TCM, Western and Ayurvedic ambiguities

[Guest guest]

Trevor,

I think we are in agreement with all points and I have the same criticisms

about so-called Western herbalism as you mentioned which is why I have

created an integrated approach -- which by the way, I don't particularly

think is innovative except to be one of the first to point out something

that was/is bound to happen.

 

My criticisms of Western herbalism is that I think it is a broken system

and exists in its present form (I should say 'allegiance') largely because

a few people have a sincere desire to integrate local plants into clinical

practice.

 

Unlike those who aim only at 'saving' the natural environment, I know that

nothing lasts long as just an ornament, even a naturalistic one.

Ultimately wise use and appreciation for the gifts of nature by more of us

and especially herbalists is what will save in the end preserve what is

useful to humanity. So my motto would be " use, not abuse " .

 

There is much that needs to be explored in integrating Western herbs into

a sophisticated system such as TCM. In general, my first reason for

turning to TCM was because Western herbalism had not concept about

'tonics' -- and given one of the sovereign principles of TCM which is

'first identify the deficiency', this posed a real problem.

 

However, a criticism of TCM as compared to both Western and Ayurvedic

herbalism is that TCM, at least as it is taught has little concept of the

role of detoxification. Most of TCM is framed around a pathological model

and that is indeed both one of its strengths and weaknesses.

 

I have yet to here of students gradating from TCM schools learning about

various methods of general detoxification, fasting, etc.

 

So to be brief, in a more Planetary vision of incorporating various useful

aspects into a clinical model, I think rather than consider as I have seen

represented on this forum, how inadequate Western TCM is or that the only

way we can be come proficient is to learn Chinese (a good idea but at my

age, not a priority I'm afraid), we have an opportunity to slowly begin

(as many on this list are undoubtedly doing), to create a new or evolved

system, based if you will, on the time honored principles of TCM. So I

consider myself a Western herbalist, practicing TCM.

 

Recent studies of the history of Western herbalism has revealed that in

reality there never was a so called 'pure' Western herbalism. Going back

to the Greeks, there was a lively exchange between India and to some

extent China that influenced Greco-Roman medicine. Then with the rise of

Christianity with its anti-intellectual bias as early Christians anxiously

awaited the 2nd coming, it is a debt the West owed to the Islamic scholars

(who were very much pro-learning and intellectual), who translated the

texts of the Greeks along with the major medical texts of Ayurveda (the

Charaka and Susruta Samhita) and -- the Nei Ching and other early Chinese

texts and the early Chinese texts on pulsology which were integrated into

renaissance herbal clinical practice. The Jews also played a big role in

evolving a world medicine so that the first Western medical school in

Salerno, Italy was founded by a Jew, an Islamic scholar and a Latin or

what we now call Italian.

 

So world medicine has always existed, it has always been part of TCM as we

can see by the numbers of plants from throughout the world that are part

of the materia medica. My point is why stop? or if you will, we can't stop

the inevitable.

 

We should not be afraid of pointing to and challenging the deficiencies

and ambiguities of all systems of medicine which exist aplenty in Western,

Ayurvedic, TCM and Western conventional medicine. I am a firm believer

that the concepts of TCM can be explained physiologically and while we can

all comment on the problems and deficiencies that may and do occur and I'm

very happy to see such research when it is translated coming from China.

 

Chinese medicine in the west or in the world cannot continue if we don't

make an attempt to form bridges to other medical systems and traditional

systems. I consider it a deficiency to mouth the largely misunderstood

terms and definitions of TCM or Ayurveda without at least an attempt to

describe in terms understood by a larger populace what we mean. The most

obvious is that physiological Yin-Yang refers to what Western

physiologists describe as the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous

system.

 

I know this is Chinese Herbal Medicine and perhaps not the right forum

for this kind of discussion but its a good forum and I really value the

contributions that each of us are making on this forum and I think we can

and should entertain respectful debate and I hope that my comments are

seen in that light.

 

Michael

[Guest guest]

Michael

 

This discussion is completely appropriate here. Those who want to participate

can and those do not don't have to.

 

-

mtierra

 

Friday, May 29, 2009 11:21:40 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern

TCM, Western and Ayurvedic ambiguities

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Trevor,

I think we are in agreement with all points and I have the same criticisms

about so-called Western herbalism as you mentioned which is why I have

created an integrated approach -- which by the way, I don't particularly

think is innovative except to be one of the first to point out something

that was/is bound to happen.

 

My criticisms of Western herbalism is that I think it is a broken system

and exists in its present form (I should say 'allegiance') largely because

a few people have a sincere desire to integrate local plants into clinical

practice.

 

Unlike those who aim only at 'saving' the natural environment, I know that

nothing lasts long as just an ornament, even a naturalistic one.

Ultimately wise use and appreciation for the gifts of nature by more of us

and especially herbalists is what will save in the end preserve what is

useful to humanity. So my motto would be " use, not abuse " .

 

There is much that needs to be explored in integrating Western herbs into

a sophisticated system such as TCM. In general, my first reason for

turning to TCM was because Western herbalism had not concept about

'tonics' -- and given one of the sovereign principles of TCM which is

'first identify the deficiency', this posed a real problem.

 

However, a criticism of TCM as compared to both Western and Ayurvedic

herbalism is that TCM, at least as it is taught has little concept of the

role of detoxification. Most of TCM is framed around a pathological model

and that is indeed both one of its strengths and weaknesses.

 

I have yet to here of students gradating from TCM schools learning about

various methods of general detoxification, fasting, etc.

 

So to be brief, in a more Planetary vision of incorporating various useful

aspects into a clinical model, I think rather than consider as I have seen

represented on this forum, how inadequate Western TCM is or that the only

way we can be come proficient is to learn Chinese (a good idea but at my

age, not a priority I'm afraid), we have an opportunity to slowly begin

(as many on this list are undoubtedly doing), to create a new or evolved

system, based if you will, on the time honored principles of TCM. So I

consider myself a Western herbalist, practicing TCM.

 

Recent studies of the history of Western herbalism has revealed that in

reality there never was a so called 'pure' Western herbalism. Going back

to the Greeks, there was a lively exchange between India and to some

extent China that influenced Greco-Roman medicine. Then with the rise of

Christianity with its anti-intellectual bias as early Christians anxiously

awaited the 2nd coming, it is a debt the West owed to the Islamic scholars

(who were very much pro-learning and intellectual), who translated the

texts of the Greeks along with the major medical texts of Ayurveda (the

Charaka and Susruta Samhita) and -- the Nei Ching and other early Chinese

texts and the early Chinese texts on pulsology which were integrated into

renaissance herbal clinical practice. The Jews also played a big role in

evolving a world medicine so that the first Western medical school in

Salerno, Italy was founded by a Jew, an Islamic scholar and a Latin or

what we now call Italian.

 

So world medicine has always existed, it has always been part of TCM as we

can see by the numbers of plants from throughout the world that are part

of the materia medica. My point is why stop? or if you will, we can't stop

the inevitable.

 

We should not be afraid of pointing to and challenging the deficiencies

and ambiguities of all systems of medicine which exist aplenty in Western,

Ayurvedic, TCM and Western conventional medicine. I am a firm believer

that the concepts of TCM can be explained physiologically and while we can

all comment on the problems and deficiencies that may and do occur and I'm

very happy to see such research when it is translated coming from China.

 

Chinese medicine in the west or in the world cannot continue if we don't

make an attempt to form bridges to other medical systems and traditional

systems. I consider it a deficiency to mouth the largely misunderstood

terms and definitions of TCM or Ayurveda without at least an attempt to

describe in terms understood by a larger populace what we mean. The most

obvious is that physiological Yin-Yang refers to what Western

physiologists describe as the sympathetic and parasympathetic nervous

system.

 

I know this is Chinese Herbal Medicine and perhaps not the right forum

for this kind of discussion but its a good forum and I really value the

contributions that each of us are making on this forum and I think we can

and should entertain respectful debate and I hope that my comments are

seen in that light.

 

Michael