A subject that has been on my mind much of late: is the classification of the meridians that is currently used (e.g. Lung channel, Heart Channel-in other words, Zang Fu designation) part of the problem TCM suffers from in the form of incomplete or incorrect diagnosis and treatment protocols that only “go halfway?”
If you’ll notice, the classics (and even CAM-the official manual for TCM in the West, oddly enough) refer to them as Hand Taiyin, Hand Shaoyin, etc. I have the sense that this may be an important distinction, though I don’t have anything concrete that I can point to as yet, other than in my short experience viewing the body via the Six Channel model is extremely valuable in understanding how the systems interact with each other.
So let’s hear it from some other people. What do you think?
Filed under: Chinese Medicine
I guess I’m a little confused as to the question - sorry for my ignorance.
Hand Taiyin includes the Lung organ system. Perhaps that’s what you’re saying? That they miss something by leaving out the REST of the system? I think that’s true and a symptom of the materialist culture that contemporary TCM grew up emulating. Hand Taiyin includes the lung organ network, but also includes the damp aspects of the body, the connections to the Spleen and many other functions and locations of the human being as well as interconnections with macrocosmic phenomenon. When we reduce this to “lung” we lose all of those layers of meaning, thus pathologies confuse us, formulas elude us and we become generally ineffective.
Yeah?
Eric Grey
http://deepesthealth.com
In short, yes. Saying “the Lung Channel” doesn’t provide anywhere near the implications that “Shou Tai Yin” does. I mean, there’s got to be a reason why it was named that instead of “the Wei Channel.”