Hypnotherapy and ichthyosis

That sounds like a really interesting read. Might have to look out for that one myself.

This is from Bruce Lipton's book, The Biology of Belief. Mason, a young hypnotherapist was treating what he thought to be a bad case of warts in a young boy. The treatment was successful.

OK, so what is going on here? I don’t know much about hypnotism except that it is handing over the control of your own thinking to someone else, that you have to give your consent to it and that the way to resist it is to hold on to a fact you know is true.

So, we have the boy, giving his consent to being hypnotised in order to get rid of a simple case of warts. He had confidence (faith) that the hypnotist, Mason, could do this. Then we have Mason who regarded this as a simple (and easy?) case of warts. He had faith that it would work. The result - effective treatment.

The way that I understand it, almost all healing is faith healing. It might be faith in the doctor, the drug, the operation, the therapy, the hypnotism, the crystals, the flower essences etc.

There is a thread on the placebo effect on the General pages and I have included this link to a video from the TV documentary where three groups of people thought they had had knee surgery and those who had nothing done to them has as good effects as those who had.

[DLMURL="http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3632381798967472933"]Placebo Surgery[/DLMURL]

Later the specialist informed the Mason that the boy's condition had been misdiagnosed and that the condition was not a bad case of warts but was ichthyosis, a fatal congenital disease.

After publishing this case Mason was approached by other patients diagnosed with ichthyosis but he was unsuccessful in treating them. Mason concluded that his knowledge of the diagnosis had reduced his ability to carry out the treatment.

I agree with Mason’s conclusion. All the time we believe that we are responsible for changing sick matter into well matter and if that sickness is something serious (and in this case fatal) then our confidence (faith) has gone and it doesn’t work.

I practice metaphysical healing, as a student of Christian Science.
Mary Baker Eddy, who discovered this system of healing, wrote:

[COLOR="Blue"]The matter-physician deals with matter as both his foe and his remedy. He regards the ailment as weakened or strengthened according to the evidence which matter presents. The metaphysician, making Mind (God) his basis of operation irrespective of matter and regarding the truth and harmony of being as superior to error and discord, has rendered himself strong, instead of weak, to cope with the case; and he proportionately strengthens his patient with the stimulus of courage and conscious power. Both Science and consciousness are now at work in the economy of being according to the law of Mind, which ultimately asserts its absolute supremacy. (Science and Health 423)

A real Christian Science treatment has nothing to do with the human mind or faith healing, but is totally yielding to the eternal perfection and harmony of the one universal divine Mind (God.) This type of healing not only gets rid of physical or mental symptoms, but (more importantly) also brings spiritual and moral regeneration and transformation. A man suffering from acute asthma who in desperation one night asked my mother to pray for him, found that not only was he permanently cured of the asthma, but was also not able to smoke or drink alcohol again (they both tasted like poison after that) He had been a violent alcoholic and abused his family, but became a new husband and father and to his work colleagues a new boss. My mother had prayed all night, not to heal a sick man, but to see his innate innocence and purity as the reflection of God’s being.

We understand in Christian Science treatment that all discordant conditions are caused, not by material factors, DNA, age, viruses, germs, injury etc, but by the fear and world belief in them. Further more, the belief IS the condition and the only place it exists is in consciousness and that is where it must be removed from. There is no incurable condition because there is no unchangeable thought.

There are quite a few good examples of this type of healing in this thread:
[url]Healing through the Christ consciousness[/url] which includes two healings that a young friend, Rachel, had.

One came when I had exactly 5 minutes before a meeting and she walked past me from the shower saying "I'm going to bed, I don't feel good. Will you pray for me please."

I had no idea what the problem was so couldn’t get bogged down with symptoms, expectations, or anything else. All I could do was to know that All-ness of God and the perfection of HisHer image and likeness (a divine, perfect “blueprint” that always exists, regardless of the conditions that our material senses inform us of.)

What came to me was, "There are 3 things God will not give us - sin, sickness and death." so, if those are the counterfeit of what IS, then the counter fact were 3 of the synonyms of God – Love, Truth and Life. I didn’t think of Rachel at all – only of God as Love, Truth, Life.

An inspiring hymn was read at the beginning of the meeting 5 minutes later and as I heard the words, even though I didn’t know what had been the problem with Rachel, I just KNEW that they exactly met her need and that she was healed. A couple of hours later she was in her place at choir. Nothing was said that night and I just assumed it had been a headache or something, but later on she told me what had happened:

She had been horse riding that day and had developed an aggressive allergy to the horse (something she'd had before.) Her throat had begun to swell and a rash was developing over parts of her body, which was very itchy. She also had a thumping headache. She decided to have a shower, miss dinner and get a couple of hours sleep instead as she wasn't coping but felt that she wouldn't think about it all while asleep. (It’s always our thought we have to deal with in Christian Science treatment.)

When she woke, she was completely healed, all swelling, irritation and headache gone. Not only that, but a life-long allergy to animals was cured from that moment on (you can read her email to me on post 6 of the Christ consciousness thread that I've given the link to above)

I honestly feel that had I (like Mason) been confronted with all the descriptions of the symptoms (and the possible danger with the swelling throat etc) it might have been harder to have understood the unreality of the condition and to have connected to the harmony and perfection of the divine Mind.

Sorry this reply was so long, but it's my favourite subject! 😮

Love and peace,

Judy

This is from Bruce Lipton's book, The Biology of Belief.

The New Biology suggests some answers to those questions... matter and energy are entangled. The logical corollary is that the mind (energy) and body (matter) are similarly bound, though western medicine has tried valiantly to separate them for hundreds of years.

The entaglement between matter and energy is already well established (E=mc^2)

the only argument now is what constitutes 'energy' and 'matter' and to perasuade the allopathic medical fraternity that mind and body are not two indivisible entities 🙂

the only argument now is what constitutes 'energy' and 'matter'

I think you'll have problems here. This is because you can only objectify a "something" by separating it from the observer.

These kind of examples (Mason's case and the knee surgery example) do suggest that belief is causal in health and healing; that one set of conditions (sickness) can change to another set of conditions (healthy) can take place if there is faith that is not confounded by doubt.

Why is this so difficult? I think this comes back to our problems with identifying a substance and causal links. Judy's approach denies a set of material causes and effect and finds information about the material condition is an obstacle:

I honestly feel that had I (like Mason) been confronted with all the descriptions of the symptoms (and the possible danger with the swelling throat etc) it might have been harder to have understood the unreality of the condition and to have connected to the harmony and perfection of the divine Mind.

Judy's approach talks about a reality that is not material (material being unreal)! Is the need to refer to a reality that is not material (matter or energy) connected with the problem of identifying what actually exists? This problem arises because what we can, under normal circumstances, say exists (material objects) is only what we can sense through our perceptions and "observe" (quantify and record; measure and locate in time and space). We can only make observations with our consciousness; in fact we can never really separate consciousness from our observations of "what exists" so we would have to record something about the consciousness that observes if we are really to make a proper recording of events. So can we measure our consciousness or the aspect of awareness that is part of the process of identifying and recording an object? I don't believe we are ever going to be able to do this because consciousness is a product of the awareness that observes and the awareness that observes cannot be measured; it is like a mirror that merely holds an image of what it observes; it cannot be measured it can only measure; you can only say that there are objects of mind, you cannot say that mind is an object.

Where do we go from here? How do we know what really is real? Is it all really God? And what do we really mean by this word?

Norbu

We understand in Christian Science treatment that all discordant conditions are caused, not by material factors, DNA, age, viruses, germs, injury etc, but by the fear and world belief in them. Further more, the belief IS the condition and the only place it exists is in consciousness and that is where it must be removed from. There is no incurable condition because there is no unchangeable thought.

Thanks for your post Judy,

I've just reread it and it I feel it is very clearly written. I really do feel that evidence Bruce Lipton sets out are consistent with your approach. Radically reviewing the evidence, as Bruce Lipton does, is one thing but finding a way to act on the basis of the insights that come from this analysis is another.

I'm afraid I still have some difficulty with the "ideal" used in your approach but there can be no doubt it can work for those who use it.

Norbu

......whatwe can, under normal circumstances, say exists (material objects) is only what we can sense through our perceptions and "observe" (quantify and record; measure and locate in time and space).

I don't want to take the thread to much OT by debating the semantics/linguistics (of your post) but do strongly disagree that only materially quantifiable objects are able to be identified as 'existing'.

For example, I am fully aware of the love that exists between myself and other people and certainly don't need to be able to check the read out on my 'love-o-meter' to confirm this 😉

I think I know where you're coming from though and broadly agree, but the whole subject of the role of the observer/observed in experienced phenomena and the balance between (and definition of) subjective/objective data and material/etherial worlds are beset by ambiguity........

.......probably the basis for a few lifetimes of debate !!

Hi Muzone,

I don't feel this is off topic at all. At least for me I think there is a very powerful set of assumptions here that, I believe, are key to unlocking the "power of mind."

In the Mason case, once he was subject to the knowledge that the disease he wished to treat was genetically predetermined, he was not able to effect a cure through hypnotherapy. I wonder how he would do now with developing understanding in epigenetics and the research that establishes a causal link that enables organisms to rewrite their DNA sequences (Bruce Lipton discusses the evidence in his book, The Biology of Belief).

But do thoughts "exist?" Do emotions "exist?" Does consciousness "exist?" Does awareness "exist?" We can never measure these things, we can only measure or record behaviour, physiology, electromagnetic changes etc. If we say you don't need to measure or record a substance or entity to say that it exists or that a change has taken place, are we not left on uncertain ground?

I guess I'm suggesting this: We can never really measure "love" we can only measure things. I don't mean to suggest that you or I don't experience loving emotions. Perhaps we can say that love "exists" or God "exists" but that is quite a different kind of existence to material objects. In fact the notion of existence of objects or substances is quite problematic in and of itself. On the one hand we have to have evidence and on the other we have to be careful not to think that "something exists" as a permanent self-existing thing or substance outside of experience. And what we experience is subject to perception and is dependent on the way we see things.

When we realise this we can see that things aren't perhaps quite as they seem. They are plastic but they are not non-existent and the way we see them is quite a lot to do with what they are. This does give us some room for being able to "see things differently" and for this to have an impact of the "way things are." The way a thing is; what "exists" as well as perceptions and experience seem to be closely intermeshed.

Realising this plasticity is one thing but mastering the plasticity of phenomena is quite another, as Mason found out. Isn't this forum all about discussing how to do this? And surely we can only work out how to do this if we look at the evidence and then try to work out what is going on. And to work out what is going on, we have to work out what the connection between mind and body is. And to make sense of this we have to work out what we mean by mind and body and why they are different or not, as the case may be. That's why this discussion isn't OT.

Norbu

But do thoughts "exist?" Do emotions "exist?" Does consciousness "exist?" Does awareness "exist?" We can never measure these things, we can only measure or record behaviour, physiology, electromagnetic changes etc. If we say you don't need to measure or record a substance or entity to say that it exists or that a change has taken place, are we not left on uncertain ground?

I have a very simple (personal) criteria to decide if something exists 🙂

If I can perceive an effect of somethings existence, then it exists - I do not make a distinction between what you refer to as material and non-material objects as I have concluded that everything is a manifestation of energy and the more distinctions we make between various states of energy and the more artificial categorisations we make for these energies the less, I feel, we actually experience the Universe.
How we perceive something depend on how it interact with the device used to measure it - the 'thing' I use to measure with is my 'being', all aspects of it, consider it the wave/particle argument but just scaled up !!

Similarly to your suggestion that 'knowing you have a certain illness dictates your response to treatment' I feel that how you classify material and substances dictates your abilities to interact (with) and perceive them.

I am fully at ease with the concept of a Universe in which how I perceive energies dictates how I am able to interact with them and how I am able to interact with them enables me to experience the Universe and all it's contents whether they be labelled material, spiritual or ethereal in conventional terminology.

It works for me both personally and professionally and means I am not constantly striving to rewrite the textbooks a la Mason (because it makes the textbooks irrelevant!) but simply deal with the consequences of my interactions and perceptions - it's far easier 😉 and for me leads to what I like to think of as an holistic existentialism.

Anyway, as usual I have more ideas than words so will go and have a ponder as to whether I might be able to express this more coherently and possibly come back later with some more ramblings......

:nature-smiley-008:

... I am fully aware of the love that exists between myself and other people and certainly don't need to be able to check the read out on my 'love-o-meter' to confirm this 😉

I think I know where you're coming from though and broadly agree, but the whole subject of the role of the observer/observed in experienced phenomena and the balance between (and definition of) subjective/objective data and material/etherial worlds are beset by ambiguity........

.......probably the basis for a few lifetimes of debate !!

Absolutely Muzone! No one can quantify or measure love or an other non-material emotion, instinct etc.

Norbu, Hi again,

I was thinking about Mason’s (and my) statements about how too much “knowledge” about a condition makes it harder to heal and I remembered something else.

Now, this has nothing whatever to do with the human body. I don’t suppose Bruce Lipton has even thought about the implications of this understanding, but am sure that in the future, it will be recognised.

When I was flying as a career, I had countless experiences when the Captain would use the word “miracle” to describe the way that weather had changed, or what could have been a dangerous technical situation had not and even once, when IRA missiles were fired across the runway that I was taking off from and like the day ours was the ONLY aircraft all day to get into and out of Cork, which was fog-bound. It pulled back to let us in, completely enshrouded us after landing (and I had the Captain moaning at me that he shouldn’t have let me persuade him to try to get in!) and then, as we taxied to the runway for take off, it was like the parting of the Read Sea on either side.

One that I do remember so clearly is on this thread:
if anyone wants to read it.

Basically, every other aircraft in front of us, in the exact same airspace, altitude etc, just minutes apart, had reported such sever turbulence that the pilots had been unable to read their instruments. For us it was like a mill- pond.

I had been warned about the weather, but thankfully, I had not looked outside. Had I seen the enormous thunderstorm that the Captain described later, I’m guessing that our experience would have been the same as the other aircraft.

I wonder what Bruce Lipton would make of that? 😉

Love and peace,

Judy

Hi Muzone

If I can perceive an effect of somethings existence, then it exists

So what about a mirage? Does the lake in the desert exist because you perceive it?

I do not make a distinction between what you refer to as material and non-material objects as I have concluded that everything is a manifestation of energy...

This is a quote from B Alan Wallace' book, Contemplative Science, Where Buddhism and Neuroscience Converge.

Experts have expressed diverse views ranging from the assertion that elementary particles exist independently as real, distinct entities to the view that there is no objectively existing quantum realm at all! As physics continues to progress, the primary status of matter becomes increasingly elusive. Physicist Steven Weinberg goes so far as to proclaim, "In the physicist's recipe for the world, the list of ingredients no longer includes particles. Matter thus loses its central role in physics. All that is left is principles of symmetry."

Upon confronting such startling lack of consensus about the nature and primacy of matter, scientific materialists may take refuge in the notion of energy and its conservation as the primary stuff of the universe. But this provides little consolation, for according to Richard Feynman, the conservation of energy is a mathematical principle, not a description of a mechanism or anything concrete. He then goes on to acknowledge, "It is important to realize that in physics today we have no knowledge of what energy is.

I think the only thing of which we can have no doubt is our own awareness. We can observe material objects (mater and energy) and record them but we still cannot say what they "are." What appears to be material is made up of energy but all we can do with either is describe them finally with mathematical configurations; are things nothing more than just marks on a a piece of paper that describe "principles of symmetry?" And "principles of symmetry" is just an idea in a mind.

I'm not saying that we don't have to take a common sense view here of course but thinking things are something when they are not can lead us into traps like "the mirage is a lake" and "everything in life is determined by our genes." Both could be fatal mistakes!

Norbu

I wonder what Bruce Lipton would make of that? 😉

Hi Judy,

I don't think Bruce Lipton would have a problem with what you raccount. I think he might have a problem doing it!

But...

I was thinking about Mason’s (and my) statements about how too much “knowledge” about a condition makes it harder to heal and I remembered something else.

Well, I've been thinking about the implications of Bruce Lipton book, "The Biology of Belief," and in particular his analysis of epigenisis (the factors that control gene expression) and his presentation of a biological pathway that demonstrates that mutations in DNA can be re-written in cells.

There may be many examples of successful mind based treatments for congenital genetic disease as is in the Mason case but until it is widely accepted that genetic disease is biologically reversible there is always going to be more of an obstacle to successful treatment in society at large. The implications of Bruce Liptons case, that genetic disease is reversible by biological means, is therefore very significant. These explanations will eventually enable researchers to look more carefully at the evidence for "reverse diagnosese" (as clinician might describe them) of "incurable" genetic disease, rather than just pretending they never happen.

Norbu

Hi Muzone

So what about a mirage? Does the lake in the desert exist because you perceive it?

yes, it exists as a mirage

We can observe material objects (mater and energy) and record them but we still cannot say what they "are." What appears to be material is made up of energy

Yes, that what I thought I said 😉

but all we can do with either is describe them finally with mathematical configurations; are things nothing more than just marks on a a piece of paper that describe "principles of symmetry?"

That's where I disagree strongly - I worked for over 20 years in 'hard science' and eventually came to the conclusion that mathemetical constructs of reality are just that, constructs.
Marks on a piece of paper are our demonstration of not understnding the true nature of the Universe, it is experienced, felt and interacted with - (mathematical) descriptions are of no use and only serve to satisfy peoples intellectual pride.
I don't go along with mathematical analyses of the Universe and think that any attempt by mathemeticians to perform more than simple artitmetic, algebra and calculus is misguided and possibly arrogant. As for physicists and their cod-philosophy 'meaning of it all' books, well - I'm glad I have become strong enough to overcome my anger and contempt at them and can now just regard them with sympathy and love.

just an idea in a mind.

For me an idea is as real as an emotion which is as real as a rock which may or may not be a mirage but is still real

thinking things are something when they are not can lead us into traps like "the mirage is a lake" and "everything in life is determined by our genes." Both could be fatal mistakes!
Norbu

'things' are always something, but maybe we mistake what that something is - is the mirage a lake or the lake a mirage........

:nature-smiley-008:

yes, it exists as a mirage

But that is only something we have name for that reflects light as a result of a temperature differential close to the ground that then appears to be light reflected on water. For sure that process takes place and we see reflected light from the "mirage" in the same way that we see light from a lake. We perceive the reflected light and then generate some kind of idea about what it is. OK, if you want to say that a mirage is this process (of how light is reflected as a result of heat differentials and then perceive by the eyes then interpreted by the brain then somehow translated into an awareness of "an appearance of a lake caused by these physical phenomena") then perhaps the mirage "exists." But, If we believe the lake is there we are deluded.

My personal view is the whole idea of what we mean by "exists" begins to be a bit less than obvious.

'things' are always something, but maybe we mistake what that something is - is the mirage a lake or the lake a mirage........

Mmm, does an delusion "exist?"

Norbu

But that is only something we have name for

Exactly my interpretation, 'we' have a name for it so it must exist - either as a physical or conceptual entity, but still an existence.

we see reflected light from the "mirage" in the same way that we see light from a lake.

But do we ? desert mirages are really only experienced by people unfamilair with them - local desert dewellers do not see mirages, perhaps they are more attuned to the vibrational energies of 'real' water because of it's importance, a skill 'developed people' have lost because we only need to turn a tap for water rather than trek over inhospitable lands to find it

OK, if you want to say that a mirage is this process....
.... then perhaps the mirage "exists."

I prefer to call the mirage the result of the process rather than the process itself

But, If we believe the lake is there we are deluded...

..Mmm, does an delusion "exist?"

if not how could we be deluded ?

My personal view is the whole idea of what we mean by "exists" begins to be a bit less than obvious.

I used to feel exactly the same, searching for truths through rationalism, determinism and reductionism (aka the 'modern way') then was fortunate enough to be blessed with the realisation that it is better to rely use our instinctive and emotional senses rather than our constructs of intellect to understand the Universe.
Since then it has been a bit more than obvious :nature-smiley-008:

Hi Muzone,

I used to feel exactly the same, searching for truths through rationalism, determinism and reductionism (aka the 'modern way')...

Mmm, I don't think that's what I'm doing...

...then was fortunate enough to be blessed with the realisation that it is better to rely use our instinctive and emotional senses rather than our constructs of intellect to understand the Universe.

Yep. I'm just pointing out that we need to take care about what we assume to be the case and that often we think it's totally rational and it isn't.

Since then it has been a bit more than obvious :nature-smiley-008:

I hope so!

But I'd still love to know why Mason could cure warts with hypnotherapy and could even cure ichthyosis with hypnotherapy when he thought he was just treating a case of warts and then couldn't treat ichthyosis when he knew what he was treating.

I wonder if he could treat ichthyosis now that we know (as explained by Bruce Lipton) that organisms can rewrite mutations in their DNA?

Norbu

Hi Norbu

Mmm, I don't think that's what I'm doing...

More an expression of my own experiences than an assumption of yours, no offense intended 🙂

....... often we think it's totally rational and it isn't.

rationality doesn't play a big part in my life these days - I just go with the chaos.......

But I'd still love to know why Mason could cure warts with hypnotherapy and could even cure ichthyosis with hypnotherapy when he thought he was just treating a case of warts and then couldn't treat ichthyosis when he knew what he was treating.
I wonder if he could treat ichthyosis now that we know (as explained by Bruce Lipton) that organisms can rewrite mutations in their DNA?

I guess if Morton doubted the healing he was attempting then it would fail from all the negative energy, I think self belief is a major part of the healer's ability and possibly the hardest one to acquire.

When I started, my 'scientist self' had difficulties accepting my 'healing self' and the resultant conflicts meant I had very poor outcomes to the extent I was surprised when anything 'worked' - I had to undo many years of programming before I could feel confident with clients but I think I'm over that now and have a much more open mind and receptive spirit.

:nature-smiley-008:

After publishing this case Mason was approached by other patients diagnosed with ichthyosis but he was unsuccessful in treating them. Mason concluded that his knowledge of the diagnosis had reduced his ability to carry out the treatment.

Hi Norbu
Is there any discussion on the beliefs of the patients in the book. If the hypnotherapists beliefs are important then perhaps equal or more importance should be placed on the beliefs of the patients. Not just their belief in the specific therapist but also their belief in the therapy and their beliefs in the possibility of a cure. Perhaps the belief that warts can be cured is more common than the belief that ichthyosis can be cured.

Interesting subject.

Hi Typical,

Is there any discussion on the beliefs of the patients in the book.

Lipton only explains that after Mason published his account of the successful treatment of ichthyosis, clients with the diagnosis approached him for treatment.

If the hypnotherapists beliefs are important then perhaps equal or more importance should be placed on the beliefs of the patients. Not just their belief in the specific therapist but also their belief in the therapy and their beliefs in the possibility of a cure.

In this case the clients were displaying a belief that it was at least worth a shot, if not they believed that Mason could treat their condition.

Perhaps the belief that warts can be cured is more common than the belief that ichthyosis can be cured.

So this is a third possible "belief" factor aspect: commonly held belief about the curability of the condition.

Yes it is a really interesting case.

Norbu

Hi Muzone,

I guess if Morton doubted the healing he was attempting then it would fail from all the negative energy, I think self belief is a major part of the healer's ability and possibly the hardest one to acquire.

I'm not sure I know what you mean by "negative energy" 😉 but doubt on Mason's part seems to be a significant factor.

When I started, my 'scientist self' had difficulties accepting my 'healing self' and the resultant conflicts meant I had very poor outcomes to the extent I was surprised when anything 'worked' - I had to undo many years of programming before I could feel confident with clients but I think I'm over that now and have a much more open mind and receptive spirit.

Interesting isn't it?

Norbu

Nothing can be finally explained

Hope this makes sense,

Subhuti asked: "Is it possible to find perfect wisdom through reflection or listening to statements or through signs or attributes, so that one can say 'This is it' or 'Here it is'?"

The Buddha answered: "No, Subhuti. Perfect wisdom can't be learned or distinguished or thought about or found through the senses. This is because nothing in this world can be finally explained, it can only be experienced, and thus all things are just as they are. Perfect wisdom can never be experienced apart from all things. To see the Suchness of things, which is their empty calm being, is to see them just as they are. It is in this way that perfect wisdom and the material world are not two, they are not divided. As a result of Suchness, of calm and empty being, perfect wisdom cannot be known about intellectually. Nor can the things of the world, for they are understood only through names and ideas. Where there is no learning or finding out, no concepts or conventional words, it is in that place one can say there is perfect wisdom."
-Ashtasahasrika

Norbu