Postmodernism, Hindu nationalism and `Vedic science'

December 3, 2006

Here is part 2 of this article. For those who are unclear about what

central premise of new age thinking about health and cosmology this

undermines, it is what Unschuld calls " systematic correspondence. "

This idea has always been at the heart of the practice of acupuncture

since the time of the nei jing. However, it was only broadly applied

to the practice of herbology in china starting in the jin-yuan

dynasties. Prior to that time, according to Unschuld, herbology was

practiced based upon an empirical approach rooted in the Daoists

observation of nature. While some have consider this application of

dogma a leap forward in herbal practice, that is hardly far from

" proven " in any fashion. The fact that some clinical research in

Chinese TCM circles draws upon this dogma to determine its clinical

protocols does not demonstrate that their effectiveness is due to its

application. Until large controlled studies compare the treatment of

various diseases using the differential diagnosis of TCM (in whatever

fashion one thinks it is best applied—simple pattern dx vs. numerous

mutually engendering patterns) against treatment solely according to

western parameters, we cannot really know what determined the

successes reported in TCM-style studies. Perhaps the results would be

just as good if one was treated for a heart condition differentiated

as " blood stasis " by using the single herb dan shen as it would be

by using complex formulas designed to address multiple patterns. In

other words, maybe the complex formulas are effective because one or

two herbs acting upon key biochemical pathways are the active factor

and the rest of the formula provides no substantial benefit or

detriment. There is certainly no harm in using the complex formulas

in such cases, but their effectiveness as determined in even placebo-

controlled clinical audits provides no evidence that the underlying

principles used in their construction are valid.

http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2101/stories/20040116001408700.htm

December 3, 2006

I am very surprised by the argument you are trying to make,

unless you are again playing 'devil's advocate'. In no way is

systematic correspondence 'new age thinking'. . . is that what you

are trying to say? While one has to be quite selective in dealing

with either Vedic philosophy or Chinese systematic correspondence, it

is not as black and white as you are seeming trying to make it.

Vedic culture had very sophisticated principles of medicine and

ecology, and also barbaric practices such as the banishment of widows

from society.

You are, in my opinion, falling into the trap of using 'evidence-

based' criteria to explain the successes and failures of Chinese

medicine, rather than looking at the criteria of Chinese medicine

itself. Why do I call it a trap? Because, if you fail to 'validate'

Chinese medicine with these criteria (evidence-based), it then is

assumed that there is no value in the subject. Meanwhile,

generations of physicians have used these formulas, with voluminous

case histories to that effect.

Spengler's arguments in " Decline of the West " do hold some

water. Perhaps Chinese medicine works very effectively within the

criteria of its own culture. Does that mean that evidence-based

medicine will be unable to 'prove' that Jin-Yuan medicine works?

Perhaps. Does that mean we should prescribe single herbs for heart

conditions? I don't know about you, but to me that is an biomedical

treatment, not Chinese medicine. That is not 'wrong', just different

criteria for the practice of medicine.

Systematic correspondence is simply based on the principle that

there is a connection between human life and the universe/natural

world. While not a conceptual engine in modern science, it was and

remains an effective way to understand how to harmonize human life

with the natural world as a tool for maintaining and restoring human

health.

On Dec 3, 2006, at 10:48 AM, wrote:

> Here is part 2 of this article. For those who are unclear about what

> central premise of new age thinking about health and cosmology this

> undermines, it is what Unschuld calls " systematic correspondence. "

> This idea has always been at the heart of the practice of acupuncture

> since the time of the nei jing. However, it was only broadly applied

> to the practice of herbology in china starting in the jin-yuan

> dynasties. Prior to that time, according to Unschuld, herbology was

> practiced based upon an empirical approach rooted in the Daoists

> observation of nature. While some have consider this application of

> dogma a leap forward in herbal practice, that is hardly far from

> " proven " in any fashion. The fact that some clinical research in

> Chinese TCM circles draws upon this dogma to determine its clinical

> protocols does not demonstrate that their effectiveness is due to its

> application. Until large controlled studies compare the treatment of

> various diseases using the differential diagnosis of TCM (in whatever

> fashion one thinks it is best applied—simple pattern dx vs. numerous

> mutually engendering patterns) against treatment solely according to

> western parameters, we cannot really know what determined the

> successes reported in TCM-style studies. Perhaps the results would be

> just as good if one was treated for a heart condition differentiated

> as " blood stasis " by using the single herb dan shen as it would be

> by using complex formulas designed to address multiple patterns. In

> other words, maybe the complex formulas are effective because one or

> two herbs acting upon key biochemical pathways are the active factor

> and the rest of the formula provides no substantial benefit or

> detriment. There is certainly no harm in using the complex formulas

> in such cases, but their effectiveness as determined in even placebo-

> controlled clinical audits provides no evidence that the underlying

> principles used in their construction are valid.

>

> http://www.hinduonnet.com/fline/fl2101/stories/20040116001408700.htm

>

December 3, 2006

A few more thoughts on this. . ..

I was at Paul Unschuld's lecture at the Asian Medicine Conference in

Austin, Texas in April of this year. One of the arguments Paul made

for the adaption of systematic correspondence to 'herbal' medicine

was that the empirical, disease-based approach led to catalogues of

prescriptions that were in the tens of thousands. For each new

ailment, sometimes differentiated by only a few variances in

symptoms, a new formula was developed. This led to great confusion

and difficulty in finding the proper prescription to match the

ailment. The development of systematic correspondence in internal

medicine allowed a more coherent and simplified selection of

prescriptions to be matched by pattern rather than symptoms. So, the

issue was the categorization of disease states and matching them to

appropriate formulas, which had apparently gotten out of hand by the

Tang Dynasty.