Macciocia books, nanjing school, auteroch, navailh books

Comment by Chad J. Dupuis, L.Ac.

Hello, I'll try to start an answer to your questions and hope that others chime in as well. First, I haven't seen the navalih text so I cannot comment on that. As for shying away from Maciocia I do not see any good reason to do this. Certainly in most American colleges of TCM his works are considered critical texts. They are difficult, however, for exactly the reasons you specify in that there are differences in theory and explanations. At times some of the differentiations can appear confusing to acupuncturists because the breadth of them for a given condition is usually more applicable to herbal treatments than acupuncture treatments and for beginners this divide can make the treatment protocols unnecessarily difficult to read. This is a trend I also see in texts by Bob Flaws where there are differentiations using western terminology and ideas that you cannot find in basic acupuncture texts. In America, our national exam is largely based on the Chinese Acupuncture and Moxibustion by Cheng Xinnong. While this is a useful text, without the input from accomplished practitioners such as Maciocia, Flaws and others - even if some find the differences confusing - it would be difficult to begin to understand the depth and complexity of Chinese medicine. In general, there isn't such a thing as a standard Chinese medicine and in different countries and over time the medicine has changed and continues to evolve. In school it is best to get a good theoretical framework and a strong basic background to begin the lifetime practice and growth within this art. These authors are examples of this growth and development and the differences are representative of the many faces of the art. The books which I used during my training and/or have found the most useful to get started are listed on these two pages within my Acupuncture Research section: As for different acupuncture schools of thought there are many both within and outside of what is termed "TCM". The terms Beijing and Nanjing systems would likely be unfamiliar to most Americans and I am not entirely sure what differentiates them either. Within TCM we have schools which stick to classical texts and try very hard to give their students a clear strong foundation from which to grow and learn and then there are schools which use similar texts but have much more input from advanced practitioners and include training in the personalized styles/treatment protocols that they have developed. Then there are Japanese acupuncture concentrations, five element acupuncture concentrations and worsley school theories which are disregarded in some schools or included either as electives or taught completely as entire separate programs. We also have schools which concentrate solely on five element acupuncture, for example, and learn very little "TCM" theory as it is taught in the bulk of acupuncture colleges in the states. All in all there is quite a range of theories, styles of learning and teaching, treatment protocols and foundational texts available to us now and it can be a bit overwhelming for everyone, but particularly for new students. I hope this is somewhat helpful and wish you the best in your studies.

Comment by Archived User

Greetings !

Having studied in french in Montreal in 1985, the diagnostic book was the same "diagnostic en medecine chinoise " of Auteroche.
I agree with the replies that were posted to your question. I remember how happy we were at the time to work with this book wich is an impeccable translation of TCM "chinese autority approved" standard diagnosis text. The presentation is a marvel of "comprehensiveness" and permits a knowledge of a kind of "lingua franca" useful for communications in TCM.

That said, when you enter your clinic, it becomes much less interesting. The treatments that are given are unusable, for instance, the list of points are not explain and excessive, the herb formula wich is only name,with no description of the herbs , no explanation , and no alternatives. The reason it becomes marginal in a practician clinic is that it is only a translation made by a physician that had very little hands on knowledge.In fact it will possibly look like a bag of old dust.

Contrary to that, books of Macciocia gives you the clinical efficiency to build your confidence because it is alive and full of the real stuff that you need when you meet the client.
But to really get the most out of a practise based on a mentor like Macciocia, one would need to invest in learning Chinese herb formulas because it is the way he works. It would'nt be optimal for someone who would restrict his practise to acupuncture.

I think that TCM is a deficient system in regard to acupuncture and I say that after 15years in that practise and 2 years in a Chinese TCM university and hospital (in Tianjin). TCM really makes sense in traditional chinese pharmacopea. The imposition of TCM system on acupuncturist came, I believe in China from the political decision of a materialistic mind set directly relate to the recent autoritarian communist history.

Acupuncturists get the best stuff from systems buid by acupuncturists. Personaly, I get inspiration from books like Birch's "Chasing the dragon's tail".