From Lonny Jarrett

[Guest guest]

Hi Friends,

 

Attilio notified me that my work was under discussion. I don't have a

complete listing of the threads which are also a bit hard to follow, but I'll

address some of the main issues. Let me first say that my work is available at

Spiritpathpress.com. The books are all in print and the prices at AMAZON are

insane and I can't explain them. Nourishing Destiny cost $89 and Clinical

practice is $99 through my site.

 

Scholarship/History-Worsley

 

1. I agree whole heartedly with Z'ev and others that it is ethical to cite

one's sources when imparting information in the profession. Anyone who reads my

own work knows that I go to great trouble to do so. I try my best to

maintain a balance between historical scholarship and clinical observation,

always

looking for historical sources that cooberate my own findings. However, I'm

never afraid to let my personal observations stand on their own merits and

always

try to be clear when I'm doing that.

For those interested in the historical basis of Worsley's tradition, I

reccomend Peter Eckman's book, " In the Footsteps of the Yellow Emperor. " Worsley

was a brilliant clinician who made no pretense to scholarship. His legacy

includes, most notably, the, " Aggressive Energy " (xieqi) and Possession

treatments as well as the exit/entry paragdigm. His most significant

contribution,

however, was theoretical. With the advent of the industrial revolution and

Cartesian thought *human choice* replaced natural selection as the primairy

evolutionary force. At that moment, the primairy cause of illness in CM (in the

developed countries) switched from the external syndrome patterns to the

internal

patterns. Once survival needs are met, human beings become victimized, less by

the weather, and relatively more by their own minds. Worsley recognized this

fact and his formualtion of a constitutional medicine based on the five

elements that focused on the importance of mind and spirit ranks as one of the

most

important realizations in CM since the Shang Hun Lun.

Worsley's failure to reveal his sources was stingy at best and

meglomaniacal at its worst.

 

2. Z''ev States: The Worsley

 

school gives few sources for their ideas, and just because someone says

 

something is 'traditional' doesn't mean it has a source in the Chinese

 

medical literature. It is fine to create something new, such as

 

Nogier's auriculotherapy, but there is no claim to being 'Chinese' in

 

this case.

 

 

If someone in the Worsley school could explain what Chinese characters

 

and terms are used for 'dragons', what texts are the sources for this

 

clinical approach, it would be helpful, but I haven't been able to find

 

anyone who could. Is it possibly an interpretation of xie qi/evil qi?

 

Who knows.

 

 

Lonny: I beleive my new " Clinical Practice " book goes as far in discussing

these very issues as can reasonably be accomplished short of discovering a

historic text that actually discusses the specific protocols. If Worsley

invented

these protocols than he truly was a genius. I suspect they were all gleaned

from his many teachers who also didn't know their historical basis and Eckman

covers this well. Please read for example my discussion of the husband/wife

imbalance in ND (CH7) and CP and you'll see just how deep the historical basis

for

the treatment is in Chinese thought. Way deeper, in fact, than Worsley ever

could have had access to in order to consciously devise such a protocol.

(Interestingly some of the fundamentalists which adhere to him take this as

proof he

was no less than the reincarnation of Huangdi, an assertion I never heard him

deny!).

 

 

3. Z'ev

 

 

We must remember that we are the modern representatives of an ancient

 

medical tradition.

 

 

Lonny: Z'ev and I differ widely on the importance we ascribe to history. I

notice that our profession tends to have a morbid infatuation with what dead

Chinese people thought. I have no interest in representing the ancient Chinese,

the modern Chinese, or JR Worsley. If CM is going to be relevent to help

humanity face the *unique* challenges it faces today then its going to have

change

from its animistic/Confucian-absolutist roots to accomadate the discovery of

evolution and its highest implications for consciousness (I refer you to the

writings of Sri Aurubindo, Andrew Cohen, Ken Wilber, Don Beck, Brian Swimme).

What is true now is always present in the experience of the awakening

human being whose interested in it. An authentic prespective on the degree to

which history is relevent is only ever afforded by dropping history in its

*entirety* and giving all of one's attention to what is true now. On the other

hand

I whole heartedly agree with Z'ev when he says: 'It is important ........ to

let others know which ideas are our own. If we don't have a clear source in

the Chinese medical literature, than it is an original idea that should be open

to scrutiny. And there cannot be access to the Chinese medical literature

without some training in medical Chinese language.'

I used to think that access to the Chinese language was imperative to

really grasp the mind that formulated the medicine. However, I have enough

evidence that even education to the highest level in the language doesn't insure

that one will not entirely miss the heart and soul of what's possible with the

medicine. The Ancient texts we revere were written by those who looked deeply

into their own experience as it emerged in their own time. Scholarship doesn't

necessarily lead one to this facility and, in fact, is often a defense to

avoid what is actually true right now. To know what is true it helps to have

vulnerability, humility, clarity of intention, integrity of action, and a big

heart. I'd prefer that practitioners truly cultivated these qualities than to

satisfy the conditioned mind's longing for historical knowledge. The ego's only

concern is to preserve the past, the authentic self, the very best part of us,

is only ever leaning into the future and *never* looks back.

 

 

4. Someone says:

 

I have no desire to try something that 1 single person created,

 

in the last 50 years or so, and has not clinically researched it.

 

There are just too many other therapies that have history or research

 

or peer review that I would rather try first, but that is just me.

 

Lon: Worsley's protocols have been practiced by thousands of practitioners

for 40 years. Leon Hammer communicated to me several times when we worked

together that the Dragon Protocol is one of the single most profound he'd ever

witnessed for restoring possession of one's self. This certainly verifies my own

experience, for what it's worth.

 

5. Someone says: I think it is deceiving to label something as i.e. " Classical

 

acupuncture " when it has no historical record, which further clouds

 

our field.

 

Lon: I agree. Anyway, what was, or is, " classical acupuncture " is a dead

fantasy at best. Given the magnitude of the challenges we face today as a

species

we'd better find *new* solutions fast. What is this morbid fascination with

history anyway? It truly strikes me as the intellects way of avoiding what is

true *now*. Worsley had a great insight into CM that was profound in 1948.

However there are potential stages of development that are available to us now

that surpass Worsley's now old comprehension.

The ego, when confronted with humanities necessity of having to move

beyond the conditioned self to embrace a more holistic/integral core value

system

has the peculiar habit of turning to the past for solutions. Classical

schmassical.

 

6. Jason Sayes: If

 

there is no record than I think 100's if not 1000's of people have

 

been deceived, and I personally question any therapy that stands on

 

such ground. Any further information would be greatly appreciated…

 

Lon: I think Jason made some valid points but seems to say here that

something is only valid if it has historical basis. This just isn't so. Those

who are

fundamentalists in Worsley's religion are deeply invested in a historical

basis for what they do. To the degree that they beleive that their tradition was

practiced historically they are deluded. Yet there is a beautiful essence to

this tradition that I've tried to distill and unmask in my two texts. Though I

can't offer ancient textual examples for some of the protocols, I have

attempted to show that many are based on very profound ancient Chinese ideas

dating to

the Yijing in the case of the husband/wife imbalance, for example.

Most of Chinese medicine is old, very old. Personally, at this point in

my life, I'm only interested in what's new. Cynicism is poison to the heart of

the authentic self. And there is no more cynical outlook in this world than to

say " there is nothing new under the sun. " What is true and authentic in this

world is always new and always emerging in a totally fresh way, *now*.

 

7. Someone says:

" so when do you make the determination to do ID/ED vs refer to a shrink... if

ever? "

 

Lon: Only a narcissist would spend $150 for a 45 minute hour to talk about

him or herself. I'm with Ken Wilber who termed psychotherapists " the pimps of

ignorance. " He also said " True spirituality is revolutionary. It does not

console the world but tears it to pieces. "

 

Straight Ahead, Lon