A note to Lonny WAS The end of process oriented healing.

[Guest guest]

Lonny, in the spirit of your formula of 51% truth or whatever / 49% compassion,

and in the face of the admitted unfolding of as well as human

self-awareness, I offer these thoughts.

You don't come off to me as over-the-top, however, you do come off as

incomplete and missing something...top-heavy, in fact. In any case, most of what

you say is straight out of various " transformative " practices, including CM /

Daoism, so there's nothing revolutionary there. I understand that perhaps what

makes you different is that leading edge of consciousness claim. But what makes

me wonder is where it is you are placing yourself - in the late 1800's

Baha'u'llah made a number of claims, that he was the new messiah, that he had a

direct connection with the one true god and that all religions were part of a,

what did he call it, something like an unfolding revelation, with each

successive revelation being deeper and " truer " . Do you have any connection or

interest in a fully religious " revelation " ? Your story doesn't seem exactly

religious, it seems very individualistic, the individual's destiny and all + a

very cerebral flavour of " consciousness " , not

" submitting " but rather " directing " , but I still wonder. I have not read any of

your books, just some articles. Are you a messiah?

If so, then this is a different story altogether.

If not, then how do you deal with the problem of " people " who do claim to be

messiahs, claim to have a direct connection with the " ultimate consciousness " +

set huge things in motion? i.e. they're way above you. Or do you, in turn, place

yourself above messiahs?

I'm just trying to get a grip on what you are presenting yourself as.

Some points/questions:

 

---(Lonny)

If we are talking about the authentic practice of a truly spiritually

based medicine we are talking about liberating a force in human beings

that will tear their life, as they know it presently, to pieces. There

is no school of Chinese medicine on the planet that gets anywhere near

imparting the skills to practitioners to get anywhere near this level

of integrity in practice.

---

 

I seem to get this intense flavour of youthful exuberance from your writing. A

real get-down-and-dirty let's-get-this-job-done sort of mentality (the sort of

mentality where we sometimes end up going " too far " ). In your practice do you

have the other side, the non-interference that has been held in such high esteem

by so many (supposedly) wise people? It is said that only people who can see a

person's karma clearly " should " interfere in matters of life and death (or at

all, according to some). Are you one of those, Lonny? I hear it's quite a

pinnacle.

I also wonder what sort of proof you can offer that no CM provides this sort of

" liberating force " ? My understanding was that the daoist, buddhist etc recluses

were specifically in this business, though of course, not necessarily with your

flavour...

I really wonder about your claim because, as I understood it, so long as the

teacher themselves has much in the manner of material things, intellectual

suppositions, physical attachments (like a wife and family), the truth cannot be

apprehended or communicated. That's why they were recluses, you see.

Is there something substantially different that sets you apart from them? You

can claim lack of superstition, but how do we know? You can claim knowledge and

information, you certainly have that... but I wonder what would happen in the

fiendishly " interesting " situation of a crucifixion of Lonny Jarrett, the " trial

by fire " - would you be more like Christ, or more like the enlightened

protagonist in Stranger in a Strange Land? Would you actually be able to show

your in-the-momentness, my-authentic-self-has-not-been-harmedness by calmly (and

authentically) speaking " I love you " as your limbs get blown off by shotguns?

Because _that is the qualification_.

 

As far as superstition...well I don't see modern people as being any less

superstitious than " ancient " peoples, the core remains intact...might have to

cut out the brain stem to get rid of that, you know? There is, however, a

certain knowledge possessed by people nowadays which can give us the veneer of

sophistication so long as our ego feels powerful... but when we stick a modern

human (say an engineer) in the oven of naked exposure and turn the heat on, it

doesn't take long for the veneer to burn off and all the superstitious jabbering

to begin as the person begins to have fear for their life and their attachments.

I don't find great swathes of your arguments compelling, and I am really curious

as to how you will respond to this post!

 

---(Lonny)

No. The core value system of Daoism arose in a pre-modern

superstitious culture.

---

 

In fact, I feel somewhat burned, knowing that you come from a science

background, and that you don't seem to realise that science has been in a

constant osmotic contact with religion for hundreds of years...and yet you seem

to be believe that after (and even in the midst) of such contact, science just

kind of did a shimmy, and shook off everything that happened as if it was never

involved? Religion, that great bastion of superstition (I mean, Mr White-robed

pie-in-the-sky, for god's sake) left no impression on science? I know that when

two people fight physically, they share- and absorb-alike sweat, blood, saliva,

air - it's communication and interpenetration at a deep level. They become

eachother - one doesn't leave that encounter one's own self anymore. That's why

many superstitious PRIMITIVES ate their opponents' hearts after defeating them.

Not only did they know something that modern science is only beginning to admit

(organs hold human information

and power), but they understood that their opponent became them, gave them

something, in the moments of contact.

 

In the past ten years there has been (finally) a surge of understanding

regarding the fundamental THEOLOGICAL assumptions (beliefs, actually) that

science makes. The beliefs that form the foundation upon which the engine of the

scientific method runs. You can't have contact without change.

 

Superstition is defined as beliefs which are not based on reason or knowledge.

Well, considering that the different schools of reason often find reason to find

each other unreasonable, and that we clearly base many beliefs on predictions,

projections and extrapolations rather than actual knowledge, we remain highly

superstitious. An example being the outright rejection of the concept of destiny

(beyond a deterministic interpretation of it) by the scientific profession (what

I will include in " materialist culture " ). Or the outright rejection that

acupuncture could _possibly_ do anything back in the 70s. It should have been

about following the data, but it seldom is. Or the belief that someone is at the

leading edge of consciousness - what proof do we have? In fact, the very

assertion that science remains scientific in the face of constant contact with

religion and the human mind is superstitious, having little to no reasoning

behind it, and proof after

proof stacked against it. Not to mention reasoning. More modern superstition?

Racism, sexism, classism, existential angst etc etc, money before science,

anyone? ...all these prevalent beliefs which have no foundation in either reason

or knowledge.

 

In the end, what is the difference between superstitiousness and the ego

holding on to outmoded beliefs? Modern man remains deeply superstitious. It's

just a different flavour right now.

 

---(lonny)

As significant as the teaching was, it now no

longer goes far enough.

---

 

Did you ever consider that part of the teaching is _not_ to go " far enough " ?

Even if it was true that your teaching " goes farther " .

 

Again, I really am having a hard time placing you according to your stated

position. Throughout your writings (again, that I've read) you reference these

daoist ideas (DESTINY!!!) and you even use Chinese characters...I mean, no doubt

you are a legitimate branch of CM, but this newness thing gets to me. I'm a

different branch I'm a different branch!! I mean, can you imagine a new branch

at the top of the tree screaming I'm the highest!!! And even if the new branch

puts down its own roots, it's STILL going to have to be the ground of

enlightenment the roots go into. So what's new? Nothing. But maybe there is

something new, and again, that's why I spent so much of this post asking if you

were a messiah or enlightened.

 

Obviously you've got a job to do...it just seems so fixated...but I guess

that's par for the course with a wood transformational activity. Iconoclazzing

the iconoclasts....it's total wood, if you know what I mean. Par for the course,

again. Sometimes I get the feeling you want to drag us all along with you man,

but sometimes the subtle resonance of dropping out of the cycle is what's needed

to shift the " akashic / morphic field " , and not so much the messianic message

that HEALTHCARE HAS CHANGED ON THIS DATE!!! At least you didn't give a date in

the future.

You're noisy, just like me. Mr Provocative. Anyway, these are just thoughts

Lonny, I mean you've got the books and whatever. I wrote a booklet once.

Forgive the stream of consciousness format, I know it must suck.

 

Hugo

 

 

________

Sent from Mail.

A Smarter Email http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hugo: I understand that perhaps what

makes you different is that leading edge of consciousness claim.

 

 

Lonny: Everything is in that. The realization of the implications

aren't trivial. The ideas aren't mine and full credit goes to

Tielhard, Aurobindu, Wilber, Cohen and many others. I'm just

discussing the implications in the realm of a medicine that is based

on a circular time world view when, in fact, it has been revealed that

time isn't circular it's developmental.

 

 

Hugo: Do you have any connection or

interest in a fully religious " revelation " ?

 

 

Lonny: I can't really relate to the religions. I'm certainly

interested in Truth and I do experience a primary spiritual dimension

in that.

 

Hugo: Your story doesn't seem exactly

religious, it seems very individualistic, the individual's destiny and

all + a

very cerebral flavour of " consciousness " , not

" submitting " but rather " directing " , but I still wonder.

 

 

Lonny: Actually, Nourishing Destiny ended declaring that destiny

wasn't " personal " . Can you quote me specifically what sounded

" individualistic " in my posts? Thank you.

 

 

Hugo: Are you a messiah?

 

 

Lonny: I'm someone who was a seeker who isn't anymore and I'm

discussing my experience and insights with the intention of helping a

medicine to evolve that I believe has a great potential to help

humanity. Destiny (ming) and enlightenment (ming) are one and the

same. The highest purpose of medicine is ming. I'm working with all my

heart and soul to live up to and realize that goal.

 

 

 

Hugo: If not, then how do you deal with the problem of " people " who do

claim to be

messiahs, claim to have a direct connection with the " ultimate

consciousness " +

set huge things in motion? i.e. they're way above you.

 

 

 

Lonny: Personally, I spent my whole adult life sitting with such

people and subjecting them to scrutiny. Eventually, I found such a

person who has proven himself to me, beyond question, and I have taken

him as my teacher. I live in close proximity to him, am intimately

involved with " his " community, and have a direct relationship with

him, recently having been admitted to his inner core of students.

 

 

Hugo: Or do you, in turn, place

yourself above messiahs?

 

 

Lonny: No. I face into the absolute demand of something much bigger

than myself and I recognize that there is no separation between " it "

and " me " and I strive, in the face of near infinite resistance, to

live up to my recognition that " I " am " it " and the choices I make are

the sole path " it " has to actually manifest in creation.

 

 

Hugo:I'm just trying to get a grip on what you are presenting yourself as.

 

 

Lonny: Fair enough. I'm a bright Jewish guy who has seen far in excess

of what he's actually living up to, and can articulate his experience

well, who is striving to live up to what he's experiencing. I'm also a

practitioner of CM whose done about 55,000 clinical sessions, paid a

lot of attention, and has given his life to the pursuit of knowledge

of medicine for 35 years.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Some points/questions:

 

---(Lonny)

If we are talking about the authentic practice of a truly spiritually

based medicine we are talking about liberating a force in human beings

that will tear their life, as they know it presently, to pieces. There

is no school of Chinese medicine on the planet that gets anywhere near

imparting the skills to practitioners to get anywhere near this level

of integrity in practice.

---

 

Hugo: I seem to get this intense flavour of youthful exuberance from

your writing.

 

Lonny: I'm not cynical.

 

 

Hugo: A

real get-down-and-dirty let's-get-this-job-done sort of mentality (the

sort of

mentality where we sometimes end up going " too far " ).

 

 

Lonny: What would " too far " be?

 

 

 

Hugo:In your practice do you

have the other side, the non-interference that has been held in such

high esteem

by so many (supposedly) wise people? It is said that only people who

can see a

person's karma clearly " should " interfere in matters of life and death

(or at

all, according to some).

 

 

Lonny: TO the degree someone extends their hand I take them as far as

I am able and if they withdraw their hand I leave them alone.

 

 

 

 

Hugo: I also wonder what sort of proof you can offer that no CM

provides this sort of

" liberating force " ?

 

 

Lonny: I've published about 1700 pages on the topic and travel the

world teaching. Draw your own conclusions. I have emphasized that, in

and of itself, CM can only provide experiences and it is the stand,

and wisdom, of the practitioner that contextualizes those experiences

in a way that can lead to meaningful development. Of course, the

patient has to want to be well.

 

The highest purpose of medicine is the fulfillment of destiny. Destiny

is synonymous with enlightenment. Health is synonymous with Sanity

and this means seeing things as they are.

 

 

 

Hugo: I really wonder about your claim because, as I understood it, so

long as the

teacher themselves has much in the manner of material things, intellectual

suppositions, physical attachments (like a wife and family), the truth

cannot be

apprehended or communicated.

 

 

Lonny: What claim? That absolute healing of the heart and mind is

possible for a large majority of those at a world-centric level of

development, right now? And that these people are being failed by the

" infinite emotional process " orientation of newage medicine? What

other claim did I make prior to this post that you doubt?

 

I find the notion that one can't perceive and live up to ultimate

truth if one owns anything, or has a family, to be an outdated

superstition in the time and world we are living. In fact, its

cynical. I will point out that Ramana Maharshi was absolutely clear

that these were not liabilities in this regard. Any attachment that we

value more than truth will compromise the attainment of truth. But

there is a difference between living in the presence of something and

being attached in a way that leads to compromise. I'd go so far as to

say that it takes more, and its a higher attainment, to realize and

live up to truth " in the world " than to retreat from the world and

dwell alone in emptiness away from meaningful engagement-all at a time

when everyone is desperately needed to act and make a difference.

 

 

 

Hugo: Is there something substantially different that sets you apart

from them?

 

Lonny: Yes. I live in a world with nearly 7 billion people in it. I

have two graduate degrees. Evolution has been discovered. I've seen

pictures from the hubble telescope. And I know that women don't have

sex with ghosts and give birth to foxes which both Sun Si Miao and Li

Zhi Shen were much less clear about.

 

 

 

Hugo: You

can claim lack of superstition, but how do we know? You can claim

knowledge and

information, you certainly have that... but I wonder what would happen

in the

fiendishly " interesting " situation of a crucifixion of Lonny Jarrett,

the " trial

by fire " - would you be more like Christ, or more like the enlightened

protagonist in Stranger in a Strange Land?

 

 

Lonny: I cant say. I have made it this far with your post though so I

can imagine what Christ went through.

 

)

 

 

 

Hugo:Would you actually be able to show

your in-the-momentness, my-authentic-self-has-not-been-harmedness by

calmly (and

authentically) speaking " I love you " as your limbs get blown off by

shotguns?

Because _that is the qualification_.

 

 

 

 

Lonny: You've lost me. I have met Buddhists who say the true mark of

enlightenment is that they could hacksaw your leg off and you'ld feel

no pain. I'd say that's superstition akin to virgin birth. Frankly, I

think your last sentence is nuts. If you came to crucify me, out of

respect for dignity, integrity, and all that is upright, I'd take you

out in the blink of an eye and sleep well that night. And no, I

wouldn't love you.

 

 

 

 

Hugo: As far as superstition...well I don't see modern people as being

any less

superstitious than " ancient " peoples.

 

 

 

Lonny: Not my experience. Though I will say that I find many people to

be far more superstitious than they believe themselves to be.

 

 

Hugo: the core remains intact...might have to

cut out the brain stem to get rid of that, you know?

 

Lonny: Not my experience and I find what you are saying is cynical.

 

 

 

 

 

Hugo: There is, however, a

certain knowledge possessed by people nowadays which can give us the

veneer of

sophistication so long as our ego feels powerful... but when we stick

a modern

human (say an engineer) in the oven of naked exposure and turn the

heat on, it

doesn't take long for the veneer to burn off and all the superstitious

jabbering

to begin as the person begins to have fear for their life and their

attachments.

 

 

Lonny: I agree. But if your idea of " sticking a modern

human (say an engineer) in the oven of naked exposure and turning the

heat on " is " blowing their legs off with a shot gun and having them

tell you they love you in a calm voice " then I'd say that might not be

the best litmus test of true spiritual integrity.

 

)

 

 

 

Hugo:I don't find great swathes of your arguments compelling, and I am

really curious

as to how you will respond to this post!

 

 

 

Lonny: By now you should have a good idea.

 

 

 

 

 

---(Lonny)

No. The core value system of Daoism arose in a pre-modern

superstitious culture.

---

 

Hugo: In fact, I feel somewhat burned, knowing that you come from a

science

background, and that you don't seem to realise that science has been in a

constant osmotic contact with religion for hundreds of years...and yet

you seem

to be believe that after (and even in the midst) of such contact,

science just

kind of did a shimmy, and shook off everything that happened as if it

was never

involved? Religion, that great bastion of superstition (I mean, Mr

White-robed

pie-in-the-sky, for god's sake) left no impression on science? I know

that when

two people fight physically, they share- and absorb-alike sweat,

blood, saliva,

air - it's communication and interpenetration at a deep level. They become

eachother - one doesn't leave that encounter one's own self anymore.

That's why

many superstitious PRIMITIVES ate their opponents' hearts after

defeating them.

 

 

Lonny: Hugo, when you talk this way it doesn't help your point.

Clinically, at this point, I'd be giving you large doses you gypsum.

 

)

 

 

 

 

Hugo: Not only did they know something that modern science is only

beginning to admit

(organs hold human information

and power), but they understood that their opponent became them, gave them

something, in the moments of contact.

 

 

 

Lonny: I'm lost. Succinctly what was the point?

 

 

 

Hugo: In the past ten years there has been (finally) a surge of

understanding

regarding the fundamental THEOLOGICAL assumptions (beliefs, actually) that

science makes. The beliefs that form the foundation upon which the

engine of the

scientific method runs. You can't have contact without change.

 

Lonny: Fine. I'm not against religion or science. I'm interested in

truth. Some science has revealed flaws in religion. Some religion has

revealed flaws in science. I've always been more interested in the

point both meet.....evolutionary theism perhaps.

 

 

Hugo: Or the belief that someone is at the

leading edge of consciousness - what proof do we have?

 

 

 

Lonny: I didn't say " I " was at the leading edge of consciousness. I

said humans were. Of course this is just a potential depending on

where we put our attention.

Again, I stopped following you about 8 paragraphs ago.

 

 

 

Hugo: In the end, what is the difference between superstitiousness and

the ego

holding on to outmoded beliefs?

 

 

 

lonny: None.

 

 

Hugo: Modern man remains deeply superstitious. It's

just a different flavour right now.

 

Lonny: Not all of us.

 

---(lonny)

As significant as the teaching was, it now no

longer goes far enough.

---

 

Hugo: Did you ever consider that part of the teaching is _not_ to go

" far enough " ?

Even if it was true that your teaching " goes farther " .

 

Lonny: Well, far enough in this sense means " all the way " in the sense

of the Chinese character we translate as " upright " - zheng-to go fully

from one shore to another without stopping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hugo: Again, I really am having a hard time placing you according to

your stated

position.

 

 

Lonny: I have taken your questions and respectfully tried to answer

them. Please forgive the comment regarding gypsum. But this is a TCM

newsgroup and I was being honest.

 

 

 

 

 

Hugo: Throughout your writings (again, that I've read) you reference these

daoist ideas (DESTINY!!!) and you even use Chinese characters...I

mean, no doubt

you are a legitimate branch of CM, but this newness thing gets to me.

 

Lonny: I've never thought of being a branch. But thank you. Well,

honestly, the newness gets me too. But if we totally let go of

cynicism we may discover that god (yes god) is ONLY interested in what

is new. And I sense that the thing that " gets you " is probably wholly

positive because you've obviously had a huge outpouring here and while

the delivery varies I suspect that there is sincere seeking behind it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hugo: I'm a

different branch I'm a different branch!! I mean, can you imagine a

new branch

at the top of the tree screaming I'm the highest!!!

 

 

Lonny: Yes, and I would give it gypsum.

 

)

 

Again, I stated that humans are vehicles for the evolution of

consciousness, the motivating force of the universe, at its leading

edge. Do you disagree with me?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hugo: And even if the new branch

puts down its own roots, it's STILL going to have to be the ground of

enlightenment the roots go into. So what's new? Nothing.

 

 

 

Lonny: Actually, it depends on what you consider the ground of

enlightenment to be! The pre-modern Eastern traditions all considered

enlightenment to be the possession of an individual, the " enlightened

one " who awoke to the unborn. I'd say that realizing the unborn is an

important foundation. But that now, with 7 billion of us, there are

enough vehicles (like enough nerve cells to sustain self reflective

thought previously) that consciousness has reached a critical mass

and..........enlightenment is now a collective movement in those who

awaken to the evolutionary impulse as SELF. I'd say that's different.

 

 

 

Hugo: But maybe there is

something new, and again, that's why I spent so much of this post

asking if you

were a messiah or enlightened.

 

Lonny: What is enlightenment? I'd see it as an endless process of

awakening. I'd see the notion of an individual having a " final

enlightenment " as a pre-modern superstition. When all matter in the

universe is fully aware of truth that could be an imaginable end

state. but I suspect at that moment there might be a big bang and god

would again forget having been elevated for his/her/its hard work for

the last 100 trillion eons.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Hugo: Obviously you've got a job to do...it just seems so

fixated...but I guess

that's par for the course with a wood transformational activity.

 

Lonny: I'd say we all do. And, please, do not write off my passion to

me being " a wood type " because it is disrepectfull to the impersonal

force that animates such striving.

 

 

 

 

Hugo: HEALTHCARE HAS CHANGED ON THIS DATE!!!

 

 

 

Lonny: Powerful to make a declaration, huh!? I put it into the

noosphere and NO ONE can take it back. You can feel the heaviness

lifting all ready. When " sensitive self, emotionally based, process

oriented, humanist healing " is buried I will dance on its grave.

 

 

 

 

Hugo: At least you didn't give a date in

the future.

You're noisy, just like me. Mr Provocative. Anyway, these are just

thoughts

Lonny, I mean you've got the books and whatever. I wrote a booklet once.

Forgive the stream of consciousness format, I know it must suck.

 

Lonny: Thank you, my brother, for taking the serious things seriously.

[Guest guest]

Hey Lonny and All;

Again, a great portion of what you say doesn't ring any new bells, so I guess

you can take some of that as a form of agreement (and even support!!!).

 

---(Lonny)

on a circular time world view when, in fact, it has been revealed that

time isn't circular it's developmental.

---

 

I was taught that everything is in a process of growth and unfolding

( " development " ), and that the circular aspect of it comes into play in a

fragmentary sense when individuals and societies hold on to the old in order to

avoid change.

I have never received the teaching about time being circular or medicine being

circular.

 

---(Lonny)

Actually, Nourishing Destiny ended declaring that destiny

wasn't " personal " . Can you quote me specifically what sounded

" individualistic " in my posts? Thank you.

---

 

The main part regards your use of the word " directing " . It seems too cerebral,

to me.

 

---(Lonny)

 

No. I face into the absolute demand of something much bigger

than myself and I recognize that there is no separation between " it "

and " me " and I strive, in the face of near infinite resistance, to

live up to my recognition that " I " am " it " and the choices I make are

the sole path " it " has to actually manifest in creation.

---

 

Ok. And it's Your near-infinite resistance, is it?

 

---(Lonny)

What would " too far " be?

---

 

Oh how the heck would I know? I'm asking you.

 

---(Lonny)

 

I've published about 1700 pages on the topic and travel the

world teaching. Draw your own conclusions. I have emphasized that, in

and of itself, CM can only provide experiences and it is the stand,

and wisdom, of the practitioner that contextualizes those experiences

in a way that can lead to meaningful development. Of course, the

patient has to want to be well.

---

 

Ok. In the interest of both our good, I must state that simply publishing and

simply teaching are by themselves no measure of anything. Stating both of those

things does nothing insofar as answering my question regarding proof of CM not

providing a liberating force. Of course the living practitioner is the defining

aspect of what gets _done_. But where is the PROOF that CM does not provide this

foundation, or that no school of CM teaches this? Are we having a

misunderstanding due to my definition of school meaning living breathing

embodiments of CM, while you are referring to schools as dead written material,

or theories separated from their activating principle?

 

---(Lonny)

 

What claim? That absolute healing of the heart and mind is

possible for a large majority of those at a world-centric level of

development, right now? And that these people are being failed by the

" infinite emotional process " orientation of newage medicine? What

other claim did I make prior to this post that you doubt?

---

 

The claim that you are bringing something so new and mind-blowing to CM that, I

don't know, no one else is teaching it.

 

And to state my position clearly, I don't buy into the idea of " infinite

emotional process " ...although obviously I have no enlightenment or freedom to

claim in that regard, so I do buy into it in that sense. But I don't like it!!

 

The claim you state above seems fine.

 

---(Lonny)

I find the notion that one can't perceive and live up to ultimate

truth if one owns anything, or has a family, to be an outdated

superstition in the time and world we are living. In fact, its

cynical. I will point out that Ramana Maharshi was absolutely clear

that these were not liabilities in this regard. Any attachment that we

value more than truth will compromise the attainment of truth.

---

 

God, are you just stripping all of this out of the old teachings? Nothing is a

liability, but our attachments can be, in the manner that you suggest. I might

have been clearer, but this is all standard stuff. I don't believe I was cynical

in my motivation, but I'll consider that.

 

You like the word superstition, don't you.

 

---(Lonny)

But

there is a difference between living in the presence of something and

being attached in a way that leads to compromise. I'd go so far as to

say that it takes more, and its a higher attainment, to realize and

live up to truth " in the world " than to retreat from the world and

dwell alone in emptiness away from meaningful engagement-all at a time

when everyone is desperately needed to act and make a difference.

---

 

Again, all venerable wisdoms. What is it that you feel creates the desperate

need, Lonny?

 

---(Lonny)

Yes. I live in a world with nearly 7 billion people in it. I

have two graduate degrees.

---

 

I don't find this particularly impressive, perhaps because I was born in such a

world. Just goes to show you how people value things so differently. I was

sitting on the subway today imagining how overwhelmed one of the old doctors

would be by the tremendous vehicle I was in.

 

Although that might partly be my stereotype. I had a chance to meet a rural

" indigene " in south america a while back, and I was talking to him about a new

technology, and he said to me, his eyes livid, " and what new idiocy is that? "

But knowledge does help one to lose a type of naivete, certainly.

 

---(Lonny)

Evolution has been discovered.

---

 

You are not familiar with the daoist theory of evolution?

 

---(Lonny)

And I know that women don't have

sex with ghosts and give birth to foxes which both Sun Si Miao and Li

Zhi Shen were much less clear about.

---

 

This would be more to the point. I am interested in anomalous experiences,

having had some of my own...and I wonder how they fit into the schema of

superstition (ghosts, I was thinking).

 

Isn't thinking that the mind doesn't affect the body a particularly stupid type

of superstition, so long as we're on the topic?

 

---(Lonny)

You've lost me. I have met Buddhists who say the true mark of

enlightenment is that they could hacksaw your leg off and you'd feel

no pain. I'd say that's superstition akin to virgin birth.

---

 

Now this is interesting...how is it superstition? Because it is not possible,

or because that sort of skill does not indicate enlightenment? I'd be very

gratified if you would wrangle with me on this point above most others in this

post!

 

---(Lonny)

Frankly, I

think your last sentence is nuts. If you came to crucify me, out of

respect for dignity, integrity, and all that is upright, I'd take you

out in the blink of an eye and sleep well that night.

---

 

That sits right with me, but still incomplete. I mean, all my provocation

aside, I don't mean to say that I expect you to be at that level. Some would say

though that to sleep well after someone comes to crucify you indicates a

blindness to seeds that have been sown.

 

---(Lonny)

And no, I wouldn't love you.

---

 

Interesting.

 

 

---(Hugo)

As far as superstition. ..well I don't see modern people as being any less

superstitious than " ancient " peoples.

---(Lonny)

Not my experience.

---

 

Ok. Do you think it might be what you bring to the table?

 

Did your two degrees not make an indelible mark on your mind? Or did you find a

way to surpass the indelibility of it all?

 

---(Lonny)

Though I will say that I find many people to

be far more superstitious than they believe themselves to be.

---

 

I agree.

 

 

 

---(Hugo)

the (superstitious) core remains intact...might have to

cut out the brain stem to get rid of that, you know?

---(Lonny)

Not my experience and I find what you are saying is cynical.

---

 

Well, I find you have a disparaging attitude towards our ancestors, whom I

don't find to be very different from us, fundamentally. I wonder if you will

gratefully accept the same disparagement from your descendants, after all the

heart you've put out to get them where they are. I actually find /you/ a

little...well, I'm not sure if it is cynicism, but maybe you get my meaning now.

I am simply stating that human beings have certain very deep programs running,

and one of them is to seek explanations - it's a process of curiosity, an

impulse to become self-aware that can become pathological if a child does not

grow up " evenly " , leading to stagnant, superstitious thinking. I do fail to see

the cynicism in that. It is merely one of our challenges as human beings.

 

---(Lonny) I agree. But if your idea of " sticking a modern

human (say an engineer) in the oven of naked exposure and turning the

heat on " is " blowing their legs off with a shot gun and having them

tell you they love you in a calm voice " then I'd say that might not be

the best litmus test of true spiritual integrity.

---

 

Ok. So what is a good litmus test to make sure that we're on the right track

with this very subtle and immensely challenging thing we call spiritual

enlightenment, or " seeing reality " , as you put it?

 

 

 

 

---(Lonny)

Hugo, when you talk this way it doesn't help your point.

---

 

It may not help my point with YOU. I'll take it under advisement though. These

issues are difficult for me to express.

 

 

---(Lonny) Fine. I'm not against religion or science. I'm interested in

truth. Some science has revealed flaws in religion. Some religion has

revealed flaws in science. I've always been more interested in the

point both meet.....evolutiona ry theism perhaps.

---

 

Sounds good.

 

---(Lonny)

Again, I stopped following you about 8 paragraphs ago.

---

 

Did I wear you out, or were you genuinely not able to understand me?

 

---

Hugo: In the end, what is the difference between superstitiousness and

the ego holding on to outmoded beliefs?

lonny: None.

---

 

Glad we're abreast on that one.

 

---

Hugo: Modern man remains deeply superstitious. It's

just a different flavour right now.

Lonny: Not all of us.

---

 

I was reacting to your implication that modern man is so far less superstitious

than the ancients that he is nearly a different animal.

 

---(Lonny)

Lonny: Well, far enough in this sense means " all the way " in the sense

of the Chinese character we translate as " upright " - zheng-to go fully

from one shore to another without stopping.

---

 

Again - what's new?? I don't get it!

 

---(Lonny)

I have taken your questions and respectfully tried to answer

them. Please forgive the comment regarding gypsum. But this is a TCM

newsgroup and I was being honest.

---

 

It's ok, I didn't notice.

 

---(Lonny)

 

I've never thought of being a branch. But thank you. Well,

honestly, the newness gets me too. But if we totally let go of

cynicism we may discover that god (yes god) is ONLY interested in what

is new.

---

 

The unceasingly changing Dragon. yes, I know. But again, what is new, beyond

the interminable newness that has been referenced throughout history by healthy

people and demonstrated every millisecond by our permeating reality??

I guess it's the spiral versus the circle. But I was taught differently! I have

a lineage CM teaching, I was taught that the closed circle is a tenuously

existing construct for those who don't want to move on. Those who can or will,

move differently, and yes, some of us in a " spiral " .

 

---(Lonny)

And I sense that the thing that " gets you " is probably wholly

positive because you've obviously had a huge outpouring here and while

the delivery varies I suspect that there is sincere seeking behind it.

---

 

?? Respectfully, I was trying to come to you with a somewhat empty cup, but

there's no outpouring...I feel that you are patronising me by giving me " credit "

in terms of my sincerity of seeking...strange.

 

---

Hugo: I'm a

different branch I'm a different branch!! I mean, can you imagine a

new branch

at the top of the tree screaming I'm the highest!!!

 

Lonny: Yes, and I would give it gypsum.

 

)

---

 

lol. And how much will you give yourself?

 

---(Lonny)

Again, I stated that humans are vehicles for the evolution of

consciousness, the motivating force of the universe, at its leading

edge. Do you disagree with me?

---

 

Actually no. Well, I don't know about the universe, but clearly on this planet

yes, we do seem to be that.

 

And if you're implying that humans are the leading edge of the consciousness of

the universe, then I would say it would be superstitious to talk in that way at

this point.

 

---(Lonny)

important foundation. But that now, with 7 billion of us, there are

enough vehicles (like enough nerve cells to sustain self reflective

thought previously) that consciousness has reached a critical mass

and......... .enlightenment is now a collective movement in those who

awaken to the evolutionary impulse as SELF. I'd say that's different.

---

 

I've thought of similar things. I don't get a sense of any fundamental change

in the game, although it certainly becomes much more challenging and dangerous

at this stage. The wielding of nuclear weapons, gen tech and so on requires a

greater number of people to be " awake " or waking than in previous times. The

world was safer in some important ways. How to live, heart-connected, in a big

planetary community is certainly the major challenge facing us right now.

 

---(Lonny)

I'd see the notion of an individual having a " final

enlightenment " as a pre-modern superstition.

---

 

Neither the Buddha, nor LaoTzi, said anything was final, well except that

everything has an end. Damn.

But, they were all about change and the dissolution of what was worked for

without will powering it.

I was clearly taught that if you don't use it, you lose it. How did I give you

the impression that I thought enlightenment was final? I don't recall ever

saying that. I simply asked you if you were enlightened. Any non-naive

" meditator " would know all the above and take it as par for the course. Only

naive meditators who have not gone through any rigour would have the idea that

after you get enlightened, you kind of relax back into the sloth you were

(impossible! the two don't mix!!) and I don't know, go back to pleasing one's

fragment-self.

 

 

---(Lonny)

Lonny: What is enlightenment? I'd see it as an endless process of

awakening. When all matter in the

universe is fully aware of truth that could be an imaginable end

state. but I suspect at that moment there might be a big bang and god

would again forget having been elevated for his/her/its hard work for

the last 100 trillion eons.

---

 

Where's the spiral there, Mr.Know-it-all??

 

---(Lonny)

Lonny: I'd say we all do. And, please, do not write off my passion to

me being " a wood type " because it is disrepectfull to the impersonal

force that animates such striving.

---

 

Could be, could be! But what if I am simply not giving /you/ the credit, but

merely referencing the impersonal force that animates your striving?? I'll think

about that, I may not be very clear on that.

 

---(Lonny)

Powerful to make a declaration, huh!? I put it into the

noosphere and NO ONE can take it back. You can feel the heaviness

lifting all ready. When " sensitive self, emotionally based, process

oriented, humanist healing " is buried I will dance on its grave.

---

 

Yah, yah, declarations do have their uses! btw, while you're dancing I'll be

way ahead of you.

 

---(Lonny)

Thank you, my brother, for taking the serious things seriously.

---

 

Well, thank you for your time, I can't imagine you have a lot of it. I doubt I

am as serious as I might need to be.

What's interesting is I saw your panties today!

 

Hugo

 

 

________

Sent from Mail.

A Smarter Email http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html

 

 

[Guest guest]

>

> ---(Lonny)

> Evolution has been discovered.

> ---

>

> You are not familiar with the daoist theory of evolution?

 

 

 

Lonny: No. I'm not. Daoists talked only of " transformation " HWA.

Evolution wasn't discovered until about 1860. The Chinese words for it

convey the movement of water (ocean...rain...ocean...... rain: A cycle)

 

 

 

 

> ---(Lonny)

> You've lost me. I have met Buddhists who say the true mark of

> enlightenment is that they could hacksaw your leg off and you'd feel

> no pain. I'd say that's superstition akin to virgin birth.

> ---

>

> Now this is interesting...how is it superstition? Because it is not

possible, or because that sort of skill does not indicate

enlightenment? I'd be very gratified if you would wrangle with me on

this point above most others in this post!

>

 

Lonny: The " skill " would be trivial and the idea that that a human in

a body wouldn't feel pain is nonsense.

 

 

 

 

 

> ---

 

 

 

 

 

 

>

>

> ---

>

> Actually no. Well, I don't know about the universe, but clearly on

this planet yes, we do seem to be that.

>

> And if you're implying that humans are the leading edge of the

consciousness of the universe, then I would say it would be

superstitious to talk in that way at this point.

 

 

 

Lonny: Really? Would you please share your evidence?

 

 

 

>

> ---

>

> Where's the spiral there, Mr.Know-it-all??

 

 

 

 

 

Lonny: any non-naive student of evolution would understand the

implication that each round of incarnation elevates the process.

>

>

>

> What's interesting is I saw your panties today!

>

>

Lonny: Double the dose of gypsum and call me in the morning. Add some

dragon bones.

 

)

[Guest guest]

Martin Heidegger, in the early 20th century, wrote about " truth " with regard to

the observation that every " uncovering " is also a " covering over " . Hans Georg

Gadamer wrote more on this topic regarding the inevitable act of

interpretation.. The study of particle physics confirms that the act of

observation, while revealing, is also one that changes an outcome.

 

Messiah and Judaism questions aside, what really are the grounds for engaging a

client who needs help?

 

Thanks from a student,

JK

 

 

 

 

-

sppdestiny

Chinese Medicine

Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:13 PM

Re: A note to Lonny WAS The end of process oriented healing.

 

 

 

Hugo: I understand that perhaps what

makes you different is that leading edge of consciousness claim.

 

Lonny: Everything is in that. The realization of the implications

aren't trivial. The ideas aren't mine and full credit goes to

Tielhard, Aurobindu, Wilber, Cohen and many others. I'm just

discussing the implications in the realm of a medicine that is based

on a circular time world view when, in fact, it has been revealed that

time isn't circular it's developmental.

 

Hugo: Do you have any connection or

interest in a fully religious " revelation " ?

 

Lonny: I can't really relate to the religions. I'm certainly

interested in Truth and I do experience a primary spiritual dimension

in that.

 

Hugo: Your story doesn't seem exactly

religious, it seems very individualistic, the individual's destiny and

all + a

very cerebral flavour of " consciousness " , not

" submitting " but rather " directing " , but I still wonder.

 

Lonny: Actually, Nourishing Destiny ended declaring that destiny

wasn't " personal " . Can you quote me specifically what sounded

" individualistic " in my posts? Thank you.

 

Hugo: Are you a messiah?

 

Lonny: I'm someone who was a seeker who isn't anymore and I'm

discussing my experience and insights with the intention of helping a

medicine to evolve that I believe has a great potential to help

humanity. Destiny (ming) and enlightenment (ming) are one and the

same. The highest purpose of medicine is ming. I'm working with all my

heart and soul to live up to and realize that goal.

 

Hugo: If not, then how do you deal with the problem of " people " who do

claim to be

messiahs, claim to have a direct connection with the " ultimate

consciousness " +

set huge things in motion? i.e. they're way above you.

 

Lonny: Personally, I spent my whole adult life sitting with such

people and subjecting them to scrutiny. Eventually, I found such a

person who has proven himself to me, beyond question, and I have taken

him as my teacher. I live in close proximity to him, am intimately

involved with " his " community, and have a direct relationship with

him, recently having been admitted to his inner core of students.

 

Hugo: Or do you, in turn, place

yourself above messiahs?

 

Lonny: No. I face into the absolute demand of something much bigger

than myself and I recognize that there is no separation between " it "

and " me " and I strive, in the face of near infinite resistance, to

live up to my recognition that " I " am " it " and the choices I make are

the sole path " it " has to actually manifest in creation.

 

Hugo:I'm just trying to get a grip on what you are presenting yourself as.

 

Lonny: Fair enough. I'm a bright Jewish guy who has seen far in excess

of what he's actually living up to, and can articulate his experience

well, who is striving to live up to what he's experiencing. I'm also a

practitioner of CM whose done about 55,000 clinical sessions, paid a

lot of attention, and has given his life to the pursuit of knowledge

of medicine for 35 years.

 

Some points/questions:

 

---(Lonny)

If we are talking about the authentic practice of a truly spiritually

based medicine we are talking about liberating a force in human beings

that will tear their life, as they know it presently, to pieces. There

is no school of Chinese medicine on the planet that gets anywhere near

imparting the skills to practitioners to get anywhere near this level

of integrity in practice.

---

 

Hugo: I seem to get this intense flavour of youthful exuberance from

your writing.

 

Lonny: I'm not cynical.

 

Hugo: A

real get-down-and-dirty let's-get-this-job-done sort of mentality (the

sort of

mentality where we sometimes end up going " too far " ).

 

Lonny: What would " too far " be?

 

Hugo:In your practice do you

have the other side, the non-interference that has been held in such

high esteem

by so many (supposedly) wise people? It is said that only people who

can see a

person's karma clearly " should " interfere in matters of life and death

(or at

all, according to some).

 

Lonny: TO the degree someone extends their hand I take them as far as

I am able and if they withdraw their hand I leave them alone.

 

Hugo: I also wonder what sort of proof you can offer that no CM

provides this sort of

" liberating force " ?

 

Lonny: I've published about 1700 pages on the topic and travel the

world teaching. Draw your own conclusions. I have emphasized that, in

and of itself, CM can only provide experiences and it is the stand,

and wisdom, of the practitioner that contextualizes those experiences

in a way that can lead to meaningful development. Of course, the

patient has to want to be well.

 

The highest purpose of medicine is the fulfillment of destiny. Destiny

is synonymous with enlightenment. Health is synonymous with Sanity

and this means seeing things as they are.

 

Hugo: I really wonder about your claim because, as I understood it, so

long as the

teacher themselves has much in the manner of material things, intellectual

suppositions, physical attachments (like a wife and family), the truth

cannot be

apprehended or communicated.

 

Lonny: What claim? That absolute healing of the heart and mind is

possible for a large majority of those at a world-centric level of

development, right now? And that these people are being failed by the

" infinite emotional process " orientation of newage medicine? What

other claim did I make prior to this post that you doubt?

 

I find the notion that one can't perceive and live up to ultimate

truth if one owns anything, or has a family, to be an outdated

superstition in the time and world we are living. In fact, its

cynical. I will point out that Ramana Maharshi was absolutely clear

that these were not liabilities in this regard. Any attachment that we

value more than truth will compromise the attainment of truth. But

there is a difference between living in the presence of something and

being attached in a way that leads to compromise. I'd go so far as to

say that it takes more, and its a higher attainment, to realize and

live up to truth " in the world " than to retreat from the world and

dwell alone in emptiness away from meaningful engagement-all at a time

when everyone is desperately needed to act and make a difference.

 

Hugo: Is there something substantially different that sets you apart

from them?

 

Lonny: Yes. I live in a world with nearly 7 billion people in it. I

have two graduate degrees. Evolution has been discovered. I've seen

pictures from the hubble telescope. And I know that women don't have

sex with ghosts and give birth to foxes which both Sun Si Miao and Li

Zhi Shen were much less clear about.

 

Hugo: You

can claim lack of superstition, but how do we know? You can claim

knowledge and

information, you certainly have that... but I wonder what would happen

in the

fiendishly " interesting " situation of a crucifixion of Lonny Jarrett,

the " trial

by fire " - would you be more like Christ, or more like the enlightened

protagonist in Stranger in a Strange Land?

 

Lonny: I cant say. I have made it this far with your post though so I

can imagine what Christ went through.

 

)

 

Hugo:Would you actually be able to show

your in-the-momentness, my-authentic-self-has-not-been-harmedness by

calmly (and

authentically) speaking " I love you " as your limbs get blown off by

shotguns?

Because _that is the qualification_.

 

Lonny: You've lost me. I have met Buddhists who say the true mark of

enlightenment is that they could hacksaw your leg off and you'ld feel

no pain. I'd say that's superstition akin to virgin birth. Frankly, I

think your last sentence is nuts. If you came to crucify me, out of

respect for dignity, integrity, and all that is upright, I'd take you

out in the blink of an eye and sleep well that night. And no, I

wouldn't love you.

 

Hugo: As far as superstition...well I don't see modern people as being

any less

superstitious than " ancient " peoples.

 

Lonny: Not my experience. Though I will say that I find many people to

be far more superstitious than they believe themselves to be.

 

Hugo: the core remains intact...might have to

cut out the brain stem to get rid of that, you know?

 

Lonny: Not my experience and I find what you are saying is cynical.

 

Hugo: There is, however, a

certain knowledge possessed by people nowadays which can give us the

veneer of

sophistication so long as our ego feels powerful... but when we stick

a modern

human (say an engineer) in the oven of naked exposure and turn the

heat on, it

doesn't take long for the veneer to burn off and all the superstitious

jabbering

to begin as the person begins to have fear for their life and their

attachments.

 

Lonny: I agree. But if your idea of " sticking a modern

human (say an engineer) in the oven of naked exposure and turning the

heat on " is " blowing their legs off with a shot gun and having them

tell you they love you in a calm voice " then I'd say that might not be

the best litmus test of true spiritual integrity.

 

)

 

Hugo:I don't find great swathes of your arguments compelling, and I am

really curious

as to how you will respond to this post!

 

Lonny: By now you should have a good idea.

 

---(Lonny)

No. The core value system of Daoism arose in a pre-modern

superstitious culture.

---

 

Hugo: In fact, I feel somewhat burned, knowing that you come from a

science

background, and that you don't seem to realise that science has been in a

constant osmotic contact with religion for hundreds of years...and yet

you seem

to be believe that after (and even in the midst) of such contact,

science just

kind of did a shimmy, and shook off everything that happened as if it

was never

involved? Religion, that great bastion of superstition (I mean, Mr

White-robed

pie-in-the-sky, for god's sake) left no impression on science? I know

that when

two people fight physically, they share- and absorb-alike sweat,

blood, saliva,

air - it's communication and interpenetration at a deep level. They become

eachother - one doesn't leave that encounter one's own self anymore.

That's why

many superstitious PRIMITIVES ate their opponents' hearts after

defeating them.

 

Lonny: Hugo, when you talk this way it doesn't help your point.

Clinically, at this point, I'd be giving you large doses you gypsum.

 

)

 

Hugo: Not only did they know something that modern science is only

beginning to admit

(organs hold human information

and power), but they understood that their opponent became them, gave them

something, in the moments of contact.

 

Lonny: I'm lost. Succinctly what was the point?

 

Hugo: In the past ten years there has been (finally) a surge of

understanding

regarding the fundamental THEOLOGICAL assumptions (beliefs, actually) that

science makes. The beliefs that form the foundation upon which the

engine of the

scientific method runs. You can't have contact without change.

 

Lonny: Fine. I'm not against religion or science. I'm interested in

truth. Some science has revealed flaws in religion. Some religion has

revealed flaws in science. I've always been more interested in the

point both meet.....evolutionary theism perhaps.

 

Hugo: Or the belief that someone is at the

leading edge of consciousness - what proof do we have?

 

Lonny: I didn't say " I " was at the leading edge of consciousness. I

said humans were. Of course this is just a potential depending on

where we put our attention.

Again, I stopped following you about 8 paragraphs ago.

 

Hugo: In the end, what is the difference between superstitiousness and

the ego

holding on to outmoded beliefs?

 

lonny: None.

 

Hugo: Modern man remains deeply superstitious. It's

just a different flavour right now.

 

Lonny: Not all of us.

 

---(lonny)

As significant as the teaching was, it now no

longer goes far enough.

---

 

Hugo: Did you ever consider that part of the teaching is _not_ to go

" far enough " ?

Even if it was true that your teaching " goes farther " .

 

Lonny: Well, far enough in this sense means " all the way " in the sense

of the Chinese character we translate as " upright " - zheng-to go fully

from one shore to another without stopping.

 

Hugo: Again, I really am having a hard time placing you according to

your stated

position.

 

Lonny: I have taken your questions and respectfully tried to answer

them. Please forgive the comment regarding gypsum. But this is a TCM

newsgroup and I was being honest.

 

Hugo: Throughout your writings (again, that I've read) you reference these

daoist ideas (DESTINY!!!) and you even use Chinese characters...I

mean, no doubt

you are a legitimate branch of CM, but this newness thing gets to me.

 

Lonny: I've never thought of being a branch. But thank you. Well,

honestly, the newness gets me too. But if we totally let go of

cynicism we may discover that god (yes god) is ONLY interested in what

is new. And I sense that the thing that " gets you " is probably wholly

positive because you've obviously had a huge outpouring here and while

the delivery varies I suspect that there is sincere seeking behind it.

 

Hugo: I'm a

different branch I'm a different branch!! I mean, can you imagine a

new branch

at the top of the tree screaming I'm the highest!!!

 

Lonny: Yes, and I would give it gypsum.

 

)

 

Again, I stated that humans are vehicles for the evolution of

consciousness, the motivating force of the universe, at its leading

edge. Do you disagree with me?

 

Hugo: And even if the new branch

puts down its own roots, it's STILL going to have to be the ground of

enlightenment the roots go into. So what's new? Nothing.

 

Lonny: Actually, it depends on what you consider the ground of

enlightenment to be! The pre-modern Eastern traditions all considered

enlightenment to be the possession of an individual, the " enlightened

one " who awoke to the unborn. I'd say that realizing the unborn is an

important foundation. But that now, with 7 billion of us, there are

enough vehicles (like enough nerve cells to sustain self reflective

thought previously) that consciousness has reached a critical mass

and..........enlightenment is now a collective movement in those who

awaken to the evolutionary impulse as SELF. I'd say that's different.

 

Hugo: But maybe there is

something new, and again, that's why I spent so much of this post

asking if you

were a messiah or enlightened.

 

Lonny: What is enlightenment? I'd see it as an endless process of

awakening. I'd see the notion of an individual having a " final

enlightenment " as a pre-modern superstition. When all matter in the

universe is fully aware of truth that could be an imaginable end

state. but I suspect at that moment there might be a big bang and god

would again forget having been elevated for his/her/its hard work for

the last 100 trillion eons.

 

Hugo: Obviously you've got a job to do...it just seems so

fixated...but I guess

that's par for the course with a wood transformational activity.

 

Lonny: I'd say we all do. And, please, do not write off my passion to

me being " a wood type " because it is disrepectfull to the impersonal

force that animates such striving.

 

Hugo: HEALTHCARE HAS CHANGED ON THIS DATE!!!

 

Lonny: Powerful to make a declaration, huh!? I put it into the

noosphere and NO ONE can take it back. You can feel the heaviness

lifting all ready. When " sensitive self, emotionally based, process

oriented, humanist healing " is buried I will dance on its grave.

 

Hugo: At least you didn't give a date in

the future.

You're noisy, just like me. Mr Provocative. Anyway, these are just

thoughts

Lonny, I mean you've got the books and whatever. I wrote a booklet once.

Forgive the stream of consciousness format, I know it must suck.

 

Lonny: Thank you, my brother, for taking the serious things seriously.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Hey Lonny, and All.

 

> ---(Lonny)

> Evolution has been discovered.

> ---(Hugo)

> You are not familiar with the daoist theory of evolution?

---(lonny)

Lonny: No. I'm not. Daoists talked only of " transformation " HWA.

Evolution wasn't discovered until about 1860. The Chinese words for it

convey the movement of water (ocean...rain. ..ocean.. .... rain: A cycle)

---

 

Did you just convey to us that you never got through the inner door of taoist

traditions?

 

If so, then please profess your ignorance of lineage traditions clearly. Being

part of one I have been taught about the process of change as the transformation

of function in the direction of moral choice with a final result of

self-awareness (truth/reality) at this stage. Lineage tradition is oral, not

written. It is imparted to capable, trusted students via direct transmission. I

have not received direct transmission, but I am inside the door. What I relate

to you are oral transmissions.

 

Before further representing yourself as an authority on the supposed

" end-points " of daoism (an idea which is itself demonstrative of a

non-apprehension of the living dao), please state whether or not you have

received direct transmission. And since you have such a partial understanding of

the tradition, please explain who you have received this direct transmission

from, if you have in fact received it.

 

So far your writings are bright cerebrations (sic) and nothing more. Of course

you can help people, one doesn't need to be enlightened for that, but that's no

justification for ignoring ones who claim enlightenment when you yourself admit

you are not.

 

It was my initial question in my first post to you. Are you at the level of the

messiahs or the buddhas? If not, then don't be surprised that some treat you

with skepticism.

 

You said to Robert Chu:

---(Lonny)

you'll have to address specific points I made and either affirm or

deny them on their own merits.

---

 

It is my opinion that you have done a poor job of addressing many of mine, and

that you have a disconcerting tendency, for an older ( " evolved " ) man, to swing

into ridicule.

 

I am interested in your rebuttal regarding a point I made in my previous post:

the indelible marks left by your schooling (not to mention TKD). Have you found

a way to assure us that you are not heavily biased by your schooling experience?

Insofar as TKD...in daoism it is recognised that they way we train ourselves to

move reflects and modifies our thinking. Confirm or deny?

I found that my external training was causing me to become to rigid and

focussed, so for several years I have increased my dosage of internal training.

It's helped to change the way I think

 

 

> ---(Lonny)

> You've lost me. I have met Buddhists who say the true mark of

> enlightenment is that they could hacksaw your leg off and you'd feel

> no pain. I'd say that's superstition akin to virgin birth.

> ---(Hugo)

> Now this is interesting. ..how is it superstition? Because it is not

possible, or because that sort of skill does not indicate

enlightenment? I'd be very gratified if you would wrangle with me on

this point above most others in this post!

---(Lonny)

The " skill " would be trivial and the idea that that a human in

a body wouldn't feel pain is nonsense.

---

 

Lonny, I am shocked and perhaps even more so disappointed by your

misapprehension. The ability to not feel pain is one of the many siddhis, or

extranormal abilities, that can be accessed through deep meditative practices.

What's interesting is that your 2 statements above are easily falsifiable.

People under anaesthetic will not feel pain for the most part.

A certain group of people can undergo very painful procedures (though not

abdominal surgery for example) via mere acupuncture stimulation.

Sleepwalkers can incur painful injuries while somnambulating. They report

experiencing no pain during that state, and do not demonstrate experience of

pain to observers.

Heavily dissociated people will not feel pain, often great pain, due to their

deep withdrawal.

People in the heat of fighting will not feel great injuries until they come

down out of their elevated hyper-focussed state.

There are certain monks in recent times who demonstrated this siddhi of

painlessness through self-immolation, although the general opinion amongst other

monks is that they were too low level to understand that that wouldn't really

help.

 

As someone with a background in neurology, I am surprised that you would not

have the imagination to see that meditative practice could turn this ability on

or off. Further I am surprised at your inability to see that another siddhi -

the ability to reframe pain - causes pain to undergo a complete perceptual

transformation...this is no different from your idea regarding letting go of

traumas connecting to your authentic self and so on. Did you really miss that,

or are you just being difficult with me?

 

As far as triviality goes, well that depends on how you decide to value it and

what it comes along with. It certainly is trivial " skilz " with a person who just

wants a superpower and devotes their energy and life towards achieving that

stupidity, but it is not trivial when it is part of a package deal involving

true spiritual awareness (the knowledge of what pain is).

 

---(Hugo)

> And if you're implying that humans are the leading edge of the

consciousness of the universe, then I would say it would be

superstitious to talk in that way at this point.

---

Lonny: Really? Would you please share your evidence?

---

 

Superstition is supposedly based out of lack of knowledge and reasoning. Where

is the factual knowledge that humans, in the WHOLE universe, are at the leading

edge of consciousness? Where are the facts that demonstrate this? Perhaps at

least you have some reasoning? It would be intellectually dishonest for you to

ignore this point, since I am addressing a logical inconsistency in one of your

most commonly asserted points: that humans (apparently) are at the leading edge

of consciousness in the whole universe. And that you are not superstitious.

 

(I had it understood that all humans are superstitious until enlightenment is

attained, maintained and deepened...i.e. Lonny (and myself) are both

superstitious since we both hold on to differing non-realistic viewpoints. I, as

Lonny, do not claim enlightenment.)

 

I am interested in knowing where this goes. Blow me away Lonny, seriously.

 

---

> Where's the spiral there, Mr.Know-it-all? ?

---

Lonny: any non-naive student of evolution would understand the

implication that each round of incarnation elevates the process.

---

 

That was a cheap dodge. Many times when I pose a hard question you have facile

evasions. Give me a real answer. When I used the above idea in a rebuttal to

you, I explained myself fully and reasonably. You just didn't like that you had

misunderstood me, and it seems to me that you won't admit it. Are you ever wrong

Lonny? Apart from that one qualified apology you gave me.

 

It's also interesting that the particular idea you espoused above is a part of

hindu tradition. There is a similar idea in taoism...it's all derivative from

the yin-yang principle.

 

 

Hugo

 

 

 

________

Sent from Mail.

A Smarter Email http://uk.docs./nowyoucan.html

 

 

[Guest guest]

what really are the grounds for engaging a

client who needs help?

 

 

1. Healing to the point of a level playing field.

2. The awakening of conscience.

3. Evolution

 

 

 

 

I've written a lot about this in many forums including here recently.

If you have a more specific question I'll be happy to answer.

 

Regards, lonny

[Guest guest]

Thanks for your reply, Lonny. The time you've put into the recent list topics

is appreciated.

 

To put a point on my question, and with the acceptance that baggage, the past,

ego, etc. may not be helpful in a healing clinical setting, how does a

conscientious practitioner help shape an outcome that is not part of the

pracitioner's own desire?

 

I have yet to read your printed works, and so I'm not asking for an in depth

re-cap of resources I might find there.

 

Yet on a very simple level, in what way can I avoid bringing my own ego into the

healing?

 

What please is meant below by a " level playing field " ?

 

Thanks and regards,

Jamey

 

 

 

-

sppdestiny

Chinese Medicine

Friday, June 13, 2008 11:11 PM

Re: A note to Lonny WAS The end of process oriented healing.

 

 

what really are the grounds for engaging a

client who needs help?

 

1. Healing to the point of a level playing field.

2. The awakening of conscience.

3. Evolution

 

I've written a lot about this in many forums including here recently.

If you have a more specific question I'll be happy to answer.

 

Regards, lonny

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

> Thanks for your reply, Lonny. The time you've put into the recent

list topics is appreciated.

 

Lonny: Hi Jamey, thank you! I put the time in that I do because

nothing could be more important.

 

 

Jamey: To put a point on my question, and with the acceptance that

baggage, the past, ego, etc. may not be helpful in a healing clinical

setting, how does a conscientious practitioner help shape an outcome

that is not part of the practitioner's own desire?

 

 

Lonny: The humble position would be to assume that we are probably in

ego 99% of the time. Having said that we would first want to cultivate

a very clear black and white understanding of the difference between

ego and authentic self. We would also want to find out in our own

experience what it really takes to transcend ego and become rooted in

that ground that lays beyond it......at least to the point of having a

deep conviction that comes from authentic experience.

 

 

Then we have to examine what you mean by the " practitioner's own

desire " . Simply put ego always has a selfish motive. If one's motive

is selfless, that means aligned with the motive force of the universe

t evolve, to be better, to become more whole. Then that isn't a

personal motive. It means one's will is aligned with " the will of

heaven " if we are to use the language of the medicine.

 

Now we shouldn't ever assume that our will IS aligned with heaven

AND we have to act, make choices, and those choices are based on

values. SO we want to seriously strive not just to live up to the

values we already hold......but to create new values, higher values,

based on our revelation that is the result of our serious and

heartfelt striving for all the right reasons. The striving that comes

fromm taking the part of us which is serious about the important

matters, seriously.

 

 

 

 

Jamey: I have yet to read your printed works, and so I'm not asking

for an in depth re-cap of resources I might find there.

>

> Yet on a very simple level, in what way can I avoid bringing my own

ego into the healing?

 

 

Lonny: Addressed above. The two most important things we postmodern

holistic thinkers need to do is:

 

1. Renounce cyicism.

2. Embrace natural hierarchy.

 

 

 

Jamey: What please is meant below by a " level playing field " ?

oriented healing.

 

 

Lonny: I'm creating a medicine that transcends " healing " . " Healing "

means, " I'm a wounded soldier and I need time to overcome my past, my

main concern is to feel better " . At the point one is sick to death of

wasting their life overcoming their past their attention shifts to

creating the future. When one is done " healing " one is ready to get on

the playing field and start playing the game. What newage medicine

calls " healing " usually involves wrestling around in the sewer with

the ego. When you point the way out of the sewer to such a person they

will usually say, " Leave me alone, I'm not ready yet, can't you see

I'm struggling? I'm seriously taking myself on! I'm fighting the good

fight! " . However it's abundantly clear he has a morbid infatuation

with his own mind and likes being in the sewer.

 

A big part of REAL integral medicine is trying to get the person out

of the sewer as quickly as possible. Then one discovers that a new and

HIGHER order of struggle begins and that entails doing everything

possible to NEVER get back into the sewer. Now one is standing on

level ground. One is done " healing " and is taking a stand with

conviction for something higher.

 

 

At some point one develops enough momentum, lets say one has actually

attained a 51% commitment to creating the future. This is then the

highest and the only REAL struggle. AT this level of development one's

will is aligned with the motive force of the universe to create a more

wholesome future. At this point one has woken up to the fact that the

game is already going, and that previously they weren't even on the

playing field. They were just kind of running around in circles and

not contributing a thing to the process or purpose of the game. It is

at this level that we recognize that we all have the same destiny.

 

The purpose of the spiritual practice of medicine is to get as many

people to 51% as soon as possible. That entails recognizing everything

that isn't interested in this goal as pathology in self and other.

 

 

(this may well only apply to the top %10 of the world's population

whose survival needs are met-exactly the people who can afford $50 a

week for " healing " ).