Guest guest Posted February 27, 2005 Report Share Posted February 27, 2005 , wrote: > > > > the first paragraph in the commentary says zhi mu mostens because it > > is sweet. but later on in the > > > > Materia Medica pg. 139 under the section Anemarrhenae Rhizoma with > > huang bai, it says > > > > " When the Kidneys suffer dryness, the acrid flavor should be consumed > > to moisten. When the Lungs suffer rebelious qi, the bitter flavor > > should be consumed to drain it. Anemarrhenae Rhizoma (zhi mu) is > > acrid, bitter, cold and cooling, nuturing the Kidney yin in the lower > > body to elimated dryness. " > > > > Now what does that mean, " acrid " flavor, acrid moistens? Another thing > > I find interesting in this section, it does start discussing the herb > > as bitter, but does not mention sweet. I think that the flavor attribution is less arbitrary than the channel entry by and large. There is a greater consensus and more consistency across texts with nature/flavor than channel entry. Sometimes there is variation in cool/cold, but less overall variation between texts than channel entry. In both cases, many times the nature, flavor and channel entry are basically ascribed according to actions. As an example, if something is nourishing, it may ascribed a sweet flavor based on its action even if it has no sweet sensation by the actual tastebuds. Because older texts just listed five flavors and CM tends to just add more knowledge ontop of existing knowledge rather than discarding previous theories, we see the phenomenon of only five flavor options appearing in the nature/flavor line of MM texts. In running text explaining the functions, it will also often say that a medicinal has an aromatic, bland, or astringent flavor, but these three are very rarely listed under the nature/flavor heading up at the top of the monograph. In other words, bland, aromatic and astringent are flavors, but because they came along historically much later than the other five flavors, they are left out of the primary nature/flavor heading simply for the sake of convention. As I understand it, this is why Chinese texts tend to generally put these three extra flavors in running text rather than as " official " flavors. With regard to the zhi mu example, it just doesn't make sense. One never sees a Chinese book say that " When the Kidneys suffer dryness, the acrid flavor should be consumed to moisten. " They always say sweet. I suspect this is a mistake or a typo. Maybe the copy editor wasn't familiar enough with TCM theory to check the inconsistency. It would be easy for someone translating that monograph late at night to accidentally switch around the words as a common mistake- they see sweet, they think sweet, but accidentally type acrid. If you substitute the word 'sweet' for 'acrid' in the quoted paragraph, it makes perfect sense. I suspect this is a typo because all the primary core source texts by the influential modern publishers don't list acrid as a flavor for zhi mu. The 5th and 6th editions of the shanghai technology press zhong yao xue text say bitter, sweet, cold. These properties are the same in the 5th edition zhong yao xue text by zhuyin publishing house in Taiwan, and the zhong yao xue texts by ren min wei sheng publishing in the PRC. Ditto with the zhong yao xue text by the zhong guo zhong yi yao publishing house. The old Bensky edition just says bitter and cold, as does the shen nong ben cao jing and the zhong yao da ci dian. The only mention I see for an acrid flavor is in the Ben Cao Gang Mu. No doubt zhi mu is ascribed an acrid flavor in other texts, but should we really be listing the flavors out of historical works in a MM text rather than just listing the flavors that are agreed upon by all the major university texts in the PRC and Taiwan? Is the correct answer for licensing exams the " normal " answer from the above books, which are without question the standard sources for basic MM info in modern times, or are the properties listed in Bensky the correct answer? People have obviously been debating on this type of thing for some time. The Ben Cao Gang Mu, the only one I found on my quick search that had the acrid flavor listed, says something similar to the quote from Bensky: (literally) " [the] acrid, bitter, cold, cooling of zhi mu moistens kidney dryness and nourishes yin in the lower body; in the upper body, it clears lung-metal and drains fire; it [enters] the qi aspect [of these] two channels. " While Li Shi-Zhen is without a doubt one of the most influential herbalists in TCM history and deserves all due respect, the lack of the acrid flavor in the mainstream university basic texts suggests that zhi mu is not really regarded as being particularly acrid. Maybe because zhi mu affects the lung (metal) it was posited as acrid to explain its channel entry? I suspect that the most likely scenario is that it was simply someone being a little overworked and they typed the wrong word. Books don't really say stuff like " When the Kidneys suffer dryness, the acrid flavor should be consumed to moisten. " That type of phrase is common, but the word sweet is used, not acrid. If it is a typo, it is not that big of a deal, just a good reason to make sure that editors are well-versed in CM so that they can catch inconsistencies like that. And hopefully teachers and students won't memorize the wrong thing, or at least they will remember that it is a less standard idea. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 > > Eric Brand [smilinglotus] > > With regard to the zhi mu example, it just doesn't make sense. One > never sees a Chinese book say that " When the Kidneys suffer dryness, > the acrid flavor should be consumed to moisten. " They always say > sweet. I suspect this is a mistake or a typo. > ... Books don't really say stuff like " When the Kidneys suffer dryness, > the acrid flavor should be consumed to moisten. " [Jason] Eric this is no typo and 'some' books do say " {insert above} " ... Dan has pointed out that this is straight from the±¾²Ý¸ÙÄ¿ as noted in the recent advanced textbook ÖÐҩѧ edited by ¸ßѧÃô. After reviewing the passage it is clear that the MM3's translation is accurate. And if we are looking at the same passage I think you are translating things a little bit off (below)... But more importantly, this further exemplifies what Dan and I both believe is essential to CM, diversity. The commentary section in the MM3 is IMO brilliant because it gives countering, seemingly contradictory, viewpoints, which one cannot escape if one truly goes deep into CM. This is the essence of CM, and as we know, CM is not black and white. There is not just one truth... I don't think Dan, by any means, is going for some PRC consensus with his MM3, and this is IMO a huge strength... but that is me... - Maybe the copy editor > wasn't familiar enough with TCM theory to check the inconsistency. It > would be easy for someone translating that monograph late at night to > accidentally switch around the words as a common mistake- they see > sweet, they think sweet, but accidentally type acrid. If you > substitute the word 'sweet' for 'acrid' in the quoted paragraph, it > makes perfect sense. > > I suspect this is a typo because all the primary core source texts by > the influential modern publishers don't list acrid as a flavor for zhi > mu. The 5th and 6th editions of the shanghai technology press zhong > yao xue text say bitter, sweet, cold. These properties are the same > in the 5th edition zhong yao xue text by zhuyin publishing house in > Taiwan, and the zhong yao xue texts by ren min wei sheng publishing in > the PRC. Ditto with the zhong yao xue text by the zhong guo zhong yi > yao publishing house. The old Bensky edition just says bitter and > cold, as does the shen nong ben cao jing and the zhong yao da ci dian. > The only mention I see for an acrid flavor is in the Ben Cao Gang Mu. > No doubt zhi mu is ascribed an acrid flavor in other texts, but > should we really be listing the flavors out of historical works in a > MM text rather than just listing the flavors that are agreed upon by > all the major university texts in the PRC and Taiwan? Is the correct > answer for licensing exams the " normal " answer from the above books, > which are without question the standard sources for basic MM info in > modern times, or are the properties listed in Bensky the correct answer? > > People have obviously been debating on this type of thing for some > time. The Ben Cao Gang Mu, the only one I found on my quick search > that had the acrid flavor listed, says something similar to the quote > from Bensky: (literally) " [the] acrid, bitter, cold, cooling of zhi mu > moistens kidney dryness and nourishes yin in the lower body; in the > upper body, it clears lung-metal and drains fire; it [enters] the qi > aspect [of these] two channels. " While Li Shi-Zhen is without a doubt > one of the most influential herbalists in TCM history and deserves all > due respect, the lack of the acrid flavor in the mainstream > university basic texts suggests that zhi mu is not really regarded as > being particularly acrid. Maybe because zhi mu affects the lung > (metal) it was posited as acrid to explain its channel entry? > > I suspect that the most likely scenario is that it was simply someone > being a little overworked and they typed the wrong word. Books don't > really say stuff like " When the Kidneys suffer dryness, the acrid > flavor should be consumed to moisten. " That type of phrase is common, > but the word sweet is used, not acrid. If it is a typo, it is not > that big of a deal, just a good reason to make sure that editors are > well-versed in CM so that they can catch inconsistencies like that. > And hopefully teachers and students won't memorize the wrong thing, or > at least they will remember that it is a less standard idea. > > Eric > > > 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. > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted February 28, 2005 Report Share Posted February 28, 2005 , " " <@c...> wrote: > Eric this is no typo and 'some' books do say " {insert above} " ... Dan > has pointed out that this is straight from the±¾²Ý¸ÙÄ¿ as noted in the > recent advanced textbook ÖÐҩѧ edited by ¸ßѧÃô. Ok. I didn't have the Bensky book handy, so I didn't realize that it was a quote from another, older book. I thought it was in the main section, not the expanded historical review section. I stand corrected. As you have pointed out, there are many contradictory ideas in Chinese source books, especially back in the day of people like Li Shi-Zhen. I don't know what books you are talking about above because it looks like gobbledy-gook symbols on my machine, so pinyin is probably better than Chinese chars for this forum. Anyway, I agree that it is a good thing that the new MM includes historical reviews. This is its greatest contribution and makes it a unique English text because it has lots of commentary that gives historical perspective. My comments came from simply not knowing that the quote was in the historical commentary section. Li shi-zhen's work was one of the most important works in history. It covered many fields beyond Chinese medicine because Li was very well-traveled and well-educated on a variety of fronts. His classification system of substances was also quite unprecedented- going from smallest to largest, etc. I'm not saying Li Shi-Zhen or Bensky is wrong, I just didn't realize that the quote came from the classical review section instead of the modern summary section. The Bensky MM core material is taken from the contemporary works like the 6th edition shanghai technology press, etc, so such a statement would only not fit if it were in the core section. His core material is the standard party-line consensus. He has just supplemented it with a wider historical overview to give the reader a better picture of the diversity of CM development and different ideas that evolved over time. The Ben Cao Gang Mu quote I saw that mentioned acridity was just a little quote from the historical review section of a contemporary book. It isn't the same passage than Bensky was working from, which is obvious by the different phrasing. Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.