Guest guest Posted April 20, 2010 Report Share Posted April 20, 2010 Hi Members, For those of you who have extensive years in practice, who started with TCM type formulation/theory and (possibly due to the recent interest and access to teachers)then gained experience with SHL/JGYL perscriptions and theory... do you see a differene in efficacy? I know there are a number of you (Alon, others) that have more recently studied with Arnaud Versluys, Huang, etc. that previously had a lot of expereince with TCM methods. So whats the verdict? Thanks for any input. Sincerely, david Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 I had a teacher at my school who gave SHL formulas, Fire school, to the point where he would give FU Zi to every patient. Some people got better and some people like myself could not take fu zi because it was way too strong. It cuased me to feel very bad and for my ears to start ringing for days. which is a sign of kidney damage when taking pharmaceuticals or anything toxic. so basically it was killing me. I think we are in a new age and SHL style is out of date and in theory sounds very nice, although one should take into account yin and yang, in the individual person. On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:20 PM, dmvitello01 <dmvitello wrote: > > > Hi Members, > > For those of you who have extensive years in practice, who started with TCM > type formulation/theory and (possibly due to the recent interest and access > to teachers)then gained experience with SHL/JGYL perscriptions and theory... > do you see a differene in efficacy? I know there are a number of you (Alon, > others) that have more recently studied with Arnaud Versluys, Huang, etc. > that previously had a lot of expereince with TCM methods. So whats the > verdict? > > Thanks for any input. > Sincerely, > david > > > -- David Bell L.Ac. Portland Maine Acupuncture (207)228-4262 205 concord st Portland Maine 04103 www.portlandmaineacupuncture.com portlandmaineacupuncture Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 While my experience is only a couple of years old i do see better results using purely SHL/JGYL. I have been using this exclusively for about 2 years in order to both learn it better and to have some comparison for the mix TCM methodologies i have been using for 25 year. i believe it has many advantages. I am using Arnuad's methods which are a particular lineage so i cant speak to other classical approaches. For those just starting i think the biggest advantage would be the concentrated and defined perspective. Its very difficult to learn the many varied approaches in TCM and gain enough experience to decide which is best for which patient. I think the methodology taught by Arnaud can be a great road map and so far i have not got stuck with any patient using it, and please understand i am not saying everyone got cured. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 David, Your experience reflects less on the SHL/JGYL school than of your teacher's approach to treatment ('one size fits all') and possibly improperly processed fu zi, which has been discussed on this list recently. I only buy fu zi from reputable sources at this point, as toxicity, of course is an issue, and the processing has to be correct. Also the " Fire God School " is not the same as the Cold Damage/SHL school, it is a much more narrow/specific approach. Since the SHLJGYL is the core text for the practice of Chinese internal medicine, I don't think you can say that it is 'out of date'. The majority of modern practice is still largely influenced by this text(s). On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:14 AM, David Bell Lic.Ac wrote: > I had a teacher at my school who gave SHL formulas, Fire school, to the > point where he would give FU Zi to every patient. Some people got better and > some people like myself could not take fu zi because it was way too strong. > It cuased me to feel very bad and for my ears to start ringing for days. > which is a sign of kidney damage when taking pharmaceuticals or anything > toxic. so basically it was killing me. > I think we are in a new age and SHL style is out of date and in theory > sounds very nice, although one should take into account yin and yang, in the > individual person. Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 2010 Report Share Posted April 21, 2010 Z'ev: Your experience reflects less on the SHL/JGYL school than of your teacher's approach... Also the " Fire God School " is ...a much more narrow/specific approach. Since the SHLJGYL is the core text for the practice of Chinese internal medicine, I don't think you can say that it is 'out of date'. Stephen: Bullseye -- http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2010 Report Share Posted April 22, 2010 Z'ev, I agree, no one can argue that the SHL is not important... However I do have one clarification question. I am curious what you consider ¡°influenced¡±? For example, warm disease theory and practice was influenced by shang han, but these doctors IMO, are no longer practicing shang han. Are you saying you feel that the majority (over 50%) of formulas written now (in modern clinics) are shang han based formulas? Can you explain? -Jason > ---- > <zrosenbe The majority of modern practice is still largely influenced by this text(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2010 Report Share Posted April 22, 2010 I have to agree with Z'ev that the quality of Fu Zi is of utmost importance regarding the so-called side effects of using Aconite. The other issue with the Fire Spirit school's use of Fu Zi is that it is always necessary to clear any obstacles/pathogens prior to beginning the administration of Fu Zi in this manner, or to at least concurrently address those patterns while administering higher doses of aconite. I refuse to use any other Fu Zi than what is available through Classical Pearls and have not encountered these side effects at doses as high as 30g. I rarely use it below 9g in most cases. But often giving a Fu Zi-based formula is perceived as check-mate, while opening gambits may vary. As for SHL/JGYL it comprises about 85% of my prescriptions, with the remainder being formulas from Dr. Shen that I have received via Dr. Hammer, and a few outliers like Sheng Mai San, Tian Wang Bu Xin Dan, Qian Yang Dan, and a scant few others. I was fortunate to study and work with a largely SHL-based family in Florida, and my exposure to Arnaud's model has been highly instructive, especially in terms of formula modification/combining. But far and away, my studies with Heiner have been the greatest influence on improvements in insight, and thus, outcomes. Brandt , " David Bell Lic.Ac " <healingherbsandpoints wrote: > > I had a teacher at my school who gave SHL formulas, Fire school, to the > point where he would give FU Zi to every patient. Some people got better and > some people like myself could not take fu zi because it was way too strong. > It cuased me to feel very bad and for my ears to start ringing for days. > which is a sign of kidney damage when taking pharmaceuticals or anything > toxic. so basically it was killing me. > I think we are in a new age and SHL style is out of date and in theory > sounds very nice, although one should take into account yin and yang, in the > individual person. > > On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 9:20 PM, dmvitello01 <dmvitello wrote: > > > > > > > Hi Members, > > > > For those of you who have extensive years in practice, who started with TCM > > type formulation/theory and (possibly due to the recent interest and access > > to teachers)then gained experience with SHL/JGYL perscriptions and theory... > > do you see a differene in efficacy? I know there are a number of you (Alon, > > others) that have more recently studied with Arnaud Versluys, Huang, etc. > > that previously had a lot of expereince with TCM methods. So whats the > > verdict? > > > > Thanks for any input. > > Sincerely, > > david > > > > > > > > > > -- > David Bell L.Ac. > Portland Maine Acupuncture > (207)228-4262 > 205 concord st Portland Maine 04103 > www.portlandmaineacupuncture.com > portlandmaineacupuncture > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2010 Report Share Posted April 22, 2010 Jason, I look at the SHL/JGYL as the foundation stone on which the edifice of prescriptions is built historically. Even in Wen bing xue, many of the formulas are 'pure' SHL (bai hu tang, cheng qi tang family for qi aspect patterns) or use similar formula constructions (modifications of wu mei wan, the underlying structure of sang xing tang or qing dan hao qin tang). Later prescriptions such as chai hu shu gan tang (Zhang Jing-yue) are built on si ni san. . . I can go on and on. . In other words, without a grasp of the SHL/JGYL, it will be difficult to grasp other, later currents of Chinese medicine, or even practice modern TCM properly. . . I don't know exact percentages of prescriptions, but it is pretty high. This would be great fuel for a more in-depth conversation, I am just writing in a hurry right now. . Z'ev On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:04 AM, wrote: > Z'ev, > > I agree, no one can argue that the SHL is not important... However I do have one clarification question. I am curious what you consider “influenced”? For example, warm disease theory and practice was influenced by shang han, but these doctors IMO, are no longer practicing shang han. > > Are you saying you feel that the majority (over 50%) of formulas written now (in modern clinics) are shang han based formulas? Can you explain? > > -Jason > > > ---- > > <zrosenbe > The majority of modern practice is still largely influenced by this text(s). > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2010 Report Share Posted April 22, 2010 Z'ev, You are correct and after re-reading my post, I want to clarify, I spoke somewhat incorrectly. I also am writing fast do to being in the midst of traveling, so sorry for any mistaken words. " Warm disease " doctors certainly used shang han " style " formulas. However in practice, very rarely did doctors of that time, or even before (song dynasty and onward), give shang han formulas unmodified. These warm disease doctors modified them to accommodate what they felt was a better match for the diseases present at that time period. For example, da cheng qi tang is transformed into zeng ye cheng qi tang to a match their desire to protect the yin. So I do not consider this a " pure " SHL approach. Actually most formulas are modified and one will find very few " pure " (unmodified) SHL formulas in such texts. For example, some experts say that straight cheng qi tang formulas are contraindicated for qi level problems. So yes, I agree with you that many later formulas are built on the prescriptions of the SHL/JGYL. Also, one should certainly study this text(s) to fully understand what has come afterwards. But I think the fact remains that many doctors also improved upon many of these " basic " SHL/JGYL ideas, especially in relation to modern day disease. Consequently, I do feel it is error to think that one can solve all or even the vast majority of cases with just SHL / JGYL formulas. I understand people like to try, but I feel this is out of some aesthetic appreciation or semi-religious following than coming from a practical (what is best for the patient) approach. I never quite understood why SHL practitioners (especially in the West) are so adamant (and proud) of just using SHL formulas. Interestingly I studied with SHL " specialist " in China that gave about 20% SHL/JGYL formulas. I thought that was very odd... In addition, we see this idea of using only formulas straight from the text as somehow superior to adding, a for example, qing dynasty herb. Again this seems more to do with a belief system then looking at what is best Chinese medicine approach for one's patient. Of note, even the first SHL doctors (song dynasty) were modifying these formulas to fit their needs. Of note, this practice has very little classical historical precedence. I am curious if anyone knows when the first record of doctors using SHL formulas unmodified is? Kampo? But I agree looking a " strict " SHL approach is useful in understanding how ZZJ thought, but at a certain point one must break away and look at the big picture. Why did all these other formulas evolve? What are their strengths? etc... I guess I am speaking to where I am currently at in my evolution and don't mean to say anything about other's approaches. So to summarize, I agree that a large percentage of formulas can trace their roots to the early herblaism of the SHL/JGYL. But IMO, these later developments (formulas), at a certain point, are no longer following strict SHL theory or its thought process. They are acknowledging different key principles such as protecting yin. But in the end it is all Chinese medicine, and I guess where that line is drawn (what is an influence vs. innovation) matters very little. Maybe we just leave it at; one should study the SHL/JGYL, and study it well! Thoughts? - > ---- > <zrosenbe > > Re: SHL/JGYL vs TCM > 22 Apr '10 16:48 > > Jason, > 0„20„2 I look at the SHL/JGYL as the foundation stone on which the edifice of prescriptions is built historically.0„20„2Even in Wen bing xue, many of the formulas are 'pure' SHL (bai hu tang, cheng qi tang family for qi aspect patterns) or use similar formula constructions (modifications of wu mei wan, the underlying structure of sang xing tang or qing dan hao qin tang).0„20„2 Later prescriptions such as chai hu shu gan tang (Zhang Jing-yue) are built on si ni san. . . I can go on and on. . > > 0„20„2 In other words, without a grasp of the SHL/JGYL, it will be difficult to grasp other, later currents of Chinese medicine, or even practice modern TCM properly. . . I don't know exact percentages of prescriptions, but it is pretty high. > > 0„20„2 This would be great fuel for a more in-depth conversation, I am just writing in a hurry right now. . > > Z'ev > On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:04 AM, wrote: > > > Z'ev, Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2010 Report Share Posted April 22, 2010 The best thing about learning Zhang Zhong Jing's formulas is that most of the formulas revolve around about 50 herbs, so there's an elegant complexity in understanding the relationships of these core herbs to each other and seeing how important dosage is in influencing action.... for instance.... Huang qi wu wu tang vs Huang qi jian zhong tang... similar formulas with just slightly different herbs and dosing, but with very different presentations. Huang Huang also writes about this in the 10 Key Formulas book under the Astragalus chapter. Arnaud teaches formula families in his 9 weekend SHL and 5 weekend JGYL course. I also see the value of Jin-Yuan-Ming-Qing dynasty formulas and the herbs that have traditionally been used by southern provinces...family formulas and specialty herbs passed down by generations of villages. These herbs are still being used because they're effective, just as ZZJ's formulas are still around for the same reason. So, the question is how much free-reign do we have to modify ZZJ's formulas with these " other " herbs and still preserve the efficacy of the formula? Can we make the formula even more effective? K On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:34 PM, <zrosenbe wrote: > > > David, > Your experience reflects less on the SHL/JGYL school than of your teacher's > approach to treatment ('one size fits all') and possibly improperly > processed fu zi, which has been discussed on this list recently. I only buy > fu zi from reputable sources at this point, as toxicity, of course is an > issue, and the processing has to be correct. > > Also the " Fire God School " is not the same as the Cold Damage/SHL school, > it is a much more narrow/specific approach. > > Since the SHLJGYL is the core text for the practice of Chinese internal > medicine, I don't think you can say that it is 'out of date'. The majority > of modern practice is still largely influenced by this text(s). > > > > On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:14 AM, David Bell Lic.Ac wrote: > > > I had a teacher at my school who gave SHL formulas, Fire school, to the > > point where he would give FU Zi to every patient. Some people got better > and > > some people like myself could not take fu zi because it was way too > strong. > > It cuased me to feel very bad and for my ears to start ringing for days. > > which is a sign of kidney damage when taking pharmaceuticals or anything > > toxic. so basically it was killing me. > > I think we are in a new age and SHL style is out of date and in theory > > sounds very nice, although one should take into account yin and yang, in > the > > individual person. > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > San Diego, Ca. 92122 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 2010 Report Share Posted April 22, 2010 In the past, I would treat about a dozen cases per semester of adverse reactions caused by the SHL practitioner mentioned by David. The most severe reactions included symptoms of fainting, mania, severe agitation, insomnia, acne, and headaches. A few cases were on their way to the emergency room when I saw them. The severe cases responded well to Tian Wang Bu Xin San with Tian Ma Gou Teng Yin, when those were indicated. Acupuncture treatments included Kidney 1. Milder reactions often included exacerbation of an existing heat condition. I haven't been seeing these sort of patients recently, but I have heard that he has moderated his treatment methods. This was the main reason I began taking SHL classes with Arnaud; to get some insight into a more logical way of using SHL and JGYL formulas. I have no intention of exclusively using SHL formulas, as I often get great results with standard TCM herbal medicine. However, in certain patterns, SHL formulas are the way to go. In an academic environment, students try a lot of different practitioners. Sometimes, I get good results when a SHL practitioner didn't have success. I have also been fortunate to see cases where I was getting average results, and a SHL practitioner got great results. As long as I can keep my ego in check, I learn a lot from these experiences. - Bill , " stephen woodley " <learntcm wrote: > > > Z'ev: > Your experience reflects less on the SHL/JGYL school than of your > teacher's approach... > Also the " Fire God School " is ...a much more narrow/specific > approach. > Since the SHLJGYL is the core text for the practice of Chinese > internal medicine, I don't think you can say that it is 'out of > date'. > > Stephen: > Bullseye > > -- > http://www.fastmail.fm - Same, same, but different... > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2010 Report Share Posted April 23, 2010 Jason, What I've enjoyed about my SHL/JG studies over the years is that the text is really speaking about the 'mathematical' relationship of formulas to each other. There is an organic relationship between prescriptions, beginning with the gui zhi tang family, through six channels of disease pattern transformation, all the way through to wu mei wan at jue yin (which contains gui zhi!). I find it a much better way to learn (and teach) formulas by designer/physician (from Zhang Ji to Wang Qing-ren, from Han to Qing) and their formula families, then just running through categories (wind/cold, food accumulation, open orifice, etc.). Another point is the relationship of flavors and qualities vis a vis five phase theory that Arnaud teaches. I haven't seen this material discussed elsewhere in English, but it is very interesting to see how the combination of qi and flavor potentially drives the architecture of herb prescriptions. On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:31 AM, wrote: > Z'ev, > > You are correct and after re-reading my post, I want to clarify, I spoke somewhat incorrectly. I also am writing fast do to being in the midst of traveling, so sorry for any mistaken words. > " Warm disease " doctors certainly used shang han " style " formulas. However in practice, very rarely did doctors of that time, or even before (song dynasty and onward), give shang han formulas unmodified. These warm disease doctors modified them to accommodate what they felt was a better match for the diseases present at that time period. For example, da cheng qi tang is transformed into zeng ye cheng qi tang to a match their desire to protect the yin. So I do not consider this a " pure " SHL approach. Actually most formulas are modified and one will find very few " pure " (unmodified) SHL formulas in such texts. For example, some experts say that straight cheng qi tang formulas are contraindicated for qi level problems. > So yes, I agree with you that many later formulas are built on the prescriptions of the SHL/JGYL. Also, one should certainly study this text(s) to fully understand what has come afterwards. But I think the fact remains that many doctors also improved upon many of these " basic " SHL/JGYL ideas, especially in relation to modern day disease. > Consequently, I do feel it is error to think that one can solve all or even the vast majority of cases with just SHL / JGYL formulas. I understand people like to try, but I feel this is out of some aesthetic appreciation or semi-religious following than coming from a practical (what is best for the patient) approach. I never quite understood why SHL practitioners (especially in the West) are so adamant (and proud) of just using SHL formulas. Interestingly I studied with SHL " specialist " in China that gave about 20% SHL/JGYL formulas. I thought that was very odd... > In addition, we see this idea of using only formulas straight from the text as somehow superior to adding, a for example, qing dynasty herb. Again this seems more to do with a belief system then looking at what is best Chinese medicine approach for one's patient. Of note, even the first SHL doctors (song dynasty) were modifying these formulas to fit their needs. Of note, this practice has very little classical historical precedence. I am curious if anyone knows when the first record of doctors using SHL formulas unmodified is? Kampo? > But I agree looking a " strict " SHL approach is useful in understanding how ZZJ thought, but at a certain point one must break away and look at the big picture. Why did all these other formulas evolve? What are their strengths? etc... I guess I am speaking to where I am currently at in my evolution and don't mean to say anything about other's approaches. > So to summarize, I agree that a large percentage of formulas can trace their roots to the early herblaism of the SHL/JGYL. But IMO, these later developments (formulas), at a certain point, are no longer following strict SHL theory or its thought process. They are acknowledging different key principles such as protecting yin. > But in the end it is all Chinese medicine, and I guess where that line is drawn (what is an influence vs. innovation) matters very little. Maybe we just leave it at; one should study the SHL/JGYL, and study it well! > Thoughts? > - > > ---- > > <zrosenbe > > > > Re: SHL/JGYL vs TCM > > 22 Apr '10 16:48 > > > > Jason, > > ™0≥2™0≥2 I look at the SHL/JGYL as the foundation stone on which the edifice of prescriptions is built historically.™0≥2™0≥2Even in Wen bing xue, many of the formulas are 'pure' SHL (bai hu tang, cheng qi tang family for qi aspect patterns) or use similar formula constructions (modifications of wu mei wan, the underlying structure of sang xing tang or qing dan hao qin tang).™0≥2™0≥2 Later prescriptions such as chai hu shu gan tang (Zhang Jing-yue) are built on si ni san. . . I can go on and on. . > > > > ™0≥2™0≥2 In other words, without a grasp of the SHL/JGYL, it will be difficult to grasp other, later currents of Chinese medicine, or even practice modern TCM properly. . . I don't know exact percentages of prescriptions, but it is pretty high. > > > > ™0≥2™0≥2 This would be great fuel for a more in-depth conversation, I am just writing in a hurry right now. . > > > > Z'ev > > On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:04 AM, wrote: > > > > > Z'ev, > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine Pacific College of Oriental Medicine San Diego, Ca. 92122 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2010 Report Share Posted April 23, 2010 Z¡¯ev, I guess we are approaching this topic from two angles, which is fine. Whereas I was really speaking about the SHL/JGYL from a clinical perspective (what is best for the patient), you are referring to what is best for the student (a teaching perspective). Although there are many ways to teach herbs, I do think that, as you say, focusing on SHL/JGYL is a great starting point due to the inherent simplicity of the formulas and the formula families. Has any school started teaching herbs in this manner? I also think that teaching herbal pairs (dui yao) is an often overlooked approach in the modern educational system. Then of course one can follow this up with later developments. I took a great course in China on famous doctors / scholars, which taught formulas in chronological order through discussing the doctor who composed it. This was very helpful because not only did it put the formulas in historical context but one could then follow CM¡¯s evolution of thought. For example, one could see how new theories were built on the previous ones, etc. How this doctor was the student of that doctor. Great stuff. I actually find it quite important to know who wrote the formula (and a little about their thinking) and what time period this was in (to know what was going on at that period of time in history, and even what herbs were available, or not). Students rarely are required to know this information (or are even told this info) and it is a shame. Therefore I agree, such approaches, as you say, are far more interesting that just running through the book. Regards, -Jason > ---- > <zrosenbe > > Re: SHL/JGYL vs TCM > 23 Apr '10 18:27 > > Jason, > What I've enjoyed about my SHL/JG studies over the years is that the text > is really speaking about the 'mathematical' relationship of formulas to > each other. There is an organic relationship between prescriptions, > beginning with the gui zhi tang family, through six channels of disease > pattern transformation, all the way through to wu mei wan at jue yin (which > contains gui zhi!). I find it a much better way to learn (and teach) > formulas by designer/physician (from Zhang Ji to Wang Qing-ren, from Han to > Qing) and their formula families, then just running through categories > (wind/cold, food accumulation, open orifice, etc.). > > Another point is the relationship of flavors and qualities vis a vis five > phase theory that Arnaud teaches. I haven't seen this material discussed > elsewhere in English, but it is very interesting to see how the combination > of qi and flavor potentially drives the architecture of herb prescriptions. > > > On Apr 22, 2010, at 11:31 AM, wrote: > > > Z'ev, > > > > You are correct and after re-reading my post, I want to clarify, I spoke > somewhat incorrectly. I also am writing fast do to being in the midst of > traveling, so sorry for any mistaken words. > > " Warm disease " doctors certainly used shang han " style " formulas. > However in practice, very rarely did doctors of that time, or even before > (song dynasty and onward), give shang han formulas unmodified. These warm > disease doctors modified them to accommodate what they felt was a better > match for the diseases present at that time period. For example, da cheng > qi tang is transformed into zeng ye cheng qi tang to a match their desire > to protect the yin. So I do not consider this a " pure " SHL approach. > Actually most formulas are modified and one will find very few " pure " > (unmodified) SHL formulas in such texts. For example, some experts say that > straight cheng qi tang formulas are contraindicated for qi level problems. > > So yes, I agree with you that many later formulas are built on the > prescriptions of the SHL/JGYL. Also, one should certainly study this > text(s) to fully understand what has come afterwards. But I think the fact > remains that many doctors also improved upon many of these " basic " SHL/JGYL > ideas, especially in relation to modern day disease. > > Consequently, I do feel it is error to think that one can solve all or > even the vast majority of cases with just SHL / JGYL formulas. I understand > people like to try, but I feel this is out of some aesthetic appreciation > or semi-religious following than coming from a practical (what is best for > the patient) approach. I never quite understood why SHL practitioners > (especially in the West) are so adamant (and proud) of just using SHL > formulas. Interestingly I studied with SHL " specialist " in China that gave > about 20% SHL/JGYL formulas. I thought that was very odd... > > In addition, we see this idea of using only formulas straight from the > text as somehow superior to adding, a for example, qing dynasty herb. Again > this seems more to do with a belief system then looking at what is best > Chinese medicine approach for one's patient. Of note, even the first SHL > doctors (song dynasty) were modifying these formulas to fit their needs. Of > note, this practice has very little classical historical precedence. I am > curious if anyone knows when the first record of doctors using SHL formulas > unmodified is? Kampo? > > But I agree looking a " strict " SHL approach is useful in understanding > how ZZJ thought, but at a certain point one must break away and look at the > big picture. Why did all these other formulas evolve? What are their > strengths? etc... I guess I am speaking to where I am currently at in my > evolution and don't mean to say anything about other's approaches. > > So to summarize, I agree that a large percentage of formulas can trace > their roots to the early herblaism of the SHL/JGYL. But IMO, these later > developments (formulas), at a certain point, are no longer following strict > SHL theory or its thought process. They are acknowledging different key > principles such as protecting yin. > > But in the end it is all Chinese medicine, and I guess where that line > is drawn (what is an influence vs. innovation) matters very little. Maybe > we just leave it at; one should study the SHL/JGYL, and study it well! > > Thoughts? > > - > > > ---- > > > <[LINK: zrosenbe%40san.rr.com] > zrosenbe > > > [LINK: %40] > > > > Re: SHL/JGYL vs TCM > > > 22 Apr '10 16:48 > > > > > > Jason, > > > 6¾40¡Ý26¾40¡Ý2 I look at the SHL/JGYL as the foundation stone on > which the edifice of prescriptions is built > historically.6¾40¡Ý26¾40¡Ý2Even in Wen bing xue, many of the formulas are > 'pure' SHL (bai hu tang, cheng qi tang family for qi aspect patterns) or > use similar formula constructions (modifications of wu mei wan, the > underlying structure of sang xing tang or qing dan hao qin > tang).6¾40¡Ý26¾40¡Ý2 Later prescriptions such as chai hu shu gan tang > (Zhang Jing-yue) are built on si ni san. . . I can go on and on. . > > > > > > 6¾40¡Ý26¾40¡Ý2 In other words, without a grasp of the SHL/JGYL, it > will be difficult to grasp other, later currents of Chinese medicine, or > even practice modern TCM properly. . . I don't know exact percentages of > prescriptions, but it is pretty high. > > > > > > 6¾40¡Ý26¾40¡Ý2 This would be great fuel for a more in-depth > conversation, I am just writing in a hurry right now. . > > > > > > Z'ev > > > On Apr 22, 2010, at 5:04 AM, wrote: > > > > > > > Z'ev, > > > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > San Diego, Ca. 92122 > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2010 Report Share Posted April 23, 2010 FYI: Tri-state College (NYC) teaches Kampo the first year of herbal school, while also teaching the individual herbs TCM style. As I am finishing up herbal aspect of my studies, I have found learning SHL formulas first has positively influences my TCM formula knowledge. When I'm several years in herbal practice, I am looking forward to adding my two cents about my experience of TCM and SHL. P.S. Thanks for the info regarding pelvic floor needling, I am doing my research. Jen Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2010 Report Share Posted April 23, 2010 John, Hhhmmm... Wel, quite simply, you have as much free reign as you like. Why wouldn¡¯t you? The key is to learn the principles and then you can do what you like with it. This is the way the SHL has been used from its beginning Song dynasty days. So of course you can make those formulas more effective (if you study hard ƒ8ž1) .. Chinese medicine is about addressing the patient the best way possible, not rigidly adhering to some past ideology (not saying that you are John), but I think it is foolhardy to think that your patient is always going to fit a stock SHL formula exactly. Consequently, I also think it is just a mistake to believe that ZZJ's formula are somehow just perfect the way they are. So how do you accomplish this expansion? Study, practice, study, and practice. Of course case studies are a key component to this process¡ -Jason > ---- > <johnkokko > > Re: SHL/JGYL vs TCM > 22 Apr '10 20:54 > > The best thing about learning Zhang Zhong Jing's formulas is that most of > the formulas revolve around about 50 herbs, so there's an elegant > complexity > in understanding the relationships of these core herbs to each other and > seeing how important dosage is in influencing action.... > for instance.... Huang qi wu wu tang vs Huang qi jian zhong tang... > similar formulas with just slightly different herbs and dosing, but with > very different presentations. > Huang Huang also writes about this in the 10 Key Formulas book under the > Astragalus chapter. > Arnaud teaches formula families in his 9 weekend SHL and 5 weekend JGYL > course. > > I also see the value of Jin-Yuan-Ming-Qing dynasty formulas and the herbs > that have traditionally been used by southern provinces...family formulas > and specialty herbs passed down by generations of villages. These herbs > are > still being used because they're effective, just as ZZJ's formulas are > still > around for the same reason. > > So, the question is how much free-reign do we have to modify ZZJ's > formulas > with these " other " herbs and still preserve the efficacy of the formula? > Can we make the formula even more effective? > > K > > On Wed, Apr 21, 2010 at 1:34 PM, <[LINK: > zrosenbe%40san.rr.com] zrosenbe wrote: > > > > > > > David, > > Your experience reflects less on the SHL/JGYL school than of your > teacher's > > approach to treatment ('one size fits all') and possibly improperly > > processed fu zi, which has been discussed on this list recently. I only > buy > > fu zi from reputable sources at this point, as toxicity, of course is an > > issue, and the processing has to be correct. > > > > Also the " Fire God School " is not the same as the Cold Damage/SHL > school, > > it is a much more narrow/specific approach. > > > > Since the SHLJGYL is the core text for the practice of Chinese internal > > medicine, I don't think you can say that it is 'out of date'. The > majority > > of modern practice is still largely influenced by this text(s). > > > > > > > > On Apr 21, 2010, at 5:14 AM, David Bell Lic.Ac wrote: > > > > > I had a teacher at my school who gave SHL formulas, Fire school, to > the > > > point where he would give FU Zi to every patient. Some people got > better > > and > > > some people like myself could not take fu zi because it was way too > > strong. > > > It cuased me to feel very bad and for my ears to start ringing for > days. > > > which is a sign of kidney damage when taking pharmaceuticals or > anything > > > toxic. so basically it was killing me. > > > I think we are in a new age and SHL style is out of date and in theory > > > sounds very nice, although one should take into account yin and yang, > in > > the > > > individual person. > > > > > > Chair, Department of Herbal Medicine > > Pacific College of Oriental Medicine > > San Diego, Ca. 92122 > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 23, 2010 Report Share Posted April 23, 2010 This is such a great idea of teaching Kampo, basically along side the Zang-fu I imagine. Doug , jmm752003 wrote: > > FYI: Tri-state College (NYC) teaches Kampo the first year of herbal school, while also teaching the individual herbs TCM style. As I am finishing up herbal aspect of my studies, I have found learning SHL formulas first has positively influences my TCM formula knowledge. When I'm several years in herbal practice, I am looking forward to adding my two cents about my experience of TCM and SHL. > P.S. Thanks for the info regarding pelvic floor needling, I am doing my research. > Jen > Sent from my Verizon Wireless BlackBerry > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 24, 2010 Report Share Posted April 24, 2010 Jason, when you say there is an " inherent simplicity of the formulas and the formula families " , do you mean that the SHZBL formulas, their principles and families are easy to learn or something else? K 2010/4/23 > > > John, > > Hhhmmm... Wel, quite simply, you have as much free reign as you like. Why > wouldn’t you? The key is to learn the principles and then you can do what > you like with it. This is the way the SHL has been used from its beginning > Song dynasty days. > > So of course you can make those formulas more effective (if you study hard > ïŠ) . Chinese medicine is about addressing the patient the best way possible, > not rigidly adhering to some past ideology (not saying that you are John), > but I think it is foolhardy to think that your patient is always going to > fit a stock SHL formula exactly. Consequently, I also think it is just a > mistake to believe that ZZJ's formula are somehow just perfect the way they > are. > > So how do you accomplish this expansion? Study, practice, study, and > practice. Of course case studies are a key component to this process… > > -Jason > > 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.