psychospiritual properties of herbs

February 10, 2010

Thea,

I completely agree that one must be flexible in the clinic and be able to

put together symptoms to create patterns in ways that may not have been

originally discussed in classical texts. I am the farthest thing from a

fundamentalist Chinese medicine practitioner and simply use classical

formulas as well as classical pattern/diagnosis only as a roadmap.

However, there is one major difference here when discussing physical

symptoms versus some " spiritual " symptoms. Quite simply, the theoretical map

for expansion is well defined in Chinese medicine for physical and even

emotional symptoms (it is not anything goes). If one follows theory one can

understand how these various symptoms might be created from certain

dynamics. Actually most of the pathways are already laid out and one just

needs to be aware of them. I just have never have seen how this can be

applied to some spiritual symptoms.

There is no doubt Chinese medicine discusses and treats very effectively

(even with modern methods) emotional problems. However, I would like some

clarity on what we are talking about when we say spiritual symptoms. In

looking through some websites do hopefully answer my question I came across

Michael Tierra's article. Actually in reading through the symptoms that he

attributes to various herbs it sounds like just basic Chinese medicine me.

Mentioning things such as insomnia, irritability, forgetfulness,

restlessness, anxiety, constraint emotions. Is this really what people are

talking about when they say psychospiritual properties? If so, what is the

big deal. This is very basic Chinese medicine, and certainly do not see any

reason to need to make anything new up along these lines.

Just to clear up the matter he also writes " Part of the reason for this is

because TCM has much finer distinction between the physical and mental

spheres but another is that the circumstances of recent Chinese history,

namely the materialistic orientation of the communist regime, has caused the

Chinese to cut away or obscure centuries of TCM psychospiritual

relevancies. "

a) This statement is just false, as numerous people have pointed out,

the " communist " did not strip this material out. If anyone still believes

this please show me books from the early 1900s that lay out the

psychospiritual relevancies. For that matter, just look at some of our

classical herbs texts from 1800 years ago, which we still use, looks like

pretty basic CM to me. Quite simply, more esoteric shamanistic (and deemed

ineffective) methods for dealing with diseases or whittled out centuries

ago.

Back to the spiritual properties of herbs, if this basic Chinese medicine

attributes (anxiety, insomnia, irritability) are not what we are talking

about, can someone please provide some examples (of what they are, which

herbs have the this ability to resolve the issue, and how they came up with

them) so we are all discussing the same thing.

-Jason

On Behalf Of Thea Elijah

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:40 AM

Re: Re: Research methodology and experimental design

On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:30 PM, wrote:

> However, if we create new narratives and explanations for things,

> such as ascribing " psycho-spiritual " attributes to herbs, where

> there is

> textual evidence lacking,

> we all need to be clear about how we are receiving the information

> for the

> sake of evolving our medicine.

>

First of all, we need to be very clear about the difference between

" new narratives and explanations for things, " versus the kind of

implications that are already present in original texts. Sharon's

excellent post some time ago speaks to this-- Jason alluded to it--

that psycho-spiritual symptoms are simply that, only symptoms, and as

herbalists we need to understand the underlying movements of qi

described by the herbs, and described by the client's manifestation,

and treat accordingly. Using formulas for other symptoms than the

ones mentioned in the original texts is nothing new! We have a clear

methodology for ascertaining whether or not there is a " match " between

the client's situation and the herbal formula. This must always be

inclusive of the entire picture, not just the psycho-spiritual aspects

of the picture. This kind of extrapolation is nothing new in our

medicine-- in fact it is a requirement of daily life in the treatment

room.

Thea Elijah

February 10, 2010

Jason,

I have the same question you have about this, coming from a place of open

inquiry. There are really only a few practitioners who are working with the

" psycho-emotional " attributes of herbs. One of them is Jeffrey Yuen, who

in his transcriptions of " Plants and Spirituality " and " Healing and the

Mind " , talks about some of these. I've already typed out a quote from the

intro of his Nei jing talk in 2000, where he describes some of this

process.... he was a child medium, a daoist priest and still today...

intuits and mediums information. I'm not sure if this is considered

" spiritual " downloading or not, or if this still belongs to the

" psycho-emotional " realm. On the other hand, Michael Tierra does a

cross-cultural look at herbs, such as He Zi, which is not in our Shen nong

ben cao jing, but is considered the king of herbs in Ayurvedic and Tibetan

medicine, with many references to its " spiritual " , but I'm not sure about

" psycho-emotional " properties. His book, " The Way of Herbs " seems to be

more of an anthropological cross-cultural study.

Do other medical traditions have stories/ medical texts describing the

" psycho-emotional " attributes of herbs?

K

February 10, 2010

One problem in this discussion from (our?) western perspective is that Chinese

Medicine has always been part of Chinese Philosophy whereas what we might call

Philosophy comes under ethics and governance. I'm paraphrasing some author

here....

That has meant that taoists, buddhists, qi gong practitioners, martial artists,

meditators have some and legitimate claim to the medicine. The communists

undoubtably took and take unconscionable actions against religious movement as

did each group take towards each other, just talking about the last 200 years of

China's history.

For westerners with a body and mind the psychospiritual concept is missing only

when taken from the taoist point of view or one of the other sets of groups. I

would agree that the spiritual isn't in the medicine literature but what has

been ignored by the current TCM are the side " philosophies " which incorporate

the medicine. Whether this is a concern for us that are only involved with the

medicine shouldn't matter.

doug

, " " wrote:

>

> Thea,

>

> I completely agree that one must be flexible in the clinic and be able to

> put together symptoms to create patterns in ways that may not have been

> originally discussed in classical texts. I am the farthest thing from a

> fundamentalist Chinese medicine practitioner and simply use classical

> formulas as well as classical pattern/diagnosis only as a roadmap.

>

> However, there is one major difference here when discussing physical

> symptoms versus some " spiritual " symptoms. Quite simply, the theoretical map

> for expansion is well defined in Chinese medicine for physical and even

> emotional symptoms (it is not anything goes). If one follows theory one can

> understand how these various symptoms might be created from certain

> dynamics. Actually most of the pathways are already laid out and one just

> needs to be aware of them. I just have never have seen how this can be

> applied to some spiritual symptoms.

>

> There is no doubt Chinese medicine discusses and treats very effectively

> (even with modern methods) emotional problems. However, I would like some

> clarity on what we are talking about when we say spiritual symptoms. In

> looking through some websites do hopefully answer my question I came across

> Michael Tierra's article. Actually in reading through the symptoms that he

> attributes to various herbs it sounds like just basic Chinese medicine me.

> Mentioning things such as insomnia, irritability, forgetfulness,

> restlessness, anxiety, constraint emotions. Is this really what people are

> talking about when they say psychospiritual properties? If so, what is the

> big deal. This is very basic Chinese medicine, and certainly do not see any

> reason to need to make anything new up along these lines.

>

> Just to clear up the matter he also writes " Part of the reason for this is

> because TCM has much finer distinction between the physical and mental

> spheres but another is that the circumstances of recent Chinese history,

> namely the materialistic orientation of the communist regime, has caused the

> Chinese to cut away or obscure centuries of TCM psychospiritual

> relevancies. "

>

> a) This statement is just false, as numerous people have pointed out,

> the " communist " did not strip this material out. If anyone still believes

> this please show me books from the early 1900s that lay out the

> psychospiritual relevancies. For that matter, just look at some of our

> classical herbs texts from 1800 years ago, which we still use, looks like

> pretty basic CM to me. Quite simply, more esoteric shamanistic (and deemed

> ineffective) methods for dealing with diseases or whittled out centuries

> ago.

>

> Back to the spiritual properties of herbs, if this basic Chinese medicine

> attributes (anxiety, insomnia, irritability) are not what we are talking

> about, can someone please provide some examples (of what they are, which

> herbs have the this ability to resolve the issue, and how they came up with

> them) so we are all discussing the same thing.

>

> -Jason

>

February 10, 2010

On Feb 10, 2010, at 9:21 AM, wrote:

> Thea,

>

> I completely agree that one must be flexible in the clinic and be

> able to

> put together symptoms to create patterns in ways that may not have

> been

> originally discussed in classical texts. I am the farthest thing

> from a

> fundamentalist Chinese medicine practitioner and simply use classical

> formulas as well as classical pattern/diagnosis only as a roadmap.

>

> However, there is one major difference here when discussing physical

> symptoms versus some " spiritual " symptoms. Quite simply, the

> theoretical map

> for expansion is well defined in Chinese medicine for physical and

> even

> emotional symptoms (it is not anything goes). If one follows theory

> one can

> understand how these various symptoms might be created from certain

> dynamics. Actually most of the pathways are already laid out and one

> just

> needs to be aware of them.

>

> In

> looking through some websites to hopefully answer my question I came

> across

> Michael Tierra's article. Actually in reading through the symptoms

> that he

> attributes to various herbs it sounds like just basic Chinese

> medicine me.

> Mentioning things such as insomnia, irritability, forgetfulness,

> restlessness, anxiety, constraint emotions. Is this really what

> people are

> talking about when they say psychospiritual properties? If so, what

> is the

> big deal. This is very basic Chinese medicine, and certainly do not

> see any

> reason to need to make anything new up along these lines.

>

RIGHT.

For sure, we do not need to make anything new up along these

lines--- but have you noticed that all of these 'psycho-spiritual'

terms have, in practice, a great deal of nuance? For example the word

" irritability " does not, by itself, say much... What is

irritability, and how do we recognize the difference between a snagged

xiang fu cyperus type of irritability, or a hot headed zhi zi gardenia

type of irritability, or a perfectionistic thin-skinned mai men dong

kind of irritability? Yes yes we make the distinction by looking at

the other symptoms and getting the whole energetic-- and part of this

may include descriptions of the nature of the irritability more

specific than just saying " irritability. " Why not give students the

opportunity to understand the syndromes more clearly by describing, or

acting out, the different kinds of irritability? Because they

certainly are different-- I am sure you have seen this in clinical

practice. It would be exactly the kind of cheap herbalism that you

descry to give someone herbs " for irritability. " I am sure that you

would not do that-- and that you would recognize the differences

between the different kinds of irritability.

I just have a knack for acting them out. I'm a pretty darn good

actress... Robert Hayden calls me " the Stella Adler of Chinese

medicine. "

I suppose, too, my tropism towards making fine emotional distinctions

comes from my 5 element background. If someone says, for instance,

" fear, " that is such an inexact term! Sure, sure, it probably

indicates something to do with the Water element, but what? It's as

inexact as saying that someone's voice is a Groan. What kind of fear,

what kind of groan? It could be yang deficient fear, which gives rise

to a " dial tone " sound in the voice (if we were together in person I

could do an imitation of this kind of voice), or is it more of a yin

deficient fear, making a yin deficient groan, which has something of

the relentlessness of a " busy signal " ? (I could also imitate this

voice.) NOTE: there are many other kinds of fear, and even within

the category of yang deficiency and yin deficiency there are even

finer distinctions that might be drawn. The whole point here is not

making up anything new, but further refining our differential

diagnostic capacities-- and our ability to describe them.

Emotions have nuance. The simple words are often not enough to convey

the distinctions that are inherent in the diagnostic process. Grief,

what is grief? I don't have chinese characters on my computer, but is

it bei type, or you type, or various other kinds of grief-- and what

is the physical correlate to these emotions, and how do we treat them

with herbs accurately, so that we are not just giving herbs " for grief " ?

Anxiety, what is that? I could do you at least twenty different

impersonations of twenty different types of anxiety, and all of them

would reflect a different diagnosis. I would never advise anyone to

diagnose based solely on emotional symptoms-- that is the road to

arrogance and folly-- but when we are talking about " anxiety, " it is

helpful and enriching to define our terms more precisely. The context

of the over-all energetic present in the client is the cornerstone of

this process.

That's all it's about. Just a verbalization of things you see in your

treatment room every day.

Thea Elijah

>

> Just to clear up the matter he also writes " Part of the reason for

> this is

> because TCM has much finer distinction between the physical and mental

> spheres but another is that the circumstances of recent Chinese

> history,

> namely the materialistic orientation of the communist regime, has

> caused the

> Chinese to cut away or obscure centuries of TCM psychospiritual

> relevancies. "

>

> a) This statement is just false, as numerous people have pointed out,

> the " communist " did not strip this material out. If anyone still

> believes

> this please show me books from the early 1900s that lay out the

> psychospiritual relevancies. For that matter, just look at some of our

> classical herbs texts from 1800 years ago, which we still use, looks

> like

> pretty basic CM to me. Quite simply, more esoteric shamanistic (and

> deemed

> ineffective) methods for dealing with diseases or whittled out

> centuries

> ago.

>

> Back to the spiritual properties of herbs, if this basic Chinese

> medicine

> attributes (anxiety, insomnia, irritability) are not what we are

> talking

> about, can someone please provide some examples (of what they are,

> which

> herbs have the this ability to resolve the issue, and how they came

> up with

> them) so we are all discussing the same thing.

>

> -Jason

>

> On Behalf Of Thea Elijah

> Wednesday, February 10, 2010 12:40 AM

>

> Re: Re: Research methodology and experimental design

>

> On Feb 9, 2010, at 3:30 PM, wrote:

>

> > However, if we create new narratives and explanations for things,

> > such as ascribing " psycho-spiritual " attributes to herbs, where

> > there is

> > textual evidence lacking,

> > we all need to be clear about how we are receiving the information

> > for the

> > sake of evolving our medicine.

> >

> First of all, we need to be very clear about the difference between

> " new narratives and explanations for things, " versus the kind of

> implications that are already present in original texts. Sharon's

> excellent post some time ago speaks to this-- Jason alluded to it--

> that psycho-spiritual symptoms are simply that, only symptoms, and as

> herbalists we need to understand the underlying movements of qi

> described by the herbs, and described by the client's manifestation,

> and treat accordingly. Using formulas for other symptoms than the

> ones mentioned in the original texts is nothing new! We have a clear

> methodology for ascertaining whether or not there is a " match " between

> the client's situation and the herbal formula. This must always be

> inclusive of the entire picture, not just the psycho-spiritual aspects

> of the picture. This kind of extrapolation is nothing new in our

> medicine-- in fact it is a requirement of daily life in the treatment

> room.

>

> Thea Elijah

>

February 10, 2010

Doug,

Actually if you look at the last 2000 years of Chinese history, there has been a

lot disagreement of what is true Chinese medicine vrs what is not,particularly

between the Confucianists and taoists. Their view points differed greatly at

times, and I believe is why the whole " Neo-Confucianism " movement started in the

middle ages, to try and blend the two systems together.

Trevor

, " " wrote:

>

> One problem in this discussion from (our?) western perspective is that Chinese

Medicine has always been part of Chinese Philosophy whereas what we might call

Philosophy comes under ethics and governance. I'm paraphrasing some author

here....

>

> That has meant that taoists, buddhists, qi gong practitioners, martial

artists, meditators have some and legitimate claim to the medicine. The

communists undoubtably took and take unconscionable actions against religious

movement as did each group take towards each other, just talking about the last

200 years of China's history.

>

> For westerners with a body and mind the psychospiritual concept is missing

only when taken from the taoist point of view or one of the other sets of

groups. I would agree that the spiritual isn't in the medicine literature but

what has been ignored by the current TCM are the side " philosophies " which

incorporate the medicine. Whether this is a concern for us that are only

involved with the medicine shouldn't matter.

>

> doug

>

February 11, 2010

Thea,

So are you saying that when you use the term psychospiritual your only

referring to symptoms such as anxiety, fear, irritability? Does anyone

define this differently?

-Jason

On Behalf Of Thea Elijah

Wednesday, February 10, 2010 11:54 AM

Re: psychospiritual properties of herbs

February 11, 2010

> So are you saying that when you use the term psychospiritual your only

> referring to symptoms such as anxiety, fear, irritability? Does anyone

> define this differently?

Lonny: Again, I think we should jettison the term " psycho-spiritual " entirely as

it's a newage oxymoron. I will suggest that the signs you describe are not ever

attributes of spirit.

Fear is an emotion that can have positive attributes (for example, having the

hair rise on your neck when walking through the woods). The question is, what is

our relationship to fear? To what degree is it conscious or conditioned? Spirit,

being unborn, undying, and eternal, always has an intrinsically free

relationship to fear. Anxiety, irritability, and fear may exist as the result of

denial of spirit, or just be conditioned responses in consciousness and in the

body. Spirit is the perspective that is always sane, objective, and rational in

the face of any and all experience including the above.

The psychological perspective is enmeshed with the experience. It is a

perspective generated by the mind that is the root of the problem in a vain

attempt to understand itself and rationalize the illusion of separation. The

spiritual perspective is always free in the face of one's existential,

psychological, dilemma.

February 11, 2010

I have been reading Kent's Homeopathic materia medica and Felter's Eclectic

Materia Medica and I recommend both of them as fantastic, inspiring reads.

I am NOT recommeding that we drop TCM herbs and do homeopathy. But they are

excellant written records of the whole personality of the patient bouncing off

the energetics of plants. So Pulsatilla is used for depression (in some cases)

esp when patient feels cold, or has Headaches with PMS. or the remedy can be

used for clearing phlegm from inner ear.

so includes the pyscho-spiritual, but also the everyday, very human. We could

use a bit of this in our medcine.

Matt Haug lac

February 11, 2010

Lonny,

I understand not wanting to use the term psychospiritual, I personally think

the term is silly. However it has already been used for some time, and just

because some people now do not want to use the term, I'm sure others will

continue to still use it. Therefore I am trying to understand what type of

symptoms people have in the past (and the present) attributed to this term.

To me, anxiety fear, irritability etc. are just basic Chinese medicine

symptoms -- are these what people have deemed psychospiritual? Or is there

something else more on the " spiritual " front that people are referring to.

Quite simply, I am trying to understand what type of symptoms people think

are psychospiritual (if you like the term or not).

-Jason

On Behalf Of Lonny

Lonny: Again, I think we should jettison the term " psycho-spiritual "

entirely as it's a newage oxymoron. I will suggest that the signs you

describe are not ever attributes of spirit.

Fear is an emotion that can have positive attributes (for example, having

the hair rise on your neck when walking through the woods). The question is,

what is our relationship to fear? To what degree is it conscious or

conditioned? Spirit, being unborn, undying, and eternal, always has an

intrinsically free relationship to fear. Anxiety, irritability, and fear may

exist as the result of denial of spirit, or just be conditioned responses in

consciousness and in the body. Spirit is the perspective that is always

sane, objective, and rational in the face of any and all experience

including the above.

The psychological perspective is enmeshed with the experience. It is a

perspective generated by the mind that is the root of the problem in a vain

attempt to understand itself and rationalize the illusion of separation. The

spiritual perspective is always free in the face of one's existential,

February 11, 2010

Lonnie, Steve, all,

While I agree that the term 'psychospiritual' obscures more than it explains, I

take issue with the implied premise that the spirit and the psyche are two.

This strikes me as a subtle dualism (born, perhaps, of seductive experience

rather amusingly and oxymoronically characterized as 'non-dual'.)

Lonny wrote:

It is clear to me that the psychological realm, and that which is authentically

spiritual, have little to nothing to do with each other. The psychological realm

exists within the domain of ego and is always based in a bottom up

perspective...

.... Spirit only takes a top down perspective...

In a human who is whole, bottom-up and top-down are interincluded and

inseparable (though this dynamic is not easily seen; and such manifest

wholeness/haelth is all too rare.) They have everything to do with each each

other. The never-traumatized, unsullied essence of the spirit is not incapable

of communicating with and expressing itself via both the physical body and the

psyche - whatever terms and models we employ to describe them, understand them,

and treat their various pathologies.

Steve wrote:

The spirit is infinite and directly connected to the Dao or God or however one

conceptualizes the " absolute source " of being and animation.

Yes, and so is the finite flesh, and the heart and the mind; and yes, so is the

fragmented yet still-lovable aspect of ourselves Lonny likes to call the ego.

In the Sinaitic tradition (which is neither pre-modern nor post-modern nor

ancient nor new-age nor bound to any temporal concept, so let's not go there)

it's often emphasized that God is not spiritual, any more than He is physical.

And a corollary of that idea is that the soul cannot ever be separated from its

essential Godliness, despite being exiled (purposefully) in an embodied state

that sometimes suffers, sometimes delights.

Great conversation; I just had to toss in my two shekels before withdrawing back

to the peanut gallery. Please carry on.

Simcha

February 11, 2010

Or is there

something else more on the " spiritual " front that people are referring to.

Lonny: I would guess that this would include everything from mild

dissatisfaction all the way to psychosis.

I understand the term " psycho-spiritual " to reflect the pretense of

spirituality by a fundamentally narcissistic and materialistic culture. In other

words it's generally used when people have conflated " mind " with " spirit " and

are enmeshed in a psychological view of the spiritual. I will suggest that the

appropriate hierarchical relationship would be to hold a spiritual view of the

psychological which reveals that, at least at a certain stage of development, it

isn't too interesting.

February 12, 2010

Simcha: While I agree that the term 'psychospiritual' obscures more than it

explains, I take issue with the implied premise that the spirit and the psyche

are two. This strikes me as a subtle dualism (born, perhaps, of seductive

experience rather amusingly and oxymoronically characterized as 'non-dual'.)

Lonny: I think it's important to move beyond " it's all one " and make

distinctions. Of course it's important that we are using language in the same

way. For me " spirit " is equivalent to consciousness, and is recognized as being

primary, fundamental, and the motivating force of universal development. It is

infinite. The human mind in which psychology exists is understood to be an

evolutionarily evolved mechanism tat took about 14 billion years to emerge. It's

capacity is finite.

Consciousness has the two primary functions of witnessing and choosing.

What we " see " and what we chose are conditioned by the mind which stores our

experiences, thoughts, feelings, and conclusions. The capacity of consciousness

to see the objective truth and to choose to do the right thing in response is

always potentially available. It is the mind, as filter, that is compromised and

limited by culturally given value systems. To me spirit is the revelation of

that which lies outside the parameters of the mind.

Certainly an individual awakened to spirit can use the mind as a tool to

focus it's expression. But spirit is always primary and the source of self

identification and the mind is just a secondary tool which is only useful when

it's fears, desires, and attendant psychology have been seen through.

Simcha: In a human who is whole, bottom-up and top-down are interincluded and

inseparable (though this dynamic is not easily seen; and such manifest

wholeness/health is all too rare.) They have everything to do with each each

other.

Lonny: Yes and no. Again, context is everything. Certainly, in the context of

the infinite and never ending potential to develop we can adopt a top down view

right now AND there will be no end to how high we can go. One man's revelation,

" the father an I are one " can become another's baseline recognition of the

obligation to develop ever further in that recognition.

However there are important distinctions to make regarding top down vs.

bottom up in relationship to the discussion we are having. The top down view

gives us the perspective of spirit itself on our predicament. It's perspective

is that we are vessels for its expression and it could care less what we have to

deal with and get out of the way for the sake of being available. It only

recognizes itself in us and sees nothing else. Our fears, desires, and

psychology simply don't show up on spirits radar screen. When we give voice to

them all it hears is " blah, bah, blah " . The top down perspective gives us

instantly an already enlightened perspective on our personal problems.

When I talk about the " bottom up perspective " I am talking about the

ego's view of endlessly needing more time to take the top down view. The ego's

position always is " I'm not ready yet " . The ego always wait to feel like doing

the right thing. It creates the illusion that " some day I'll be ready " . But that

day NEVER comes. " I still need time to heal and overcome my past, BEFORE I take

the top down view " . I will suggest that at a minimum the evolution of

consciousness does not really take off in a meaningful way until we embrace the

top down view 51% and the bottom view never gets more than 49%. This gives a

direction to things that just isn't present in the " it's all one " perspective.

The Daoists talked about " REVERSING " the dipper handle as a metaphor for

enlightenment and making the sheng cycle spin in the opposite direction. They

didn't say, " get it to go 50% in one direction and 50% in the other. " When I

discuss 51% I'm talking about the minimum momentum needed to create a new world.

Simcha: The never-traumatized, unsullied essence of the spirit is not incapable

of communicating with and expressing itself via both the physical body and the

psyche - whatever terms and models we employ to describe them, understand them,

and treat their various pathologies.

Lonny: Of course the body can express spirit, that's what it's for. I define

" ego " as that conditioning within the mind that obscures the expression of

spirit. The mind can certainly serve the spirit but that takes a conscious

choice and spirit is always primary. A goal of spiritual attainment, as I

understand it is the spontaneous expression of spirit prethought, precognition,

premind.

Simcha: Yes, and so is the finite flesh, and the heart and the mind; and yes, so

is the fragmented yet still-lovable aspect of ourselves Lonny likes to call the

ego.

Lonny: With all due respect Simcha, I don't think you understand what I mean by

ego. Simply, when I speak of " ego " I speak only of that part of ourselves that

resists wholesome, positive, integrative change and seeks instead to maintain

the status quo, regardless of how dysfunctional, at any cost to self or other.

Simcha: In the Sinaitic tradition (which is neither pre-modern nor post-modern

nor ancient nor new-age nor bound to any temporal concept, so let's not go

there)

Lonny:

Sorry Simcha but no one's dharma gets a free pass that puts it beyond

scrutiny. Interestingly, our exact position was also explained to me by a

follower of Abraham (the trance channel) in realtionship to his " teachings " two

days ago. It's interesting to me that so many religious people believe that

thier teaching is the " one right way " exempt from cultural limitation or

characterization (blue meme). A characteristic of the evolutionary perspective

is that we'll look at everything developmentally. Certainly our understanding

of, and the context in which we hold, our teachings is culturally conditioned.

No one is immune.

Simcha: it's often emphasized that God is not spiritual, any more than He is

physical.

Lonny: Excellent! That put's god beyond the grasp of the mind which seems to be

correct. If you stopped referring to god as " He " I'd take it as a sign of

development. " He " infers a " she " and I'd suggest that god exists prior to such a

differentiation. At any rate, since your tradition is not bound by temporality

there should be no problem embracing the recognition of women as equals and

being sensitive to a level of recognition many of us reached by 1968. I know

it's difficult with language so I generally refer to god as " him, her, or it " in

recognition of the fact that I really don't know and that what god is, is

ultimately beyond the distinctions we can make with language though, certainly,

we should keep striving to articulate our experience. Still, I can't help but

notice that referring to god as a " he " is a sign of the premodern, artificial

dominator hierarchy approach to religion inherent in all blue meme traditions.

For the sake of evolving a living tradition there shouldn't be any problem in

making this little step.

February 12, 2010

Lonny: " Interestingly, our exact position was also explained to me by a

follower of Abraham (the trance channel) in realtionship to his " teachings " two

days ago. "

Lonny " Meant " your " ! )

February 12, 2010

Lon,

You touch upon some interesting ideas here, some worthy of discussion. But once

again I see this listserve as an inappropriate venue, not because the topic is

not germane, but because the medium is way too prone to our misreading of one

another. Our respective definitions of various key words in the the

conversation - e.g., consciousness, ego, evolution, spirit, tradition, time,

bottom-up, God, to name a few - rarely jibe; and with all due respect, you have

a tendency to make categorical statements based on your own definitions and

models (and in ignorance of another's) which makes it very laborious to draw the

important distinctions between our areas of agreement and our contrasting

perspectives. Maybe I do too, I'm not sure.

In brief, in no way would I ever suggest that my perspective is beyond scrutiny.

And it is consummately developmental, in terms and in dimensions which (to those

immersed in it) are far deeper, more elegant, have been around a lot longer, and

I have no doubt will outlive, the color-coded spiral dynamics yardstick by which

you choose to judge matters of which, as you've said yourself, you have little

knowledge.

Of course God is not a He, nor a She, nor any of the Names and attributes and

limited language humans use to grow in knowledge of the unknowable. Someday

perhaps we'll have a chance to discuss the true significance and evolution of

such concepts as gender; but not until we divest ourselves of childish

assumptions.

That's all I have time for now. The last time we took a conversation like this

off-list we ended up agreeing that we ought to learn together, from horses'

mouths. The invitation still stands, and I'm looking forward.

Best,

Simcha

, " Lonny " <revolution wrote:

>

> Simcha: While I agree that the term 'psychospiritual' obscures more than it

explains, I take issue with the implied premise that the spirit and the psyche

are two. This strikes me as a subtle dualism (born, perhaps, of seductive

experience rather amusingly and oxymoronically characterized as 'non-dual'.)

>

> Lonny: I think it's important to move beyond " it's all one " and make

distinctions. Of course it's important that we are using language in the same

way. For me " spirit " is equivalent to consciousness, and is recognized as being

primary, fundamental, and the motivating force of universal development. It is

infinite. The human mind in which psychology exists is understood to be an

evolutionarily evolved mechanism tat took about 14 billion years to emerge. It's

capacity is finite.

> Consciousness has the two primary functions of witnessing and choosing.

What we " see " and what we chose are conditioned by the mind which stores our

experiences, thoughts, feelings, and conclusions. The capacity of consciousness

to see the objective truth and to choose to do the right thing in response is

always potentially available. It is the mind, as filter, that is compromised and

limited by culturally given value systems. To me spirit is the revelation of

that which lies outside the parameters of the mind.

> Certainly an individual awakened to spirit can use the mind as a tool to

focus it's expression. But spirit is always primary and the source of self

identification and the mind is just a secondary tool which is only useful when

it's fears, desires, and attendant psychology have been seen through.

>

> Simcha: In a human who is whole, bottom-up and top-down are interincluded and

inseparable (though this dynamic is not easily seen; and such manifest

wholeness/health is all too rare.) They have everything to do with each each

other.

>

> Lonny: Yes and no. Again, context is everything. Certainly, in the context of

the infinite and never ending potential to develop we can adopt a top down view

right now AND there will be no end to how high we can go. One man's revelation,

" the father an I are one " can become another's baseline recognition of the

obligation to develop ever further in that recognition.

>

> However there are important distinctions to make regarding top down vs.