chen's Materia Medica

[Guest guest]

Oh jeez, looks like another thick Must-have book. Hey, John and Tina Chen h=

ave

really been doing their homework. This might rival the Bensky/Gamble Materi=

a

Medica. They are going to have to get the third edition out. Congratulation=

s to the

Chen family!

The Chen web-page has a number of PDF's to look over. I like it. There is a=

little

description of the actions that is better than most. The only complaint is =

that the

combinations are not " always zang-fued " and there is a too easy back and fo=

rth with

the western diagnosis. But I can imagine the book that would I would want t=

o see is 5

volumes long.

 

http://www.aompress.com/Product.htm

 

doug

 

this is just a small sample: wu wei zi in the book runs a little over 3 pag=

es.

 

Wu Wei Zi

Literal Name: " five-flavored seed "

Alternate Chinese Names: Bei Wu Wei, Wu Mei Zi, Bei

Chronic cough, dyspnea or asthma: Chronic dry cough

may cause yin and qi deficiencies of the Lung and

Kidney. Manifestations include dry cough, loss of voice,

shortness of breath, labored respiration, fatigue, weakness,

and a lusterless complexion. Wu Wei Zi (Fructus

Schisandrae Chinensis) enters the Lung to stop leakage

of Lung qi and enters the Kidney to nourish the Kidney

and help it grasp qi.

• Chronic consumptive cough: combine Wu Wei Zi with Bai

He (Bulbus Lilii), Sheng Di Huang (Radix Rehmanniae),

Shan Zhu Yu (Fructus Corni), Zi Wan (Radix Asteris), and

Pi Pa Ye (Folium Eriobotryae).

• Asthma: combine it with Ren Shen (Radix Ginseng) and

Ge Jie (Gecko).

• Cough due to wind-cold: a small quantity of Wu Wei Zi

is used with Ma Huang (Herba Ephedrae) and Xi Xin

(Herba Asari). Exemplar Formula: Xiao Qing Long Tang

(Minor Bluegreen Dragon Decoction).

Night sweating: Yang qi rises to circulate in the wei

(defensive) and qi (energy) levels during the day, and

returns to the ying (nutritive) and xue (blood) levels at

night. If deficient yin or jing cannot keep the yang in

check, yang will push yin or jing outwards (in the form of

sweating) when yang returns to the ying and xue levels at

night. In other words, night sweats represent loss of body

fluids paradoxically caused by yin or jing deficiency.

• Night sweats: combine Wu Wei Zi with Mai Men Dong

(Radix Ophiopogonis), Sheng Di Huang (Radix

Rehmanniae), Xuan Shen (Radix Scrophulariae), Shan

Zhu Yu (Fructus Corni), Long Gu (Os Draconis), Mu Li

(Concha Ostreae), Huang Bai (Cortex Phellodendri) and

Wu Mei (Fructus Mume).

 

Thirst: Excessive loss of body fluids causes thirst, as do

Liver and Kidney yin deficiencies. Wu Wei Zi can be used

ASTRINGENT HERBS

18

 

, " wsheir " <wsheir> wrote:

> All:

> Take a look at John Chen's new book " Chinese Medical Herbology and

> Pharmacology' at

> http://www.aompress.com/Product.htm

> This looks like an excellent book. Great info on combinations and

> represenative formulas containing the combinations. The text also

> gives more pharmacology information than other similar books and has

> chemical structure diagrams and color photos.

> Warren Sheir

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

The only complaint is =

> that the

> combinations are not " always zang-fued " and there is a too easy back and fo=

> rth with

> the western diagnosis.

 

I do not see these as small things, especially the indiscriminate identity with

western diseases. We have worked for years at PCOM to thwart this tendency.

I'll have to see how widespread and confusing this is. But if it is

significant,

that would make this book an automatic rule out for me as a first year text.

The D/H interactions are speculative anyway and the next bensky will have

updated pharm plus all Steve Clavey's new material presented at the CHA

conference. I still like xu and wang much better than Chen since it sticks to

TCM and has just as good info on combos. And Chen is basically a

terminological nightmare. No doubt his advsiors steered him away from

wiseman terminology due to the standard feeble biases. While I will trust Dan

for his connotations, this is a perfect example of a book I cannot trust when it

comes to TCM. I don't know John Chen and will not trust his connotative

translations. For those of you who have personal reasons to trust the man,

then you are lucky. But I will no longer support connotative work of this sort

as intro level texts. Haven't we had enough of that with Giovanni?

 

I still vote for jiao shu de hands down as the best intro text on the subject:

 

1. very readable

2. wiseman terminology

3. uses zhang xi chun's approach to integration

4. extensive combinations

5. extensive comparisons

6. representative formulas with discussion

7. from the work of a respected master

 

Chen's book would be a useful and appropriate supplement because of its

pharmacological and western biases. But I believe we would be moving

backwards if this book replaced Bensky.

 

[Guest guest]

Hi

You mentioned that Bensky was coming out with a new

edition...any idea on the time frame for that?

What about the Chen book not as a school text book but

as a reference book in a practice as a back up source

to bensky and others?

thanks for your input,

Bob Linde

www.acuherbals.com

 

--- < wrote:

> ,

> " " wrote:

> The only complaint is =

> > that the

> > combinations are not " always zang-fued " and there

> is a too easy back and fo=

> > rth with

> > the western diagnosis.

>

> I do not see these as small things, especially the

> indiscriminate identity with

> western diseases. We have worked for years at PCOM

> to thwart this tendency.

> I'll have to see how widespread and confusing this

> is. But if it is significant,

> that would make this book an automatic rule out for

> me as a first year text.

> The D/H interactions are speculative anyway and the

> next bensky will have

> updated pharm plus all Steve Clavey's new material

> presented at the CHA

> conference. I still like xu and wang much better

> than Chen since it sticks to

> TCM and has just as good info on combos. And Chen

> is basically a

> terminological nightmare. No doubt his advsiors

> steered him away from

> wiseman terminology due to the standard feeble

> biases. While I will trust Dan

> for his connotations, this is a perfect example of a

> book I cannot trust when it

> comes to TCM. I don't know John Chen and will not

> trust his connotative

> translations. For those of you who have personal

> reasons to trust the man,

> then you are lucky. But I will no longer support

> connotative work of this sort

> as intro level texts. Haven't we had enough of that

> with Giovanni?

>

> I still vote for jiao shu de hands down as the best

> intro text on the subject:

>

> 1. very readable

> 2. wiseman terminology

> 3. uses zhang xi chun's approach to integration

> 4. extensive combinations

> 5. extensive comparisons

> 6. representative formulas with discussion

> 7. from the work of a respected master

>

> Chen's book would be a useful and appropriate

> supplement because of its

> pharmacological and western biases. But I believe

> we would be moving

> backwards if this book replaced Bensky.

>

 

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

Protect your identity with Mail AddressGuard

http://antispam./whatsnewfree

[Guest guest]

I agree with Todd on all counts.

 

I think the profession has evolved to the point where enough teachers

have had enough experience to see that students are confused by this

type of murky translation of essential concepts. Also, every new

materia medica in English I see makes the same mistakes of just

basically repeating the information in the Bensky materia medica with a

few extra 'plums' to get people interested. This is very frustrating,

because the Dictionary of Chinese Medicinals is so much more

comprehensive and quotes many source texts. I also saw Steven Clavey

speak on materia medica at the CHA conference, and I agree that his

additions to Bensky are bound to be very exciting.

 

Finally, we have to be careful with putting speculative information on

drug-herb interactions into clinical textbooks. Many practitioners

(and physicians) will take this information as gospel truth, even if

unproven.

is right about connotative translations. This book is a step

backwards, not forwards in that direction. Even if some people are

uncomfortable with the Wiseman dictionary at this point, one cannot

dispute the value of having access to pinyin and Chinese, terms and

characters, and defining one's choice of terminology.

 

I also vote for Jiao Shude as the book to beat. And to retain Bensky

as the primary teaching text.

 

 

On Nov 4, 2003, at 7:32 AM, wrote:

 

> , " "

> wrote:

> The only complaint is =

>> that the

>> combinations are not " always zang-fued " and there is a too easy back

>> and fo=

>> rth with

>> the western diagnosis.

>

> I do not see these as small things, especially the indiscriminate

> identity with

> western diseases. We have worked for years at PCOM to thwart this

> tendency.

> I'll have to see how widespread and confusing this is. But if it is

> significant,

> that would make this book an automatic rule out for me as a first year

> text.

> The D/H interactions are speculative anyway and the next bensky will

> have

> updated pharm plus all Steve Clavey's new material presented at the CHA

> conference. I still like xu and wang much better than Chen since it

> sticks to

> TCM and has just as good info on combos. And Chen is basically a

> terminological nightmare. No doubt his advsiors steered him away from

> wiseman terminology due to the standard feeble biases. While I will

> trust Dan

> for his connotations, this is a perfect example of a book I cannot

> trust when it

> comes to TCM. I don't know John Chen and will not trust his

> connotative

> translations. For those of you who have personal reasons to trust the

> man,

> then you are lucky. But I will no longer support connotative work of

> this sort

> as intro level texts. Haven't we had enough of that with Giovanni?

>

> I still vote for jiao shu de hands down as the best intro text on the

> subject:

>

> 1. very readable

> 2. wiseman terminology

> 3. uses zhang xi chun's approach to integration

> 4. extensive combinations

> 5. extensive comparisons

> 6. representative formulas with discussion

> 7. from the work of a respected master

>

> Chen's book would be a useful and appropriate supplement because of its

> pharmacological and western biases. But I believe we would be moving

> backwards if this book replaced Bensky.

>

 

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

 

 

I think that the essential problem is to get the state board to realize

that there are better texts out there. Their recommended texts set the

trends as to what is taught in our schools, no? So tell me how all of you

think that licensing agencies can be influenced, in order to replace

inferior learning materials. As most students will tell you, their first

priority is to pass the boards.

 

Best wishes,

 

Yehuda

 

On Tue, 04 Nov 2003 15:32:41 -0000 " " < writes:

> , " "

> wrote:

> The only complaint is =

> > that the

> > combinations are not " always zang-fued " and there is a too easy

> back and fo=

> > rth with

> > the western diagnosis.

>

> I do not see these as small things, especially the indiscriminate

> identity with

> western diseases. We have worked for years at PCOM to thwart this

> tendency.

> I'll have to see how widespread and confusing this is. But if it is

> significant,

> that would make this book an automatic rule out for me as a first

> year text.

> The D/H interactions are speculative anyway and the next bensky will

> have

> updated pharm plus all Steve Clavey's new material presented at the

> CHA

> conference. I still like xu and wang much better than Chen since it

> sticks to

> TCM and has just as good info on combos. And Chen is basically a

> terminological nightmare. No doubt his advsiors steered him away

> from

> wiseman terminology due to the standard feeble biases. While I will

> trust Dan

> for his connotations, this is a perfect example of a book I cannot

> trust when it

> comes to TCM. I don't know John Chen and will not trust his

> connotative

> translations. For those of you who have personal reasons to trust

> the man,

> then you are lucky. But I will no longer support connotative work

> of this sort

> as intro level texts. Haven't we had enough of that with Giovanni?

>

> I still vote for jiao shu de hands down as the best intro text on

> the subject:

>

> 1. very readable

> 2. wiseman terminology

> 3. uses zhang xi chun's approach to integration

> 4. extensive combinations

> 5. extensive comparisons

> 6. representative formulas with discussion

> 7. from the work of a respected master

>

> Chen's book would be a useful and appropriate supplement because of

> its

> pharmacological and western biases. But I believe we would be

> moving

> backwards if this book replaced Bensky.

>

 

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yehuda, it seems very hard to influence the California Board in this matter.

Several years ago, the board surveyed the Deans of all the CA schools to see

if they wanted Deadman's Manual of Acupuncture added to the required book

list, and I know I responded yes, but as far as I know, this book has still

not been added.

 

Correct me, someone, if I am wrong. I don't teach acupuncture.

 

Julie

 

-

" yehuda l frischman " <

 

Tuesday, November 04, 2003 10:54 AM

Re: Re: chen's Materia Medica

 

 

>

>

> I think that the essential problem is to get the state board to realize

> that there are better texts out there. Their recommended texts set the

> trends as to what is taught in our schools, no? So tell me how all of you

> think that licensing agencies can be influenced, in order to replace

> inferior learning materials. As most students will tell you, their first

> priority is to pass the boards.

>

> Best wishes,

>

> Yehuda

>

[Guest guest]

, yehuda l frischman <

@j...> wrote:

So tell me how all of you

> think that licensing agencies can be influenced, in order to replace

> inferior learning materials.

 

my Dean has suggested that if a few influential schools changed their required

texts, the boards would have to follow suit. the way the boards are currently

written, I don't think the variations between texts are that significant

anymore. so it comes down to what is a better teaching tool. I like the

information in Jiao and the organization of material in xu and wang. I do like

the photos in Chen and he has included a lot of citations for research, but then

how solid is that research? The books makes it look like the pharmacology of

herbs is a lot more grounded than is actually the case.

 

[Guest guest]

Finally, we have to be careful with putting speculative information on

drug-herb interactions into clinical textbooks. Many practitioners

(and physicians) will take this information as gospel truth, even if

unproven.

 

>>>>>>That is why i have a lot of difficulty with these speculations, especially

because they are not put forth as such. If one is to say this or that herb seems

to be processed by this or that system or enzyme and therefore one may speculate

that it may reduce or increase blood level etc, then it would be more

expectable. But much of the publications skip this critical statements and

qualifications trying to make the information clinically relevant when it is not

at this point.

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Todd

 

" " wrote:

> .... the organization of material in xu and wang. ....

 

 

I don't know this book of Xu and Wang, I haven't been able to find it

by a quick search either. Could you give me the full title of this

book?

 

Thanks

 

Alwin

[Guest guest]

I'll try to reply to Todd and Z'ev and others from memory. John and Tina are

locals up

here in LA but otherwise I don't have a relationship to defend. But I will just

address a

few points.

I'm sorry if I joked that this may replace Bensky but I don't think it will ever

be a

introductory text nor do I think it is its intent. The thread seems to condemn

it

because it isn't this.

To the point about the pharmacology, Z'ev isn't it better to know this material

than

not and what research exists and to make our own choices how we use it? You seem

to be very aware of what " gets out to the public " . I believe on the PCOM site

John

Chen has a long article about how he sees the issues. One assumes he addresses

this

in the book as well.

I'm not sure I understand connative translation well enough but a book as

heavily

footnoted as this I'm not sure it applies. His own comments are well seperated.

 

This is a good point... I don't know how much I trust rat research or what

influences it

has on my prescribing. But we know this research is going on... these are the

baby

steps perhaps and goes to the core of how far integrative medicine can or should

go.

I do like

> the photos in Chen and he has included a lot of citations for research, but

then

> how solid is that research? The books makes it look like the pharmacology of

> herbs is a lot more grounded than is actually the case.

>

 

 

And finally, we really, really, really don't want to get into the Wiseman stuff

again but

really if a book doesn't use Wiseman terminology, is it a " nightmare? " I can't

imagine

that you don't have a darn good idea of what the text is saying. Isn't this a

de-facto

censorship? sorry, but that's how it seems.

doug

I like the

> information in Jiao and the organization of material in xu and wang. I do

like

> the photos in Chen and he has included a lot of citations for research, but

then

> how solid is that research? The books makes it look like the pharmacology of

> herbs is a lot more grounded than is actually the case.

>

 

[Guest guest]

Alwin;

Try

ISBN: 1901149021

 

 

> I don't know this book of Xu and Wang, I haven't been able to find

it

> by a quick search either. Could you give me the full title of this

> book?

>

> Thanks

>

> Alwin

[Guest guest]

On Nov 4, 2003, at 11:16 AM, wrote:

 

>

> To the point about the pharmacology, Z'ev isn't it better to know this

> material than

> not and what research exists and to make our own choices how we use

> it? You seem

> to be very aware of what " gets out to the public " . I believe on the

> PCOM site John

> Chen has a long article about how he sees the issues. One assumes he

> addresses this

> in the book as well.

 

This may be true for seasoned practitioners, Doug, but not for

students. They tend to take what is said in the books (and by us) as

gospel. You need to have a strong grounding in any subject to be a

critical thinker.

 

> I'm not sure I understand connative translation well enough but a book

> as heavily

> footnoted as this I'm not sure it applies. His own comments are well

> seperated.

 

Having looked over the PDF's, I think it does apply. His choice of

language is quite confusing, as others have noted, and the term choices

are back to the Hong Yen-hsu era.

>

>>

>

> And finally, we really, really, really don't want to get into the

> Wiseman stuff again but

> really if a book doesn't use Wiseman terminology, is it a " nightmare? "

> I can't imagine

> that you don't have a darn good idea of what the text is saying. Isn't

> this a de-facto

> censorship? sorry, but that's how it seems.

 

I don't find I get a precise idea of what Chen is talking about with

his choice of terminology, that's all. I also cannot cross-reference

his translation without any pinyin or Chinese characters. He doesn't

have a glossary to define his terms. Why should I have to trust his

translation if I find it confusing and I can't reference his choice of

terms and ideas?

 

This isn't censorship. This is common sense. This is leaving the

reader in the dark.

 

 

[Guest guest]

, " " wrote:

And finally, we really, really, really don't want to get into the Wiseman stuff

again but

> really if a book doesn't use Wiseman terminology, is it a " nightmare? " I can't

imagine

> that you don't have a darn good idea of what the text is saying. Isn't this a

de-facto

> censorship? sorry, but that's how it seems

 

It doesn't have to be wiseman. it just needs to be glossed fully and

completely. Unless other translators want to do this, then wiseman is the only

choice. And Chen has really chosen the lowest common denominator of terms

like liver qi stagnation. Also, we were informed this book was intended as an

alternate to Bensky and we should evaluate it in that light. And yes I do

believe it is a nightmare when transltors continue to think they can just

sidestep the issue of glossing their terms, whatever terms they may choose.

 

As for censorship, look up the word. Clearly this discussion does not apply.

It

is not even remotely censorship to demand a high degree of translational rigor

in a technical field like medicine. Censorship refers to content, not following

the standard rules of translation. Again, say what you please and use any

terms you want, but provide me a glossary or you don't cut it as top rung on

my list of standard medical texts. As I explained, Bensky gets an exception

from me. Perhaps Chen gets a pass from you. I am glad I have access to Chen

and I would certainly recommend it for several reasons, but its flaws rule it

out for a new basic text on the subject. good supplemental literature and food

for thought.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

I do like

> the photos in Chen and he has included a lot of citations for research,

but then

> how solid is that research? The books makes it look like the pharmacology

of

> herbs is a lot more grounded than is actually the case.

>

 

If you look at the research cited in John Chen's Clinical Manual of Oriental

Medicine (which is the book describing his company's formulas), often times

he cites Bensky's Materia Medica and Yeung's Handbook to back up his

clinical statements.

 

Also, if you have seen the book in person, the photographs are too yellow,

and he knows this and will probably make a color correction with the next

printing.

 

I plan to buy the book just as soon as I can, but will always use Bensky as

my main required text.

 

Julie

[Guest guest]

Julie,

 

Nope, it hasn't, and it's a great book (I just wish that it and other texts

weren't so costly! But on the other hand, I feel so fortunate living in LA, and

having the two book stores in Chinatown, Ni MIng and Great Wall, offering

significant discounts to students. So I guess I shouldn't complain. But then

again, wouldn't it be wonderful to get all the schools together, purchase

required texts in large volumes to be able to pass along price breaks to us

impoverished not-yet practitioners?)

 

Yehuda

 

______________

The best thing to hit the internet in years - Juno SpeedBand!

Surf the web up to FIVE TIMES FASTER!

Only $14.95/ month - visit www.juno.com to sign up today!

[Guest guest]

And finally, we really, really, really don't want to get into the Wiseman stuff

again but

really if a book doesn't use Wiseman terminology, is it a " nightmare? " I can't

imagine

that you don't have a darn good idea of what the text is saying. Isn't this a

de-facto

censorship? sorry, but that's how it seems.

doug

>>>And the warm disease book makes a good example

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

I also noticed this. It makes the herbs look very old and dessicated.

 

 

On Nov 4, 2003, at 11:40 AM, Julie Chambers wrote:

 

> Also, if you have seen the book in person, the photographs are too

> yellow,

> and he knows this and will probably make a color correction with the

> next

> printing.

[Guest guest]

I don't find I get a precise idea of what Chen is talking about with

his choice of terminology, that's all. I also cannot cross-reference

his translation without any pinyin or Chinese characters. He doesn't

have a glossary to define his terms. Why should I have to trust his

translation if I find it confusing and I can't reference his choice of

terms and ideas?

 

This isn't censorship. This is common sense. This is leaving the

reader in the dark.

 

>>>>Is his book trying to be a " CM " book or just some kind of guide to modern

use of Chinese herbs? I think there is a difference and place for both

alon

 

 

[Guest guest]

You are right... censor was not the appropriate word, and harsh.

I guess I meant to say do you really not understand what he is saying? I too

would like

as much information as possible... hey, I haven't seen the book, only the dozen

or so

Pdf files on their site. Full disclosure. Are they trying to postition the book

as a new

entry level text. Is that why this keeps coming up?

doug

 

, " " wrote:

> , " " wrote:

> And finally, we really, really, really don't want to get into the Wiseman

stuff

> again but

> > really if a book doesn't use Wiseman terminology, is it a " nightmare? " I

can't

> imagine

> > that you don't have a darn good idea of what the text is saying. Isn't this

a

> de-facto

> > censorship? sorry, but that's how it seems

>

> It doesn't have to be wiseman. it just needs to be glossed fully and

> completely. Unless other translators want to do this, then wiseman is the

only

> choice. And Chen has really chosen the lowest common denominator of terms

> like liver qi stagnation. Also, we were informed this book was intended as an

> alternate to Bensky and we should evaluate it in that light. And yes I do

> believe it is a nightmare when transltors continue to think they can just

> sidestep the issue of glossing their terms, whatever terms they may choose.

>

> As for censorship, look up the word. Clearly this discussion does not apply.

It

> is not even remotely censorship to demand a high degree of translational rigor

> in a technical field like medicine. Censorship refers to content, not

following

> the standard rules of translation. Again, say what you please and use any

> terms you want, but provide me a glossary or you don't cut it as top rung on

> my list of standard medical texts. As I explained, Bensky gets an exception

> from me. Perhaps Chen gets a pass from you. I am glad I have access to Chen

> and I would certainly recommend it for several reasons, but its flaws rule it

> out for a new basic text on the subject. good supplemental literature and

food

> for thought.

>

 

[Guest guest]

>

 

> It doesn't have to be wiseman. it just needs to be glossed fully and

> completely. Unless other translators want to do this, then wiseman is the

only

> choice. And Chen has really chosen the lowest common denominator of terms

> like liver qi stagnation. Also, we were informed this book was intended

as an

> alternate to Bensky and we should evaluate it in that light. And yes I do

> believe it is a nightmare when transltors continue to think they can just

> sidestep the issue of glossing their terms, whatever terms they may

choose.

 

Julie questions:

 

Those who have criticised the Chen book for not having a complete glossary:

have you actually seen the final complete book? Or are you judging by the

sample pages on the website for the publisher (aompress.com)? I spoke to one

of the co-authors, Laraine Crampton, and she was surprised by the comment,

because she said they spent months and months on the glossary and on

translators' notes. She explained that there were specific instances where

they did not feel the Wiseman terminology was appropriate, and this is

explained. I have not looked at the book in detail yet, because it has not

yet arrived here in Los Angeles. I'm told the books are still in transit

from Taiwan.

 

Julie

>

[Guest guest]

Agreed.

 

Marnae

 

At 08:30 AM 11/4/2003 -0800, you wrote:

>I agree with Todd on all counts.

>

>I think the profession has evolved to the point where enough teachers

>have had enough experience to see that students are confused by this

>type of murky translation of essential concepts. Also, every new

>materia medica in English I see makes the same mistakes of just

>basically repeating the information in the Bensky materia medica with a

>few extra 'plums' to get people interested. This is very frustrating,

>because the Dictionary of Chinese Medicinals is so much more

>comprehensive and quotes many source texts. I also saw Steven Clavey

>speak on materia medica at the CHA conference, and I agree that his

>additions to Bensky are bound to be very exciting.

>

>Finally, we have to be careful with putting speculative information on

>drug-herb interactions into clinical textbooks. Many practitioners

>(and physicians) will take this information as gospel truth, even if

>unproven.

>

>Todd is right about connotative translations. This book is a step

>backwards, not forwards in that direction. Even if some people are

>uncomfortable with the Wiseman dictionary at this point, one cannot

>dispute the value of having access to pinyin and Chinese, terms and

>characters, and defining one's choice of terminology.

>

>I also vote for Jiao Shude as the book to beat. And to retain Bensky

>as the primary teaching text.

>

>

>On Nov 4, 2003, at 7:32 AM, wrote:

>

> > , " "

> > wrote:

> > The only complaint is =

> >> that the

> >> combinations are not " always zang-fued " and there is a too easy back

> >> and fo=

> >> rth with

> >> the western diagnosis.

> >

> > I do not see these as small things, especially the indiscriminate

> > identity with

> > western diseases. We have worked for years at PCOM to thwart this

> > tendency.

> > I'll have to see how widespread and confusing this is. But if it is

> > significant,

> > that would make this book an automatic rule out for me as a first year

> > text.

> > The D/H interactions are speculative anyway and the next bensky will

> > have

> > updated pharm plus all Steve Clavey's new material presented at the CHA

> > conference. I still like xu and wang much better than Chen since it

> > sticks to

> > TCM and has just as good info on combos. And Chen is basically a

> > terminological nightmare. No doubt his advsiors steered him away from

> > wiseman terminology due to the standard feeble biases. While I will

> > trust Dan

> > for his connotations, this is a perfect example of a book I cannot

> > trust when it

> > comes to TCM. I don't know John Chen and will not trust his

> > connotative

> > translations. For those of you who have personal reasons to trust the

> > man,

> > then you are lucky. But I will no longer support connotative work of

> > this sort

> > as intro level texts. Haven't we had enough of that with Giovanni?

> >

> > I still vote for jiao shu de hands down as the best intro text on the

> > subject:

> >

> > 1. very readable

> > 2. wiseman terminology

> > 3. uses zhang xi chun's approach to integration

> > 4. extensive combinations

> > 5. extensive comparisons

> > 6. representative formulas with discussion

> > 7. from the work of a respected master

> >

> > Chen's book would be a useful and appropriate supplement because of its

> > pharmacological and western biases. But I believe we would be moving

> > backwards if this book replaced Bensky.

> >

>

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

 

 

> The D/H interactions are speculative anyway and the next bensky

> will have updated pharm

 

What do you mean by 'speculative'? How exactly are Bensky's D/H

interactions going to be 'un-speculative'? Could you site some

examples to illustrate your claim?

 

Geoff

[Guest guest]

Again, this is the Chens' website where you can look at a dozen or so herbs.

 

http://www.aompress.com/Product.htm

 

doug

 

 

, " yingsuke2002 "

<yingsuke2002> wrote:

>

>

> > The D/H interactions are speculative anyway and the next bensky

> > will have updated pharm

>

> What do you mean by 'speculative'? How exactly are Bensky's D/H

> interactions going to be 'un-speculative'? Could you site some

> examples to illustrate your claim?

>

> Geoff