Shang Han formula?

[Guest guest]

Stephen,

 

 

 

I'm not at all suggesting that you have to grow into this style that I

present. You're missing the point. I am merely presenting a different point

of view. Obviously, there are many lineages in SHL tradition and there are

more points of view then you can shake a stick at.

 

 

 

But you so boldly start off your e-mail with " the formula you posted is not

a SHL formula " - actually there is no debate, they tell us it is a Shang Han

formula. It is in the Shang Han chapter and labeled gui zhi tang. You

though, instead of trying to understand why, are dismissing it, calling it a

warm disease formula. As stated before, you have a choice, you can try to

understand their thinking or completely dismiss it. You have opted to

dismiss it (and relabeled it) therefore of course I think that you " do not

understand it. " - Therefore, if you Steven, are only saying that you don't

prefer such a style, then okay. However if you are stating that such a style

is not valid Shang Han (which is how your e-mail read to me), then you have

a hard sell in my opinion. To elaborate...

 

 

 

Ding Gan-Ren's style is one valid way of approaching the text and clinical

reality. Your disagreement is only based on your predilection towards a more

" traditional " style, and that is fine. I personally have no attachment

either way and try to embrace multiple perspectives, and actually have not

presented anything that is " my opinion " . Consequently, I see no reason to

have a restrictive viewpoint and won't be tied down to only one current of

thought. For example, sometimes I use chi shao instead of bai shao,

sometimes I use both chi shao and bai shao. I also sometimes use an

unmodified gui zhi tang and sometimes I give a 10 ingredients modified gui

zhi tang. I that the patient in front of me dictate how I treat them.

However, if I only have a hammer and every patient will be a nail.

 

 

 

I have merely presented a very valid and well documented current in Shang

Han though that hopefully can expand the way people view gui zhi tang.

Although I knew people would argue, it always amazes me when this happens. I

personally just don't see any debate, it is what it is.

 

 

 

Honestly, as much as I respect you as a person, a 15 year-old opinion, that

this is not a Shang Han formula or gui zhi tang method, doesn't remotely

come close to overturning someone like Ding Gan-Ren's opinion, and the

numerous other doctors, that think in this manner. We know you do not

disagree, but you definitely are not respecting his viewpoint when you start

off by saying this is " not a SHL formula. " He is telling you it is! - of

course it is not a unmodified SHL, but then again most Shang Han case

studies (that you read) are modified in ways that are not in the source

text.

 

 

 

Finally, when we have two completely opposing views where one is restrictive

and the other is open and expansive, we have an interesting phenomenon.

Simply, the expansive view almost always incorporates the restrictive view,

however the restrictive view almost never incorporates the expansive view.

The expansive view allows for many viewpoints and the restrictive view only

sees that their own as valid.

 

 

 

This is the same problem with orthodox religion. They have their point of

view and everyone else is wrong. It often seems that orthodox SHL

practitioners come off in this manner (this is not geared at any person on

this list, but a general observation). However, I will argue that it will do

us all good to try to see these stranger or less orthodox points of view,

especially when they come from an incredibly respected lineage of doctors.

Such doctors, including myself, are not trying to sell any certain style. No

one is saying this is better than anything else. We are only saying this is

another possible way to approach the Shang Han. How can one argue?

 

 

 

For those who want to continue taking the ride, I posted two more gui zhi

tang cases using chi shao instead of bai shao.

 

 

 

Chinese Medicine/case-studies/tai-yang-with-internal-damp-d

gr/

 

Chinese Medicine/case-studies/gui-zhi-tang-with-chi-shao/

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of stephen woodley

Sunday, March 21, 2010 9:11 AM

 

RE: Insomnia

 

 

 

 

 

Jason:

there's no sense in arguing this. But the reality is...

 

Stephen

that is too funny!!! nice one

 

Jason:

You have a choice, you can try to understand what Ding Gan-Ren is

talking about...

 

Stephen:

First, what makes you think that I don't/can't understand it?

It's not mysterious or unfathomable. I just don't agree. There

are many, many instances in the Chinese literature where one

famous person criticizes the opinions of another

And while we are giving advice - you might want to learn the

phrase:

" in my opinion " because that is all any of this is

 

Jason:

All that I can say is try to open your mind and get a larger

vantage point...

 

Stephen:

do you see how condescending that sounds? I arrived at my

opinions based on 15 years of hard study, not because I haven't

gotten this far. I have had teachers that admired and worked with

the style that you like.

 

Jason:

I will always question people who believe that all problems can

be solved with stock SHL formulas

 

Stephen

Well, I don't know anybody who does this. We use formula

combining as I mentioned. Perhaps you have this opinion because

you don't really know the SHL style?

 

I have seen 1000s of formulas written in the basic style you

advocate. You see them as good, ok. I see them differently. Our

opinions differ - I don't much care if others agree. I know what

I see and have seen. You seem to think that I need to " grow into "

the style you like...I could argue that I have already grown out

of it.

 

Jason

This quite simply is to deny 1800 years of knowledge that

followed the SHL and is only limiting.

 

Stephen

This statement seems to ignore that many famous commentators have

decried these " innovations " as tragic and misguided. Again, these

are all only opinions.

 

Jason, I know that you are a smart guy and dedicated to learning.

My advice to you would be to remember that you probably didn't

think the same way 10 years ago that you do now, you likely won't

think the same way 10 years from now.

I am not an evangelist and don't need to try to get people to

agree. I do try to create opportunities for those who wish to

learn an extremely clear and powerful style of Chinese medicine.

It's not the only style out there, but it is quite elegant.

 

Stephen Woodley LAc

www.shanghanlunseminars.com