spirituality and warfare

[Guest guest]

My husband's Uncle Louis and his Uncle Johnny are a couple of

toothless old Italian guys whom I consider sages. If you ask them

about God or religion or spirit with a big or small " s, " they don't

know and they don't really care-- but sitting and talking with these

guys can easily make you a better person. It's not what they say,

exactly, although somehow in their talk of where to get the best

tomatoes and who's got a new front porch, deep non-material human

values are conveyed, and there is a strength and presence that not

only shines through them, but it lights a fire inside of those who sit

with them. You come away feeling stronger, calmer, more yourself--

and more able to do what needs to be done, with love.

 

Both of these guys are WWII veterans; they know what it means to fight

and they have a lot of stories they're not telling. These are not New

Age wimps with a pacifism that is basically comfort-loving cowardice.

Their peace is the peace of having done what they knew was right,

beyond ego, doing what a loving man would do for life itself even if

that meant losing their lives. Their personal experience with

fighting Nazis left them with no illusions that " it's all good. "

Their strength has no need to crow; they have nothing to prove, and

everything to give.

 

Talking about the spirit is not the same as treating the spirit. How

are we living, what are we conveying, and how does that come across to

each other in the treatment room, or right here right now on this list

serve? One practitioner may talk about spirit and do nothing but

violence. One practitioner may say, I know nothing about spirit, but

ennoble many people.

 

We often use case studies to illustrate our methods. Perhaps we could

live our methods here. Perhaps we are living our methods here. If

not, why not?

 

 

Thea Elijah

[Guest guest]

 

" Both of these guys are WWII veterans; they know what it means to fight

and they have a lot of stories they're not telling. These are not New

Age wimps with a pacifism that is basically comfort-loving cowardice. "  

 

A question....What has war ever accomplished for mankind?  Insulting pacifists

as wimps without action certainly provokes criticism which would therefore make

one no better than the questioned.

Dianne

 

 

 

 

 

________________________________

Thea Elijah <parkinglot

 

Thu, March 4, 2010 9:51:36 AM

spirituality and warfare

 

 

My husband's Uncle Louis and his Uncle Johnny are a couple of

toothless old Italian guys whom I consider sages. If you ask them

about God or religion or spirit with a big or small " s, " they don't

know and they don't really care-- but sitting and talking with these

guys can easily make you a better person. It's not what they say,

exactly, although somehow in their talk of where to get the best

tomatoes and who's got a new front porch, deep non-material human

values are conveyed, and there is a strength and presence that not

only shines through them, but it lights a fire inside of those who sit

with them. You come away feeling stronger, calmer, more yourself--

and more able to do what needs to be done, with love.

 

Both of these guys are WWII veterans; they know what it means to fight

and they have a lot of stories they're not telling. These are not New

Age wimps with a pacifism that is basically comfort-loving cowardice.

Their peace is the peace of having done what they knew was right,

beyond ego, doing what a loving man would do for life itself even if

that meant losing their lives. Their personal experience with

fighting Nazis left them with no illusions that " it's all good. "

Their strength has no need to crow; they have nothing to prove, and

everything to give.

 

Talking about the spirit is not the same as treating the spirit. How

are we living, what are we conveying, and how does that come across to

each other in the treatment room, or right here right now on this list

serve? One practitioner may talk about spirit and do nothing but

violence. One practitioner may say, I know nothing about spirit, but

ennoble many people.

 

We often use case studies to illustrate our methods. Perhaps we could

live our methods here. Perhaps we are living our methods here. If

not, why not?

 

Thea Elijah

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

A question....What has war ever accomplished for mankind?

 

Lonny: It defeated the Nazis-One of the single greatest, and most selfless,

triumphs of good over evil in history.

[Guest guest]

Ah, please let me clarify-- I have no wish to promote warfare, nor

any wish to insult pacifism per se. I have spent many years training

in Sufi peacemaking skills, non-violent communication skills, and

Arnold Mindell's concept of Deep Democracy (from Leader As Martial

Artist). Peacemaking that is in no way suppressive of conflict is my

model for healing, in fact, in or out of the treatment room. (I also

practice Aikido)

 

I am only criticizing pacifism models which are actually a form of

conflict avoidance. There is, in healing, a need to take a strong

stand sometimes, and to take the heat that is generated by taking a

strong stand. The fight between our own body's zheng qi and an

invading pathogen might be compared to this-- or perhaps fighting

Nazis on the Normandy beaches, like Uncle Lou and Uncle Johnny.

Please do not mistake my criticism of some pacifists, specified as

comfort-loving and conflict-avoidant, as implying that all pacifists

are wimps. Apologies for that unclarity. Sometimes the difference

between peace and war comes down to this: am I creating conflict,

avoiding conflict, or taking a zheng qi stand?

 

I don't mean to be overly provocative here-- this is material for

long discussion, and since much of my healing work is in the realm of

social activism, I've thought about it a lot. I do not mean to preach

to you-- you may know more about this than I do-- I am only wishing

to make clear that I meant no insult.

 

I am also in no way wishing to promote warfare. To the contrary-- and

I am sorry that this was not clear. On the other hand, having fought

did give these two men (and perhaps others) an opportunity for self-

knowledge and karmic clarity to emerge. Perhaps it was the same for

Arjuna. I can't say. While war is not, in my view, something to be

sought out, I will not deny what it has clarified for these two men.

I've met other men (usually WWII vets, not Vietnam vets, not the

recent ones) for whom war brought forth a tremendous clarity about

life's values. The difference between some of the the WWII vets I've

met versus the Vietnam vets and the recent vets perhaps teaches us

something about when war is righteous (zheng). This, too, is a longer

discussion... At any rate, without glorifying war per se, I want to

recognize these men for teaching me what a healthy warrior looks like,

i.e peaceful.

 

 

Thea Elijah

 

 

 

 

On Mar 4, 2010, at 3:42 PM, Dianne wrote:

 

>

>

> " Both of these guys are WWII veterans; they know what it means to

> fight

> and they have a lot of stories they're not telling. These are not New

> Age wimps with a pacifism that is basically comfort-loving cowardice. "

>

> A question....What has war ever accomplished for mankind? Insulting

> pacifists as wimps without action certainly provokes criticism which

> would therefore make one no better than the questioned.

> Dianne

>

> ________________________________

> Thea Elijah <parkinglot

>

> Thu, March 4, 2010 9:51:36 AM

> spirituality and warfare

>

>

> My husband's Uncle Louis and his Uncle Johnny are a couple of

> toothless old Italian guys whom I consider sages. If you ask them

> about God or religion or spirit with a big or small " s, " they don't

> know and they don't really care-- but sitting and talking with these

> guys can easily make you a better person. It's not what they say,

> exactly, although somehow in their talk of where to get the best

> tomatoes and who's got a new front porch, deep non-material human

> values are conveyed, and there is a strength and presence that not

> only shines through them, but it lights a fire inside of those who sit

> with them. You come away feeling stronger, calmer, more yourself--

> and more able to do what needs to be done, with love.

>

> Both of these guys are WWII veterans; they know what it means to fight

> and they have a lot of stories they're not telling. These are not New

> Age wimps with a pacifism that is basically comfort-loving cowardice.

> Their peace is the peace of having done what they knew was right,

> beyond ego, doing what a loving man would do for life itself even if

> that meant losing their lives. Their personal experience with

> fighting Nazis left them with no illusions that " it's all good. "

> Their strength has no need to crow; they have nothing to prove, and

> everything to give.

>

> Talking about the spirit is not the same as treating the spirit. How

> are we living, what are we conveying, and how does that come across to

> each other in the treatment room, or right here right now on this list

> serve? One practitioner may talk about spirit and do nothing but

> violence. One practitioner may say, I know nothing about spirit, but

> ennoble many people.

>

> We often use case studies to illustrate our methods. Perhaps we could

> live our methods here. Perhaps we are living our methods here. If

> not, why not?

>

> Thea Elijah

>

>

[Guest guest]

Interesting topic, but not really related to herbs. It might be a good idea to

end this thread before it heats up.

 

- Bill

[Guest guest]

On Mar 5, 2010, at 3:09 PM, bill_schoenbart wrote:

 

> Interesting topic, but not really related to herbs. It might be a

> good idea to end this thread before it heats up.

>

> - Bill

>

Before it heats up! Oh my gosh, did you say before!?!? (I'm laughing)

 

I am going to respond to Lonny on this, because I think it is vitally

germane to how we discuss herbs etc-- and how we make use of each

other as professional resources for the sake of sharing knowledge and

advancing the profession.

 

 

On Mar 5, 2010, at 9:01 AM, Lonny wrote:

 

> For instance although I would certainly define your writing style as

> polemical,

>

> Lonny: I'm not sure this is a fair characterization. It's clear that

> the position " Only those who fluently read Classical Chinese are in

> a position to determine what real Chinese medicine is " is an

> absolutist position. I've merely suggested that there are other

> interpretations than those ascribed by one school of thought and

> provided sound evidence that this is so. It strikes me as

> unreasonable to characterize this position as " polemic " .

>

I am not calling your position polemical; I am calling your writing

style polemical.

 

 

> Still, as I said in another post I think there is a valid place for

> such discourse.

>

Yes, in measure. If the goal of discourse is, as you say, " to focus

what I know and what I don't, what I'm committed to and what I'm not, "

then yes, it is very valuable. I do see that happening here. But

that is not the only possible goal of discourse. Another possible

goal of discourse is intellectual cross-fertilization, which is also

valuable. It is particularly valuable in fostering greater community

cohesion without homogenization. There is a lot to be gained,

potentially, by conveying our ideas in such a way that others are more

likely to be able to recognize their worth and integrate their value.

In this way we learn from one another.

 

How would we go about accessing each others' knowledge and ways of

knowing, in the face of the huge gaps of experience and understanding

between us? How would we begin to explore the potential worth of each

others' ways of knowing, given that they are perhaps rather foreign?

 

This would be a very different process than clarifying what we already

know! If all we want is to clarify our own stance, we are not really

concerned with being truly intelligible to our partner in discourse.

We are concerned with making " clear statements " by the standards of

someone who already understands what we mean (e.g. ourselves). If the

" clinical results " we are looking for is to share our vision and to be

understood by the other person, we must start by looking for ways to

explain via common points of reference, and then patiently work

forward together at the other person's pace, honoring the other

person's doubts, concerns and questions, step by step along the way.

 

 

 

> And, what are you going to do, concede the earth may not be round

> because a few people insist repeatedly that it is not?

>

Absolutely not. I too believe that truth is not a matter of opinion,

and reality is not a democratic process. But the process of

discovering truth-- and coming to common understanding-- requires

partnership in process.

 

Lonny, what made our discussions (or " arguments " since we really went

at it hammer and tongs) from 20 years ago so exciting and valuable is

that, even when we radically disagreed, we always respected each

others' intelligence, and always cared much more for the discovery of

truth than for clarifying our own position. We believed in truth as

something we would arrive at together, and never doubted for a moment

that the other was intelligent, or capable of an insight that we

ourselves might benefit from. If we did not agree, we assumed that

there was good reason-- that each of us had gotten ahold of a

different part of the elephant, and that truth would be best served by

figuring out together where the " bridge " was between our points of

view. Anyone may have some of the truth; it takes all of us to have

all of the truth. Are we listening?

 

If someone says the world is not round, and I want to live in

community of truth with them, I must take care that in my engagement

with them I do not so provoke them that they entrench even further

into mobilizing all of their intelligence to defending their

position. Just being obnoxious or insulting or strident is usually

enough to make others not WANT to arrive at an agreement with us.

It's one of the big problems with " being right. "

 

How do we talk with people who believe that the world is not round so

that we arrive at truth together? This is a critical question for

anyone who genuinely wants to help foster insight and understanding

(rather than just clarify their own position).

 

 

Thea Elijah

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

(see below)

 

 

 

 

On Behalf Of Thea Elijah

 

 

 

 

>

Yes, in measure. If the goal of discourse is, as you say, " to focus

what I know and what I don't, what I'm committed to and what I'm not, "

then yes, it is very valuable. I do see that happening here. But

that is not the only possible goal of discourse. Another possible

goal of discourse is intellectual cross-fertilization, which is also

valuable. It is particularly valuable in fostering greater community

cohesion without homogenization. There is a lot to be gained,

potentially, by conveying our ideas in such a way that others are more

likely to be able to recognize their worth and integrate their value.

In this way we learn from one another.

 

 

 

Thea, I agree. This is not just about who is right or wrong but also about

broadening our horizons. Consequently, I have been going out of my way to

look for evidence of a more spiritual understanding of Chinese medicine

texts. Unfortunately, this is one hard thing to find. I hope someone out

there that has accumulated this data can start to present it. I'm going to

put an inquiry into Charles Chace today for he has spent more time with

Chinese alchemy and daoist texts than probably anyone on this list.

 

-Jason

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

" Defeated? " Just another question. But look around. Please.

Cliff

 

 

Lonny wrote:

>

> A question....What has war ever accomplished for mankind?

>

> Lonny: It defeated the Nazis-One of the single greatest, and most

> selfless, triumphs of good over evil in history.

>

>

[Guest guest]

Yes. And with apologies for previous response.

 

And a sidebar: How much I enjoy being able to periodically check these

discussions! Much food for thought for a student. Thank you.

 

Cliff

 

bill_schoenbart wrote:

>

> Interesting topic, but not really related to herbs. It might be a good

> idea to end this thread before it heats up.

>

> - Bill

>

>