|
Healing
Bruce
MacManaway
1.
Concept and Historical Background
|
NEXT
BACK
INDEX
|
The
concept of healing by touch or thought without any medical help
does not fit comfortably into our Western view of the world. Yet
we still retain some vestiges of it in everyday life. If a child
has a temperature, we know that sometimes we can calm him by smoothing
his brow. When calm, his fever may diminish and he will be able
to sleep, giving his body rest and the opportunity to combat illness.
What is this, after all, but the interaction between two people,
a communication between caring adult and child or between healer
and patient? Outside the family context, we all know of people who
respond to one medical practitioner, having shown no improvement
when treated by another with identical qualifications and even using
the same treatment. 'Bedside manner', we call it; 'something to
do with giving the patient psychological or emotional confidence',
we may add.
But what is that 'something'? Is it some psychological approach
on the part of the practitioner? Does it point to some psychological
factor in the patient which needs attention before recovery can
commence? Nobody knows exactly. But to the extent that it is possible
to add an extra 'something', a multitude of those in the caring
professions, be they doctors or nurses or any one of the many skilled
therapists, are already practising healing. They are in fact using
a gift as well as their knowledge, skill and patience and are opening
themselves to respond to the patient's unspoken needs. This factor,
which is currently played down, should surely be developed and used
to the utmost of our capacity. We do not attach any but the vaguest
labels to it at the moment and it deserves very serious consideration.
The
Concept of Healing
I should say that the communication between healer and patient sets
up an interplay of energy which accelerates the patient's own internal
healing processes. This, amongst other things, enables him to respond
more fully to orthodox treatment. From this it should be seen that
while healing can and does achieve some astonishing results, it
is not competing with orthodox medicine, nor seeking to supplant
it. Surely it makes sense to use everything possible in the fight
to restore and maintain individual health, and the many approaches
should be complementary. I hope that healing will become one of
the next in the long line of initially unacceptable practices which
have subsequently been acknowledged and incorporated into orthodox
medical practice. The list includes antiseptics, anaesthetics, orthopaedics
and psychology.
Background
Before scientific medicine developed, healing in some form played
a much larger role. Herbalism and other nature cures were important,
but the power of healing on its own without recourse to other therapy
has been known for thousands of years, and is still taken for granted
in some societies (or the remnants of them) today. In the USA in
1981 I met a number of North American Indians and was introduced
to some of their wise men. [1] None of them was at all surprised
by my work.
The Tibetans who have left their homeland have brought with them
enormous esoteric knowledge, including a great understanding of
healing. One of their Supreme Abbots visited us in Scotland. I was
earnestly trying to describe to him what we try to do in our Centre,
but he cut me short with a gentle smile. 'We would regard what you
are doing as orthodox medicine. Amongst Tibetans, it is your Western
doctors who are regarded as unorthodox.' Explanations were unnecessary
and we realised that he, of course, knew a great deal more about
the subject than anyone in the West.
Healing was known to the Chinese as far back as 5000 BC and subsequently
in virtually every culture. In Egypt, all cures were origin ally
thought to be revealed by the gods and codified by Thoth, known
to the Greeks as Hermes Trismegistus. They were recorded in secret
books for initiates kept in the medical schools associated with
the temples of Sais at Heliopolis.
It seems that the earliest figure known for his healing powers is
a man called Imhotep. He was court architect and court magician
to King Zoser of the third Egyptian dynasty who lived about 2,700
BC. After his death he was deified and his tomb seems to have become
the Lourdes of the ancient world. Numerous temples and shrines were
erected to him and the sick were brought to them for healing. Imhotep
was thought to inhabit the body of a snake, a symbol which has since
recurred frequently in relation to healing, not least in the winged
staff and serpent of the Western medical profession today.
The Edwin Smith Surgical Papyrus indicates that the Egyptians had
considerable rational knowledge of medicine, but this was not divorced
from religion, and various gods and goddesses such as Seklimet and
Amenophis were considered to play an important part in sickness
and cure. The cult of Imhotep seems to have been the most famous,
however, as it spread via Persia to ancient Greece where the god
was called Asklepios. The remains of healing temples and shrines
dedicated to Asklepios can still be seen on the island of Epidaneos.
The cult then spread to Rome in the third century BC where the god
became known as Aesculapius.
Healing in the past was usually inextricably tied with religion,
but then so was virtually every other aspect of life. All knowledge
and learning was based in the temples, and the gods were considered
to permeate and influence all the workings of man and his environment:
the harvests, the rainfall, peace and war, sickness and health.
All education, both what we would regard as secular as well as religious,
was only available through the temples, and the wisdom acquired
by the priests and priestesses and wise men and women (known in
Egypt as the Scribes of the House of Life) [2] was of a high order,
even if it was not recognised as independent of supernatural forces.
The wisdom and the power might be learned within the inner circle
of a particular cult, but in many societies the initiates could
then demonstrate very considerable powers to the rest of the population.
Well known examples would include the yogis in India, the medicine
man of North America and the Shamans in parts of Africa, Asia and
elsewhere.
Religion
and Science
It was the Greeks who laid the foundations of Western thought. From
the concept of an integrated universe in which man, matter, mind
and life forces, often identified as gods, were inextricably linked,
a mechanistic, analytic viewpoint ultimately emerged which divided
the world as man perceived it in separate unrelated compartments.
This led to the beginning of a scientific approach to medicine in
the context of the belief that while the supernatural might perhaps
interfere, the universe ran on mechanistic lines which man could
ultimately master.
Western thought has developed from this point and it became axiomatic
to despise most of the knowledge of the ancient cultures (or indeed
the latter 'backward' societies) because of their underlying unscientific
approach. It is worth commenting in passing that Western dependence
on logic and science has led to a certain intellectual blindness.
It has been able to dismiss all the old knowledge because of the
'superstitious' way in which it was expressed. Because Western thought
could not appreciate the theory, it assumed the practice was beneath
its notice. But the practice of engineering, for example, as shown
by the cities of the Incas or the building of the pyramids should
have given us a clue to the fact that however 'primitive' the beliefs,
the knowledge, in practice, was exceedingly impressive. If, selectively,
we have to accept some of the knowledge because of the remaining
concrete proof, can we uncompromisingly dismiss the rest?
Over the last two thousand years the Western approach to medicine
and healing has been moulded by two factors. One is the slow but
accelerating development of science. The other is religion. Whatever
the current state of religious belief, the Western world is firmly
founded on the profound influence of Christianity or perhaps more
accurately, on the influence of the Church. The two have not always
been easy bedfellows and have at times led to double intellectual
standards. I came across this for the first time in 1943. I had
no intention of becoming a healer but having discovered while fighting
in France three years earlier that I seemed to be able to help my
wounded companions, I had no good reason to withhold any help I
could give thereafter. During the North African Campaign, however,
I ran into an officer who regarded my spare time activities with
horror. I was used to friendly, tolerant disbelief and the argument
that every intelligent, educated man must know perfectly well that
what it was claimed I could do was nonsense. It was unscientific.
It was impossible. But this was the first time I met the reaction
that if lay healing was possible, then it shouldn't be allowed.
A cleric who had bravely given up his cloth to join the army, this
particular officer was convinced that only an ordained priest could
invoke the power of God for healing. Anyone else, if they were not
charlatans or deluded, must be in league with the Devil. I have
our regimental chaplain to thank for getting me out of what promised
to be a full scale row. He had known my grand father who was Bishop
of Clogher and apparently persuaded my superiors that MacManaways
were strange but harmless.
The 'doublethink' that lay healing can't happen but if it does,
it shouldn't, has a long history.
Teachings
of Jesus and the Early Church
Jesus of Nazareth was born in a country where, and at a time when,
a number of cultural influences intermingled. Egyptian, Greek, Roman,
Persian and even Indian ideas were all in evidence and healers were
not unknown. It is not denying His Divinity to say that He was a
superb, perhaps unique exponent of the gift or power of healing,
but He did not present something intrinsically new.
Some of the Dead Sea Scrolls indicate that healing not unlike that
practised by Jesus was being taught before He was born. The sect
who left us the Dead Sea Scrolls may have been Essenes who, according
to the Roman historian Flavius Josephus (first century AD), undoubtedly
practised various forms of healing. [3] Some authorities in fact
argue that Mary and Joseph were Essenes and that Jesus received
his early education in the temples of the Therapeutae, the Egyptian
counterparts of the Essenes, in the years after fleeing from Herod.
[4]
Jesus is emphasised as not only the Son of God but also the Son
of Man. He instructed His followers (and here let us remember that
He was not addressing scholars or doctors or priests but ordinary
men and women) to go and put into practice what He had shown them.
He emphasised that His followers had the potential to achieve even
greater things than He, so presumably considered that man could,
amongst other things, heal (St John 14:12). As a great spiritual
teacher, He also emphasised that man must use this potential with
care and follow His spiritual path.
St Luke, of course, could hardly be described as a layman as he
is thought to have been a qualified physician. Tradition has it
that he was also a healer, probably trained at a temple of Asklepios
in Greece. He therefore represents to me the best of both worlds,
having a developed gift of healing and medical training. I count
myself extremely lucky to have known and worked with a number of
gifted doctors who are overtly reviving this tradition of combining
healing and medicine and! greatly hope that it will spread once
more.
During the first and second centuries, the early Church endeavoured
to carry out Jesus' teaching. There is considerable academic argument
as to whether the early Church was ever purely a gathering of exponents
of the Spirit or whether it had in it from the start the makings
of an organisation. [5] It is beyond doubt, however, that at least
during the lives of the Apostles what we would now call the charismatic
gifts (healing, the gift of prophecy and speaking with tongues being
the most obvious) were practised by men, and in many cases women,
at the early services. These services were informal, held in private
house holds and bore more of a resemblance to a Quaker meeting where
anyone is free to express himself as the Spirit moves him (or her)
than to a modern church service. [6] The Church in Corinth which
was under the influence of St Paul was particularly famed for this
and indeed St Paul wrote a wonderful essay on these gifts (the 'gifts
of the Spirit') in his first letter to the Corinthians, chapters
twelve to fourteen.
Broadly speaking, however, it would seem that from the earliest
stages, there were two groups who might have some claim to authority
over the Church members. One group included the healers and prophets
who by their gifts demonstrated their contact with the Spirit. The
other group was officialdom, the bishops and priests. That the priests
found their authority threatened by the healers and prophets is
obvious from the various documents in which the Christians were
exhorted to show respect and duty to the Bishops. The Didache,
[7] which probably dates from the middle of the second century,
admonishes its readers: 'Therefore despise (the bishops and deacons)
not, for these are they which are honoured of you with the prophets
and healers.' Surrounded as they were by internal and external threats
(persecution, schism and alternative cults such as neo-Platonism,
Manicheism and the Mystery Cults), the early Church authorities
were in something of a quandary. They did not wish to stop the activities
of the healers (or at least they did not wish to be seen to be doing
so) but they wanted unity and order. The crunch came over a group
of churches in Phrygia in Asia Minor where Montanus and his followers,
and in particular two very gifted women, were gaining a dangerous
amount of influence by their prophesying and healing. According
to the historian Tertullian, a priest called Praxeus [8] was largely
responsible for persuading the Bishop of Rome to excommunicate the
affected churches and brand their members as heretics.
From the point of view of lay healers, this decision was, to say
the least, discouraging. They could either keep quiet and stay within
the organisation of the faith they passionately believed in, or
continue their practises and risk being thrown out in the cold.
Ultimately, there was an effective if unspoken ban on lay healers.
The ordained priests, while usually good and holy men, were more
concerned with theology and with administration than healing.
With Constantine's conversion and the gradual adoption of Christianity
as the predominant state religion, what had previously been a Church
ban acquired all the penalties of secular law and for a layman to
practise any of the gifts of the Spirit became a very risky business.
The practising of the gifts within the auspices of the Church was
allowed and the Church has had its 'saints'. Even they, however,
were and are grilled pretty thoroughly before gaining acceptance.
Anyone outside the Church's control ran the risk of the accusation
of heresy or witchcraft with the concomitant danger of death. Until
as late as 1951, I and others like me ran the theoretical risk of
arrest under the Witchcraft Act which carried the death penalty,
even if it had not been used for some time. By claiming a monopoly
of the gifts of the Spirit, the Church has alternately brainwashed
and bullied the population into thinking that any person trying
to heal without the proper qualifications must be in league with
the Devil. I maintain that this is not in accordance with the teachings
of Christ himself, who lived and taught amongst laymen. It is not
surprising, however, that healing went underground.
The
Age of 'Enlightenment'
Leaving aside the religious connotations for the moment and regarding
healing as an observed phenomenon practised in other civilisations
before and after Christ, its suppression was completed by the tremendous
intellectual progress of the West, culminating in the view that
anything inexplicable by intellectual means could not exist. Luckily,
a little of the knowledge was maintained underground. Rather like
the bumble-bee which continues to fly despite the fact that its
flight is considered to be aerodynamically impossible, those unimpressed
by current logical conclusions continued to practise what to their
satisfaction, demonstrably worked.
Current
Intellectual Attitudes
In the light of recent progress, there is a need to reassess our
understanding of the universe and our relationship with it. Our
contempt for the ancient – and in fact still current –
esoteric knowledge was that it was at best mystical and at worst
superstitious and as such was unscientific and bore no relationship
to reality. 'Reality' was based on an objective, scientific analysis
of matter. Matter was solid, matter was concrete, matter was made
up of 'building blocks' subject to comprehensible laws of cause
and effect. Mind was totally separate and could have no 'real' effect
on the mechanics of matter. In the context of human health, demonstrable
disease was purely a mechanistic problem. The matter which makes
up the human body was decaying or malfunctioning and the only way
to combat this was to tinker with the mechanism, adding something
here or subtracting something there. But, apparently, matter is
not nearly so uncomplicated as we thought it was. According to modern
physicists, it is not concrete at all, as even the atom is not a
satisfactory 'basic building block'. Apparently, especially in 'quantum-relativistic'
models of the subatomic world, totally objective study is impossible
as any experiment inevitably includes the observer in an essential
way [9]
I am no scientist, but it would seem to me that this means we can
no longer regard 'matter' (which includes our own bodies) as something
'outside' and objective, divorced from mind. Perhaps disease is
not such a simple mechanistic problem after all. Perhaps, at least
in concept, the idea of healing is not totally outrageous. Perhaps
the old (and current Eastern) concepts of a dynamic, inseparable
universe were not far from the truth, even though they had no scientific
basis.
In this new, humbler spirit of enquiry, some scientists have started
to look around for some observed phenomena that they can measure
which might be related to and cast light on the preposterous but
tenacious claims for healing. Healing, as it needs no 'matter' to
be supposedly efficacious, seems to depend on mind, so the obvious
place to start was with the electrical patterns of the brain. It
has been discovered that certain distinctive and unusual brain wave
patterns are found in most supposedly effective healers, regardless
of what they believe.
In the past, abilities such as healing had been associated with
some form of religious or spiritual training, so the researchers
studied some Eastern Holy men as well as healers in the West. They
found that the various Holy men showed patterns similar to those
of the healers, though in many cases the patterns were of even greater
strength [10]. This research merits more discussion but for the
moment it seems to me that it highlights two points. If people with
a wide variety of beliefs or with no belief at all and united only
in their purported abilities show a similar unusual brain wave pattern,
it is probable that it is state of mind rather than belief that
is important – though it may be that a strong religious belief
is one of the variables affecting states of mind.
Secondly, religion and science may not be quite so far apart after
all – or at least a bridge may be formed between the two if
it can be shown that various religions and spiritual disciplines
achieve special measurable states of mind that in turn can be associated
with physiological changes. 'Religion', in its widest sense, may
have known a thing or two, even if it was wrapped up in mystical
language.
I will refer to further scientific research later but, while it
is comforting that some scientific rationale is being built up,
it is not my only concern. This book merely attempts to put forward
some facts and some theories about what works, and as science is
confirming, does so regardless of belief.
To state outright at this point that healing is natural rather than
supernatural and works regardless of belief is likely to offend
those who think of it as a God-given gift. I would say that the
two attitudes are not mutually exclusive. Firstly, the fact that
healing was known and practised before the birth of Jesus and later
in ignorance of His teaching, gives more rather than less validity
to Jesus' message. There is after all considerable point to Kipling's
question, 'What should they know of England who only England
know?'
Secondly, just because we find some rationale behind an observed
phenomenon is not to say that the phenomenon is not God-given. Playing
the violin, for example, is considered a natural talent, though
undoubtedly some people play it better than others. The gift for
playing the violin may come from God, but it is not a supernatural
activity. The virtuoso may or may not believe in God, but he plays
superbly anyway, and God does not appear to be small-minded enough
to take away his ability to transport listeners to the heights because
His part has not been given full credit.
So while the spiritual, God-given aspect of the healing gift is
to me very important, healing can nevertheless be viewed on its
own as a natural phenomenon.
Notes
|
TOP
NEXT
BACK
INDEX
|
Healing
A
straightforward look into
all aspects of the healing phenomenon
Bruce
MacManaway
|
|
©
Bruce MacManaway, 1983. This book may be quoted from and printed
out in single copies only for personal use and study, without permission.
For publication on websites or for printing in larger quantities
or for commercial gain please
e-mail Patrick MacManaway for permission.
|
