In the Footsteps of the Yellow Emperor

by Peter Eckman, MD

  Figure 170: FIVE ELEMENT CHART PER LAVIER

  from Points of Chinese Acupuncture, a later and more elaborate rendition that is very close to Worsley’s version. As will be discussed, Lavier claimed to have studied under Yanagiya and his disciple Nishizawa, so the similarity of his and Honma’s charts is not accidental.

  Figure 171: FIVE ELEMENT CHART PER LAWSON-WOOD,

  again reflecting the influence of Japanese MT, presumably through Sofroniou and/or Lavier.

  Figure 172: FIVE ELEMENT CHART PER AUSTIN,

  an expanded version by Lawson-Wood which now includes the primordial version of the Law of Husband-Wife.

  Before leaving the Liu to Lavier hypothesis, I should mention that one of Lavier’s other main contributions to LA is the concept of Aggressive Energy or AE, which is called just that in his lecture syllabus, (335) and whose treatment protocol calls for draining the AEP’s (Back Shu Points) of the Zang Organs involved, prior to energetic balancing. The suggestion that AE is another name for Evil Qi (Xie Qi) which has transformed (similarly) into Heat, as per Liu’s theory, has been correctly given already by Flaws.(336) Li Dong-yuan, during the same epoch as Liu Wan-su, recommended a similar protocol–treating the Back Shu Points of the Zang Organs for any condition resulting from the penetration of environmental Evil Qi secondary to a deficiency of central Qi.(337) He called this Yin disease (of the Zang Organs) in the Yang (the back) and attributed this approach to material presented in the Shang Han Lun. The symptomatology of patients with this pathology could involve sinews, bones, blood or vessels, and thus covers the gamut of presentations found with AE. A confusing issue I faced as a student of LA was Worsley’s claim that if untreated, AE was invariably fatal (the time to demise being inversely proportional to the number of Officials “polluted” by AE). Since acupuncturists from other traditions did not employ the treatment protocol specified for AE, their patients should have done worse than experience reveals. Again Lavier supplied the resolution to this dilemma in a 1966 publication(338) wherein he describes other strategies for eliminating AE, including draining it from the Five Element Command Points, which is in fact a strategy frequently employed in TCM. Thus, Lavier used the Five Element Points in two different manners: draining them in a non-transfer paradigm when AE was present, and tonifying them to transfer Righteous Qi (Zheng Qi) from Meridians in Excess to those in Deficiency only when no AE (Xie Qi) was present. In following this line of thinking then, the same Point might be drained at one treatment session, and then tonified at the next. While I’m on the subject, let me enumerate the other similarities and differences between Lavier’s teachings and LA:

  Figure 173: ENERGY TRANSFERS,

  first illustrated schematically on the skeleton Five Element chart, in Austin’s Acupuncture Therapy.

  In the list of similarities, Lavier introduced the term ACI (anatomical Chinese inch) to replace Soulié de Morant’s use of “pouce” (thumb) as the standard form for measurements and like Worsley, called the Horary cycle of Qi flow the Wei level of circulation. He stressed the need to palpate for Points, not merely go by anatomical landmarks or measurement. His Point locations, like Worsley’s are essentially identical to Wu Wei-p’ing’s. His needle technique was contrary to Soulié de Morant’s, and introduced in and out tonification, prolonged (greater than ten minute) sedation, and snatching moxibustion—all essential components of LA. Lavier himself felt that this difference in technique was the single most important contribution to good clinical results of his style over that of Soulié de Morant. He also taught the use of Horary Points to begin the phase of energetic balancing, left side tonification and right side dispersion, and seasonal preventative treatment, as well as avoiding treatment during climatic disturbances. He also presaged Worsley’s concept of the “Spirit of the Point” and presented fourteen examples of relying on Point names to validate their clinical use.(339)

  As far as differences from LA are concerned, Lavier taught that symptomatic treatment was always the first approach to be used in clinical practice, especially for acute conditions. After the acute symptomatic phase was resolved, the next step would be draining AE, and only after both of these were finished, would energetic balancing via Five Element pulse diagnosis be attempted–he saw this latter stage of treatment as essentially preventative. In spite of his focus on symptomatic treatment however, it is clear that Lavier’s work was a major influence in the development of LA. He also laid the groundwork for much of the material later elaborated by the various teachers in the French Acupuncture Association including the Yi Jing based energetics of Mussat (Lavier introduced the notion of inverse and contrary trigrams based on the Fu Xi order)(340) and the dialectical hierarchies of the Six Great Meridians with respect to the variable viewpoints of anatomy and physiology(341) as exemplified in the work of Kespi.(342) Finally, it should not be forgotten that Lavier pioneered the movement to base the practice of acupuncture on classical Chinese, an endeavor being carried on today by Claude Larre and his colleague Elisabeth Rochat de la Vallée of the European School of Acupuncture.

  2. A second hypothesis for the origin of the transfer methodology taught by Lavier, would be to substitute one or more alternative Taiwanese teachers for Wu Wei-p’ing as the Taiwanese source. As an alternative, Jean-Louis Blard, a French acupuncturist who knew Lavier, has suggested Leung Kok-yuen (Fig.174), from Hong-Kong, as the source for some of the LA information such as treating AE.(343) In my own questioning of him, Leung did not remember Lavier as one of his students, but communication was somewhat difficult as there was no translator, and the interview was therefore in English.(344) There is even testimony on this question by Lavier himself, but it unfortunately does little to resolve the confusion. In a letter to me shortly before he died, Lavier cited several teachers in Taipei, especially Chuang Yu-min (Fig.175) (1903-?) as his source for this methodology; however, Chuang’s published works give no hint of this methodology including numerous works available only in Chinese, and several in English such as Chinese Acupuncture and The Historical Development of Acupuncture. One would think that either of these latter two works might at least mention transfers of energy if this was an important component of Chuang’s teachings.(345) Chuang was trained in the scholarly tradition of acupuncture starting at the age of fifteen,(346) first by his uncle in Jiang Su and later under a disciple of Ma Pei, a reknowned royal physician of the Qing dynasty. He emigrated to Hong Kong in 1950 and then to Taiwan in 1965, setting up a number of acupuncture schools, clinics and professional associations. It was in this context that Lavier studied with Chuang, and as they are now both deceased, we will never know the details of any transmission that may have occurred.

  Figure 174: LEUNG KOK-YUEN,

  founder of the pioneering North American College of Acupuncture, is shown here treating the actor William Holden.

  Another Taiwanese teacher who might have played a role in the “transfer” transmission was Eric (Hsi-yu) Tao (born in 1925). Tao emigrated from China to Taiwan in 1954 and helped Wu Wei-p’ing set up the Acupuncture Association there. Because he spoke English (learned while working for the U.S. Navy), he acted as translator for Wu when foreigners visited, including Worsley, Stemp (Fig.176), Lavier and Laville-Méry. He originally learned acupuncture from his uncle in China, and later studied with a Dr. Lee in Taiwan. He eventually moved to the U.S. where he taught material, including Five Element transfers, to Pennell and Heuser and also Bob Flaws. I interviewed him a number of times, and he was very unclear on where he had learned this methodology.He thought Lavier and Laville-Méry (Fig. 177), Wu’s early students, had learned mostly from old books, but he himself did not know anything about a Liu Wan-su acupuncture tradition, and had himself also been exposed to many books, Chinese as well as Japanese, that might have influenced him. (I include him in this hypothetical scheme merely to indicate that there may indeed have been a Chinese oral tradition of using the Five Elements, including transfers, as Worsley teaches, but we may never see a complete account of its
history and methodology.)

  Figure 175: CHUANG YU-MIN,

  who had studied under Cheng Dan-an as related in Chapter Four, was an influential teacher in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and transmitted some of his methods to Lavier.

  Figure 176: ERIC (HSI-YU) TAO

  is seen here interpreting for Worsley and Stemp while Wu Wei-p’ing observes, at the ceremonial dinner during Worsley’s visit to Taiwan in 1966.

  3. To be rigorous in pursuing possibilities for the source of the transfer methodology, we should certainly consider Lavier’s other teachers. In his 1975 text, Vade-Mecum D’Acupuncture Symptomatique, Lavier cited the authors of numerous books, articles and courses of study as the basis for his teachings. Two were from Taiwan (Wu Wei-p’ing and Tsui Chieh), one from Hong Kong (Chuang Yu-min), one from Beijing (Zhu Lian), one from Singapore (Wang Tchia-tchun), two from Korea (Kuon Dowon and Kim Bong Han) and three from Japan (Yanagiya Sorei, Nichizawa Michimasa and Nakatani Yoshio (Fig.178), the first two being Meridian Therapists while the third was the originator of Ryodoraku, a Five Element influenced style of electroacupuncture). As I’ve indicated, neither Wu nor Chuang can be verified as a putative source. Tsui (Fig.179), who published material in Chinese, was rather more Western than traditional in his orientation, (347) so he, too, can be eliminated as a possibility, as can the two Koreans. Kuon Dowon(348) (Fig.180), still practicing in Seoul, is the founder of Korean constitutional acupuncture, which is a Five Element based style of practice, but which uses variations of the “Four Needle Technique” for treatment as opposed to employing energy transfers. The Four Needle Technique was first described in the 1600’s by a Korean monk, Sa Am, and is considered by many to be one of the highwater marks in the history of Five Element approaches to acupuncture. The Four Needle Technique is even taught as part (albeit a relatively minor one) of LA, having been described early on in the English literature by Mann.(349) Kim, on the other hand, was a North Korean researcher who had claimed to have discovered a material basis for acupuncture Points and Meridians, and whose work was widely publicized at first (Fig.181), but who later committed suicide when his findings could not be duplicated by other research workers. It is noteworthy that all of the three Japanese were teachers of Five Element styles, and so this might be a more fruitful place to search for the origin of the transfer method. Unfortunately, most contemporary Japanese practitioners of MT that I’ve questioned are either unfamiliar with this method, or claim that it doesn’t work!(350) They use other parallel treatment protocols, and no one has identified Yanagiya or any of his students as the source of this method, so in spite of its appeal, a Japanese lineage for the energy transfers must remain an unverified and unlikely hypothesis. What Lavier may have learned from Yanagiya and Nichizawa, was the extremely delicate and gentle style of needling, which he in turn passed on to Worsley. Pennell and Heuser (who published material they had been taught about energy transfers) did however cite three other Japanese teachers whom I’ll mention for the sake of completeness. Kon Kenichiro and Hosaka Rihei (both from Osaka) are unknown to me, but were described as unlikely candidates by Richard Yennie who knew them.(351) Nagayama Kunzo (Fig.182), on the other hand, deserves more serious consideration, if for no other reason than that he and Worsley visited each other’s clinics and undoubtedly the two influenced each other.(352) Nagayama (1935-1991) was the director of the Kyoto Pain Control Institute, and although in his public research he frequently used electroacupuncture and various forms of symptomatic treatment, I’ve heard several reports that his treatment style in private practice resembled LA, using very few Points per treatment and relying very much on pulse diagnosis to identify the strongest and weakest Meridians.(353) He has unfortunately joined the growing list of participants in this story who are no longer alive to tell their tales.(354)

  FIGURE 177: CHARLES LAVILLE-MERY

  (third from the left) studied with many of the same teachers as had Lavier, including Wu Wei p’ing. He is shown here with Honma (second from left) during the latter’s visit to Europe in 1962, emphasizing the merging of traditions from China and Japan which occurred in Europe around the time LA was formalized.

  Figure 178: NAKATANI YOSHIO,

  a physician who developed Ryodoraku, a style of acupuncture that I listed in Figure 3 as mixed, being a combination of traditional and Western medical ideas and methods.

  Figure 179: TSUI CHIEH,

  a Taiwanese physician who was well-trained in traditional acupuncure, tried to interpret its effects in Western medical terms.

  Figure 180: KUON DOWON

  is the founder of Korean Constitutional Acupuncture, which is based on an integration of the Four Constitutions herbal theory of Lee Je-ma and the Four Needle acupuncture theory of Sa Am. Kuon’s methods parallel those of Yanagiya who had also based his treatments on Sa Am’s Four Needle Technique.

  Being unable to confirm anyone as yet as the source of the transfer methodology, we should consider the last two of Lavier’s references.

  Figure 181: KIM BONG HAN

  (A) whose claim to have discovered an anatomical substrate for acupuncture was initially widely publiced, as in (B) from Is Acupuncture for You? by Worsley. His work was never corroborated and is now generally discredited.

  Madame Zhu Lian (Fig.90), the reader might remember, was one of the very founders of TCM, and had a decidedly Western medical slant at that, so she can be crossed off the list. The sole remaining figure is Wang Tchia-tchunn from Singapore, whose story has proven as difficult as that of the transfers themselves, to unravel. Dr. Anton Jayasuriya (Fig.183) of Sri Lanka claims to have known him well,(355) but seems to know nothing relevant to the issue at hand other than the belief that Wang is also already deceased. Jayasuriya (born in 1930) and his students in Sri Lanka have been among the few authors to have published material on energy transfers, however these are all of a much later date than Lavier’s teachings. In fact, Jayasuriya’s first involvement with acupuncture seems to have been as a W.H.O. Fellow in Beijing in 1974,(356) thus his Five Element teachings are more likely to be ultimately derived from those of Lavier rather than vice-versa. There is, however, another Dr. Wang from Singapore who taught acupuncture to Westerners under the name Ed or E.C. Wong,(357) who may or may not have been the same individual as Wang Tchia-tchunn. Adding to the confusion is that this Dr. Ed Wong (Fig.184) was one of the ten sources cited by Pennell and Heuser for their information on transfers, so he must be considered as a serious candidate, being possibly linked to both Lavier and Pennell and Heuser who may have independently learned the transfer methodology from him. Ed Wong was well remembered by Eric Tao, Pedro Chan and Richard Yennie, who noted that Wong had even organized an international acupuncture conference in Las Vegas in the 1960’s or 1970’s which was attended by famous practitioners from both the Orient and the West, so it is even possible that he had some contact with Worsley, although that is pure speculation. It is on record, however, that Worsley claimed to have studied acupuncture in Singapore early in his career!(358) As long as Worsley is still alive, there is some hope that this confused tangle can yet be straightened out.(359)

  Figure 182: NAGAYAMA KUNZO A & B

  (front row, second from the right) with other Japanese acupuncturists including Dr. Akashi (front row, second from the left), the President of the Kyoto Acupuncture Association. The late Dr. Nagayama (M.D., Ph.D.) was the Director of the Kyoto Pain Control Institute, whose Journal listed J.R. Worsley as a member of its advisory board, along with S. Rose-Neil, R. Pennell, G. Heuser, R. Yennie and N. Van Nghi. Nagayama, as a colleague of Worsley, may have influenced the latter’s understanding of the Japanese Five Element acupuncture tradition.

  Figure 183: ANTON JAYASURIYA,

  Chairman of Medicina Altemativa International, has written over 35 books on acupuncture and related subjects, since studying in China in 1974.

  In regard to Ed Wong, there is an interesting conclusion to my research on the history of energy transfer lineages. Just as this book was undergoing
its final revision in 1995, I obtained copies of two of the teaching manuals and a promotional brochure written by Ed Wong, which are listed in the bibliography. Almost half of the first manual (undated) is a verbatim reproduction of the therapeutic repertory (Part Four) from Wu Wei-P’ing’s Chinese Acupuncture translated by Lavier, indicating that Wu, Wong and Lavier shared a common core of knowledge. The second manual (also undated) is perhaps of more interest in that it gives explicit instructions for transfers pf energy via both the Creative and Control cycles, the latter going from Yin Organ to Yang Organ and vice-versa, thereby conforming to the teachings of Lavier, Wu, and Pennell and Heuser, while differing in this aspect only, from the teaching of Worsley. One conclusion seems obvious: Lavier, Wu and Wong shared an earlier version of the transfer dogma that Wong subsequently transmitted to Pennell and Heuser. A later version of the transfer dogma (Yin Organ to Yin Organ across the Control cycle) was in turn derived from the teachings of this group (most likely via a garbled interpretation of Lavier’s teachings) and promulgated by Lawson-Wood, Austin and Worsley, whose clinical experience verified the practical utility of this alternate methodology, regardless of its lineage. The association of Lavier and Wong with the earlier version of the transfer dogma provides suggestive evidence that Wong (as Wang) was Lavier’s source in this regard. Wong claimed to have been a sixth generation practitioner of acupuncture, tracing his lineage back to Wong Ham Chai, the imperial palace physician who in 1836 established the Tai I Acupuncture College in Fujian province. Wong also studied at Cheungsan Medical School in Canton as well as at other institutions in China, Japan and Europe. He associated with many of the teachers mentioned in this chapter as illustrated in Figure 184. Eric Tao first met Wong in the late 1950’s or early 1960’s when Wong was living in Singapore. The timing of this scenario gives strong support to the identification of Wong as the teacher from Singapore cited by Lavier, which in turn favors the hypothesis that the transfer methodology was first taught to Westerners by Wong–Lavier being one of his earliest students. This hypothesis begs the question of whether Wong’s teachings were based on a Chinese oral (family) tradition, a Chinese academic tradition or equally plausably, a Japanese tradition to which he was exposed. As Wong is no longer available, it is quite possible that this remaining bit of mystery may never be resolved.