The Specific Characteristics of Japanese Kampo Medicine

Abstract

Over the past few years, a significant problem has been raised in the field of traditional East-Asian medicines, i. e. the ISO/TC 249 action, which is intended to unify traditional East-Asian medicines with traditional Chinese medicine (TCM).
There is historical evidence that the Korea and Japan imported ancient Chinese medicine in the past, however, either country has greatly its reformed Chinese medicine resulting vast differences from the current TCM.This paper intends to reveal the differences between Kampo and TCM from the viewpoint of disease recognition methods. Kampo recognizes a disease via structuralism, whereas TCM depends on element reduction theory, i. e. The Five Elements and so on. Kampo is based the theory whereby a sho (sign / symptom / indication for) correlates with a formulation. The character of each formulation can be acquired through tactile knowledge with clinical experience mainly based on abdominal findings.
To expand, a Sho represents the name of its most proper formulation, such as with kakkonto-sho. Inother words, a disease entity is expressed in the name of its treatment. This means that Kampo does not lend itself to Chinese element reduction theory, but rather, is used restrictively as a matter of explanation for a selected formulation. Thus there are fundamental philosophical difference between the current TCM and Kampo, so that we cannot agree with the Chinese government's ISO proposal by which both modalities would be brought under the same Chinese heading.