Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 "...the salient points for me? Humans actively and wholeheartedly participating in the evolution of their own consciousness is my main interest. " -Lon geo> Human consciousness is the accumulation of thousands of years of limitation. What is human consciousness after all? It is space-time boundaries, it is the activity of years of thought - centuries of human consciousness based on the cave age drive towards finding shelter, food, mate for procreation, accumulation upon accumulation. It is this very same consciousness that spilled into the psychological field and became our modern life needs. Need for success, need for recognition, need for power, my country, my tribe, my guru, my teories, etc... What evolved is technology - not denying that. But that can save and kill - so its not big deal. We have CATs and Nuclear Bombs There is nothing in human consciousness that can evolve - because any attempt to act upon this consciousness is from this very same consciousness - it is just a brain game, it is the old continuation.... So what to do? A different kind of "action" is needed, and this "action" is the choiceless perception of the totality of this human consciousness as one "field of limitation". Once the brain is able to see this unified field of limitation, once it understands that it itself (thought) is a child of that limitation, of this human consciousness it has nowhere to go. Then if it is really honest to perceive its own limitation, its own powerlessness, it effortlessly stops - and from there a new type of action is born, an action not from Time and Space as we know. It has its source in the unknown.... Positing an evolution of ones consciousness is the basis of all illusion. It is saying: "I feel there is something more to all this boring life but I don't know what it is, but I am evolving towards knowing it". Nonetheless stepping out of time is not possible through time, taking time. But - I know - this is not , and maybe this is not the best place to discuss this. Regards -old geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 Dear Old Geo, Thanks for your post. Far from not belonging here, it addresses an aspect of the applicability of Chinese medical thinking to contemporary research that I believe should occupy our attention more than it already does. Cognitive science has only recently begun to define areas of research and raise questions concerning the nature and character of consciousness and its supposed host, the mind. Western science has long neglected to provide such definition, blatantly overlooking the fact that to do so dooms scientists to toiling without the full use of their most basic and no doubt most important tool: their minds. Perhaps when he talks about the guidance that Chinese medicine can provide to Western science, Emmanuel has something along these lines in his mind. I am currently working on an essay that introduces the Dao De Jing as an early text on cognitive science, providing basic definitions of the key functions of consciousness as well as maps towards the development of a methodology for the cultivation, refinement, and ultimately perfection of the human mind. I think I understand your point about the self-delusion implicit in the goal to evolve consciousness. However it does seem to me that a great strength of the human species develops from a kind of two-stroke conceptual engine that is constructed from our inborn limitations, such as the size and configuration of the neural architecture that constitutes the organic substrate we associate with the mind. We have no choice but to both accept these limits and relentlessly refuse to accept them and through accepting and learning to work within them, proceed to expand and increase them and improve our basic nature. This has been referred to as esoteric magic, and it was just such an aim that Laozi discussed in his 5,000 famous characters. And of course, one of the main elements developed in those curious characters is the Daoist paradox that is nowhere more clearly manifest than in statements such as: zhi zhe bu yan; yan zhe bu zhi. One who knows does not speak; One who speaks does not know. Many people have understood these remarks to suggest that you can't get there with words. But if that were so, the whole text could have been reduced to just one sentence: sheng ren xing bu yan zhi jiao The sage follows the wordless teaching. Such a reading of the Daoist paradox underlies the typical response of those who laugh out loud and reject it out of hand. What sort of moron begins a 5,000 word essay by saying that words are useless? But I'll spare everyone having to read more of my thoughts on this... for now. I hope to have my little essay ready for publication within a year or so. And in the meanwhile, I would love to read more of your thoughts...as well as anyone else's who is brave enough to wade in. Ken Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 Ken> Dear Old Geo,Thanks for your post. Far from notbelonging here, it addresses an aspectof the applicability of Chinese medicalthinking to contemporary research thatI believe should occupy our attentionmore than it already does.Cognitive science has only recentlybegun to define areas of researchand raise questions concerning thenature and character of consciousnessand its supposed host, the mind. geo> I would say that most scientists would not accept one very basic perception that you have put in words: "consciousness and its supposed host, the mind.". It is not part of modern science to understand that Mind is the host of consciousness. Ken> ...basic definitions of the key functions of consciousness as well as maps towardsthe development of a methodology forthe cultivation, refinement, and ultimatelyperfection of the human mind. geo> Ah, but one can more or less define the limitations, define the whole field that is human consciousness. But the other..."cultivation, refinement, and ultimatelyperfection of the human mind" that is a different matter altogether. The source that could/can do such changes does NOT belong to consciousness itself - it is from the above mentioned Mind, the host. And that Mind does not function through methods, refinements. I don't want you to take this as a statement - I am ready to discuss it. BTW in this case "mind" maybe would be better worded as "brain" - as you are referring to the localized mind of an individual, right?Ken> I think I understand your point aboutthe self-delusion implicit in thegoal to evolve consciousness. Howeverit does seem to me that a great strengthof the human species develops from akind of two-stroke conceptual engine thatis constructed from our inborn limitations,such as the size and configuration ofthe neural architecture that constitutesthe organic substrate we associate withthe mind. geo> What kind of strenght? The strenght of intelectuality, of accumulated knowledge. That accumulation had led us to this: tribalism, patriotism, politics, guns, tanks , nukes.... the ego itself. The only possible step is to indeed see the "our inborn limitations, such as the size and configuration of the neural architecture that constitutes the organic substrate we associate with the mind (brain)" as an actuality. All we can think of, willfully do, conceive, invent is strictly within the limitations of our human consciousness. After all this consciousness is the result of our senses and our brain - just pure conditioned movement of matter. Is there another not-conditioned source of movement? Is the real host impotent just because itis not-manifested? Is it? Ken> We have no choice but to both acceptthese limits and relentlessly refuseto accept them and through acceptingand learning to work within them, proceedto expand and increase them and improveour basic nature. geo> This leads one to a dramatic crossroads. One must accept it yes. But from which stand is one try to improve? What is the meaning of expanding consciousness? The solution is not the contraction or expansion or evolution but the problem is the very fact that consciousness HAS boundaries.Any move thought does is limited within those boundaries. Knowledge is within those boundaries - small or large. Ken>This has been referred to as esotericmagic, and it was just such an aim thatLaozi discussed in his 5,000 famous characters. geo> I feel we should drop third party perceptions on this. We dont need them at all - most respectfully. It complicates things further - unescessarilly. Because we will then have to discuss what other people might or might not have seen/said/understood/perceived/expressed on the expence of present first person experiences. One will have to drop those 5000 characters sooner or later anyway. Truth can not be coloured by none. Regards -geo- Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 In this corner to... however statements leads to questions. Thus: Ken: Cognitive science has only recentlybegun to define areas of researchand raise questions concerning thenature and character of consciousnessand its supposed host, the mind. Marco: mind and wind in a way do they exist? or a configuration? of events, best explain by words and metaphors... Ken: Perhaps when he talks about the guidancethat Chinese medicine can provide toWestern science, Emmanuel has somethingalong these lines in his mind. I amcurrently working on an essay thatintroduces the Dao De Jing as an earlytext on cognitive science, providing basic definitions of the key functions of consciousness as well as maps towardsthe development of a methodology forthe cultivation, refinement, and ultimatelyperfection of the human mind. Marco: a few questions: cognitive science what is it? consciousness Yours or mine? perfection? zhi zhe bu yan yan zhe bu zhi As is the mind? mysteries of mysteries... Ken: Howeverit does seem to me that a great strengthof the human species develops from akind of two-stroke conceptual engine thatis constructed from our inborn limitations,such as the size and configuration ofthe neural architecture that constitutesthe organic substrate we associate withthe mind. Marco: more is not necessarily more more is less? Less is more? Structure and function? or, Function and structure?... Ken: We have no choice but to both acceptthese limits and relentlessly refuseto accept them and through acceptingand learning to work within them, proceedto expand and increase them and improveour basic nature. Marco: paradox as life indeed is... Things exist because of other things? Such as mind and consciousness... Marco - Emmanuel Segmen Chinese Medicine Saturday, August 02, 2003 10:14 PM Re: Traditional (TCM) Re: Consciousness Ken, Your response is greatly appreciated over in this corner. Emmanuel Segmen - kenrose2008 Chinese Medicine Saturday, August 02, 2003 5:19 PM Traditional (TCM) Re: Consciousness Dear Old Geo,Thanks for your post. Far from notbelonging here, it addresses an aspectof the applicability of Chinese medicalthinking to contemporary research thatI believe should occupy our attentionmore than it already does.Cognitive science has only recentlybegun to define areas of researchand raise questions concerning thenature and character of consciousnessand its supposed host, the mind.Western science has long neglectedto provide such definition, blatantlyoverlooking the fact that to do sodooms scientists to toiling withoutthe full use of their most basicand no doubt most important tool:their minds.Perhaps when he talks about the guidancethat Chinese medicine can provide toWestern science, Emmanuel has somethingalong these lines in his mind. I amcurrently working on an essay thatintroduces the Dao De Jing as an earlytext on cognitive science, providing basic definitions of the key functions of consciousness as well as maps towardsthe development of a methodology forthe cultivation, refinement, and ultimatelyperfection of the human mind.I think I understand your point aboutthe self-delusion implicit in thegoal to evolve consciousness. Howeverit does seem to me that a great strengthof the human species develops from akind of two-stroke conceptual engine thatis constructed from our inborn limitations,such as the size and configuration ofthe neural architecture that constitutesthe organic substrate we associate withthe mind. We have no choice but to both acceptthese limits and relentlessly refuseto accept them and through acceptingand learning to work within them, proceedto expand and increase them and improveour basic nature.This has been referred to as esotericmagic, and it was just such an aim thatLaozi discussed in his 5,000 famous characters.And of course, one of the main elementsdeveloped in those curious charactersis the Daoist paradox that is nowheremore clearly manifest than in statementssuch as: zhi zhe bu yan; yan zhe bu zhi.One who knows does not speak;One who speaks does not know.Many people have understood these remarksto suggest that you can't get there withwords. But if that were so, the wholetext could have been reduced to justone sentence: sheng ren xing bu yan zhi jiaoThe sage follows the wordless teaching.Such a reading of the Daoist paradoxunderlies the typical response of thosewho laugh out loud and reject it outof hand. What sort of moron begins a5,000 word essay by saying that wordsare useless?But I'll spare everyone having toread more of my thoughts on this...for now.I hope to have my little essay readyfor publication within a year or so.And in the meanwhile, I would love toread more of your thoughts...as wellas anyone else's who is brave enoughto wade in.KenFor practitioners, students and those interested in Traditional (TCM) ranging from acupuncture, herbal medicine, tuina and nutrition.Membership rules require that you adhere to NO commercial postings, NO religious postings and NO spam.Web site homepage: Chinese Medicine/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 Ken, Your response is greatly appreciated over in this corner. Emmanuel Segmen - kenrose2008 Chinese Medicine Saturday, August 02, 2003 5:19 PM Traditional (TCM) Re: Consciousness Dear Old Geo,Thanks for your post. Far from notbelonging here, it addresses an aspectof the applicability of Chinese medicalthinking to contemporary research thatI believe should occupy our attentionmore than it already does.Cognitive science has only recentlybegun to define areas of researchand raise questions concerning thenature and character of consciousnessand its supposed host, the mind.Western science has long neglectedto provide such definition, blatantlyoverlooking the fact that to do sodooms scientists to toiling withoutthe full use of their most basicand no doubt most important tool:their minds.Perhaps when he talks about the guidancethat Chinese medicine can provide toWestern science, Emmanuel has somethingalong these lines in his mind. I amcurrently working on an essay thatintroduces the Dao De Jing as an earlytext on cognitive science, providing basic definitions of the key functions of consciousness as well as maps towardsthe development of a methodology forthe cultivation, refinement, and ultimatelyperfection of the human mind.I think I understand your point aboutthe self-delusion implicit in thegoal to evolve consciousness. Howeverit does seem to me that a great strengthof the human species develops from akind of two-stroke conceptual engine thatis constructed from our inborn limitations,such as the size and configuration ofthe neural architecture that constitutesthe organic substrate we associate withthe mind. We have no choice but to both acceptthese limits and relentlessly refuseto accept them and through acceptingand learning to work within them, proceedto expand and increase them and improveour basic nature.This has been referred to as esotericmagic, and it was just such an aim thatLaozi discussed in his 5,000 famous characters.And of course, one of the main elementsdeveloped in those curious charactersis the Daoist paradox that is nowheremore clearly manifest than in statementssuch as: zhi zhe bu yan; yan zhe bu zhi.One who knows does not speak;One who speaks does not know.Many people have understood these remarksto suggest that you can't get there withwords. But if that were so, the wholetext could have been reduced to justone sentence: sheng ren xing bu yan zhi jiaoThe sage follows the wordless teaching.Such a reading of the Daoist paradoxunderlies the typical response of thosewho laugh out loud and reject it outof hand. What sort of moron begins a5,000 word essay by saying that wordsare useless?But I'll spare everyone having toread more of my thoughts on this...for now.I hope to have my little essay readyfor publication within a year or so.And in the meanwhile, I would love toread more of your thoughts...as wellas anyone else's who is brave enoughto wade in.KenFor practitioners, students and those interested in Traditional (TCM) ranging from acupuncture, herbal medicine, tuina and nutrition.Membership rules require that you adhere to NO commercial postings, NO religious postings and NO spam.Web site homepage: Chinese Medicine/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 more is not necessarily more more is less? Less is more? Structure and function? or, Function and structure?... or neither... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 BTW in this case " mind " maybe would be better worded as " brain " - as you are referring to the localized mind of an individual, right? Far from it. The brain is nothing more than a processor of information from the mind which is held within the Zangfu. Using a simply analogy, the brain is like a chip-processor in a computer. It just processes the actions and requests of the mind which is held within the hardware of the computer. Consciousness is held within the Zangfu. Any negative thoughts or beliefs of illness cause a dis-ease within the Zangfu energy network and illness is born. Attilio Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 Dear Atillio, Do you believe this as a natural "law" and if so can meditation cure say alcoholism? And other chronic and or even acute illness? Is this your understanding of Chinese medicine or? How does it bear out in clinical practice and in your life? I am very interested as I have a fare of such profound knowledge where it to have a foundation... I am not saying I disagree with you, on the contrary becoming member of this list and specially CHA has evoked "the quest" of "understanding" what is spiritual and spirituality (as related to life and Chinese medicine...) and maybe I before saw the world to cut and dry... Marco Atillio: Consciousness is held within the Zangfu. Any negative thoughts or beliefs of illness cause a dis-ease within the Zangfu energy network and illness is born. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 geo> BTW in this case "mind" maybe would be better worded as "brain" - as you are referring to the localized mind of an individual, right?Attilio> Far from it. The brain is nothing more than a processor of information from the mind which is held within the Zangfu. geo> Yes, that's the brain. Attilio> Consciousness is held within the Zangfu. Any negative thoughts or beliefs of illness cause a dis-ease within the Zangfu energy network and illness is born.geo> Consciousness has many very different definitions. The way I use it is the accumulated conditionings that direct the way we as human beings interpret and live in this world. If is very old, it has in it all the accumulated knowledge, conditionings, sorrow, that man gathered in this past hundreds of thousunds of years. It is not MY consciousness nor YOUR's. It is common proprety of mankind. We all share this human consciousness. It is the ground of the ME, the "I", the mine, the idea of a separate self. The question is: is there a way of living this life and not be led to react according to the limitations of consciousness? Is there some factor that is free from it? I am calling this possibility as "mind". Not a personal localized mind that is conditioned to the brain - as you correctly point out - but a mind that is "behind" all manifestation.This is the question me and ken seem to have been raising Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 In a message dated 8/3/2003 8:28:54 AM Pacific Standard Time, attiliodalberto writes: However, if all illness is thought induced then why the need to any healthcare system when we can just heal ourselfs. Simply because there are many many levels of consciousness. Thoughts create form, beliefs create thoughts which create emotions and actions. Within each belief system is a suitable healthcare system to treat that person. Most people do not take responsibility for thier thoughts (actions) and therefore their illness and lay their power of life into someone else's, like ours. From there we pick up the pieces and try to rebalance the disharmony until it happens again. First off, I would like to say how much I enjoyed this post, Atillo. Secondly, I am inclined to agree with the basic point of the above quote from your post. We are capable of healing ourselves ... but as yet, many of us are not fully able. Not "able" as beliefs limit what is experienced. I had a discussion with a friend and colleague just the other week about this very subject. The point of culmination was this. We feel that one of the roles of healers is to educate as a means to empower. By empowering those who come to us, we facilitate their ability to help themselves. (In essence, if we are not seeking the end of our necessity as healers, our intentions may warrant some reflection). When I say "educate", I do not mean simply intellectual data passed to another orally but also energetic data that the body/mind/spirit receives and, if the patient is willing, processes to their potential benefit. This energetic information does not even have to come from me, the practitioner, but from what is held in the space of the session (it could also be said, the space in the session holds that which the patient is open to experiencing ... on some level, perhaps not consciously). I agree that many do not take responsibility for themselves, but many do not see the relationship their well-being has with their thoughts/intentions/beliefs. As healers, we can help to change this even if only a little step at a time. I have had the honor of witnessing quite a few pivotal moments on my table. The receptivity and willingness to grow and process that I see in some of my patients is inspiring. Then there are those who walk in with the "fix me" sign on their foreheads. They may only be consciously open to the end result they seek, but I feel that by coming to me, a part of them wants what I offer. I keep my "woo woo" leanings to myself in such company but often I feel they walk may away with a seed that may well bloom into something else of value for them, perhaps to be re-seeded, watered and fed by other experiences/encounters, to be experienced when it is the right time for them. I can only hope. Basically, as healers, we are dealing with more than the body. The body may be the core interface for many in medicine, but it is certainly not the whole of the engagement. Well, there are my two cents on the subject be well Maya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 geo> BTW in this case "mind" maybe would be better worded as "brain" - as you are referring to the localized mind of an individual, right?Attilio> Far from it. The brain is nothing more than a processor of information from the mind which is held within the Zangfu. geo> Yes, that's the brain. Attilio> Consciousness is held within the Zangfu. Any negative thoughts or beliefs of illness cause a dis-ease within the Zangfu energy network and illness is born.geo> Consciousness has many very different definitions. The way I use it is the accumulated conditionings that direct the way we as human beings interpret and live in this world. If is very old, it has in it all the accumulated knowledge, conditionings, sorrow, that man gathered in this past hundreds of thousands of years. It is not MY consciousness nor Yours. It is common property of mankind. We all share this human consciousness. It is the ground of the ME, the "I", the mine, the idea of a separate self. The question is: is there a way of living this life and not be led to react according to the limitations of consciousness? Is there some factor that is free from it? I am calling this possibility as "mind". Not a personal localized mind that is conditioned to the brain - as you correctly point out - but a mind that is "behind" all manifestation.This is the question me and ken seem to have been raising for all. So according to these definitions, one could say: to live according to the limitations of consciousness is to invite disease. Living according to Mind is to be healthy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 In a message dated 8/3/2003 10:18:50 AM Pacific Standard Time, alonmarcus writes: "However, if all illness is thought induced then why the need to any healthcare system when we can just heal ourselfs. Simply because there are many many levels of consciousness." Alon: To even conceder this in light of genetic research is sticking one's head in the sand I wouldn't go that far. While I understand your reaction to the above quote, it may be that things are being addressed in all too concrete a terms. In acupuncture, it is a common understanding that qi follows the mind. We learn in medical qi gong that we can direct the flow of qi within our bodies and even outside our bodies. On a subtle level then, is it not possible that there could be a pathology in thought, subconscious or otherwise, that could influence and give rise to pathology of the physical body? I don't consider this to be discounting of what western/modern science has inspected and studied. You can take two men who have smoked for 50 years, one gets lung cancer and another never even gets a cold in his life. Outside of other lifestyle and environmental factors, there are likely genetic components, but what is the core nature of genetics? Is the current western view of genetics the only possible component? I would suggest that they are not the only component and furthermore, I suggest that there is an energetic imprinting component to genetics that has yet to be seriously considered by many. I do not claim to have the answers ... but I do see understanding coming from open exploration. The world isn't flat and the dragons on the edge have much to teach us. I feel the future of medicine will fascinate us all. be well Maya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 >Do you believe this as a natural " law " and if so can meditation cure say alcoholism? And other chronic and or even acute illness? Perhaps, although i cannot provide you with a definate answer as i don't practice meditation. Perhaps Emmanuel would be better at replying to this. >Is this your understanding of Chinese medicine or? This is my understanding of life, illness and disease although this is not my concept but one i borrowed from Seth. I read his book 'The External Validity of the Soul' by Jane Roberts some years ago. It had a profound affect upon me and shock my limitations and beliefs to their roots. However, if all illness is thought induced then why the need to any healthcare system when we can just heal ourselfs. Simply because there are many many levels of consciousness. Thoughts create form, beliefs create thoughts which create emotions and actions. Within each belief system is a suitable healthcare system to treat that person. Most people do not take responsibility for thier thoughts (actions) and therefore their illness and lay their power of life into someone else's, like ours. From there we pick up the pieces and try to rebalance the disharmony until it happens again. > How does it bear out in clinical practice and in your life? I'm not practising yet so again i can't answer that, although in my life i have noticed 'giving' myself a cold, weakness and disharmony. I've watched a mountain move further and furter away as i convinced myself it was far far away. Having said that, i'm still incredibly negative, something i need to change and am doing so. > I am very interested as I have a fare of such profound knowledge where it to have a foundation... The foundation is to be formless. Read the book i mentioned, then forget it. Drink until your full then feel empty. Your in the physical dimension so you already have enough foundation. > what is spiritual and spirituality Very good question. In my understanding, which is limited, i can say at this time spirituality or the spiritial path is the multitude levels of consciousness in which we all are travelling through. Attilio P.S. I'll get to your question Geo about what sits behind it when i find the quote i'm looking for in one of my books which is stacked somewhere in my bookshelf. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 AttilioP.S. I'll get to your question Geo about what sits behind it when i find the quote i'm looking for in one of my books which is stacked somewhere in my bookshelf. geo> please don't, friend Attilio. I would much prefer a dialogue based on personal experience. Why repeat what others have said? And then those others have repeated what they have read from another... and so on... I think the best stand for any conversation is: "I don'1t know" - after all that is the real nature of what is. Regards -geo-. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 > Is there some factor that is free from it? I am calling this > possibility as " mind " . Not a personal localized mind that is > conditioned to the brain - as you correctly point out - but a > mind that is " behind " all manifestation.This is the question > me and ken seem to have been raising. Ok, getting off the subject of TCM completely, i've tried to dig out a quote from a wonderful book by Paramahansa Yogananda, titled 'Autobiography of a Yogi', but can't find the exact thing so i'll have to go off memory. In this book, the Indian holy man explains the concept of the Holy Trinity, the father, the son and the holy ghost. He explains that the father is God, the source, from which everything comes from. The son is everything thats' physcial and is a intellecial expression of God. (which means we have the power of God but like i said before, give it up to others). The holy ghost (which relates to your question) is the consciousness that threads through all forms of expression and thus creates wuch wonderful things as conindience and fate. Attilio (I'm sorry to all the TCM practitioners out there who would rather not talk about religion but it was the only way i could explain it. It usually happens that when you discuss consciousness someone will mention religion. I wouild rather not bring up religion as it has caused and still is causing a great deal of problems in our world although its original intentions were just. Also i state on the front page no religous messages, which is quite hypocritacal, sorry). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 However, if all illness is thought induced then why the need to any healthcare system when we can just heal ourselfs. Simply because there are many many levels of consciousness. >>>To even conceder this in light of genetic research is sticking one's head in the sand Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 I agree with Alon.. - Alon Marcus Chinese Medicine Sunday, August 03, 2003 12:18 PM Re: Traditional (TCM) Re: Consciousness However, if all illness is thought induced then why the need to any healthcare system when we can just heal ourselfs. Simply because there are many many levels of consciousness. >>>To even conceder this in light of genetic research is sticking one's head in the sand AlonFor practitioners, students and those interested in Traditional (TCM.). Topics discussed range from acupuncture, herbal medicine, tuina to nutrition.Membership requires that you do not post any commerical, religious or spam messages. Web site homepage: Chinese Medicine/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 I am having a difficult time understanding how such topics as Western mediums channeling 'Seth' or other entities applies to the practice of Chinese medicine, since a large majority of practitioners haven't a clue about this teaching, or would be interested in applying it to their practice. I also cannot understand how discussing these ideas benefits the understanding or practice of Chinese medicine. I think spirituality is an important aspect of human existence, inseparable in fact, but if we are going to discuss 'ego', 'universal consciousness', and the like, and superimpose it on the topic of Chinese medicine, there should be some kind of grounding. I personally don't share a lot of the ideals or ideas presented in this discussion so far, and don't think a forum on Chinese medicine is the place for non-Chinese metaphysical discussions, unless it clearly impacts the practice of Chinese medicine. On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 08:28 AM, wrote: > >Is this your understanding of Chinese medicine or? > > This is my understanding of life, illness and disease although this > is not my concept but one i borrowed from Seth. I read his book 'The > External Validity of the Soul' by Jane Roberts some years ago. It > had a profound affect upon me and shock my limitations and beliefs > to their roots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 Well i'm glad to have heard of Seth's teachings but i don't think you should speak on the behalf of others when you say practitioners would not be interested in applying it to their practice, far from it. I do grant you that the recent discussions have been very much on a theoretical background rather than at the grass roots level. However, this is the way the group's discussion has gone although i would wish for more discussions to be directed towards the front line of TCM. Perhaps i'm responsible for failing to deliver more of a front line discussion. Your idea that the recent topics have been superimposed onto TCM is quite an interesting viewpoint. Has spirituality been imposed on TCM or has the western empirical model (which i believe is your viewpoint) been imposed on TCM? Were the founders of TCM like Lao Tzu from a spiritual (i really don't like using this word as alot of baggage gets attached to it) background or from an empirical one? Attilio Chinese Medicine , " Z'ev Rosenberg " <zrosenbe@s...> wrote: > I am having a difficult time understanding how such topics as Western > mediums channeling 'Seth' or other entities applies to the practice of > Chinese medicine, since a large majority of practitioners haven't a > clue about this teaching, or would be interested in applying it to > their practice. I also cannot understand how discussing these ideas > benefits the understanding or practice of Chinese medicine. I think > spirituality is an important aspect of human existence, inseparable in > fact, but if we are going to discuss 'ego', 'universal consciousness', > and the like, and superimpose it on the topic of Chinese medicine, > there should be some kind of grounding. I personally don't share a lot > of the ideals or ideas presented in this discussion so far, and don't > think a forum on Chinese medicine is the place for non-Chinese > metaphysical discussions, unless it clearly impacts the practice of > Chinese medicine. > > > > > On Sunday, August 3, 2003, at 08:28 AM, wrote: > > > >Is this your understanding of Chinese medicine or? > > > > This is my understanding of life, illness and disease although this > > is not my concept but one i borrowed from Seth. I read his book 'The > > External Validity of the Soul' by Jane Roberts some years ago. It > > had a profound affect upon me and shock my limitations and beliefs > > to their roots. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 but as yet, many of us are not fully able. Not "able" as beliefs limit what is experienced. >>>This is a very dangerous road to take. If you have a genetic disorder, or problems in pathways that you do not understand, yet you give the message that "healing" is within the power of the patient, it can result in feelings of guilt only because of dogmatic belief systems. Diseases have been around for all times and in all animals. Is your dog responsible for their illnesses, I wander? Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 On a subtle level then, is it not possible that there could be a pathology in thought, subconscious or otherwise, that could influence and give rise to pathology of the physical body? I don't consider this to be discounting of what western/modern science has inspected and studied. You can take two men who have smoked for 50 years, one gets lung cancer and another never even gets a cold in his life >>>>No question of that. However we do not know what the difference is. Is it mental or is it a difference in a biochemical pathway that has been set because of genetics? there is no evidence that can relate to an individual. We can show that stress has effects on groups and some emotions lead to larger pathologies in certain groups. However, that does not pertain to individuals as the different may be actually not do to the emotion but to a genetic, i.e. physical pathway. Many individuals that are stressed, have been suffering for life long depression etc do not develop physical diseases that are related to stress and depression. While I would agree that we can use our model or any other model on life-style to reduce stresses in the general sense, that is all we can do. It is very important to understand the difference. I have seen to many people suffering from self guilt Alon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 3, 2003 Report Share Posted August 3, 2003 All genes need something to trigger them.. having genetic predisposition is no guarantee of disease. Environment and diet are just the most common influences. Environment is endless in its facets... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 In a message dated 8/3/2003 3:19:40 PM Pacific Standard Time, alonmarcus writes: Maya : "but as yet, many of us are not fully able. Not "able" as beliefs limit what is experienced" Alon: "This is a very dangerous road to take. If you have a genetic disorder, or problems in pathways that you do not understand, yet you give the message that "healing" is within the power of the patient, it can result in feelings of guilt only because of dogmatic belief systems. Diseases have been around for all times and in all animals. Is your dog responsible for their illnesses, I wander?" Alon, I understand the point you are making and have seen this idea (of self being capable of healing self) become warped into an excuse for some ignoring compassion or wielding some form of blame upon the ill (most often in the more zealous groupings of the new-age community). But, please know, that is not my thinking nor was it the intent of my remarks. I am merely pointing to the amazing healing potential that we possess and have not, yet, fully realized as humans. To acknowledge or at least to remain open to this potential is not to fault ill people ... it is to open a door with an eye toward empowering them, empowering us. There is much we don't know and much we haven't mastered. I do not lay claim to possessing all knowledge or all abilities (*grin*) but I do base my comments upon some personal experience. While I do not ascribe to any particular dogma, I feel a strong connection to the healing potential in all of us. I still stand by my comment that belief limits what is experienced. To what extent, I suppose, is the focus and point of contention in this particular thread. Maya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 In a message dated 8/3/2003 3:32:27 PM Pacific Standard Time, alonmarcus writes: Maya: On a subtle level then, is it not possible that there could be a pathology in thought, subconscious or otherwise, that could influence and give rise to pathology of the physical body? I don't consider this to be discounting of what western/modern science has inspected and studied. You can take two men who have smoked for 50 years, one gets lung cancer and another never even gets a cold in his life Alon: No question of that. However we do not know what the difference is. Is it mental or is it a difference in a biochemical pathway that has been set because of genetics? there is no evidence that can relate to an individual. We can show that stress has effects on groups and some emotions lead to larger pathologies in certain groups. However, that does not pertain to individuals as the different may be actually not do to the emotion but to a genetic, i.e. physical pathway. Many individuals that are stressed, have been suffering for life long depression etc do not develop physical diseases that are related to stress and depression. While I would agree that we can use our model or any other model on life-style to reduce stresses in the general sense, that is all we can do. It is very important to understand the difference. I have seen to many people suffering from self guilt Alon .... I do hear your question. What really IS the difference? To be clear, I am not saying what the difference is .... I am suggesting a possibility. I am suggesting there may be an energetic imprinting component to genetics ... Something more refined than emotion, for example. I consider it to be a rather provocative notion and thought to share it with the group ... to be explored, discussed or rejected as each person sees fit. And to be honest, I offered this idea in response to what I perceived as a rather quick judgement on the part of a posting party. Just my way of saying .... let's keep our minds open. There are many things today that we consider fact that will be set aside when greater understanding is available. It is the cycle of belief and perception that has been going on for as long as man has thought. Hence, my "the world isn't flat" comment. I hope my words are read with the levity with which they are written. It isn't my intent to be preachy or pompous. LOL Just sharing ideas. ~Maya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted August 4, 2003 Report Share Posted August 4, 2003 hi, i would like to add something here. i believe tht most of the chronic & alot of the regular disesaes are due to damage due to emotions. when our emotions get caught up we can have long term damage. that is the only way we can have 2 smokers. one enjoying it & no problem another hating it & getting l. cancer. i think this will be the real truth. anand --- Alon Marcus <alonmarcus wrote: > On a subtle level then, is it not possible that > there could be a pathology in thought, subconscious > or otherwise, that could influence and give rise to > pathology of the physical body? I don't consider > this to be discounting of what western/modern > science has inspected and studied. You can take two > men who have smoked for 50 years, one gets lung > cancer and another never even gets a cold in his > life > >>>>No question of that. However we do not know what > the difference is. Is it mental or is it a > difference in a biochemical pathway that has been > set because of genetics? there is no evidence that > can relate to an individual. We can show that stress > has effects on groups and some emotions lead to > larger pathologies in certain groups. However, that > does not pertain to individuals as the different may > be actually not do to the emotion but to a genetic, > i.e. physical pathway. Many individuals that are > stressed, have been suffering for life long > depression etc do not develop physical diseases that > are related to stress and depression. > While I would agree that we can use our model or any > other model on life-style to reduce stresses in the > general sense, that is all we can do. It is very > important to understand the difference. I have seen > to many people suffering from self guilt > Alon ===== Anand Bapat Pain Management Specialist Sports Injury Specialist Blacktown, Parramatta, Punchbowl, & Hammondville Clinics ______________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Messenger http://uk.messenger./ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.