From Lon Answering Zev

[Guest guest]

Zev: I also wanted to point out that Lonny gave me his

 

book as a gift, one I truly appreciate from a good friend. We

 

connected at the Pacific Symposium several years ago. Another

 

interesting resonance. . .he has a son named Zev!

 

Lon: Given out of respect for your own work and thoughtfulness.

 

 

1. Lonny's original point: *human choice* replaced natural selection as the

 

> primary evolutionary force. At that moment, the primary 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 formulation 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.

 

 

 

2. Zev's response: This is not unparalleled in Chinese medical history, Lonn

y. During the

 

Jin-Yuan dynasty era (12-13th century C.E.), Li Dongyuan recognized the

 

internal pathologies caused by emotional and mental constructs, and

 

devised therapeutic strategies accordingly. The Nan Jing also

 

discusses these issues as well.

 

3: Lonny's response: Yes, CM has always recognized internal syndrome patterns

and the role played by spirit in illness. A main point I've made in my own

work is that spiritual alchemy is a branch of medicine that is vital to its

modern day practice. A point largely lost on TCM which still basically suffers

immensely from its suffocating materialistic world view (see below and atillios

prohibitions). Historically, however, the focus of medicine, at least since the

Shang Hun Lun seems to have been on the penetration of illness from the

outside (natural selection). The deeper traditions, that dealt with what we now

term evoolution, that you allude to were only available to those few fortunates

who had their survival needs met.

Worsley recognized the evolutionary switch that happened in the West and

he formulated a *new* medicine to suit it. He was a revolutionary who

unfortunately and ironically instituted his own inflexibly closed, and now *old*

structure that has moved as far as 1972 and, for the main stream adherent, no

further.

 

 

 

Zev: I think Worsley was an excellent synthesizer of various influences from

 

his teachers and homeopathy, who created a simple system of treatment

 

that was different from what surrounded it in the medical world. . . in

 

some ways like Hahnemann himself. However, unlike Hahnemann, Worsley

 

lacked the medical scholarship to fill in the various lacunae and

 

blanks, which he made up for with personal charisma.

 

Lon: Worsley was a clinician. He had some research done by others based on

poor sources, probably only out of insecurity to try and give his own work some

tenuous connection to history. I can forgive him for the flaws in his

scholarship, after all he practiced clinically for 53 years (I know of a patient

who

literally visited Worsley in the hospital to receive a diagnosis from JR on his

death bed-Worsley was committed whole heartedly to his medicine). To be a

scholar of equal merit would demand another lifetime. However Worsely

deliberately manipulated his students and the profession by mystifying them and

not

revealing his sources. If you learned something from someone than integrity

demands revealing the source. If you come up with it yourself just say it and

let

history decide.

 

 

Zev: Lonny, this is where we bifurcate, although I am certain without

 

compromising our friendship or mutual respect. I think what is true is

 

always true, and it doesn't matter if the people who shared true

 

teachings are dead or alive. I don't accept everything Ken Wilbur and

 

Andrew Cohen teach, and I think the evolutionary approach to

 

consciousness is only partially true. I don't know if this forum is

 

the place to discuss this, so I hope we can have this discussion over

 

tea sometime soon.

 

Lon: What is true in onetime may not be true in another. The core value

system operant 500bc may not be relevant now. The values system of the 1960's

which

colored the immigration of CM to the West may no longer be relevant now (Ch

37 of the Clinical Practice book spends 60 pages looking into these issues).

What was mind blowing and revolutionary in 1968 is now old and tired. Yes Jimi

is still the best, but the best part of myself longs to hear someone who will

take me further.......My attention and listening is for what I haven't yet

heard- this is the deepest longing in my own heart.

 

 

 

> ZEV: I don't think these points of view are mutually exclusive. I think

one

 

can be and live in the now, but the now includes the past and the

 

future in a dynamic continuum.

 

Lon: The past is dead. It's a layer of dirt in a gorge in Africa. It has *no

potential*. The past is spent jing. The present can't be changed either-it's

just what is. The best part of ourselves, the shen, is always penetrating

potential (jing) and potential lies always in the future. What's next?! I can't

wait!

 

 

Zev: Again, we are in a realm that may need to be discussed elsewhere. For

 

purposes of this discussion, I respectfully ask that we keep to the

 

matters at hand. By the way, I also feel this way about your otherwise

 

excellent book. I think that the path you follow should be kept

 

distinct from the material in your book, and remain as the inspiration

 

behind what you do. I am deeply into Jewish practice, but I don't

 

espouse Kabbalah when I teach Chinese medicine. I consider spiritual

 

practice to be a very intimate endeavor, not a proselytizing one.

 

 

Lon: I disagree. Experience reveals to me that nothing is personal. What does

it mean to live a unified life? CM is nothing if it is not about living a

unified life. Our core value system impacts our patients whether spoken or

unspoken. I'm quite upfront about mine. Either CM is as big as the universe or

it

isn't. I'm only interested in it to the degree that it is. The path I follow

*is* who I am (or its not a path or I'm not following it) and who I am is what

is

treating my patients. Any perceived separation here could only ever be

artificial.

 

 

 

 

>

 

ZEV: I have no doubt that there is much of value in these protocols. I

 

simply would like them explained in such a way that they are not

 

mystified by unclear language. Defining terms, sources and clinical

 

goals will go a long way in resolving these issues. As one

 

practitioner pointed out in this thread, her instructor would not

 

explain what possession was. How is this going to help in the

 

transmission of these teachings? Should we just accept something as

 

the 'truth' without any explanation?

 

Lon: Zev, I agree with you. In fact, I spent twenty years writing two books

to do this to the very best of my ability. I believe that I've provided as

much historical and theoretical basis for these protocols as possible while at

the same time trying to demystify them and discuss them in a context that's

relevant now.

 

 

 

Zev: I agree with what you say, and I think some individuals have continued

 

to develop the original Worsley teachings. But be careful. Time is not

 

necessarily linear. It is multi-dimensional, and includes past and

 

future. We shouldn't discard the past, we should move forward with

 

roots, branches, leaves and flowers intact.

 

Lon: This would require a deep discussion. Its sort of like saying " Be

careful, people are multidimensional, they have good and evil, we need to accept

all

of it. " The best part of who we are right now is always leaning into the

future. I can't think of a more relevant discussion for the leading edge of

healthcare practitioners to discuss (that's potentially us folks).

The Chinese talked about two selves the conditioned self (yin:ego) and

the authentic self (yang, zhen, zheng). This discussion happened for thousand of

years in the branch of medicine we call Daoist alchemy. And, it happens with

the same terminology as Daoist medicine and physiology. The absolute point of

medicine is to eliminate what is false (wind, cold, damp, ignorance) and

strengthen what is true and upright. Hence CM is a potentially powerful medicine

to

support the path of becoming a unified human being. The Daoist cannon states

that " the *only* authentic medicine is consciousness " and I agree. Yet look at

the reticence of the moderator to even allow discussion of it here!

 

ZEV: In my value system, the ego is not the 'enemy'. It can be a tool for

 

transformation and growth as well. Again, perhaps we should discuss

 

this elsewhere. I'll leave that up to the moderator. Attilio?

 

 

LON: The entire art of diagnosis involves discerning the difference between

what is real and what is not real. This cleavage from the real to the false is

the point of the Daodejing and the Yijing. It also permeates all the classical

texts in medicine. We need to move stagnation before tonifying but what

greater stagnation could there ever be than having forgotten true self? A

materialist objectifies " what is not real " and feels comfortable discussing it

as

" congealed blood " , " damp " , " Stagnant qi " , or " heat " . But what are these really?

They are physiological metaphors for the embodiments of ignorance.

And what is the cause of the challenges on earth at the moment that

threaten the survival of our species? Only, ignorance which I will define

here operationally as all that is not real in the human interpretation and

embodiment of experience.

CM is the most potent medicine on earth to move humanity forward. CM is

potentially a revolutionary, mind blowing, force for radical change *now*. And,

to the degree it is anything but that, I'm not interested.

 

ZEV: There is a difference in studying the historical basis of a subject and

 

fantasizing one. We have all been victims since the 60's of

 

romanticizing the East as we tried to escape the harsh realities of

 

Vietnam, assassinations, conformity and post-WW II nuclear insanity.

 

Much of what we originally felt about Eastern teachings was colored by

 

that era, and still is.

 

Lon: The 60's are old and dead. Let's move on. Post modern cynicism kills the

heart and denies the soul. I say " death to flatland " . Let's get some

verticality back into the discussion. Here is a toast to the resurrection of

natural

hierarchy!

 

 

 

ZEV: I think Chinese medicine is new and fresh. I experience that with my

 

family, patients, students, and colleagues each and every day. Thank

 

you, Lon, for a most inspiring discussion.

 

 

Lon: Potentially, everything is new and fresh. It just depends where we put

our awareness. History has its place. Yet there is a miraculous perspective

obtained when one wholly lets go of the past absolutely, even for a trillionth

of a trillionth of a second (the time quantum physics tells us it took 15

billion years ago for something to come forth from nothing). And thank you

Zev...interest and inspiration are the first cause.....Warm regards...Lon

 

Who built the Hubble telescope? Who is looking through it? What's being seen?