Jiao Shu De and traditional herbal medicine

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

 

I have just been reading Unshuld's text " Medicine in China - A History

of Ideas " . I am a newcomer to his works and to the non-TCM (PRC)

presentation of the history of so this text is rather

................ 'eye-opening' to say the least.

 

At the moment the one thing that has stuck in my mind is his statements

concerning Jiao Shu De's and his text " Ten Lessons on My Experiences

with the Use of Drugs " . He says of this book..... " I know of no other

source in which an author has so systematically attempted to erase

traces of the past from drug therapy and replace them with a

Marxist-Maoist orientation " .

 

He also claims that Jiao Shu De is one of the proponents for rejecting

the doctrines of yinyang and the five phases and is representative of

the what he terms " present-day apologists " of traditional drug therapy.

He further claims that Jiao's work attempts to modify terminology to

better fit in with the political times.

 

I know many love the paradigm publication of what I assume is the same

work that Unschuld is referring to here.

 

How do others view the relevance of such texts in the context of

and/or TCM in practice and how do you personally

reconcile what is " political " from what is the real " Chinese medicne " ?

 

Do you separate TCM from in theory and clinical

practice? If so, how do you attempt to do this? How can we best sort

the wheat from the chaf?

 

 

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

 

Dr. Steven J Slater

Practitioner and Acupuncturist

Mobile: 0437 033 500

chinese_medicine

[Guest guest]

, Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...>

wrote:

 

He says of this book..... " I know of no other

> source in which an author has so systematically attempted to erase

> traces of the past from drug therapy and replace them with a

> Marxist-Maoist orientation " .

>

> He also claims that Jiao Shu De is one of the proponents for rejecting

> the doctrines of yinyang and the five phases and is representative of

> the what he terms " present-day apologists " of traditional drug therapy.

> He further claims that Jiao's work attempts to modify terminology to

> better fit in with the political times.

 

 

Apparently this is not the case with Jiao's formula text at all, where he goes

into many

insightful discussion of classical theory. Perhaps he did not feel that materia

medica was

where to explore this topic more thoroughly. Perhaps Bob Felt could comment as

he is a

longtime upporter of Unschuld as well as publisher of the only translations of

the work

Unschuld criticizes. I have always praised Jiao for his clinical rather than

theoretical

insights. This is perhaps one more example where a nonclinician fails to see

the value in a

work because he does not use the material but only reads about it. In

Unschuld's case, he

has made the point many times in the german popular press that he has disdain

for the

actual modern practice of oriental medicine. Not just because the prevailing

version does

not suit him, but because he considers the whole endeavor anachronistic. He

does not

believe it to actually be effective in modern times in modern cultures. So when

he

criticizes a text or any other aspect of modern CM, he is coming from a place of

pure

academics, not the place of a clinician who cares only if his patients get well.

Of that, he

appears to know little or nothing.

 

[Guest guest]

Steven I think you mentioned that you hadn't read Volker Sheid's book. If you

had then you

see the plurality that went and goes on in creating TCM. I can say that boiling

Jiao's two

influential books into a Marxist straitjacket is strictly polemical. I think we

can safely read

and use Jiao's books without fear of politizing Chinese herbology nor being

present day

apologists.

doug

 

 

, " " wrote:

>

> , Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...>

wrote:

>

> He says of this book..... " I know of no other

> > source in which an author has so systematically attempted to erase

> > traces of the past from drug therapy and replace them with a

> > Marxist-Maoist orientation " .

> >

> > He also claims that Jiao Shu De is one of the proponents for rejecting

> > the doctrines of yinyang and the five phases and is representative of

> > the what he terms " present-day apologists " of traditional drug therapy.

> > He further claims that Jiao's work attempts to modify terminology to

> > better fit in with the political times.

>

>

> Apparently this is not the case with Jiao's formula text at all, where he goes

into many

> insightful discussion of classical theory. Perhaps he did not feel that

materia medica

was

> where to explore this topic more thoroughly. Perhaps Bob Felt could comment

as he is

a

> longtime upporter of Unschuld as well as publisher of the only translations of

the work

> Unschuld criticizes. I have always praised Jiao for his clinical rather than

theoretical

> insights. This is perhaps one more example where a nonclinician fails to see

the value

in a

> work because he does not use the material but only reads about it. In

Unschuld's case,

he

> has made the point many times in the german popular press that he has disdain

for the

> actual modern practice of oriental medicine. Not just because the prevailing

version

does

> not suit him, but because he considers the whole endeavor anachronistic. He

does not

> believe it to actually be effective in modern times in modern cultures. So

when he

> criticizes a text or any other aspect of modern CM, he is coming from a place

of pure

> academics, not the place of a clinician who cares only if his patients get

well. Of that,

he

> appears to know little or nothing.

>

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Doug and

 

Thanks for taking the time to give another perspective on this. I like

to hear from other sources such as yourselves before assuming a thing I

heard/read once is a gospel truth as it may be nothing more than one

persons opinion or memory and hold little sway in real terms.

Unsupported opinion or here-say seems to hold too much value to some of

us at times. I believe we can use some degree of academic process

without becoming just " academic " and of severely limited value in

practice.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

 

PS - now that I am currently developing a degree of fascination for the

history and progression of ideas in Chinese medicine I will certainly

give Volker Scheid's book a read.

 

 

On 28/11/2004, at 10:27 AM, wrote:

 

>

>

> Steven I think you mentioned that you hadn't read Volker Sheid's book.

> If you had then you

> see the plurality that went and goes on in creating TCM. I can say

> that boiling Jiao's two

> influential books into a Marxist straitjacket is strictly polemical. I

> think we can safely read

> and use Jiao's books without fear of politizing Chinese herbology

> nor being present day

> apologists.

> doug

>

>

> , " "

> wrote:

>>

>> , Steven Slater

>> <laozhongyi@m...> wrote:

>>

>> He says of this book..... " I know of no other

>>> source in which an author has so systematically attempted to erase

>>> traces of the past from drug therapy and replace them with a

>>> Marxist-Maoist orientation " .

>>>

>>> He also claims that Jiao Shu De is one of the proponents for

>>> rejecting

>>> the doctrines of yinyang and the five phases and is representative of

>>> the what he terms " present-day apologists " of traditional drug

>>> therapy.

>>> He further claims that Jiao's work attempts to modify terminology to

>>> better fit in with the political times.

>>

>>

>> Apparently this is not the case with Jiao's formula text at all,

>> where he goes into many

>> insightful discussion of classical theory. Perhaps he did not feel

>> that materia medica

> was

>> where to explore this topic more thoroughly. Perhaps Bob Felt could

>> comment as he is

> a

>> longtime upporter of Unschuld as well as publisher of the only

>> translations of the work

>> Unschuld criticizes. I have always praised Jiao for his clinical

>> rather than theoretical

>> insights. This is perhaps one more example where a nonclinician

>> fails to see the value

> in a

>> work because he does not use the material but only reads about it.

>> In Unschuld's case,

> he

>> has made the point many times in the german popular press that he has

>> disdain for the

>> actual modern practice of oriental medicine. Not just because the

>> prevailing version

> does

>> not suit him, but because he considers the whole endeavor

>> anachronistic. He does not

>> believe it to actually be effective in modern times in modern

>> cultures. So when he

>> criticizes a text or any other aspect of modern CM, he is coming from

>> a place of pure

>> academics, not the place of a clinician who cares only if his

>> patients get well. Of that,

> he

>> appears to know little or nothing.

>>

>

Chinese Herbal Medicine offers various professional services,

> including board approved continuing education classes, an annual

> conference and a free discussion forum in Chinese Herbal Medicine.

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

now that I am currently developing a degree of fascination for the

history and progression of ideas in Chinese medicine I will certainly

give Volker Scheid's book a read.

>>>Its very worth while

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

, Steven Slater <laozhongyi@m...>

wrote:

I believe we can use some degree of academic process

> without becoming just " academic " and of severely limited value in

> practice.

 

I just looked at some files from Jiao shu de and he definitely talks extensively

about

classical theory in his rx book. I just read a passage where he refers to the

shang han lun,

the transmutation of patterns, etc. that hardly seems to be the gutting of the

tradition. If

Unschuld actually wrote those words, it seriously calls into question his

judgment on these

matters.

 

[Guest guest]

On 29/11/2004, at 1:51 PM, wrote:

 

>

>

> , Steven Slater

> <laozhongyi@m...> wrote:

> I believe we can use some degree of academic process

>> without becoming just " academic " and of severely limited value in

>> practice.

>

> I just looked at some files from Jiao shu de and he definitely talks

> extensively about

> classical theory in his rx book. I just read a passage where he

> refers to the shang han lun,

> the transmutation of patterns, etc. that hardly seems to be the

> gutting of the tradition. If

> Unschuld actually wrote those words, it seriously calls into question

> his judgment on these

> matters.

>

 

>

 

Hi

 

He definitely wrote those words, here is the exact quote verbatim from

pg258 :-

 

" I know of no other source in which an author has so systematically

attempted to erase traces of the past from drug therapy and replace

them with a Marxist-Maoist orientation. "

 

One thing that may be worth considering is that the edition Unschuld

referred to was from 1977-78 editions (a dangerous time for authors I

would guess), and Unschuld's text was written in 1985. So, perhaps the

Paradigm edition is rather revised when compared to the one Unschuld

refers to.

 

Best Wishes,

 

Steve

[Guest guest]

I just looked at some files from Jiao shu de and he definitely talks extensively

about

classical theory in his rx book.

>>>Is the Rx book out yet?