Bian Fang

[Guest guest]

Following my last post i also wonder about the relative importance of

Bian Fang, diagnosing patterns named for specific formula

presentations. Of course this is common in Kampo and dates back to

SHL, but i wonder if this approach is represented at all here in the

West (esp in the States). Scheid leads us to believe that it is

fairly common in the PRC, even if not officially as prominent as Bian

Zheng.

 

robert hayden

[Guest guest]

At 3:22 PM +0000 11/30/03, kampo36 wrote:

>Scheid leads us to believe that it is

>fairly common in the PRC, even if not officially as prominent as Bian

>Zheng.

--

 

Robert,

 

I've certainly had clinical discussions both in China and with

Chinese doctors in the US where this is how we communicated. Of

course, it only works when one is taking about well known formulas.

It as a short-hand that assumes all parties to the discussion are

thoroughly familiar with the diseases, patterns and pathomechanisms

treated by the formula in question, and have the experience to know

what they look like in practice. It assumes that, with that

background, knowledge has become so well integrated that it becomes

intuition, and you can simply see the formula in the presentation.

For these reasons, I think it better not to encourage this habit in

students, at least not without making them justify their choices.

 

Rory

--

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

For these reasons, I think it better not to encourage this habit in

students, at least not without making them justify their choices.

 

Rory

--

>>>>Rory i agree, but at the same time if i am studding case histories etc, only

the formula really tells me what one thinks unless he has a totally different

theory and use of an herb or a formula were one needs the whole explanation.

What i like to do is often start at the end with the formula and proceed to the

explanation last, sometimes even before reading the case history

alon