MegaMind

John was stripped to his undershirt and underwear, his whole body checked with a metal detector for metallic devices, and demonstrated his ability at a random location chosen by the doctors and scientists, on camera.

John has developed his qi to the level where it is visible to the naked eye. It is not our position that qi does not exist. I am not sure where you got that notion from. We also are not focused on catching things on fire or breaking objects.

"If you go to a teacher and demand to see evidence of their skill, you’ll be sorely disappointed. The onus is on you to show that you’re a good student." The problem here is that out of millions of practices, only a handful lead anywhere. It is not practical to devote your life to testing every art to find out which is real and which is placebo. This is why we don't bother unless there is at least some objective evidence with scientists and medical doctors present to do their best to rule out fraud. "Proving anything to anyone is the last thing an advanced teacher wishes to do." John Chang and Wim Hof certainly did. "Being paid to do tricks is a warning sign." John never charged any student or patient anything, nor accepted donations. "what would having abilities like john chang give me that’s even more important than the abilities themselves?" "The ‘powers’ are not the point of the practice." Absolutely I agree with you here.

"Dog in a chemistry lab meme: "Trust me this is science." Again we aren't making the claim the evidence provided by John was "scientific proof", that was replicated and peer reviewed. It was objective video evidence, and scientists and medical doctors were present in a controlled location to do their best to rule out fraud. Certainly fraud can happen, and certainly the scientists and doctors could have missed something. Direct first hand observation is best. Objective video evidence is far better than personal testimony. We contend that personal testimony is not reliable enough to base your beliefs on. I hope that makes sense.

"I have never understood why More Pie people are homing into this "objective evidence" argument all the time." I am afraid you still don't understand our position. We do not worship John or Jim. This is not religion or a philosophy. We would gladly jump ship to another practice with at least as much evidence as John provided.

The purpose is to host a FAQ only, if I had a personal practice forum, I would have hosted it there instead.

I think time crystal is more poetic. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_crystal

We certainly are open to other teachers and systems, but we need good hard objective video evidence, with scientists and medical doctors present to do their best to rule out fraud. Wim Hoff and Tummo, John Chang and Mo Pai are the only two schools at the moment that meet that criteria. We just don't want to waste our time with placebo practices and delusional teachers.

The idea here is we want a system that is proven, and to not waste our time with a system or a teacher unless there is good objective evidence with scientists and medical doctors present to do their best to rule out fraud. Chang has provided good objective evidence the system works. Actually I would say that Mo Pai has negatively impacted my life, because it has forced me to experience aspects of reality that aren't pretty and most people could never accept as true. Most of these other schools and practices don't do anything, and don't lead anywhere. Mo Pai is different. It is actually real, and can proven as such to anyone willing to put forth the time and effort to see for themselves.

The best we can do is present the evidence we have, and hope others will get serious and see for themselves via their own bootstraps.

"the scientific method is also very big on reproducible evidence. After a hypothesis proved, can it be proved, double and tripled checked in other places." Wim Hof has been both filmed and published in many studies, so it is indeed possible. Surely we would all love for a person like John Chang to go to every major university and do demonstrations until the academic and scientific communities were satisfied. We aren't making the claim that objective video evidence of John with scientists and medical doctors present to do their best to rule out fraud is some sort of form of "scientific proof", that frauds or hoaxes do not occur, or that it is been peer reviewed and published in major journals. What we do contend is that this is better than written or oral personal testimony, and short of direct first hand observation it is as good as we can hope for. I hope that makes sense. "one talented man in the past as proof is not the best or most logical method." Ultimately either the teachings are valid and produce results or they don't. Without such a demonstration there is no way to know for sure. It is not practical explore all possible paths when they take decades of constant practice to realize results. "Better to have people who practice now show there abilities." If John's demonstration at level ~20 wasn't good enough, nothing a level 2b like Jim McMillan even could provide would be any better.

"I have never understood why More Pie people are homing into this "objective evidence" argument all the time." So lets talk about ball lightning. At one point ball lightning was considered supernatural "woo" nonsense. There were many eye witness accounts of it occurring, but it was still regarded as "woo". However even up to the 1960's it was still considered as such. It wasn't until the phenomenon was widely filmed that it became accepted. Without good objective evidence for the phenomenon, it would have remained as supernatural "woo" nonsense. The best evidence surely would be to witness the phenomenon of ball lightning for yourself directly. Barring direct first hand observation your only other options would be the personal testimony (either written or oral) from other people, or objective video evidence of an event of ball lightning occurring. We contend that there are many delusional people who believe things exist or occur that really do not, and as such personal testimony is a poor form of evidence to base your beliefs on. We contend that personal testimony alone is not adequate, and that objective video evidence with scientists and medical doctors present to do their best to rule out fraud is as good as it gets without direct first hand observation. Investing time, money and energy training in a spiritual system requires good objective evidence to validate the system as legitimate first. I hope that makes sense. I think you might misunderstand what the scientific method is. I think you misunderstand our position. Wim Hof has been both filmed and published in many studies, so it is indeed possible. Surely we would all love for a person like John Chang to go to every major university and do demonstrations until the academic and scientific communities were satisfied. We aren't making the claim that objective video evidence of John with scientists and medical doctors present to do their best to rule out fraud is some sort of form of "scientific proof", that frauds or hoaxes do not occur, or that it is been peer reviewed and published in major journals. What we do contend is that this is better than written or oral personal testimony, and short of direct first hand observation it is as good as we can hope for. I hope that makes sense. "Moreover, the abundance of pertinent cancer cases lends little credibility to doing further research with More Pie with ethics and safety in mind." This has already been addressed many times. Jim was exposed to agent orange during Vietnam, and his cancer was specifically linked to that exposure. At best you could argue his training in Mo Pai did not cure or prevent his cancer.

Believing such claims based on personal testimony, or because it is merely written in a book is not reasonable or rational. Asking for objective video evidence, with scientists and medical doctors present to do their best to rule out fraud is what we require. So far Wim Hof and John Chang have done so, and hopefully more will in the future.

I believe I said I would love to help but not publicly as such a discussion cannot be had in public. People who read and attempt to mix and match or ignore safety precautions will get hurt, and will blame our group, and then you will have more ammunition to attack our group with. Darned if you do, darned if you don't. Do you have any sources that confirm Kosta has ever had prostate cancer, or any other form of cancer for that matter after practising Mo Pai? As far as I know there are none. Do you remember they started rumours here about John being dead? Well he's still kicking. Do you have any sources which state John specifically has prostate cancer? As far as I know only Lawrence Blair is making the claim he has cancer, and has not specified what type. I know a person who got prostate cancer in his 50s, never practised Mo Pai a day in his life. https://www.yalecancercenter.org/media-player/3779/ Yale School of Medicine "Any man over the age of 50 is considered at risk for prostate cancer." "For the average American male, screening should begin at about 50 and should include a PSA, a rectal examination, and should occur once a year. " "the older you become the greater chance you will have prostate cancer. That number, if you live long enough, may be up to 100%." https://cfpub.epa.gov/ncea/risk/hhra/recordisplay.cfm?deid=127826 "Essentially all men with circulating androgens will develop microscopic prostate cancer if they live long enough."

Continuation of "And that's why I shun "new and improved interpretations" and "combining practices" and "a creative approach" to any original sources", hopefully to minimize further derailment. I thought it best to reply here, rather than continue to derail the other thread. As to misinformation, we do our best to source our information only from the "horses mouth". You see my perspective as smug. A lot of times people convince themselves things are a certain way, and then rationalize all kinds of excuses to support that view. From my perspective you are critical of the fact that it is possible to make fire using only sticks, tinder, and elbow grease using only video to provide the correct instruction. People have done this. When I sound smug its only because I am stating a fact that I know to be true first hand. It is real, and anyone who is willing to get serious, follow instruction, and actually do it can and will see for themselves. If we could only force people to sit down, shut up and follow instruction long enough to see for themselves this really truly would change the world. I don't really know what more I can tell you.

I know a person who served in Vietnam, and was exposed to agent orange. He had to have his prostate surgically removed, and a kidney due to aggressive prostate cancer. He never practised Mo Pai a day in his life. All men will develop prostate cancer if they live long enough. While Jim was serving in Vietnam he was doused in agent orange. Jim developed a specific form of very aggressive cancer, it was linked to that exposure. https://www.publichealth.va.gov/exposures/agentorange/conditions/prostate_cancer.asp "A 2013 study conducted at the Portland VA Medical Center and Oregon Health and Science University found that Veterans exposed to Agent Orange are not only at higher risk for prostate cancer, but they are more likely to have aggressive forms of the disease. Read the abstract for the publication, Agent Orange as a risk factor for high-grade prostate cancer." https://www.cbsnews.com/news/agent-orange-exposure-linked-to-deadliest-form-of-prostate-cancer-in-vietnam-war-vets/ https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/08/080805092016.htm https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/mcog-aoe042009.php A study of 1,495 veterans who underwent radical prostatectomy to remove their cancerous prostates showed that the 206 exposed to Agent Orange had nearly a 50 percent increased risk of their cancer recurring despite the fact that their cancer seemed relatively nonaggressive at the time of surgery. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23670242 Agent Orange as a risk factor for high-grade prostate cancer. 52% increase in overall risk of developing aggressive prostate cancer. https://www.pcf.org/news/agent-orange-prostate-cancer/ Prostate Cancer Foundation Worse, “the men who were exposed to Agent Orange and other battlefield chemicals often present with more aggressive prostate cancer,” says Jeffrey Jones, M.D., Chief of Urology at the Michael E. DeBakey Veteran Affairs Medical Center (MEDVAMC). https://www.reuters.com/article/us-agent-orange-cancer-idUSBRE94C03U20130513 Agent Orange tied to aggressive prostate cancer risk https://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2009-04/mcog-aoe042009.php Agent Orange exposure increases veterans' risk of aggressive recurrence of prostate cancer Also according to Dr. Lawrence Blair as of September 12, 2019 John in his 80s and close to level 20 in Mo Pai has cancer himself. https://youtu.be/xVU3WIco0eY?t=143 It is also important to note that most men will develop prostate cancer if they live long enough, it is a natural part of aging. At best it can be argued that lower levels of Mo Pai do not provide the ability needed to heal cancer. John stated that his teacher however could heal cancer, so at higher levels this would be possible.

This is another darned if you do, darned if you don't situation. We had one particular individual who insisted he knew better and didn't need to follow safety precautions, and thought mixing MCO with Mo Pai was perfectly fine. Well he wound up with psychosis and screwed his life up pretty badly. When he got out he threatened with legal action. If people refuse to listen and follow instruction exactly, they can and they do hurt themselves, and that comes back on us. Not only is it bad Karma, it's bad PR to get involved with people who want dabble and mix and match practices.

Hope you feel better soon!

More evidence, less words.

"Mo Pai is such a defective, deficient system." Show us something like this, if you know of better alternatives that are not defective and deficient.

Show us something like this, if you know of better alternatives.

First you link to a post by a d4rr3n, not a member of our group. Next as just one example of how your instructions are edited, among many many many others, grounding was one thing Jim stressed was absolutely critical. The documents and videos Jim left to us are radically different from what you posted. Your instructions omitting the requirement to be grounded is just one example. If you think we are making this up, please see Jim's book as a reference: He told me I needed to be sitting on the ground; he could tell because I didn't have enough “yin” in me when he checked me out. I had been practicing inside a mobile home I was living in temporarily next to the house I was building. It was about three feet above the ground. He explained to me, “Your yin comes from the earth and you need to be connected to it.” He said I have to sit outside on the ground. This was somewhat troubling because where I live it snows about twice a year and rains a lot, so while he was telling me this I was trying to figure how I was going to be able to do it. He also told me yang comes from the air and enters the energy point on the top of your head. And it needs to be equally balanced with my yin which enters another energy point at the area of your perineum. -Seeking The Master Of Mo Pai Jim McMillan

I would not recommend anyone practice the altered instructions you posted. All the most important aspects have been removed.

Taomeow posted a link to a video seen here: https://www.facebook.com/kuleshova.training/videos/420349398507508/ The post was titled "And that's why I shun "new and improved interpretations" and "combining practices" and "a creative approach" to any original sources" The video showed a teacher making motions as if they were riding a motorcycle. The next person transmitted this information to the next person, and so on and so forth, with each transmission they changed it just a little bit, until at the very end it had devolved and bore no resemblance whatsoever to riding a motorcycle, and looked more like someone washing a window. I made a comment that the art I study has a problem where authors who never studied the art taught information that bore no resemblance to the actual art, and others defend this info and these authors as legitimate authorities. I also mentioned how others alter and edit original instructions to change them into something new and different. I told Taomewo her video explained how teachings are corrupted and misinformation is transmitted. You raised a point about people relying on videos, and videos can be faked. The best way to tell you said was in person demonstrations by the teacher. I explained a teacher doesn't have the time and energy required to do a personal demonstration for millions of individual seekers who most likely would never seriously commit to practice. I explained as far as evidence goes, video gathered with scientists and medical doctors present to do their best to rule out fraud is the gold standard, and all other forms of evidence ultimately boil down to personal testimony. I stated to another individual that the best option is to record actual teachings on video so they are not altered or changed by people who "know better" The points of attunements and transmissions being a thing were raised. I stated people also believed in homeopathy, crystals and magnetic and copper bracelets, but that was all delusion and placebo. I explained that all real attainments come from having correct information and diligent practice. I explained again how a video prevents misinterpretation and re-transmitting incorrect information. You took issue and claimed that things cannot be learned via video. I pointed out that people obtained masters and even PhDs in our most challenging subjects by watching videos of recorded lectures in their online college classes. At this point liminal_luke brought a specific practice into the discussion, and the blood was in the water at that point. At which point I created a new thread to continue the conversation, which was a huge a mistake. It resulted in a 14 page flamewar, and as a result we were asked to make a FAQ which we did. That is my best attempt at summarizing things.