View of Vietnamese medicine from China

For various reasons I've limited myself to one text, mentioned in the last blog post, so this may not be representative of mainstream Chinese views. However, as it is a nationally produced textbook used in all TCM Universities in mainland China, it shouldn't be too far off either. 

There is only one paragraph specifically about Chinese-Vietnamese medical communication, in the subsection 'Medical communication between China and other Asian and African countries'. Let me start with that:

According to Da’nan huidian, [a mid-18th century compilation of state regulations in the region now known as Vietnam], the Chinese medical texts Yixue rumen and Jingyue quanshu had entered Vietnam in the Ming and Qing period. The Vietnamese 'medical sage' Lê Hữu Trác (1720-1791), credited with a certain amount of originality and insight, combined local [medical] knowledge with Chinese medical theory in writing the 66 volume text Haishang yizong xinling quanzhi. He discovered and/or fleshed out the functions of 305 different southern medicinals, as well as collecting more than 2850 formulas as used by physicians and in folk traditions, and in doing so founded a complete system of Vietnamese medical theory, methods, formulas, and medicinals. The importation into China of locally produced precious medicinals, including xijiao (Rhinocerotis Cornu), tanxiang (Santali Albi Lignum), longnao (Borneolum), sumu (Sappan Lignum), etc, helped to enrich Chinese medical knowledge.    

So basically what we have here is:

• China exports Chinese medicine
  
• Vietnam creates independent field based on Chinese medicine
  
• China imports local Vietnamese medicinals
  

Thoughts:

• Other than the addition of new medicinals, there is no mention of what other effects (if any) this new Vietnamese medicine had on Chinese medicine. 
• All of this occurred during the Ming (~1400-1650) and Qing (~1600-1900) dynasties. There is no mention of interactions before the Ming dynasty.
  
• This textbook appears to have relied entirely on Chinese language historical records. As it seems natural that records written in Chinese would focus on those aspects of history that involved Chinese-influenced culture, a question I would have is whether there are other non-Chinese-language written sources available that they did not refer to?
  

Unfortunately I think this is all I'll have time to look at before the talk, but I'm looking forward to what Prof Thompson adds to this!

---