Guest guest Posted March 20, 2010 Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 Chiming in: Jason: for people who are orthodox SHL practitioners such an approach will never be acceptable. Stephen: As one, I agree - the formula you posted is not a SHL formula - it is a Wen Bing style formula. There is nothing wrong with Wen Bing approach - when appropriate If you posted that formula as an example of a good substitution of chishao for baishao I'd have to say I don't feel that it was a useful example 1) your author merely states that there was an unresolved pathogen in taiyang - not much history 2) the S/Ss listed aren't consistent with the claim of needing to use GZT method 3) The fact that the author gave a tongue description versus pulse shows that he was looking through the eyes of a Wen Bing practitioner. 4) showing a formula that has only 1 of 5 herbs cannot be called GZT method - sorry. Jason: Furthermore, I can assure you that Sheng jiang, Gan cao and Da zao are far from integral for a gui zhi tang method to work. Stephen: What, in your opinion, is the function of Sheng Jiang in Guizhi Tang? As far as what constitutes " true and valid " SHL style of practice - one cannot say. There are many lineages in the SHL tradition, and they all argue about what is true and good and correct. I have to agree with Stephen Bonzak and Kokko - Jason: Therefore, precision is not about adhering rigidly to the original formula, precision is addressing the whole patient in front of you, modifying things as needed Stephen: Precision is about knowing the presentation that the original formulas address, addressing what needs attention now, modifying by combining formulas in proven, harmonious combinations based on knowing in detail which formulas are called for. We can address the whole patient that is in front of us while adhering to proper formula methods. It is not necessary to tear a formula apart and put together something completely different. (and many of us will always wonder - how can someone say that they are using the GZT method without using GZT?) You obviously like the style you presented, and that is fine. There are many styles and to be truly good at any of them requires skill and dedication. Nobody will convince another practitioner to change styles. BTW, you posted that you are friends with Suzanne - who started this thread - can you ask her for an update on her insomnia patient? Stephen Woodley LAc www.shanghanlunseminars.com -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Or how I learned to stop worrying and love email again Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 20, 2010 Report Share Posted March 20, 2010 First of all, Chi shao is not astringent and does not regulate the nutritive with the protective. If you're going to call it the " Gui zhi tang method " here, you need to choose Bai shao. Does Chi shao regulate ying? I've never heard of that before. Second of all, show me even one Gui zhi tang family formula in all of the Shang han za bing lun that lacks even one of the following ingredients: Sheng jiang, Gan cao or Da zao, let alone lacking all three in a formula. Here is a list of Gui zhi tang modifications documented in the Shang han za bing lun: Gui zhi jia fu zi tang, Wu tou gui zhi tang, Gui zhi jia gui tang, Gui zhi jia shao yao tang, Gui zhi jia ge gen tang, Gui zhi jia da huang tang, Gui zhi jia hou po xing zi tang and Gui zhi jia shao yao sheng jiang ge yi liang ren shen san liang xin jia tang (Gui zhi tang + Ren shen) What you will notice is that ALL of these formulas contain Sheng jiang, Gan cao and Da zao (without fail) and for good reason. They're not just flavors to make the formula taste good, but are crucial components in the functional dynamic of the formula. Gui zhi qu shao yao tang, Gui zhi qu shao yao jia fu zi tang, Gui zhi qu shao yao jia shu qi mu li long gu jiu ni tang, and Gui zhi qu shao yao jia ma huang xi xin fu zi tang don't contain Shao yao. So, if anything, Shao yao can be left out in Gui zhi tang method formulas, as detailed by Zhang Zhong Jing. Like I said, please explain how you can call a formula that has Gui zhi and Chi shao in it, but no Sheng jiang, Gan cao or Da zao in it among 9 other herbs and still call this the " Gui zhi tang method " ? K On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 8:24 AM, Al Stone <al wrote: > > > Mentioning " gui zhi tang " isn't always a reference to five herbs as much as > a treatment principle that includes a pungent flavor outhrusting and a sour > flavor that astringes. > > Classics based practitioner Tiende Yang often speaks of adding " bu zhong yi > qi tang " or " bao he wan " to a formula. This may have only meant the > addition > of Chai hu, shan zha and mai ya because he was speaking about the treatment > principles of lifting clear yang or descending turbid yin. > > On Sat, Mar 20, 2010 at 5:01 AM, Gabriel Fuentes <fuentes120<fuentes120%40> > >wrote: > > > > > > > > leaving out Sheng jiang, Gan cao and Da zao (which are vital in > regulating > > ying/wei). > > > > Actually the two most vital herbs in regulating construction and defense > > in guizhitang are guizhi and shaoyao. > > Gabe Fuentes > > > > ________________________________ > > <johnkokko <johnkokko%40gmail.com><johnkokko% > 40gmail.com>> > > <%40> > <%40> > > > Fri, March 19, 2010 9:21:17 PM > > Re: Insomnia > > > > > > > > Jason, > > I have the same question as Steven Boznak, posted at > > http://www.chinesem edicinedoc. com/case- studies/tai- yang-gui- > zhi-tang- > > dgr/ > > > > > > I'm not arguing with Ding Gan-Ren's methodology, especially with the > > limited > > information given. > > > > I " m just curious how he could call this a Gui zhi tang modification? > > > > ...just because it has Gui zhi and Shao yao (Chi shao) in it between 13 > > herbs, > > leaving out Sheng jiang, Gan cao and Da zao (which are vital in > regulating > > ying/wei). > > None of the other medicinals in his formula regulate ying/wei. > > > > In his formula, the dose of Gui zhi is 8 fen and Chi shao 1.5 qian. > > Gui zhi tang's ratio is Gui zhi 3 qian , Shao yao 3 qian 1:1, not 1:2. > > > > For the case presentation, how come he didn't add the three medicinals > that > > are integral to Gui zhi tang... Sheng jiang, Gan cao and Da zao? > > > > With the greasy coat, he could've just reduced the dose of Da zao or > taken > > it out altogether, but why eliminate Sheng jiang and Gan cao? > > > > Please explain. > > > > Secondly, to take it to another level, we could say that the Ding Gan-Ren > > formula that you posted is a modification of Ma huang tang, because it > has > > Gui zhi and Xing ren in it... or Xiao qing long tang, because it has Gui > > zhi and Ban xia in it... or Gui zhi fu ling tang because it has Gui zhi > and > > Fu ling in it... or Ban xia hou po tang because it has Ban xia and Fu > ling > > in it... or Dang gui shao yao san because it has Shao yao and Fu ling in > > it. > > > > In other words, for someone who likes precision, how can we be precise in > > our claims of root formula modifications when the herbs and dosages are > so > > off? > > > > K > > > > -- > , DAOM > Pain is inevitable, suffering is optional. > http://twitter.com/algancao > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Yes this is the what I have been taught by my Shang Han teachers. -Jason On Behalf Of Gabriel Fuentes Actually the two most vital herbs in regulating construction and defense in guizhitang are guizhi and shaoyao. Gabe Fuentes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 John, As stated by someone previously, bai shao and chi shao were not differentiated in SHL. Many people have used chi shao instead of bai shao and many SHL experts and commentators actually have thought that chi shao is the preferred choice. John, I am not going to argue with you, but I can assure you that there are a large percentage of very famous clinicians and SHL experts who don't hold the rigid stance that you present below. Quite simply, there are those that grasp on to the exact words of the original text and those who take the principles and apply clinically. Honestly, I think you should read some commentary before making such strong assumptions as below. -Jason On Behalf Of Saturday, March 20, 2010 11:52 PM Re: Insomnia First of all, Chi shao is not astringent and does not regulate the nutritive with the protective. If you're going to call it the " Gui zhi tang method " here, you need to choose Bai shao. Does Chi shao regulate ying? I've never heard of that before. Second of all, show me even one Gui zhi tang family formula in all of the Shang han za bing lun that lacks even one of the following ingredients: Sheng jiang, Gan cao or Da zao, let alone lacking all three in a formula. Here is a list of Gui zhi tang modifications documented in the Shang han za bing lun: Gui zhi jia fu zi tang, Wu tou gui zhi tang, Gui zhi jia gui tang, Gui zhi jia shao yao tang, Gui zhi jia ge gen tang, Gui zhi jia da huang tang, Gui zhi jia hou po xing zi tang and Gui zhi jia shao yao sheng jiang ge yi liang ren shen san liang xin jia tang (Gui zhi tang + Ren shen) What you will notice is that ALL of these formulas contain Sheng jiang, Gan cao and Da zao (without fail) and for good reason. They're not just flavors to make the formula taste good, but are crucial components in the functional dynamic of the formula. Gui zhi qu shao yao tang, Gui zhi qu shao yao jia fu zi tang, Gui zhi qu shao yao jia shu qi mu li long gu jiu ni tang, and Gui zhi qu shao yao jia ma huang xi xin fu zi tang don't contain Shao yao. So, if anything, Shao yao can be left out in Gui zhi tang method formulas, as detailed by Zhang Zhong Jing. Like I said, please explain how you can call a formula that has Gui zhi and Chi shao in it, but no Sheng jiang, Gan cao or Da zao in it among 9 other herbs and still call this the " Gui zhi tang method " ? K Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Bingo. -Jason On Behalf Of Al Stone Mentioning " gui zhi tang " isn't always a reference to five herbs as much as a treatment principle that includes a pungent flavor outhrusting and a sour flavor that astringes. Classics based practitioner Tiende Yang often speaks of adding " bu zhong yi qi tang " or " bao he wan " to a formula. This may have only meant the addition of Chai hu, shan zha and mai ya because he was speaking about the treatment principles of lifting clear yang or descending turbid yin. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 21, 2010 Report Share Posted March 21, 2010 Stephen, As stated previously to John, there's no sense in arguing this. But the reality is, what you say can't be called " GZT method " simply is by many (famous) doctors. You have a choice, you can try to understand what Ding Gan-Ren is talking about or dismiss it as " craziness. " Don't forget, he was one of the most famous clinicians and teachers in the last two centuries. All that I can say is try to open your mind and get a larger vantage point, and try to take religion out of the SHL text. Finally, just because an herb has a certain function in a formula does not mean it cannot be swapped out for another herb with a similar function. Even one that is not originally in the SHL. Consequently though, I do not doubt that your " lineage " may not allow such substitutions or expanded formulas-- but many others do and we need to be accepting of both points of view. Just as you question anyone who uses formulas that are " torn apart " I will always question people who believe that all problems can be solved with stock SHL formulas, only using modifications from the original text. This quite simply is to deny 1800 years of knowledge that followed the SHL and is only limiting. Many doctors have spent their lifetime expanding SHL usages (e.g. incorporating tongues), why would anyone deny this knowledge? Maybe because the books are not in English? But that is just where we are probably happy to disagree. Best, -Jason On Behalf Of stephen woodley Saturday, March 20, 2010 11:28 PM Insomnia Chiming in: Jason: for people who are orthodox SHL practitioners such an approach will never be acceptable. Stephen: As one, I agree - the formula you posted is not a SHL formula - it is a Wen Bing style formula. There is nothing wrong with Wen Bing approach - when appropriate If you posted that formula as an example of a good substitution of chishao for baishao I'd have to say I don't feel that it was a useful example 1) your author merely states that there was an unresolved pathogen in taiyang - not much history 2) the S/Ss listed aren't consistent with the claim of needing to use GZT method 3) The fact that the author gave a tongue description versus pulse shows that he was looking through the eyes of a Wen Bing practitioner. 4) showing a formula that has only 1 of 5 herbs cannot be called GZT method - sorry. Jason: Furthermore, I can assure you that Sheng jiang, Gan cao and Da zao are far from integral for a gui zhi tang method to work. Stephen: What, in your opinion, is the function of Sheng Jiang in Guizhi Tang? As far as what constitutes " true and valid " SHL style of practice - one cannot say. There are many lineages in the SHL tradition, and they all argue about what is true and good and correct. I have to agree with Stephen Bonzak and Kokko - Jason: Therefore, precision is not about adhering rigidly to the original formula, precision is addressing the whole patient in front of you, modifying things as needed Stephen: Precision is about knowing the presentation that the original formulas address, addressing what needs attention now, modifying by combining formulas in proven, harmonious combinations based on knowing in detail which formulas are called for. We can address the whole patient that is in front of us while adhering to proper formula methods. It is not necessary to tear a formula apart and put together something completely different. (and many of us will always wonder - how can someone say that they are using the GZT method without using GZT?) You obviously like the style you presented, and that is fine. There are many styles and to be truly good at any of them requires skill and dedication. Nobody will convince another practitioner to change styles. BTW, you posted that you are friends with Suzanne - who started this thread - can you ask her for an update on her insomnia patient? Stephen Woodley LAc www.shanghanlunseminars.com 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.