Judy Worsely: Response to Article on “CF”
I read with interest Judy Worsley’s dissertation on “CF” and have several observations and questions. I’ll address two points that she implicated regarding my own teachings and a broader philosophical issue.
“CF” Vs. Constitution
I. Judy affirms that “CF” is “an essential component of the ancient lineage that J.R.’s teacher’s passed to him through the traditional means of oral transmission. He translated skillfully this knowledge in a cohesive and understandable manner for the modern and Western context, calling it Causative Factor.”
We can start my acknowledging that J.R. had no translation skills regarding the Chinese language. Judy goes on to say that he “transliterated” the teachings from his teachers. I propose that the concept the Chinese taught him was based in the notion of “constitution” and JR “transliterated” this into a concept more familiar to his Western mind- “Causative Factor.”
We can be reasonably confident that this is so because Judy’s next sentence is:
CF is, “Obvious at the time of birth…….”
This is the precise definition of “inherited constitution.” The characters tianxing (天性) denote “The nature of the heart/mind from birth” as appointed by heaven, and ming （命), as covered in Nourishing Destiny, denotes our inborn destiny. These influences are gleaned between conception and first breath falling under the domain of early heaven (先天). All influences and potentials acquired under the auspices of early heaven are “constitutional.”
Judy continues ”Therefore it does not require verbal narrative relating to experiences, preferences, choices, perceptions, and so on.”
Judy is correct, because “CF” is inherited (constitutional) and not acquired (experience, preference, choice, perception).
Finally Judy asserts, ‘CF does not change during life.’
That’s right. Why? Because constitutional traits (eye color, number of toes, genetic sex , “CF,”etc.) don’t change during life.
I am confused because Judy is asserting that “CF is not constitutional” AND “CF is not acquired.”
QUESTION #1: I would appreciate it if Judy would speak to how “CF” as a human trait is neither inherited nor acquired.
The Golden Key
I agree entirely with Judy that “CF,”(Constitution as I practice it), in the sense we are discussing it, is best diagnosed through direct perception of CSOE and not by behavior, belief, choices, preferences etc..
However, (1) we were also taught that we could diagnose by a “Golden Key”- a patient manifesting as an element through a clear and direct action. In this regard a student saw a patient with JR in his clinic when we were studying with him. The patient, as presented to the class, had “Love me” tattooed on his hand and sat with his arms spread wide exposing heart-1 while laughing. JR pointed to this as a “golden key” (the gentleman had also tried to kill himself by placing his head in an oven) pointing to “Fire.” This notion of “Golden Key” would seem to suggest that, indeed, a person can manifest CF through behavior (how could any human attribute. Especially one as profound as “CF” not be expressed through behavior if “body, mind, and spirit are one”?).
Question # 2: I am interested to hear an explication of “Golden key” as a correlate of CF as it relates to the statement that “CF can only be diagnosed by CSOE.” It seems that behavior (actions, speech) can, minimally, be quite directive.
Question #3: How is it possible that an attribute as potent and pervasive as CF is not expressed through human behavior if body, mind, and spirit are one?
An Observation
Even if “CF” can only be diagnosed by CSOE, once we know “CF” we can interpret behavior, choices, actions, words, metaphors used, etc through that lens in a way that is significant for both diagnosis, prognosis, treatment planning, and assessment of improvement. I’ve written three books explicating this and am happy to elaborate it for anyone interested.
Which brings us to:
II. Judy’s assertion that CF is not paired with “specific qualities of destiny associated with the five-element virtues,” as suggested by moi-Lonny Jarrett.
I have no problem whatsoever with the idea of oral transmission or, for that matter, with people making things up. But if one is going to declare one’s tradition “classical” it seems disingenuous to me to then ignore a 2500 year literary tradition. The principles of CSOE, Chinese clock, the point names and functions, seasonal influences and all the other associations found on the Worsely Institutes 5E chart were codified in books, not just whispered down through the ages.
1. The virtues were associated with the five elements in the Bai Hu Tong circa 200 CE.
2. If we are going to, as Judy affirms, treat the “body, mind, and spirit,” the virtues are merely associations that point to the optimal functioning of the five elements in the “mind” (soul/psyche), spirit, and through the body as behavior.
How do we know a patient is improving? We have indicators physically (blood pressure, frequency of urination, pulse stability, etc), mentally (less anxiety), and in terms of the patient’s self-report “I feel better.” But we also have indicators in the patient’s behavior from the gross (improved range of motion) to the subtle (appears less anxious) to spirit (acts more virtuously and less selfishly. IE-Grows Up). The association of the virtues with the elements is profound because it implicates the importance in assessing behavior. Otherwise, we are merely left with how a patient feels and, practically speaking, what’s most important is that way a person behaves in this world and not how they feel. That’s the essence of the Bodhisattva vow (more on that another time!). Simply, the virtues are associations of the elements and officials every bit as significant as CSOE, time of day, season, etc.
Question#4: Given Judy’s assertion that we diagnose and treat body, mind, spirit, how do we assess the patient is improving in the realm of mind (soul, psyche), and in spirit?
Question#5: Is there any imperative that as the patient heals they will behave in a more wholesome way? If yes, how do we assess that and why are the five element virtues that exist in the classical tradition not adequate to that task?
III. An observation:
I’ll just take this opportunity to convey that in my 35 years of teaching I’ve engaged with students from every tradition. No tradition has any inherent claim on humanity, spirit, love, care, depth, authenticity, or magic. No tradition is inherently more tied to nature, the soul, or spirit than the integrity of the practitioner practicing it.
Diagnosis is listening. Diagnosing by CSOE helps cultivate us to listen but so does doing a 40 minute pulse diagnosis, an extensive hara exam, or merely connecting heart to heart-listening (what the Chinese call tong shen ming 通神明 or ‘being in connection with the radiance of spirit’).
I love the 5E tradition and have engaged wholeheartedly with it for 40 years. I’m proud of it and daily moved by it. But I will never ask any student or patient to accept what I say without nuanced explanation, or submitting the principles I teach to scrutiny. In the end, there is no difference between the logical fallacy of appealing to the authority of the classic texts (book learning!) or venerated teachers (mythologyzing). Every practitioner, in each age, must become enlightened to the timeless principles of the medicine for themselves. Then we have a living medicine, living, because it emerges as ongoing sincere discourse and openhearted inquiry.
There is far more in Judy’s letter that I think would be fascinating to discuss in person. I invite her to open discussion in front of the profession in these and other matters. In my experience, cloistered traditions tend to become closed and stagnant. There is something new and beautiful that can happen in the collective emergence of open minded inquiry when we are interested in what we don’t already know and have nothing to defend.
In the spirit of open and interested dialog I’d very much like to hear Judy elaborate upon my points and answer these few questions.
Sincerely, Lonny Jarrett