my

opinion, though.

 

Bob

[Guest guest]

, " pemachophel2001 " <

pemachophel2001> wrote:

 

 

Bob

 

Good points all about wei qi and herbs like huang qi. What

about urinary astringents, though? Do you think they also may

work by kidney supplementation, such as sha yuan zi, w/o any

direct astringency?

>

> Personally, at this point in my practice, I don't put much stock in

> the flavors of the meds. While I generally agree that certain

flavors

> are the result of certain types of chemicals and certain types of

> chemicals have certain types of actions, in every category of

meds, we

> have notable exceptions to the general rules of the functions of

> flavors. I think this is one of the aspects of Chinese medicine

that

> got taken too far in the Jin-Yuan and later dynasties. Just my

> opinion, though.

 

 

I agree with your heretical opinion on this matter. Same with

entering channels. We have debated this matter at PCOM and

one of my first battles upon arriving there was to decrease the

emphasis on testing these attributes in favor of focusing on

functions and practical applications. Z'ev and I won that battle.

 

I remember a ludicrous discussion witha colleague who

insisted that if I called into question the flavors and entering

channels, I had to question everything. I couldn't just pick and

choose what I found to be less compelling evidence. IMO,

knowledge of indications has been developing since chinese

prehistory, yet there is still a lack of consensus today on flavors

and channels. there is a strong consensus today on functions

and it is a dangerous and careless enterprise to make up new

functions for herbs based solely upon their flavor and channel

attributions. It is unfortunately something I have seen done far

too often. This is certainly an example where knowing history

informs one's understanding of TCM. The importance of flavor

and channel is only relevant to the extent that there are known

functions that correlate with these attributes. Otherwise, I find

this " data " irrelevant in my practice. I'd be curious if anyone can

give an example where knowing these attributes made a

difference in an actual case.

 

[Guest guest]

One day I asked Tiande Yang who is generally regarded as most senior amongst physicians what his method of determining dosage was. This because it is acknowledged that his dosing is some of the most refined and elegant. He told me "I think of the taste, it is like cooking."

 

I agree that specific functions will override such issues as flavor, especially if there is a desired pharmaceutical effect. However, Tiande Yang creates an appreciation for refinement - he admits strong influence from minimalist dosing styles as Ye Tianshe.

 

Will

 

Personally, at this point in my practice, I don't put much stock in > the flavors of the meds. While I generally agree that certain flavors > are the result of certain types of chemicals and certain types of > chemicals have certain types of actions, in every category of meds, we > have notable exceptions to the general rules of the functions of > flavors. I think this is one of the aspects of Chinese medicine that > got taken too far in the Jin-Yuan and later dynasties. Just my > opinion, though.

[Guest guest]

 

>

Very interesting post.

It raises a lot of questions for me.

>

> I agree with your heretical opinion on this matter. Same with

> entering channels. We have debated this matter at PCOM and

> one of my first battles upon arriving there was to decrease the

> emphasis on testing these attributes in favor of focusing on

> functions and practical applications. Z'ev and I won that battle.

 

What do you teach about flavors and

entering channels as a result of this

victory?

 

 

>

> I remember a ludicrous discussion witha colleague who

> insisted that if I called into question the flavors and entering

> channels, I had to question everything.

 

What's wrong with questioning everything?

 

I couldn't just pick and

> choose what I found to be less compelling evidence. IMO,

> knowledge of indications has been developing since chinese

> prehistory, yet there is still a lack of consensus today on flavors

> and channels.

 

If you were serving as Chief English

language editor of a modern redaction of

any classical text which specifies flavor

and channels entered as attributes of the

medicinals listed, would you keep this

information in your updated edition?

 

Or would you excise it and permit the

whole subject to fall into disuse? I'm

just trying to get a complete sense of

your evaluation of its relative importance

in modern clinical application.

 

And I'd be very interested in knowing others'

attitudes on this as well.

 

 

there is a strong consensus today on functions

> and it is a dangerous and careless enterprise to make up new

> functions for herbs based solely upon their flavor and channel

> attributions.

 

Was that what was going on that

started the battle? Had there been some sort

of pendulum swing in which that's all that

was being taught? Or it was being heavily

overemphasized so as to present a lopsided

picture?

 

 

 

It is unfortunately something I have seen done far

> too often. This is certainly an example where knowing history

> informs one's understanding of TCM. The importance of flavor

> and channel is only relevant to the extent that there are known

> functions that correlate with these attributes. Otherwise, I find

> this " data " irrelevant in my practice. I'd be curious if anyone

can

> give an example where knowing these attributes made a

> difference in an actual case.

>

 

I'm not sure I understand what you're asking

for. Is it a single case in which the ideas

of the flavor and channel entry proved effective

in diagnosis and/or treatment?

 

 

Thanks for a thought provoking post.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

At 6:25 PM +0000 4/11/02, 1 wrote:

>I agree with your heretical opinion on this matter. Same with

>entering channels. We have debated this matter at PCOM and

>one of my first battles upon arriving there was to decrease the

>emphasis on testing these attributes in favor of focusing on

>functions and practical applications. Z'ev and I won that battle.

>

>I remember a ludicrous discussion witha colleague who

>insisted that if I called into question the flavors and entering

>channels, I had to question everything. I couldn't just pick and

>choose what I found to be less compelling evidence. IMO,

>knowledge of indications has been developing since chinese

>prehistory, yet there is still a lack of consensus today on flavors

>and channels.

--

You say there is a lack of consensus on the nature of herbs, but in

fact there is very widespread consensus, with some minor variability.

 

There's more than one reason to know the nature of herbs; eg so as to

avoid injury by not over-emphasizing particular attributes, so as to

create an appropriately balanced prescription for the particular

patient, so as to be able to distinguish between two herbs with

similar functions and make the better choice in a particular case. To

imply that flavors are not part of herbal function is incorrect, and

seems to be a denial of the spirit of Chinese medicine, and what has

made it successful.

 

What you may or may not believe is one thing, but in an educational

context do you really think you should be editing out a whole chunk

of the knowledge base for students, just because you personally don't

see it's value? Could it be that your inability to see the value of

this knowledge is your problem, not a problem with the knowledge

itself?

 

Hey, why not just reduce Pacific's herb course to a survey of patent medicines?

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

Originally, the issue arose at PCOM over questions on the California

state exam on the issue of gui jing/channel entry several years ago.

While researching teaching material, I noticed that several

English-language texts didn't agree on channel entry for several

medicinals, including both the first and second editions of Bensky's

Materia Medica. I felt that using this information as criteria for

state board questions was a bit slippery as a result, and felt it was

too much for students to memorize. For this reason, I drafted a letter

on this subject to the state board (which was never sent).

 

Now, in saying this, I only held this opinion in reference to testing

and state boards. I think it is important to study channel entry as

related to Chinese medicinals, and if not an absolute quality, it does

give some direction to understanding the action of a particular

medicinal.

 

One of the problems with the present educational system in the West is

the tending to memorize arbitrary information from a minimum of texts,

and treat it as absolute knowledge in the same sense one memorizes the

parts of a cell or molecular structures in pharmaceutical drugs. If one

reads a Chinese materia medica, which includes several source texts,

there is often differences on channel entry, flavor, indications, and

even different plants are used under the same name of the medicinal. I

don't think we need to chop away at the information about a particular

medicinal, and reduce it to a Reader's Digest version, I think we need

to examine as much information about a medicinal as possible and draw

our own conclusions by testing the herbs ourselves.

 

Paul Unschuld, in his book " " , attributes the

development of channel entry to Zhang Yuansu (12th century), a

relatively late development in the history of Chinese pharmaceutics. I

think that the concept of channel entry is not an absolute entity, but a

guide to aid the physician in understanding how a medicinal works. In

other words, it is based on observation of a medicinal's actions, after

the action of a medicinal has already been determined. Newer medicinals

in the ben cao/materia medica literature often do not have a listing for

entering channels as a result. I see channel entry as a valuable

conceptual tool, but relatively more difficult to determine when

compared when burning moxa or inserting a needle on a channel.

 

I look forward to hearing more perspectives on this issue.

 

 

 

 

 

On Thursday, April 11, 2002, at 10:06 PM, dragon90405 wrote:

 

> Was that what was going on that

> started the battle? Had there been some sort

> of pendulum swing in which that's all that

> was being taught? Or it was being heavily

> overemphasized so as to present a lopsided

> picture?

[Guest guest]

To answer Ken and Rory's questions (though they were mostly addressed

to Todd),

 

As an editor, I would never even think of deleting material I

personally no longer thought relevant from a new edition of a

translation of a premodern text. I believe that premodern texts need

to be preserved in their original state (if that can be determined) or

at least in their most widely read form as an historical document.

(The issue I am alluding to here is that there are commonly different

versions of most important premodern texts since they tended to be

recopied by hand, and individual scribes often made either deliberate

or accidental changes.)

 

Secondly, I would not favor dropping the whole issue of flavors and

channel entries from contemporary Chinese herbal education. However, I

don't think that was what Todd was suggesting. I believe he simply

said he was for de-emphasizing this information. That's also all I was

saying, that I don't find it all that important or useful in daily

clinical practice. However, I did not say nor did I mean to imply that

it was completely useless.

 

Third, if one looks in the Zhong Yao Da Ci Dian, under most meds there

is at least one difference of published opinion about flavor. One of

the things that the modern movement to standardization of CM has

achieved is standardization of flavors, at least for entry level

students and Dept. of Health purposes. However, since there has been

debate in the past about the flavors of many, many meds in our

repertoire, who's to say that today's standard may not be revised in

the future. Therefore, a little skepticism regarding this issue is, I

think, not unwarranted or unhealthy for the profession.

 

Bob

 

, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...> wrote:

> At 6:25 PM +0000 4/11/02, 1 wrote:

> >I agree with your heretical opinion on this matter. Same with

> >entering channels. We have debated this matter at PCOM and

> >one of my first battles upon arriving there was to decrease the

> >emphasis on testing these attributes in favor of focusing on

> >functions and practical applications. Z'ev and I won that battle.

> >

> >I remember a ludicrous discussion witha colleague who

> >insisted that if I called into question the flavors and entering

> >channels, I had to question everything. I couldn't just pick and

> >choose what I found to be less compelling evidence. IMO,

> >knowledge of indications has been developing since chinese

> >prehistory, yet there is still a lack of consensus today on flavors

> >and channels.

> --

> You say there is a lack of consensus on the nature of herbs, but in

> fact there is very widespread consensus, with some minor

variability.

>

> There's more than one reason to know the nature of herbs; eg so as

to

> avoid injury by not over-emphasizing particular attributes, so as to

> create an appropriately balanced prescription for the particular

> patient, so as to be able to distinguish between two herbs with

> similar functions and make the better choice in a particular case.

To

> imply that flavors are not part of herbal function is incorrect, and

> seems to be a denial of the spirit of Chinese medicine, and what has

> made it successful.

>

> What you may or may not believe is one thing, but in an educational

> context do you really think you should be editing out a whole chunk

> of the knowledge base for students, just because you personally

don't

> see it's value? Could it be that your inability to see the value of

> this knowledge is your problem, not a problem with the knowledge

> itself?

>

> Hey, why not just reduce Pacific's herb course to a survey of patent

medicines?

>

> Rory

> --

[Guest guest]

Bob,

 

Therefore, a little skepticism regarding this issue is, I

> think, not unwarranted or unhealthy for the profession.

>

 

I absolutely agree, which is why I asked

the questions.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

, Rory Kerr <rorykerr@w...>

>

> What you may or may not believe is one thing, but in an

educational

> context do you really think you should be editing out a whole

chunk

> of the knowledge base for students, just because you

personally don't

> see it's value? Could it be that your inability to see the value of

> this knowledge is your problem, not a problem with the

knowledge

> itself?

 

I suppose if I did what you were saying, I would see your point.

But deemphasizing something is quite a bit different than

deleting it. I actually teach herbs in the context of how the flavors

relate to the functions. However, for testing purposes, I put more

emphasis on functions than attributes. In the past, up to 25-30%

of tests focused on attributes. I make it more like 15-20%. The

sole thing that interests me is the utility of these concepts. As to

the value of this knowledge, that is evidenced in clinical efficacy

and nothing else. It is certainly " my problem " , but I feel obligated

to share my experience with my students and let them make up

their own minds. So many people just spout dogma like parrots.

I make it very clear that my opinions are not facts, but merely my

commentary . Hopefully, that is still an acceptable role for a

teacher.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

A few days ago, you wrote:

 

<The importance of flavor

and channel is only relevant to the extent that there are known

functions that correlate with these attributes. Otherwise, I find

this " data " irrelevant in my practice. I'd be curious if anyone can

give an example where knowing these attributes made a

difference in an actual case.>

 

I will parse these statements in order to

explain my own response.

 

The first sentence makes a definitive pronouncement

about a subject that you yourself concede in the

foregoing sentences lacks a definitive character.

What is that all about? Why set yourself up as

the authority about a subject that generations

of Chinese medical doctors and writers have

failed to agree about? On what basis do you

make this statement? How do you know that this

is the only way in which this data can be

relevant? It suggests that you are familiar

with every other possible way and have

ruled them all out. And frankly that just

seems unlikely.

 

The next sentence brands two centuries' old

traditions of knowledge as irrelevant.

You do not lessen the blow by the phrase

" in my practice " . Of course you're speaking

about your ideas and your practice. Just as

of course I'm speaking about my ideas and

my practice. No matter how big we puff ourselves

up, when we speak we can only give expression

to what's inside our own heads...however it

got there. Thus saying that these ideas are

irrelevant in your practice is more or less

equivalent to saying that they either meet

your criteria or they are irrelevant...period.

 

This statement struck me originally when I read

it, and continues to strike me after having read

your further comments, as an attempt to do something

far in excess of " de-emphasizing " this bit

of knowledge. You have redefined it here.

You have stated authoritatitively and

categorically that the information obtained

based on analysis of flavor and channel

entry is strictly to be used in a confirmatory

way with respect to " functions " or it

is irrelevant.

 

If you define " functions " in your usage, I

believe that you wind up with a set of criteria

that attempts to measure Chinese medicine with

a distincly Western-style yardstick. And this, I

believe is a considerable error. You continue

to make this error in the final statement,

a challenge to your colleagues here to prove

your either/or proposition right or wrong.

 

The either or proposition, just to make it

clear: either flavor and channel entry confirm

function or they are irrelevant.

 

The following quote from Unschld's Medicine in

China characterizes this approach to the understanding

of traditional Chinese thought as " questionable

and misleading " .

 

It can be found on p. 91.

 

He is speaking about the development of the

medicine of systematic correspondence and

about the diagnostic principles arrayed

for the first time (in terms of extant

texts) in the Nan Jing.

 

" The physician, then, was free to choose among all these different

patterns which were only indirectly compatible with one another in

that all of them were based on the concepts of systematic

correspondence. The individual patterns could not, in most cases, be

reconciled with one another; some even appear to exclude others. But

the 'either/or' question that might be posed by a scientist used to

deductive reasoning obviously did not concern a Chinese theoretician

or practitioner who thought in terms of systematic correspondence. It

cannot be stressed enough that this phenomenon is one of the basic

characteristics distinguishing traditional Chinese thought from

modern Western science, and it is in this context that one should

regard all those attempts as questionable and misleading that try to

eliminate this distinctive feature of traditional Chinese thought by

artificially isolating a coherent and-in the Western sense-consistent

set of ideas and patterns from ancient Chinese sources. "

 

Now of course we can differ about this, and just because

Paul Unschuld authored those words does not make them

true. However, in my own study and research I have

discovered the same thing to be true and have found

that the fastest, clearest and most complete approach

to constructing conceptual bridges between the modes

of thinking that are prevalent in Western science and

those with which we are confronted when dealing with

ancient Chinese science begins with the recognition of

those aspects of the two which are similar as well as different.

 

None of this argues against the importance of measuring

theoretical suppostions against clinical results. It

simply suggests that the arguments in favor of knowing

the language, thought patterns, literary expressions

and whole cultural context of Chinese medicine as a

prerequisite for responsible education in the subject

must all be borne in mind when we attempt to calculate

the nature and extent of the burden we have taken on.

 

It is a big burden, but I think we have to restrain

the very natural urge to want to rid ourselves of

various aspects of it because they fail to conform

to our pre-existing criteria. It matters that the

theorists and doctors who codified and who have

transmitted the principles of Chinese medicine did

not formulate these principles according to the same

kinds of logical rules that animate the construction

of truth in Western traditions of scientific knowledge.

 

Ken

[Guest guest]

At 6:44 AM +0000 4/13/02, 1 wrote:

>I suppose if I did what you were saying, I would see your point.

>But deemphasizing something is quite a bit different than

>deleting it. I actually teach herbs in the context of how the flavors

>relate to the functions. However, for testing purposes, I put more

>emphasis on functions than attributes. In the past, up to 25-30%

>of tests focused on attributes. I make it more like 15-20%.

--

OK, I had envisioned something a little different from this from your post.

 

>The

>sole thing that interests me is the utility of these concepts. As to

>the value of this knowledge, that is evidenced in clinical efficacy

>and nothing else. It is certainly " my problem " , but I feel obligated

>to share my experience with my students and let them make up

>their own minds. So many people just spout dogma like parrots.

>I make it very clear that my opinions are not facts, but merely my

>commentary . Hopefully, that is still an acceptable role for a

>teacher.

--

I agree that it is an acceptable role for a teacher, but in first

year studies, students are in no position to judge for themselves,

and may not really be in such a position for several years to come. I

think sharing personal experience is important, but speaking for

myself, I try to not discount the value of basic knowledge, even if I

haven't yet realized it's efficacy. I trust such authorities as my

senior teachers, and authorities from the literature of Chinese

medicine.

 

On the subject of flavors etc, one Qin Bowei said:

 

" Lately there are those who speak of medicinal substances only in

terms of what they mainly treat. They fail to give attention to their

qi, taste, or entering channel. Although I think it is important to

the primary [conditions that a medicinals treats], the qi taste, and

entering channel cannot be ignored lest the discrimination of

patterns determining treatment become disjointed. "

--from A Qin Bowei Anthology, trans. Charles & Zhang, Paradigm.

 

Rory

--

[Guest guest]

Bob:

 

How do they determine an herb's taste and channel induction today?

 

 

Jim Ramholz

 

 

 

 

, " pemachophel2001 " One of

> the things that the modern movement to standardization of CM has

> achieved is standardization of flavors, at least for entry level

> students and Dept. of Health purposes. However, since there has

been debate in the past about the flavors of many, many meds in our

> repertoire, who's to say that today's standard may not be revised

in the future. Therefore, a little skepticism regarding this issue

is, I think, not unwarranted or unhealthy for the profession.

[Guest guest]

, " jramholz " <jramholz> wrote:

> Bob:

>

> How do they determine an herb's taste and channel induction today?

>

>

James,

 

The Zhong Yao Da Ci Dian was compiled by a group of authors. It is my

assumption that there was some kind of consensus among the members of

this group.

 

Bob