Guest guest Posted July 8, 2004 Report Share Posted July 8, 2004 Jason: I find this very funny for 2 reasons : 1) when i went to lonny's website there are a 3 quotes on the main page, I clicked on the main link... the top of the page starts out saying, " Clearly, for the author of China's oldest herbal text, the Shen Nong Ben Cao... " His quotes are from an ancient text and that is actually all that is on the 1st page -- http://www.spiritpathpress.com/index.html.. He clearly, also, has this infatuation. Lonny: Jason, I have stated clearly that " 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. " So I see no inconsistency here. I had studied Daoism since age 13 (1972). When I began my serious studies of CM (1980) I was bothered that none of my teachers had really the faintest idea of the historical basis, or even really the theoretical basis as grounded in the philosophical literature, regarding what they were teaching us on a technical level. This disturbed me because I had recognized the same failing in my teachers in grad. school when I was studying neuroscience. There was no understanding of the apriori assumptions that determined the inherent theoretical weaknesses and strengths of the science we were being taught (see the appendix of ND). I felt compelled to discover the foundations of what I was learning as they existed historically. I also thought it was imperative to give the tradition I was learning a sound theoretical basis because I knew there was a depth there that was wholly being missed. To my satisfaction I have accomplished this in my work. I have only ever used historical sources to support my experience of what CM is now in my own direct experience and clinical practice. I have never proported to say what CM *was* and I have only ever pointed toward what I can discern is its highest potential in supporting the evolution of human consciousness. I've taken historical sources that support what I do and ignored one's that don't. Again, I don't care what CM was. I respect the ancient tradition but, here and now, I'm leaving it behind to find out what is really new. " Let the dead bury their dead. " From a worldcentric, universecentric, or consciousnesscentric perspective the world we are living in is much bigger than the perennial traditions ever knew . The context which must inform the practice of CM in order for it to remain relevant is now much bigger than CM itself. Personally, I do not believe that CM inherently has the capacity to move forward on its own terms I a way that will keep it relevant. For 4000 years CM has survived by synthesizing what was new into itself (daoism, Confucianism, Buddhism, Marxism, hippies) now the context is just so large that CM will have to dissolve into it. This is why I emphasize moving forward by looking at what is true now. The mistake all science makes is thinking that it will eventually solve all problems with further study. In truth, the assumptions a medicine or science is based on set apriori its theoretical strengths and weaknesses. CM was formulated by forms of consciousness that, while still relevant to a degree, have been long surpassed in both complexity and integration. For example, integral/holistic, worldcentric consciousness has not been full realized by the medicine at all though that potential is fully available now. And, there is a big difference between having a theoretical understanding of those principles and living up to their ethical implications. Simply put, there is no way that the form of consciousness that wrote in the daodejing that 'you should live hearing the dogs barking of the people in the next town but never meet their owners' is going to be able to embrace a worldcentric perspective on a planet with 7 billion people on it. 2JASON: But, I would personally question any type of CM that does not have some reverence for the past. Lon: Again, I revere the past. Ok, let's move on. At best learning the Chinese language can contribute to the development of synthetic thought, at worst it can delude a person forever into mistaking information for wisdom or the past for the present, or the materialist delusion of present day China for what is compelling now. JASON: That is fine… But it seems that `most' worslyites call them selves `classical acupuncturists' and market themselves as having this ancient tradition, the secret knowledge from 2000 years ago… So maybe you don't adhere to this, many do… Lonny: Delusion is delusion. The phenomenon you refer to is one of " self image " and its just another case of people having an idea of who they are that's false. So, I agree with you and I'd suggest the level of delusion in TCM proper is no less-particularly as concerns the relevance of the past or the import of academic knowledge in general. For example, the National licensing exam is little more than a test of one's knowledge of medical anthropology as far as I can tell. 1. Lonny: If CM is going to be relevant to help > humanity face the *unique* challenges it faces today then its going to have change > from its animistic/Confucian-absolutist roots to accommodate 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). 2. Jason: Well this is true, I don't think that China would argue with this at all. Any one curious about the integration and development of CM in modern times just look at the 100's of Chinese journals and the research that is going on… 3. Lonny: The integration your talking about is happening at the level of materialist science. Its a paradigm that emerged in the West in the mid 1800's with the French enlightenment. The gravity of the culture still hasn't hit the 1960's. Can you find me an article in one of these journals that discusses the implications of CM and worldcentrism for each other? Can you find me an article in one of these journals on CM and the evolution of human consciousness or the liberation of the human spirit? How about using CM to awaken the dead soul of the materialist? I highly recommend a look at Sri Aurobindu's work. He wrote about 1917 to the late 1940's. Check out " The Problem of Rebirth " which you can find used for $12 on the NET. In it he discusses the highest implications of the discovery of evolution for humanity. Its interesting because he bridges the old traditions and blasts ahead into the future. He wrote a book called " The Ideal of Human Unity " in 1917 that fully predicted worldcentrism as the evolutionary stage that would be the only solution to humanity not becoming extinct. Jason: This is all we are saying… not that your 5e doesn't work… No one ever said this (I don't think…) Lon: Obviously, having spent over half my life trying to put this tradition on a firm theoretical footing i agree with you. I pointed my finger at the Worsleyites for this and I point it equally at TCM as well which generally derives from and supports a materialist orientation toward life by mistaking knowledge and thought for direct experience. Look at the reticence of the group moderator to allow a discussion of ego as he deems it not relevant in a medical context. Consider the irony: Many here were having a discussion of possession and what it " really " is. I wrote an entire chapter of my Clinical Practice book surveying historical sources and putting it in a modern clinical context. My conclusion was, and is, that possession is no less than *ego*. > I used to think that access to the Chinese language was imperative to > really grasp the mind that formulated the medicine. Jason: Medicine is about getting people better, if you want to take it to a spiritual place I think that is great, but that is not common in CM literature both modern and pre-modern. Lonny: Getting people better? What other place than spiritual is there to connect it to? The fact that enlightenment (the *ultimate* better) and physical healing are somehow distinct in your mind represents a great division that, at least for me, isn't present in the depth of CM. Your conclusion about CM literature discounts the entire depth and breadth of Chinese philosophic and spiritual literature which *is* the entire context of understanding the highest potential of CM. When the Nei Jing emphasizes in its opening passage the import of following the laws of yin and yang it takes those interested directly into the highest implications of what this means spiritually. THE ONLY TRUE MEDICINE IS CONSCIOUSNESS. JASON: That was me, and I stick by what I said… I will pick something more rooted, but that is just me. Lon: The conditioned mind seeks something always " rooted " in the past. " I dont want to change. " I don't know you and this conversation isn't taking place in real time so please, don't take this personally. But the mind likes to learn things and makes that equivalent to knowing them. I personally will always validate what's true in my own direct experience, now. And, as it turns out, there is only ONE human experience. So I question your use of the term " rooted. " You use it to validate a stance that historical precedent is important and provides security. This is the posture always of the conditioned mind. If only Sharon and Arafat could drop this position for one moment to embrace a new possibility. So let it be within ourselves. JASON: Could you elaborate on this, I am curious to see the classical examples of such concepts… No really… it is very intriguing to me… Where in the yijing does it mention the husband and wife imbalance. Or what did they call it? Lonny: I published an article on this about 1994 in the Am. J. Ac.. Its been greatly elaborated theoretically and historically in CH.7 of Nourishing Destiny and clinically in Ch. 4 of Clinical Practice. Please read Hexagram 23 and 24 and note their relationship. I like Cleary's, " Daoist Yijing " by Liu Yiming. > 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*. Jason: Agreed… that is why I respect modern Chinese research it is firmly placed on the back of 2000 years of study, and it is very clear to map the evolution. Even the wenbing developments that occurred a few 100 years ago, which was a major deviation from the past, was FIRMLY rooted on SHL theory. They paid great respect and developed the theory out of what they already understood… IT just makes more sense then try to create something totally new from scratch… Lon: Good. What I note is a lack of the willingness of many to look at what is really new now. The Chinese are integrating East and West at an evolutionary level that the West reached 150 years ago. The West is integrating CM at a level that we reached 40 years ago. All I'm saying is " What's true *now*? " And, I'm suggesting that something of potentially huge evolutionary proportions is taking place in human consciousness. It may occur to some of us that humanity and the biosphere is facing some very serious threats that are new. There is a surge in human consciousness that is equal in its wholesomeness to the disintegration that we see occurring around us. I'm saying that the next step in human evolution, the step that's available right now, is beyond the self and into the realms of what the traditions called " enlightenment " . This jump was anticipated by leading thinkers such as Aurobindu (1917), Burke (1890?) (he wrote a book called " Cosmic Consciousness " in the late 1800's describing enlightenment as an evolutionary step that, eventually, humanity would face as a whole. From an absolute perspective, history is the very root of the most crucial problems that face us today. Freedom, has no history. Jason: Yes I agree, but a) shrinks have helped people, b) more importantly there are many modern body-mind therapists that are extremely qualified to help with such issues. And I am sure Ken Wilber living here in boulder would agree with this. Lon: The highest potential of CM obsoletes talk therapy. Yes, there are healers who work in all paradigms including the ER. But psychoanalysis, perse, is dead. So is the " unconditional love, accept the worst part of yourself, build self esteem " newage therapy that the egalitarians have foisted on the public for the last 30 years. From my perspective, real healing is a martial art.......and no less. And, let face it, we as practitioners and our patients (for the most part) are the luckiest most fortunate .5% of all people alive on the planet. Only extreme narcissism could lead us to suspect that we are the ones that need healing in the first place. I appreciate the conversation......Warm regards, Lon Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 9, 2004 Report Share Posted July 9, 2004 Lon, Thanx for the thorough and thoughtful responses. I look forward to our paths meeting someday in person for further dialogue, I will contemplate this is the meantime... - Chinese Medicine , Spiritpathpress@a... wrote: 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.