The Sceptre of Hermes – Part Two
In the same way that Sathya Sai Baba, the 20th century mystic from South India, was able to materialise sweets, trinkets and vibhuti (sacred ash) to startle materialistically minded people into an awareness of other levels of consciousness, so psychic healers create objective phenomena to overcome doubt, and foster belief in their ability to heal.
It is upon these deeper levels of consciousness that psychic healers such as Olga Worrall (who was quoted in Part One) operate. The powers of healing which they bring to bear upon the patient are real, but they do not work in a way which conforms to the modern medical paradigm.
It is precisely because these powers are not explainable in common medical terms that they are so often impugned. But the reality of these powers can be readily experienced and, as in the case of Lynn Brailler, may be felt subjectively as heat and warmth.
Although psychic healing is still regarded in many quarters as a form of quackery, the power which lies behind it has been shown to exist in various scientific experiments.
At the suggestion of Dr. Justa Smith, a Sister of the Franciscan Order and Professor of Biochemistry at Rosary Hill College in Buffalo, New York, an unusual experiment was conducted under the auspices of the Human Dimensions Institute.
This experiment involved Oskar Estebany, a former Colonel of the Hungarian Cavalry, who had emigrated to Canada and gained a reputation as a psychic healer.
Since Sister Smith’s doctoral thesis had been devoted to the influence of strong magnetic fields on the activity of enzymes, an area in which she was regarded as an authority, she suggested that a carefully controlled experiment be undertaken to determine what effect, if any, Estebany’s powers would have upon the activity of certain enzymes.
She recommended a test using trypsin, an enzyme that assists in the digestion of protein in the human body. In this experiment, equal parts of trypsin were placed in four enclosed tubes.
While one tube was kept as an untreated control, another tube was exposed to ultraviolet light. A third tube was placed in a strong, magnetic field, and the fourth tube was “treated” by Estebany. This treatment consisted of his holding the tube containing trypsin for a period of about seventy-five minutes.
When the results were examined it was found that, in relation to the untreated control, the trypsin in the tube exposed to ultraviolet light had reduced its activity by about a quarter. The activity of the trypsin which had been placed in the strong, magnetic field was found to have been enhanced to the degree predicted by Dr. Smith.
The experimenters found that the trypsin in the tube which had been held by Oskar Estebany, had increased its activity to a degree which matched that of the influence of the magnetic field.
It was evident that Estebany had subjected the trypsin to a source of energy which was of similar magnitude to that generated by the magnetic field. The energy demonstrated by Estebany was not magnetic, because he was unable to influence compasses or magnetometers.
Yet it was obvious that Estebany exerted a definite force which, like magnetism, yielded observable physical effects. As commentator Dr.Owen remarked in his evaluation of this experiment:
“This is a very remarkable result. The experiment was carried out with the most sophisticated biochemical and biophysical equipment. Unlike the studies of living patients, there is no problem of interpretation because there is no possible confusion of physical and psychological effect.
“Consequently, there is no adequate reason for doubting the scientific validity of the experiment or of the conclusion to be drawn from it, namely that some healers transmit a force from their bodies that has a real physical effect on biochemical substances.” 1
The evidence obtained from faith healing and psychic surgery remains data that is anomalous in terms of the western medical paradigm. Because there is no accepted medical theory to account for its validity, psychic healing is rejected as “unscientific” by the modern medical profession.
Having been dubbed a pseudo-form of medicine, its practitioners are usually dismissed as charlatans who prey on the hopes of the afflicted. According to the western medical paradigm, disease is explained on the basis of pathology. Disease is thus defined in terms of adversaries.
With the discovery of bacteria and the process of bacteriological interaction, western medicine has determined that diseases are the product, not of alien spirits or unwelcome stellar alignments, but of distinct pathological organisms which adversely affect the body.
It is now regarded as a proven truth that germs cause disease.
Because of this, the direction taken by western medicine has been to search out these offending pathogens, and then find ways of overcoming them. The success of modern medicine has been built upon the discovery that certain chemical agents can effectively curtail the actions of these pathogenic germs.
Western medicine has thus been described as an allopathic form of medicine, derived from the Greek term allos meaning “other”, or opposite. The technique of western healing has been to administer a specific chemical agent to the body, whose action is directly opposite to that of the bacteria which have caused the symptoms that are the manifestation of disease.
By producing an opposing or limiting effect, the counteragent is thus regarded as a healing substance, as it is capable of successfully overcoming the offending symptoms of disease. With the disappearance of the symptoms, the disease is presumed to have been cured.
The idea that germs are the origin of disease is the basis of modern scientific medicine. Although this has led to a remarkable degree of success in the treatment of disease, it is by no means the most effective “description” of disease, nor is western medicine the only form of medicine that is able to cure disease.
The germ theory of disease merely happens to be that description of disease which fits the modern scientific paradigm. The subtle truth, which still eludes most medical researchers, is that there is no single description of disease which is the one “true” explanation.
The manifestation of disease can be explained in a variety of ways. No one description of the nature and cause of disease is intrinsically superior to another. Each is valid within its own framework of belief.
The experience of an agonising abdominal pain may be diagnosed in western medical terms as the action of cancerous cells within the stomach. But what is called stomach cancer within one frame of reference, may equally well be defined as something completely different within another context of belief.
For example, this may range from the intrusion of an offending spirit, to an imbalance of colour, or a disturbance in organic frequency. Each diagnosis will be valid within its own frame of reference, and will require treatment which is tailored to that paradigm.
When viewed from the standpoint of any one particular paradigm, the diagnoses offered by other paradigms will inevitably be rejected as being pseudo-medical, unscientific and invalid.
If we ask ourselves, for example, which of these many different diagnoses is the “correct” one, the answer is that there is no single definition of disease that is valid for all people and for all contexts.
A diagnosis of disease is only valid when it conforms to the paradigm of disease adopted by that society. And the appropriate form of treatment must necessarily conform to the prevailing pattern of ideas adopted by the society to which the “sick” person belongs.
So while the symptoms of “stomach cancer” may well be treated effectively within western society by means of specialised radiation, they may equally well be treated by the application of substances or techniques appropriate to other paradigms of disease adopted by other societies.
In fact, every culture tends to define disease within a particular framework of ideas, and then treat these symptoms of disease in ways which conform to their prevailing patterns of belief.
The validity of any form of medicine can therefore only be judged by its efficacy within its own paradigm.
Some two-and-a-half thousand years before the birth of Christ, conversations on the nature of disease between the Emperor of China, Huang-ti and his chief minister Chi Po, were reduced to a written record. This recorded script came to be known over time as Nei-Ching, or the “Theory of Internal Disease”.
This theoretical treatise on the nature of disease was based on the cosmological ideas that were prevalent at the time. The ancient Chinese philosophy of nature regarded the human body as a miniature version of the cosmos.
The cosmos was thought to be composed of a universal energy called Chi, which was considered to be in constant ebb and flow. This energy was believed to manifest in either of two polarities. One of these polarities was called Yin and the other Yang.
Yin was believed to be the negative mode of Chi. It was thought to represent the feminine aspect of life, along with the qualities of passivity and coldness. Yang, by contrast, was considered to be positive, reflecting masculinity as well as the qualities of activity and heat.
Just as the universe was thought to be the theatre in which these two aspects of Chi vied for supremacy, so too the human body was believed to be the repository of this same energy, and was equally subject to the forces of Yin and Yang.
Health then, under this paradigm of ideas, demanded a balance in the body between these two opposing principles. If either force should gain temporary control, it was believed that disease would be the inevitable result.
The system of medicine which the ancient Chinese adopted to counteract disease, therefore, was a variety of techniques which were designed to restore the balance of Yin and Yang within the human body.
The Chinese believed that the twin forces of Yin and Yang flowed through the human body along a series of special channels, or meridians. These meridians were thought to control the functions of the various organs of the body.
Whenever any form of disease manifested itself, it was necessary to diagnose which of these meridians was affected, and where a “blockage” in the flow of energy had occurred. Since each meridian was believed to be linked to a particular pulse, physicians were trained to identify these meridians by the subtle variations in the human pulse beat.
Once diagnosis had been made, treatment took the form of altering the flow of Chi at designated points along the meridian. This manipulation was performed by means of special needles which penetrated the flesh, thus giving rise to the name whereby this form of treatment is known today – acupuncture.
The Chinese description of disease was antedated by an even earlier system of ideas devised by Indian minds. To these ancient Indians, the human body was thought to be vitalized by a particular energy called prana, which they believed to be the basic life force of the universe.
This prana was believed to flow through the body along a multitude of nerve passages, called nadis. These nadis were linked in turn to a central column, consisting of three major channels.
One channel was known as the Pingala, and was thought to be the repository of the positive aspect of prana. Likewise, negative prana was believed to be directed along its own special channel, called the Ida. Both the Ida and the Pingala were considered to be intertwined around a central channel called the Sushumna, as depicted in the following diagram.
At each point where the Ida and the Pingala crossed the Sushumna, a chakra, or pranic force centre, was believed to exist. To the early Indians the health of the body was dependent on the unobstructed flow of prana through each of the seven chakras of the body.
The intertwining features of the Ida and Pingala around the Sushumna came to be represented pictorially as the sinuous linking of serpents around a central column.
It was this symbol which was borrowed by Hellenistic Greece to denote the emblem of the medical profession. As the winged-staff of the Greek God Hermes, this sceptre has come to be known as the caduceus, as shown below.
This symbol, often shorn of one of its serpents, remains to this day the insignia of the medical profession. Although physicians have become the modern custodians of this ancient staff of healing, very few are aware of its underlying origin and significance.
Over the millennia, different societies have ascribed the origins of disease to different agents, and have interpreted the effects, the symptoms of disease, according to differing systems of belief.
The Tibetans, for example, attributed disease to certain “poisons of the soul”, such as greed, arrogance and envy, which disturbed the balance of the three primary juices of life – the wind, bile and slime.
The western concept of disease, based on the action of minute pathological bacteria, or germs, is simply the latest in a long line of descriptive paradigms. It carries no inherent superiority over those that have passed before, although each varies in the degree to which it is capable of meeting the medical needs of society.
All traditional systems of medicine have successfully cured disease, even those of the past which are now scorned from the scientific vantage point. Even the medieval practice of blood-letting undoubtedly aided its patients as its practitioners believed. If it had not done so, it would never have been utilised for so long.
Yet today, except in a few specific cases, blood-letting is regarded as barbaric. Shamanism, acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, psychic surgery and allopathic medicine, are all substantiated by successful cures, which are explained in terms of a central philosophical regime or paradigm.
It follows then that every medical paradigm, such as the paradigm of allopathic medicine, rests upon a foundation of belief. This belief is imbued within members of any society, and is acquired as part of their general cultural conditioning. As Lawrence LeShan remarks:
“The metaphysical system you are using is the metaphysical system that is operating. A metaphysical system is a set of assumptions about how the universe is put together and functions. We always have one whether or not we are aware of it.
“The assumptions we use about the nature of reality make up the system. The system determines what is possible and impossible, normal and paranormal, within it.” 2
The germ nature of disease is a metaphysical system of medicine which derives its efficacy from a sense of validity and trust by those who have adopted it. As LeShan stresses: “One must know it is valid to operate within it.” 3
We in the west have come to place implicit trust in our belief that germs are the agents of disease. Yet in the early days of western medicine, researchers laughed at this outrageous suggestion.
One of the earliest proponents of the germ theory of disease was the German bacteriologist Robert Koch, who was later awarded a Nobel prize for his discovery. Koch was the first person to discover and isolate the cholera bacillus, and he developed choleric cultures in his laboratory.
One of those who challenged Koch’s germ theory of disease was his compatriot Professor Max von Pettenkofer. Max was convinced that Koch’s ideas were utterly ridiculous, and to prove this fact, he along with several of his students swallowed virulent cultures of choleric bacilli.
To Robert Koch’s chagrin, neither Professor von Pettenkofer nor any of his students came to any harm, although each of them had swallowed enough quantities of choleric bacteria to kill the inhabitants of a large city.
The reason for this enigma, which medical historians still find difficulty in explaining to this day, is precisely that requirement noted by LeShan. To be bound by the effects of a germ-defined paradigm, “one must know it is valid“.
Robert Koch certainly knew, for he was one of the founders of this paradigm. For him, the swallowed dose would undoubtedly have proved fatal. For von Pettenkofer and his students, however, who did not share Koch’s confidence in the validity of this new medical paradigm, these choleric cultures were as harmless as a voodoo curse would be to a professor of nuclear physics today.
Yet it would be foolhardy to try to emulate von Pettenkofer today, for belief in the validity of germ induced disease now forms the warp and weft of the current western way of thinking. To duplicate his feat would require a state of mind in which the customary definition of reality was temporarily suspended.
Although any single paradigm may be efficacious in yielding valid results, this does not mean that different paradigms can be unified into a single universal scheme. Based on what we have examined thus far, the human body would prove to be hopelessly complex if all the features of every paradigm were to be combined.
Not only would it be possessed of a skeleton draped in a muscular cloak, populated by various organs and served by a network of nerves which fed into a central brain, but it would also appear to be imbued with energy coursing down tiny tracks, which constantly vied for supremacy between two opposing poles.
The spine, furthermore, would be host to a party of serpentine coils, at whose junctures would appear centres of energy which were independent of any of the known organs of the body. It would also be composed of various juices of life, each of which was subject to our thoughts and emotions, anyone of which might at any stage disturb the equilibrium of our lives.
To combine all of these medical paradigms together into one synthesised system of thought, as some modern researchers still attempt to do, would create a human body with more complexities than the epicycles which doomed the geocentric astronomy of Ptolemy, which leads to the following conclusion:
There can never be a unified or “correct” paradigm for defining disease that is valid for every society and for all time. Disease has traditionally been defined, and will continue to be explained, according to the prevailing metaphysical systems of their times.
Despite the sophistication with which western society has confronted the symptoms of disease, modern medicine remains confounded by the nature of disease itself. Although it claims to speak with confidence about the “causes” of disease, just why a particular symptom happens to arise, and what causes it ultimately to disappear, is still a mystery which continues to defy analysis.
Just as the physicist is unable to explain the true nature of electricity, and is content, like Edison, to say that it matters not how it is explained as long as it works, so also physicians, unable to explain the mystery of healing, are content to ignore this problem as long as they can demonstrate the success of their methods.
(Continued in Part Three)
References
1 A. R.G. Owen, “Psychic Mysteries of the North“, Harper and Row, New York, 1975, pp. 108-109.
2 Lawrence LeShan, “The Medium, The Mystic and The Physicist“, Ballantine, New York, 1975, p. 153.
3 Ibid, p. 154.
