Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Jason and all, I feel a bit confused and feel that perhaps we need to have the term pathomechanism defined. I am not sure when this term came into use but I am fairly positive that it is not to be found in the SHL or JGYL. Nevertheless when in in the chapter on Diseases characterized by phlegm,rheum and cough; pulses, signs and treatment - line 15 states " In patients with diseases due to phlegm or rheum, one should use warm medicinals to harmonize " , to me this is pathomechanism. What would you call it? I won't say much regarding the Huang Huang article since I have not yet read it, but I do have his book, the one being translated, and throughout the book he differentiates between formulas and medicinals as being warm or cold. Again, this to me seems the basis of pathomechanisms or what might be called Chinese medicine physiology and pathophysiology. Certainly, an emphasis of his books is identifying patterns and treating according to symptoms. I am sure that he has seen many people attempt to make their way through a web of pathomechanisms they have been taught or self created, only to get confused and lose the heart of the issue at hand. Hence he emphasizes that the message is in the symptoms. It seems that there are not a few doctors who are good at seeing patterns and treating accordingly. I have imagined that this is similar to something you mentioned in one of your case studies, something like a " snapshot " . Don't worry about where it came from, don't worry about where it might go, this person in front of you has X Y and Z symptoms so just give them formula XYZ. I think this is a valid and proven method, one which I feel I am able to do sometimes but wish I was much better at. Nevertheless, what also interests me are those doctors who use formulas beyond what would be considered their normal scope. From what i have gathered this involves thinking in terms of pathomechanisms or " physiology " . Unfortunately there are a lot of bad " stories " (I tried not to use that word again) out there but I keep sifting through looking for those with some semblance of consistency and logic, if it can be called that. I will end this ramble by saying that I appreciate what Todd brought up about the ginger. I think it is an example of one of the important questions that we need to be asking ourselves as physicians who want to heal people. Michael Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Michael, I would say you are right that the SHL does not use the term " pathomechanism. " What you are describing below is just basic treatment principles and pattern differentiation. A Pathomechanism (bing ji) is something different. A pathomechanism is quite simply " The process by which a disease arises and develops (Wiseman). " The key point to understand what we are talking about here is " the process. " What you quote below is not a pathomechanism (IMHO). -Jason _____ On Behalf Of fitzms Friday, July 06, 2007 4:37 AM SHL and Pathomechanisms Jason and all, I feel a bit confused and feel that perhaps we need to have the term pathomechanism defined. I am not sure when this term came into use but I am fairly positive that it is not to be found in the SHL or JGYL. Nevertheless when in in the chapter on Diseases characterized by phlegm,rheum and cough; pulses, signs and treatment - line 15 states " In patients with diseases due to phlegm or rheum, one should use warm medicinals to harmonize " , to me this is pathomechanism. What would you call it? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 , " " > I would say you are right that the SHL does not use the term > " pathomechanism. " What you are describing below is just basic treatment > principles and pattern differentiation. A Pathomechanism (bing ji) is > something different. A pathomechanism is quite simply " The process by which > a disease arises and develops (Wiseman). " The key point to understand what > we are talking about here is " the process. " What you quote below is not a > pathomechanism (IMHO). Discussion of pathomechanisms did precede the SHL; the term appears in the Nei Jing, which is the source of the " 19 pathomechanisms. " Even if Zhang Ji didn't expressly use the word pathomechanism, by the definition " the process by which a disease arises and develops, " the entire SHL is basically a discussion on pathomechanisms. For that matter, ever major innovation in Chinese medicine, from the theories of the four great masters of the Jin-Yuan dynasty to the Warm Disease theories, is really nothing more than an elaboration of different pathomechanisms. We are able to use their insights in pattern diagnosis today because they pioneered pathomechanisms that explained the patterns. It would be impossible to speak of pattern id of epidemic diseases if there was no theory of epidemic disease. In fact, many of the greatest practitioners alive today are great practitioners precisely because they have a strong ability to apply pathomechanisms when attempting to solve new clinical problems for modern diseases. A cursory search of the stellar Paradigm Shang Han Lun translation mentions 42 instances of the word pathomechanism, so obviously many Shang Han Lun scholars that have commented on the text through the centuries feel that pathomechanisms are a key aspect of the text. Huang Huang may be a intelligent doctor and a renowed scholar, but for every Huang Huang out there who downplays pathomechanisms there is an equally heavyweight doctor like Feng Ye or Chang Hen-Hong who will insist that pathomechanisms are of critical importance. Fortunately, the world of Chinese medicine is large enough and diverse enough that all of their opinions can be accomodated. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Eric, I am not sure if the SHL is basically a discussion of pathomechanisms. I would say that people who commentate on it like to explain the pathomechanisms that they think explain the situation (or condition), as they should. This is the way I first studied the SHL. It is my default. But when I actually look through the text I mainly sees s/s with formulas, with little in the discussion of why (meaning pathomechanisms). You obviously see it different, therefore if you don't mind, I (and others) would love a bit more explanation on your thinking. Respectfully, -Jason _____ On Behalf Of Eric Brand the entire SHL is basically a discussion on pathomechanisms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 , " " wrote: > I am not sure if the SHL is basically a discussion of pathomechanisms. I > would say that people who commentate on it like to explain the > pathomechanisms that they think explain the situation (or condition), as > they should. This is the way I first studied the SHL. It is my default. But > when I actually look through the text I mainly sees s/s with formulas, with > little in the discussion of why (meaning pathomechanisms). The Shang Han Lun has very little verbose explanation of the " why " because it is such a terse text. This is typical of the ancient writing style, and this is exactly why the study of classical texts is as much a study on their commentary as on the text itself. For example, we all know that ma huang tang treats greater yang cold damage, but the original text itself does not state that fact explicitly. It is only from analysis of the formula that we know the pattern is greater yang cold damage. We have to make a similar analysis based on the formula for ge gen tang, since the SHL tells us that it is greater yang disease but does not say whether it is cold damage or wind strike. To me, arguing that the SHL doesn't have pathomechanisms just because it doesn't use the word pathomechanism is like saying ma huang tang wasn't originally a formula for cold damage just because the SHL doesn't explicitly state that the pattern it governs is cold damage. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2007 Report Share Posted July 6, 2007 Eric, Yes classical texts are more terse, and I agree that arguing that i.e. " ma huang tang wasn't originally a formula for cold damage just because the SHL doesn't explicitly state " would be silly. But all the examples you give are not really pathomechanisms, they are patterns. And as you state we should be clear that those are patterns that later generations have assigned to the formulas. These are useful. Therefore, I agree, it would be silly to argue that that li zhong yang is not for middle burner yang xu, even though ZZJ never said this. This is a zang-fu pattern attributed to a formula, but not a pathomechanism (from my perspective). (side note) Actually I have read arguments that using such zang-fu labels limit to true scope of SHL, but that is another story. But an example of pathomechanism is the story of WHY something is happened, not just a label / pattern: For example, why is there heat and sweating is a wind strike gui zhi tang pattern. Answer: Fever is an indication that defensive yang rises to the exterior of the body to contend with the evil and it is in this struggle that the defensive yang is damaged. The defensive yang, already weak in this type of patient, is further weakened by this struggle. Construction fails to be contained in the interior and construction-yin discharges outward, giving rise to sweat. This is a pathomechanism, and may I add, only one possible explanation. There are others that differ. These are stories that are not mentioned in the SHL and are not IMO explicit in the SHL by any means, and are really only made up by later authors to try to explain ZZJ. Was ZZJ thinking about these things, maybe, maybe not. Clearly there are commentaries upon commentaries trying to make sense of what he thought and they do not agree. Therefore, unless someone is using a different definition of pathomechanism, I have a very hard time understanding how one can say that SHL is basically a " discussion of pathomechanisms. " But I do see how looking at the details through " certain " commentaries will fill up pages of pathomechansitic explanations. Others like Huang Huang will not. It depends on how you study the SHL. Your statement assumes that everyone is studying the SHL in the same manner as for example Mitchell commentated on it. Respectfully, - _____ On Behalf Of Eric Brand Friday, July 06, 2007 9:47 PM Re: SHL and Pathomechanisms @ <%40> , " " wrote: > I am not sure if the SHL is basically a discussion of pathomechanisms. I > would say that people who commentate on it like to explain the > pathomechanisms that they think explain the situation (or condition), as > they should. This is the way I first studied the SHL. It is my default. But > when I actually look through the text I mainly sees s/s with formulas, with > little in the discussion of why (meaning pathomechanisms). The Shang Han Lun has very little verbose explanation of the " why " because it is such a terse text. This is typical of the ancient writing style, and this is exactly why the study of classical texts is as much a study on their commentary as on the text itself. For example, we all know that ma huang tang treats greater yang cold damage, but the original text itself does not state that fact explicitly. It is only from analysis of the formula that we know the pattern is greater yang cold damage. We have to make a similar analysis based on the formula for ge gen tang, since the SHL tells us that it is greater yang disease but does not say whether it is cold damage or wind strike. To me, arguing that the SHL doesn't have pathomechanisms just because it doesn't use the word pathomechanism is like saying ma huang tang wasn't originally a formula for cold damage just because the SHL doesn't explicitly state that the pattern it governs is cold damage. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Eric (et al), After thinking more about this I think there are multiple views, especially on the definition of pathomechanisms. I see Eric's point. I would agree that the SHL, just by having 6 stages represents one giant pathomechanism for understanding disease. Albeit basic. The neijing of course started coined the term. Here are two examples, " all qi4 huffing and depression is ascribed to the lung. " - I would say that the Lung is the pathomechanism (PM). " all diseases with aching pain and swelling of the instep, and fright are ascribed to fire " - Fire is the PM. These are of course quite simplified for today's standards. When people commentate on this of course they go into great detail explaining what this means. I think now our criteria for what we consider a PM may have changed. Can we say " the Lung " is a PM? Can we say the PM is the TaiYang windstrike? Can we say " fire " or " yinfire " . Maybe. I guess I cannot say that they are not.. But with today's understanding and hence books, the PMs seem more elaborate. I personally consider Spleen qi xu as a pattern, the dizziness I would say would be the disease (or chief manifestation). I guess I see the PM as how the Spleen qi xu actually causes dizziness. Other's comments? So do people consider " yin xu " a PM? Respectfully, - _____ On Behalf Of Friday, July 06, 2007 10:50 PM RE: SHL and Pathomechanisms Eric, Yes classical texts are more terse, and I agree that arguing that i.e. " ma huang tang wasn't originally a formula for cold damage just because the SHL doesn't explicitly state " would be silly. But all the examples you give are not really pathomechanisms, they are patterns. And as you state we should be clear that those are patterns that later generations have assigned to the formulas. These are useful. Therefore, I agree, it would be silly to argue that that li zhong yang is not for middle burner yang xu, even though ZZJ never said this. This is a zang-fu pattern attributed to a formula, but not a pathomechanism (from my perspective). (side note) Actually I have read arguments that using such zang-fu labels limit to true scope of SHL, but that is another story. But an example of pathomechanism is the story of WHY something is happened, not just a label / pattern: For example, why is there heat and sweating is a wind strike gui zhi tang pattern. Answer: Fever is an indication that defensive yang rises to the exterior of the body to contend with the evil and it is in this struggle that the defensive yang is damaged. The defensive yang, already weak in this type of patient, is further weakened by this struggle. Construction fails to be contained in the interior and construction-yin discharges outward, giving rise to sweat. This is a pathomechanism, and may I add, only one possible explanation. There are others that differ. These are stories that are not mentioned in the SHL and are not IMO explicit in the SHL by any means, and are really only made up by later authors to try to explain ZZJ. Was ZZJ thinking about these things, maybe, maybe not. Clearly there are commentaries upon commentaries trying to make sense of what he thought and they do not agree. Therefore, unless someone is using a different definition of pathomechanism, I have a very hard time understanding how one can say that SHL is basically a " discussion of pathomechanisms. " But I do see how looking at the details through " certain " commentaries will fill up pages of pathomechansitic explanations. Others like Huang Huang will not. It depends on how you study the SHL. Your statement assumes that everyone is studying the SHL in the same manner as for example Mitchell commentated on it. Respectfully, - _____ @ <%40> [@ <%40> ] On Behalf Of Eric Brand Friday, July 06, 2007 9:47 PM @ <%40> Re: SHL and Pathomechanisms @ <%40> , " " wrote: > I am not sure if the SHL is basically a discussion of pathomechanisms. I > would say that people who commentate on it like to explain the > pathomechanisms that they think explain the situation (or condition), as > they should. This is the way I first studied the SHL. It is my default. But > when I actually look through the text I mainly sees s/s with formulas, with > little in the discussion of why (meaning pathomechanisms). The Shang Han Lun has very little verbose explanation of the " why " because it is such a terse text. This is typical of the ancient writing style, and this is exactly why the study of classical texts is as much a study on their commentary as on the text itself. For example, we all know that ma huang tang treats greater yang cold damage, but the original text itself does not state that fact explicitly. It is only from analysis of the formula that we know the pattern is greater yang cold damage. We have to make a similar analysis based on the formula for ge gen tang, since the SHL tells us that it is greater yang disease but does not say whether it is cold damage or wind strike. To me, arguing that the SHL doesn't have pathomechanisms just because it doesn't use the word pathomechanism is like saying ma huang tang wasn't originally a formula for cold damage just because the SHL doesn't explicitly state that the pattern it governs is cold damage. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Jason To me the question is more about do you treat what you see or do you treat what you think is the process that lead to any point in time. PM is sometimes a way of thinking about root. Since many of my patients have complex presentations i often need to prioritize treatment. For the most part i like to treat what i see, and as you say this is about recognizing a symptoms sign complex and giving appropriate therapy. Sometimes however i see a presentation that i feel is best treated by somehow treating what i imagine is the underlying process. Making up a story, and by the way i am with you, it is making up a story and one can made many other stories as well, is a way to rationalize a way to ignore some symptoms and prioritize. At the same time i am totally aware that this is a theoretical exercise utilizing tools in CM that can be manipulated to make up any story one wants to make. As i said in the past i do think this for the most part is mental masturbation because of the flexible nature of CM and lack of true objectives. - Saturday, July 07, 2007 6:47 AM RE: SHL and Pathomechanisms Eric (et al), After thinking more about this I think there are multiple views, especially on the definition of pathomechanisms. I see Eric's point. I would agree that the SHL, just by having 6 stages represents one giant pathomechanism for understanding disease. Albeit basic. The neijing of course started coined the term. Here are two examples, " all qi4 huffing and depression is ascribed to the lung. " - I would say that the Lung is the pathomechanism (PM). " all diseases with aching pain and swelling of the instep, and fright are ascribed to fire " - Fire is the PM. These are of course quite simplified for today's standards. When people commentate on this of course they go into great detail explaining what this means. I think now our criteria for what we consider a PM may have changed. Can we say " the Lung " is a PM? Can we say the PM is the TaiYang windstrike? Can we say " fire " or " yinfire " . Maybe. I guess I cannot say that they are not.. But with today's understanding and hence books, the PMs seem more elaborate. I personally consider Spleen qi xu as a pattern, the dizziness I would say would be the disease (or chief manifestation). I guess I see the PM as how the Spleen qi xu actually causes dizziness. Other's comments? So do people consider " yin xu " a PM? Respectfully, - _____ On Behalf Of Friday, July 06, 2007 10:50 PM RE: SHL and Pathomechanisms Eric, Yes classical texts are more terse, and I agree that arguing that i.e. " ma huang tang wasn't originally a formula for cold damage just because the SHL doesn't explicitly state " would be silly. But all the examples you give are not really pathomechanisms, they are patterns. And as you state we should be clear that those are patterns that later generations have assigned to the formulas. These are useful. Therefore, I agree, it would be silly to argue that that li zhong yang is not for middle burner yang xu, even though ZZJ never said this. This is a zang-fu pattern attributed to a formula, but not a pathomechanism (from my perspective). (side note) Actually I have read arguments that using such zang-fu labels limit to true scope of SHL, but that is another story. But an example of pathomechanism is the story of WHY something is happened, not just a label / pattern: For example, why is there heat and sweating is a wind strike gui zhi tang pattern. Answer: Fever is an indication that defensive yang rises to the exterior of the body to contend with the evil and it is in this struggle that the defensive yang is damaged. The defensive yang, already weak in this type of patient, is further weakened by this struggle. Construction fails to be contained in the interior and construction-yin discharges outward, giving rise to sweat. This is a pathomechanism, and may I add, only one possible explanation. There are others that differ. These are stories that are not mentioned in the SHL and are not IMO explicit in the SHL by any means, and are really only made up by later authors to try to explain ZZJ. Was ZZJ thinking about these things, maybe, maybe not. Clearly there are commentaries upon commentaries trying to make sense of what he thought and they do not agree. Therefore, unless someone is using a different definition of pathomechanism, I have a very hard time understanding how one can say that SHL is basically a " discussion of pathomechanisms. " But I do see how looking at the details through " certain " commentaries will fill up pages of pathomechansitic explanations. Others like Huang Huang will not. It depends on how you study the SHL. Your statement assumes that everyone is studying the SHL in the same manner as for example Mitchell commentated on it. Respectfully, - _____ @ <%40> [@ <%40> ] On Behalf Of Eric Brand Friday, July 06, 2007 9:47 PM @ <%40> Re: SHL and Pathomechanisms @ <%40> , " " wrote: > I am not sure if the SHL is basically a discussion of pathomechanisms. I > would say that people who commentate on it like to explain the > pathomechanisms that they think explain the situation (or condition), as > they should. This is the way I first studied the SHL. It is my default. But > when I actually look through the text I mainly sees s/s with formulas, with > little in the discussion of why (meaning pathomechanisms). The Shang Han Lun has very little verbose explanation of the " why " because it is such a terse text. This is typical of the ancient writing style, and this is exactly why the study of classical texts is as much a study on their commentary as on the text itself. For example, we all know that ma huang tang treats greater yang cold damage, but the original text itself does not state that fact explicitly. It is only from analysis of the formula that we know the pattern is greater yang cold damage. We have to make a similar analysis based on the formula for ge gen tang, since the SHL tells us that it is greater yang disease but does not say whether it is cold damage or wind strike. To me, arguing that the SHL doesn't have pathomechanisms just because it doesn't use the word pathomechanism is like saying ma huang tang wasn't originally a formula for cold damage just because the SHL doesn't explicitly state that the pattern it governs is cold damage. Eric Brand Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 , " " wrote: These are stories that are not mentioned in > the SHL and are not IMO explicit in the SHL by any means, and are really > only made up by later authors to try to explain ZZJ. Was ZZJ thinking about > these things, maybe, maybe not. Clearly there are commentaries upon > commentaries trying to make sense of what he thought and they do not agree. Naturally the commentaries do not agree because they represent different ways of looking at the information. The reason the Shang Han Lun is a classic is because it can incite a great deal of discussion; it poses challenges that can be analyzed from different angles. This is why the classics are classics, because they offer centuries of commentary and show us a glimpse of diverse perspectives and evolving concepts. To me, the reason classical material like the SHL is interesting is precisely because of the later generations' discussions on pathomechanisms and other illustrative aspects of theory. The text itself is potentially profound but it is often ambiguous, to end the discussion at Zhang Zhong-Jing's original words without imbibing in the richness of centuries of commentary would be blindly revering a classical text and stubbornly sticking to a literal interpretation of concepts that are vaguely defined to begin with. People do this with other old books but it could hardly be described as a positive thing. I know that's not what you are advocating but it a logical extension of sticking to the simple unelaborated source text. Furthermore, the unelaborated source text is not terribly useful clinically, it is the discussion and the slow historic expansion of the concepts that allows classical material to contribute to the modern clinic. But I do see how looking at the details > through " certain " commentaries will fill up pages of pathomechansitic > explanations. Others like Huang Huang will not. It depends on how you study > the SHL. Your statement assumes that everyone is studying the SHL in the > same manner as for example Mitchell commentated on it. Let's be clear here. First off, Mitchell is not the commentator who sets the mood and manner. The Paradigm translation of the Shang Han Lun was a translation of older, foundational Chinese commentaries and perspectives, it was certainly not Craig Mitchell's personal commentary. And rightfully so. They followed the tradition of centuries, cataloguing the most important perspectives and commentaries throughout the ages. Their book is an incredible book because of those compiled commentaries, that is what allows the SHL to be an entire topic of study rather than an obscure line of ancient poetry. But really, if you want to talk about that book and the source of its commentaries, it should be stressed that Feng Ye was the guiding force behind that text, he is the true SHL expert that made the project possible. It takes mastery of the available literature to know where to find the best commentaries and to be aware of the key arguments and discussions, and that is what Feng Ye provided. You say that my statement assumes that everyone is studying the SHL in the same manner as the Feng/Mitchell/Wiseman commentary, but I think the style of that selected commentary reflects the normal way of studying the SHL for hundreds of years. Huang Huang's opinions would appear to be distinct and interesting because they suggest a departure from the norm. Often one needs to propose a more extreme position to get recognition, since the many voices in the middle ground all sound the same. Look at the four great masters of the Jin-Yuan dynasty, would we remember them today if their perspectives were less of an extreme departure from the norm of their times? Eric Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 7, 2007 Report Share Posted July 7, 2007 Eric, I did not at all mean to suggest that Mitchell was doing the commentary. I also agree that the paradigm version is the mainstream methodology and that was my point. But there are other methods that do not rely on elaborate pathomechanisms, i.e. Huang Huang. They may be out of the norm, but that does not make them any less clinically useful. Obviously it would be silly to study the SHL without commentary. Otherwise I agree with what you say. -Jason _____ On Behalf Of Eric Brand Saturday, July 07, 2007 9:35 PM Re: SHL and Pathomechanisms @ <%40> , " " wrote: These are stories that are not mentioned in > the SHL and are not IMO explicit in the SHL by any means, and are really > only made up by later authors to try to explain ZZJ. Was ZZJ thinking about > these things, maybe, maybe not. Clearly there are commentaries upon > commentaries trying to make sense of what he thought and they do not agree. Naturally the commentaries do not agree because they represent different ways of looking at the information. The reason the Shang Han Lun is a classic is because it can incite a great deal of discussion; it poses challenges that can be analyzed from different angles. This is why the classics are classics, because they offer centuries of commentary and show us a glimpse of diverse perspectives and evolving concepts. To me, the reason classical material like the SHL is interesting is precisely because of the later generations' discussions on pathomechanisms and other illustrative aspects of theory. The text itself is potentially profound but it is often ambiguous, to end the discussion at Zhang Zhong-Jing's original words without imbibing in the richness of centuries of commentary would be blindly revering a classical text and stubbornly sticking to a literal interpretation of concepts that are vaguely defined to begin with. People do this with other old books but it could hardly be described as a positive thing. I know that's not what you are advocating but it a logical extension of sticking to the simple unelaborated source text. Furthermore, the unelaborated source text is not terribly useful clinically, it is the discussion and the slow historic expansion of the concepts that allows classical material to contribute to the modern clinic. But I do see how looking at the details > through " certain " commentaries will fill up pages of pathomechansitic > explanations. Others like Huang Huang will not. It depends on how you study > the SHL. Your statement assumes that everyone is studying the SHL in the > same manner as for example Mitchell commentated on it. Let's be clear here. First off, Mitchell is not the commentator who sets the mood and manner. The Paradigm translation of the Shang Han Lun was a translation of older, foundational Chinese commentaries and perspectives, it was certainly not Craig Mitchell's personal commentary. And rightfully so. They followed the tradition of centuries, cataloguing the most important perspectives and commentaries throughout the ages. Their book is an incredible book because of those compiled commentaries, that is what allows the SHL to be an entire topic of study rather than an obscure line of ancient poetry. But really, if you want to talk about that book and the source of its commentaries, it should be stressed that Feng Ye was the guiding force behind that text, he is the true SHL expert that made the project possible. It takes mastery of the available literature to know where to find the best commentaries and to be aware of the key arguments and discussions, and that is what Feng Ye provided. You say that my statement assumes that everyone is studying the SHL in the same manner as the Feng/Mitchell/Wiseman commentary, but I think the style of that selected commentary reflects the normal way of studying the SHL for hundreds of years. Huang Huang's opinions would appear to be distinct and interesting because they suggest a departure from the norm. Often one needs to propose a more extreme position to get recognition, since the many voices in the middle ground all sound the same. Look at the four great masters of the Jin-Yuan dynasty, would we remember them today if their perspectives were less of an extreme departure from the norm of their times? 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.