Zang-Fu and Bioscience Terms

[Guest guest]

>The author of this book clearly does not understand either the

 

>TCM liver functions or the modern concept of detoxification. If

 

>one understands the modern idea, it is clear that the chinese

 

>had no idea of this concept. The herbs in TCM that clear toxin do

 

>not work by stimulating TCM liver function. For example pu gong

 

>ying clears toxins mainly via the urine. It has well known western

 

>liver detox function. But it does not course the liver or nourish

 

>liver blood. It may be used for liver dampheat, but this does not

 

>have anything to do with TCM liver function, per se. In other

 

>words, I do not think the chinese conceived of this herb working

 

>by altering liver function. Of the herbs that course the liver, a

few

 

>have effects on liver detox function (like chai hu), but many, if

not

 

>most, do not (like xiang fu, qing pi, chuan lian zi). So the fact

that

 

>chai hu and others affect liver detox is more a fluke than some

 

>rule of TCM, IMO.

 

>

 

>Todd

 

> Thu, 6 Jun 2002 09:13:41 -0700

 

> " "

 

>Re: TCM Liver detoxifies?

 

>

 

>Well, for me this confirms that the author is mixing apples and

oranges,

 

>Chinese medicine and Western naturopathic concepts. And the idea

that

 

>the 'Chinese liver' detoxifies the spirit'.. . . .a total fantasy

that

 

>makes no sense at all. It appeals to the American pop-spiritual

 

>mentality, but is not based on any shred of Chinese medical

literature.

 

>I think it would be difficult to find any description of the

 

>hun/ethereal soul that would match this description.

 

>

 

>

 

>

 

The two messages by Todd and Zev evoke the conundrum that I have been

trying to resolve: Why did the translators of CM decide to apply

these western biological terms (ie, the organs such as liver, spleen,

and others) to CM organs systems (the Zang-Fu)? For example, why not

just leave Gan as it is, instead of calling it the Liver?

 

I have observed clients, Non-CM health practitioners, and even CM

practitioners talk of Western and CM organs systems as being

equivalent phenomenons. I have often tried to untangle this

confusion with the above mentioned groups. Sometimes their confusion

is cleared-up, and sometime it doesn't get resolved.

 

Luckily, no has challenged me to explain the historical origins of

why the Zang-Fu got translated that way. If they did, all I would

have to offer are my hypothesis and the speculation of other CM

practitioners. Both of which are not currently adequate in my

opinion.

 

I haven't seen Suhbuti, Heiner Fruehauf, Blue Poppy, Maciocia,

Bensky, or any of the discussion groups I belong address this issue.

However, I haven't read alot of Unshuld, Needham, Sivin, Elizabeth

Hsu or any other CM scholars. If there's an explanation, I'm eager

to hear it.

 

Malino

[Guest guest]

Malino,

 

Presumably, some European pointed at a kidney or a heart and said,

" How do you say this? " The organs are the same anatomical organs; it's

just that functions are differently conceived.

 

Because of the confusion you speak of, Porkert chose to number the

" orbs " and the Leamington-Worselyans also use numbers instead of

names.

 

Looking at a Chinese-English dictionary (not a medical dictionary),

there is no other translation for gan than liver. For xin, there's 1)

heart, 2) mind, and 3) center. For fei, there's only lungs. For shen,

there's only kidney, and for pi, there's only spleen.

 

I don't know what else these Chinese words could be translated by that

would be any more revelatory.

 

Bob