寒月 Hanyue

: ) Sure. What would you like to know? The wording of your question isn't fully clear to me, and I'd rather give an answer in line with your query.

Hi Michael I thought you might be, but never know, others have surprised me when I thought they did. Yes I am familiar with the article. I have at times considered writing a reply and posting it. But to be honest, what's the point and i'd rather spend the time in practice. I have discussed Winn's points with my teacher as well. I haven't the time to go into all the nitty gritty, so let me sum it up. I strongly felt that Winn did not know what he was really talking about regarding Bruce/Kumar's system and methodology. I appreciate their relationship, and Winn helping out with Bruce's editing in his first book etc. But there are far too many comments within that article that show Winn's understanding of the Water method is way off, and that is just basing it on the older publicly released material from Bruce. Which Winn claims to have read, let alone having had Bruce teach him some of his neigong and discussed it with him. The impression I was left with was that Winn's world-view is strongly coming from his alchemical practice and he continues to view everything through that lense. What makes the Water method different is NOT the 'techniques'/'methods', it is the WAY they are done and approached, and this also varies with the individual teachers personality too. The article quickly devolves into Winn seemingly doing his best to discredit Bruce's comments (which are obvisously felt as undermining his own position), and yet these are cleary based on falicious understanding, for anyone familiar with Bruce's teaching. So Winn shoots himself in the foot, creating a straw man and trying to beat it to death. He should have re-read Bruce's books before writing it. For one the 'water' in the 'Water method', Pietro has said has nothing to do with the wuxing, nor Kan and Li. It is more akin to the orientation or world-view of the practice, the overarching strategy of how to approach life and the practice. The system is balanced in using the wuxing, and does of course work with the orbits and the upwards 'firey' energy, it just views the importance of, and the need to do so, and when to do so differently. And it also invloves alchemy in the latter stages which involves working with kan and li. The danger of a 'yin' path is always stagnation, the danger of a 'yang' path is "burning up". Most systems seek to create balance between the two. Take care, SM

Glad you said "for a moment" : ) I am in no way saying Bruce is the one and only, nor that others do not teach similar things in similar ways. There are always differences as well as similarities, and these just vary by degree. But yes all the 'good' teachers do. Some seem to want you to figure out the how after they give the what.

Hi Michael I know that your questions were thrown out more generally, but as they were asked in a thread on Bruce's methods, while I can't speak for Bruce I will for simple discussion give some answers : ) The following comments are based on my experience with his method. Any mistakes are mine. For the most part what I have been taught appears in agreement with your comments. Quite. I think some of this comes from people translating the character qi as breath/breathing, as well as going on the kinesthetic feeling as a way to get people to understand. Bruce's method used to be taught as part of one of his five neigong sets. The set that teaches kai he (open/close) and pulsing. It was then separated as people were apparently not getting it. Bruce is concerned with the sixteen neigong principles, they are the 'wine', these days he teaches them through the five neigong sets, which are the bottles that can contain the wine so you can learn them. The shape can change. Bruce teaches the 'physical' (jing) aspects first as a foundation (bear in mind in Bruce's teaching jing/physical includes the concept of 'qi' worked with in TCM and acupuncture). This basically involves making sure the whole body is 'moving' when you breathe, and this goes from the gross body movements to the very subtle. The layered approach is designed to help you find and release any obstructions to the breathing process. The aim is that everything moves when you breathe, and the circulatory systems from the physical movements of lypmh and blood, to the energetic are free to flow as and how is needed. I have seen many similar methods to this aspect of the work labeled all kinds of things, for me when someone says; "pelvis" breathing "kidney" breathing "belly" breathing "spine" breathing "bone" breathing I think of whether or not these things physically move when you breathe, the same way babies and animals like cats can visibly be seen to open and close their whole bodies as they breathe. Another component is of course to be bringing qi to, or through the area with intent, which some marry to the physical act of breathing. Bruce's method gets the body moving and open first and allows you to naturally move into the latter as you as an individual develop. I have met and studied with people who go to working with the qi and 'breathe' to/through parts of their bodies almost straight off the bat. But their body areas do not really move in the same way when breathing. It may just be a developmental process coming from the other side. I certainly think having both is stronger and more beneficial. But it always depends on the purpose behind why you practice what you do. : ) Well put. I think many 'simple' qigong's use the breathing to aid in relaxation and that relaxation allows better circulation and therefore qi flow, but the actual change is minimal and it is not so much moving qi as becoming aware of it and shifting your 'awareness' around your body. In the Water method Bruce explains that "in qi gong, the breath is a vehicle for the movement of qi; in nei gong, the mind moves the qi directly" The Water method breathing does not use visualisations nor, as a whole, tie breath to moving qi. It aims to teach you to work with your qi through direct intent, one of the sixteen principles Bruce teaches is the absorption and projection of qi from any part of the body. There are times when breathing is tied to qi, but these are for addressing specific imbalances only. The breathing process moves on to awakening the central channel after the whole body is moving, part of the idea is not to simply direct your qi down a single channel with your breath and visualisation. It is more a case of keeping your awareness of the whole picture while allowing yourself to be aware of and to check in on how a part of the whole is functioning without 'gapping'. This probably has more to do with teaching and practicing this ability of awareness, presence, and relaxed focus than it does 'breathing'. Agreed. In 'qigong' as a whole, specific methods are used to address specific problems. Most of what Bruce teaches he defines as neigong rather than qigong. The qigong he teaches is a 'meridian', or medical qigong and so by its nature is for working on addressing particular imbalances within the individual. It is for healing not spiritual cultivation. Regardless of whether people agree with his definitions or not, as I am discussing his system I will repeat them. Bruce defines the difference between qigong and neigong as; "In qi gong, the practitioner works one technique at a time, combining them gradually into a specific sequence. For instance, once an acupuncture channel is opened, then once opened, the practitioner opens the next in line, and so on...important principle to remember about qi gong in general is that one cqi flow is sequentially followed by another." Whereas, "The nei gong system, on the other hand, seeks to work all the chi flows of the system at one time, the ultimate objective being to synergistically combine the hundreds of chi flows in the body....Of course, nei gong is learned one piece at a time, but it is practiced in a way that all learned pieces are performed simultaneously. " The Water method aims only to release obstructions rather than to get tied up with too much specificity in its methods. The neigong are the foundation for meditation and spiritual work, they are there to allow practitioners to identify and release any blockages on the physical, energetic, emotional, etc layers that may hold them back in the meditation and spiritual work. So while they are not 'prescriptions' to address diagnosed imbalances like within medical qigong, they do allow a practitioner to identify and specifically work upon aspects of the sixteen neigong components more easily. They are in effect simply a 'teaching' tool, and an easier one than the internal martial arts which is how Bruce originally taught the neigong. The last neigong set is the one that brings everything together and acts as a direct bridge into meditation. Bruce's methods do not use visualisation. They all, the breathing methods included, work with the kinesthetic sense or 'image' of the body held in the sensory-motor part of our nervous system, as a way in to working with the qi directly. His approach is to pay attention to what is happening in your body until you can feel the qi as well. This way you are working with the qi indirectly through the effects it is having upon you, not creating images in your head and overlapping them upon your body to move 'qi'. The latter as we know can simply create a barrier between what is imagined/visualised to be happening and to what is actually happening. I think the term 'mental masterbation' is what is I have seen here on the 'bums in reference to this. Bruce's teaching is cybernetic in nature, the breathing methods are not simply about breathing or about working with qi. You do not use the breathing methods to learn to direct and move qi. Although they may help you do this. Regards, SM

You ask, he gives his opinion, you decide he's talking shite You being the plural and collective you, by the way. Each will always make up their own mind and find their own path. But if you want to know if what Bruce is teaching is similar to something else, you should at least listen to what he himself has to say, no? Its all meditation so its all the same anyway right Take care

I don't post on here very much, but felt a tug with this one. I'm going to be honest, and blunt. If you want to learn the meditation and energy work of Doc Morris, get your ass in gear and sort out the money to spend time with Susan and Santiago. Whether in person or the online course. Set your intention to do this, and it will happen. It may take a little time, but it will happen. Reading the books and listening to his tape series are great, they are very helpful, but they are SUPPLEMENTARY resources. And as such should be used to aid in your progress gained from PRACTICE, which ideally is guided by a teacher who knows how to guide you. Anyone can do the exercises, the heart of the system (any system) is in its transmission (oral, physical, 'energetic'), it is the recipe not the ingredients that are important ; ) Teachers are your compass and will help you set off in the right direction and stay your course. I am NOT saying do not get the tapes, or the books, do, they can help tremendously with cutting through a lot of the bullshit. But sometimes it seems people have the impression that Doc read a few books, sat on a zafu and BOOM! Learn from his example, he sought out teachers of subjects he wanted to know, then studied, and often built relationships with them, he read a LOT, and spent time with people that were also interested in the fields he was, to simply learn from observation and being with them. According to Hatsumi if money gets in the way of your study that is seen as very bad, because you should have your life in order so that you are able to do these things. This is part of TenChiJin having your spiritual, 'daily' life, and human needs/relationships in harmony. If you do not, then this is an indication of where you are and what is in front of you right now that needs to be sorted out first. While you are sorting out the money for KAP, join KSN (Susan's e-mail list) for support and guidance, use the 'Pathnotes' put out by Doc to begin a daily practice, PM Susan and Santi and ask for advice on how to get started, join in on the frequent Shaktipat meditations they hold, get your feet wet. There is a much greater wealth of information on Hoshin/KAP out publicly and easily accessible (Doc's books, books by his students, youtube vids, etc etc) than when I was first introduced to Dr Morris work, so take advantage of it : ) and use it to get yourself where you want to go. But work towards working with the guides and teachers that are there and can help you. There is a reason Doc sought out Susan all those years ago, and there is a reason he made Santi Head of KAP and they can save you a lot of hardship and are a lot of fun. Why make things hard for yourself : ) All the best to you and your journey, a monkey who likes nature

Hi Scotty I hear you on this. But i feel that you are slightly mis-reading things ( I maybe wrong), this is probably due to the all annoying nature of the internet and forums. The ELECTRICITY is not healing anything, per se (as i see it, at least). It is a tool that a powerful healer like Pak can use to heal someone. I could zap people, or fill them with acupuncture needles like a pin cushion, or give the herbs, or prescribe medicine, but given that i am NOT a healer and do NOT know how to use these tools, that would probably be a very DUMB idea. As Santi explained; "As for the Electricity, Pak Muhammad.....uses the energy to open channels and clear negative energy, He runs his Shakti or Tenaga through the energy as well with his intent & prayers to open and heal things more." It is not just plugging into the mains and running current, there is more going on. The electricity is a tool/vehicle. Like the difference between using needles alone, needles with a small current, or needles with strong qi and intent. Your skepticism is well placed, i don't think just running current through someone would have the result of being treated by Pak. Though any studies would likely reduce things to this to remove the 'subjective' and the uncontrollable variables, and then they would be missing the point. Any one who watches a guy squat 900lbs, and then goes out to try without training or building up to it, is well dumb. Same with this. Having felt this, it does not make me think i can go home and plug in to the mains and play, and if anyone does they are well...you know. If they read it on a forum and think they can do it, well...mmm. So does 'electricity' cure cancer? I am not qualified to say, but like any tool it can be used well in the right hands and not in the hands of others, even many who should know better. As for dangerous, my Father died because of the treatment of his cancer, not the cancer. Shit happens, but allopathic medicine has some f*cked up treatments. Take care B

Suzanne Carlson who is mentioned in Glenn's 'Pathnotes' is not Susan Carlson who worked with Glenn and runs the Kundalini Support Network. It was the Latter that Santi has been talking to and worked to send the Shaktipat with. Susan was close to Glenn and is quite talented : )

My understanding and experience is the same, or at least similar to Sheng Zhen's. I think the 'tuck the tailbone' is a mis/bad translation, in the same vein as translating 'sung/song' as 'relax'. The Chinese use internally felt sensations as a guide rather than external guidance for a reason. It may FEEL like your tailbone 'tucks' but is it ACTUALLY tucked? This is the real question. You have to distinguish between feeling and the external shape of the posture. When you align the legs, pelvis, and spine correctly it should flatten out the lumbar spine (fill the mingmen), and it should feel like your ass has dropped, or your tailbone has sunk. The pelvic alignment occurs when the lumbar releases at the back as well as the psoas releases at the front (this slightly rotates the pelvis, but moving the pelvis and it being moved there are two different things). The rising in the front is due to the proper release of the psoas group and if you 'tuck' in any way (ie 'move' yourself, rather than allow yourself to be moved) to 'get into the right' position you will not only be engaging the muscles differently but you will be creating different sensations as to those given to you to guide you in finding the right position. The psoas for example are not going to release if they are being used/engaged with to 'tuck' the pelvis, even if only slightly. Hope that helps.

Ramon I appreciate any development you have already and the ability that goes with it, but you cannot learn what is not in a book and what is in a book is only a brief example of what it is all about. It is not really a how to in the true sense of the concept. Yes it gives pointers. Learning from a book, from what i have experienced and witnessed in countless people using books alone against, people learning the same method from actual teachers, is generally not recommended. At best you won't hurt yourself. Can you learn something, of course you can, does prior experience mean you can get more from it, of course it does, does it mean you are doing what they are actually talking about? no. Does it mean you understand the bigger picture, including all the things that are NOT said within the book that support and really make the method work? no. What is in a book is in a book for a reason, what is not is not. Looking at your replies to Pietro, who is being more than helpful, though i would say you don't want help but validation that you can take two practices from two methods you are not directly trained in and due to your 'kundalini' can make them into something you can work with. If that is the way you want to go, then by all means take the exercises as you understand them, play with them and see. I'm sure something will happen, which you can use to validate your reasons for doing so. But if you want to actually learn and use either the inner smile or the inner dissolving process as they are INTENDED to be used, then LISTEN to Pietro, if Chia or Bruce are out of range find someone that is not. The progression if i recall is not one of choosing a method ( i can't check as my instructor has the book the reference is in at the moment), and yes there is more to both the outer dissolving and the inner dissolving than Bruce puts into the books, it is more a case of the TYPES of blockages engaged with and the quality of them as to whether they release 'outwards' (becoming filtered back into the energy system through the more expansive energy fields) or 'inwards' when you dissolve them. It has to do with which of the eight energy bodies the blockages occur within and so on. Bruce teaches zhan zhuang first, once you can stand having 'song' released and 'chen qi' sunk your qi to and through your feet for at least 20-30 minutes (long enough to do dissolving), you should then work on outer dissolving and opening up all of the energy gates in your body. Standing is just the most beneficial position to learn this from, once you find that the blockages are of a different nature and releasing inwards you begin to incorporate sitting and inner dissolving. At least this is the basic idea and progression as i understand it and i'm certainly no expert. A teacher can asses and help you to understand just where you are and will guide you appropriately. Pietro Thank you for your posts it has been nice to read stuff about Bruce's work (that isn't just defending him : p) , i have to agree with Creation, the Water method does seem rather underrepresented around here. Bruce alludes xin/hsin to the central nervous system in some of his writings from what i can recall. Our central nervous system learns in patterns and shapes, one of the main differences in how our bodies react to different 'systems' of qigong has to do with the method of development/learning the system uses and the patterns/shapes that are currently within our central nervous system. This is why Bruce is quite black and white with what he calls Fire methods and Water methods in my opinion. As he says it is not so much the techniques they use as the way they are used to engage with the central nervous system. The 70% rule is one aspect in many ways, another is the use of conscious feeling over visualisation (the one engages the sensory-motor system more, the other engages the optical nerve and the visual cortex?? and other parts of the brain more*). This, in my opinion, is to do with the goals of the practice. I loved Chia's stuff when i was first introduced to it, but the 'Water method' is what my nervous system wanted. I'm not certified in either just a student studying : ) *There is of course cross over as you cannot isolate, and i am talking very simplistically.

Ramon25 Listen to Pietro. You can't just start with inner dissolving because you got the book and like the idea of it. Inner dissolving comes after much work on outer dissolving, outer dissolving only really gets going once you have learned to release and surrender fully (song) while standing and sink your qi (chen qi). Dissolving blockages (with outer dissolving) and opening all the gates up properly is not as easy as it may sound. Bruce's stuff is deceptively simple ; ) None of Bruce's published works can take the place of the material as passed on through a teacher, in fact a lot of it you simply cannot learn from. They are great as study aides only. The process of inner smile is fundamentally different to the dissolving processes not in 'technique' so much as the way it engages with your xin (heart-being), mixing techniques from one methodology to another if they are as fundamentally different as Frantzis and Chia's stuff will only confuse your nervous system. It is simply a waste of time, work with the whole of one method rather than picking bits of lots it should work out better for you.

Hi Damo Sorry for the belated reply. Thank you for coming on here and posting about yourself, your experiences and what you teach. I will freely admit that that is why i wondered about the name thing : ) I had noticed you used the spelling Tamo to refer to the Indian monk in question though i still wondered ha ha. Thanks for clarifying that. I suppose i still react after dealing with people using appropriated names in psuedo native American teachings, as well as the occasional odd Japanese/Chinese name shift. I have been involved in things since i was a child too, but i wouldn't say i had been doing them full-time for 20 or so years, but that's me. No offence meant, I just suppose i personally would not choose to word things that way. You've definitely had an interesting life so far though! I had amazon or someone send me a link to your book a while ago, it certainly sounds interesting i will check it our again. If i am likely to be over in the Wales direction, i might give you a heads up and come your way, I know that these things can only be understood in person and i prefer experience and chatting face to face. MWight Thanks, an interesting post indeed. Doc Morris used a blend of his version of zen along with qigong because he said that without the emptiness the qigong is worth sh*t. Simple is good, why complicate things. My neigong teacher, to paraphrase, says the more that is going on outside the harder it is to have anything going on inside, the less that is going on outside and the more that is going on inside the better. All the best,

Anyone know why he calls himself Damo and doesn't use his real name? Not on his site or as the 'author' of his book. Is he alluding to something? "Damo has studied full time for over 24 years in 6 different countries." If he was born in 1980 he is 29 (give or take), 24 years FULLTIME study!!! my god : P "Damo was made a full lineage holder in the internal arts" Mmm, now there seems to be some interesting info about what he does, but the fact the guy is using Damo and not giving out his real name, claims full lineage holder in "internal arts" (rather vague) and says he has been training full time since he was 5 then those are some rather large shoes to fill : ) and some bells that go off whether there is a fire or not.

It can be important to understand the difference between 'flexibility', 'mobility', 'suppleness', 'relaxation', and 'elasticity'. They are different even if they cross over at times. It depends on what you want and why you want it. Straight out 'stretching' through force as it sounds like you are doing, is the best and fastest way to injury. You can also easily cause imbalances in the muscles and posture by just trying to 'stretch' everything out to 'get more flexible'. Why do you want the flexibility? this is the first thing to address. Then you can proceed from there. An 'open' body that is also healthy and retains its inherent stability (especially as you age) is not something created through 'fast' result type approaches. If you do not NEED a certain 'extreme' range of motion it is better to not have it. It can be helpful to appreciate why your body is NOT flexible, most people i know work hard through stretching routines like having a bad argument with their body. I WILL beat you into submission!! ha ha. Approaching things purely on a superficial i want longer muscles level is not so good. There is what you do, the posture etc, and then there is HOW you do it, and that is mainly where the differences lie. Simplistically, for the yang and 'waigong' side look at Pavel, Kurz, Zaichik (all look at developing 'flexibility'). For the yin 'neigong' side Sonnon, Grilley, Frantzis, Vasiliev, Feldenkrais/Hanna (look more at mobility and 'releasing' from inside). Hope you find what you want, good luck : )

There is a reason the mudras are taught only to higher levels. Hatsumi says taijutsu comes first for a reason, mudras are shorthand. Kuji is concerned with fear which is why it is associated with fudo myo, hence the heart under the blade 'nin'. There is a reason Hatsumi sensei's most quoted saying is 'gambatte' 'keep going'. Though i would say there are different kinds of endurance, some come with patience like moving water wearing away rock. The 'kuji' powers come through training, hence any decent martial artist will develop them. The kuji ritual was used to highlight and focus upon those aspects later. Can't do that if they aren't there. As Sloppy Zhang says, it is about experience. Experience comes either through life (natural training) or through training. Dr Morris said that kuji is useless without juice, and that most meditative practices and qigong develops these things if done correctly (correctly being the operative word). Kuji is grossly misunderstood and is only ever one small part of the traditions that contain it, it is usually concerned with keeping the practitioner safe and was used for travelling among other things. There are versions in Mikkyo Buddhism, Shugendo, Shinto, and Onmyodo in Japan, Daoism, and Buddhism in China, Buddhism in Tibet, and other practices in India. All with their own flavours and uses. There are also similar practices in Judaism, and Catholic priests use a form of cutting kuji as well. Archangel Michael is the Christian version of Fudo myo. The ritual uses sanmitsu, but that is the ritual. Hatsumi has called it 'going out into the world'. It is quite simply about the internal and external forms being aligned and controlling one's intentions to create or manifest action in the world. This can be viewed in two ways, bringing together all of one's 'strengths' and removing the things that prevent those 'strengths', this makes it easier to act, this also implies a sensitivity to acting in accordance and not against the world. The descriptions of 'xing-yi' as a concept also fits this concept as does Orlando Cani's talk of 'corporeal expression' (maybe that is why Rickson was always so good in MMA?). The nine are parts of a whole, not separate things. Most everything i have seen published on kuji is mis-leading. Hatsumi sensei has published very little on kuji, nearly everything attributed to Hatsumi in writing was translated and published by Hayes, this i think is worth noting. Technically training in 'kuji' starts from day one if taught taijutsu correctly, but then again correctly is the operative word ha ha. The Japanese teach meditation (shengong) at the higher levels for refinement, after you are well accomplished in the combat side, they hide the neigong in the training and not everyone is made aware of it or trained correctly in it.

In his medical qigong textbooks he states; "After procuring several out-of-print texts written in the 1800's by Jesuit priests on the subject of ancient Chinese metaphysical sorcery and Daoist mysticism, my understanding of Chinese energetic medicine broadened enormously." pgxxv My reading of his explanations of Daoist and Chinese magic in these medical texts at least, read much more in line with Western ceremonial magic or the 'Hermetic' traditions, ala Crowley, Golden Dawn etc. His descriptions of black and white magic is most certainly in line with those given in the Western ceremonial and Hermetic traditions. Given my own previous reading i found this odd as my feelings were that the underlying belief systems were different. Within anthropology it is often hard to not reinterpret such beliefs through the filter of those within our own culture. This has happened a lot with 'religious' practices, where very Christian influenced concepts of good/bad black and white are superimposed over similar looking concepts found elsewhere that do not in fact contain these sentiments. Taking a look at the bibliography things became clearer; Occult philosophy or magic: Agrippa, H C The structure of magic: Bandler, R Grinder, J Initiation into Hermetics: Path of the true adept: Bardon, F The practice of Magical evocation: A complete course in instruction in plantetary spheric magic: Bardon, F Creating magickal entities: Cunningham, D M Summoning spirits: Konstantinos The magicians companion: Whitcomb, B While i admire Johnson for his thorough approach to his work, and his extensive knowledge in many areas, my feelings regarding his Daoist magic is that regardless of what he has been taught his explanations are too close to Western ceremonial magic to not have been influenced by his involvement/research into them. I'll leave it for others with far more knowledge about religious daoist magic to comment further, as i cannot say for sure that they are not closer to western magic than i have understood. Given all the back and forth influences between religions it is often hard to say where one has influenced the other at different times.

No 'practice' stuff, which in my opinion you should get from a teacher first hand and not through a book anyway. It just provides a descriptive theory of what will happen to you on the cultivation path primarily from a physiological perspective. It is the best written source on this i have read (most don't seem to want to go there), i think it is worth reading and re-reading. The translation is easier to read than much of what Bodri peddles himself.

Hi Mike Appreciate hearing your thoughts. I have to agree with your points based on my experiences so far. In this way i have come to think of 'internal' martial arts and 'esoteric' martial arts, sometimes as you say they are mixed, other times they are separate. The confusing thing is the same if not similar terms will always be used to describe different phenomena. Most i have met appear to be more a master of one or the other rather than both, which is why someone adept at both stands out so much and is treasured.

Hi Allan You make some very good points. One of the most interesting things i ever learned was that not all cultures see history or engage with it in the same way as we currently do in the West. Many seem to think that there is one single objective 'History', when there is not, it is at best various strands of subjective histories woven together. I have found James Deacon's comments of interest; "[i am reminded of something a Japanese bujutsu Sensei once taught me - about what he felt was a particularly Japanese concept (though perhaps it is far more universal) - something he referred to as tatemae, which has to do with maintaining a harmonious society. He said that for a gaijin (non-Japanese) to truly begin to understand the Japanese mind-set (and by extension bujutsu and other arts) we need to understand that, in the final analysis, Japanese consciousness is not overly concerned about 'hard-fact reality' - rather, it seeks to find a 'reality' that everyone can agree about. A compromise: an agreed version of truth - even if it is a fantasy, as long as it is one everyone consents to believe...]" (http://www.aetw.org/reiki_history_tatemae.html) Traditions have their own histories passed on down through the lineage, these contain accounts of history and everything else as those within that tradition believed it to be. These do not always, and quite often dramatically, match up. Who is right, who is wrong? is there a right or wrong? I should point out that based on what i have been told by one of his students when i asked them, Frantzis' use of the term 'Water tradition/method' has nothing to do with 'Kan' and 'Li' from inner alchemy. As you say " Kan and/or Li are not methods.". This is one reason i found Winn's article odd, in that he claims to speak from a position of understanding having been taught Frantzis neigong sets, yet discusses it from his pov regarding kan and li?? This is why i think Winn's article falls down, he is simply discussing something completely different to what Frantzis is talking about. I am not saying either is right, so much as the arguments put forth by both (Frantzis in his books, Winn in this article) are discussing very different aspects of the cultivation path. Though i do agree with Winn that Frantzis writes of the traditions in a way that easily fosters mis-understanding at times. I have only come across skant (independent of Frantzis) references to a possible 'water tradition' "shui jia", and this is within the western academic study of Daoism. I don't read Chinese and so am unable to look into original sources effectively. This theory is in reference to a particular philosophical approach to the study of the Dao, it is not in reference to 'methods' used or 'aspects' that occur within the methods used, ala kan and li in internal alchemy. Various metaphors could be used for these lines of thought, 'water' is just one of them. It is best to remember the straw man argument, if you are within a 'water' tradition (or better put a tradition that heavily relies upon the metaphor of 'water' in the underlying philosophical outlook) then you might well use 'fire' as a metaphor for other schools that you view as different due to their philosophical approach, but does that mean that they consider themselves, let alone call themselves a 'fire' method, no, not really. It is also best to keep in mind that hard and fast labels and neat little boxes need not apply, academics like listing things and will always invent new ways to group things together, oddly the 'things' often rebel such groupings. So references to a 'shui jia' by scholars writing much later on, or use of a term by later adherents within a tradition, does not mean those around at the time used such labels, or if they did that they mean the exact same thing (look at the field of Hermeneutics for example). But then does that mean the tradition did not exist or was not passed on? no, traditions change, adapt, some grow well others do not, some get re-invigorated by a prodigy, others do not. An individual is like a lense and a tradition the light that passes through it, they are not the same thing. At the end of the day it can all just become a bit too 'academic' all too easily. A birch is a birch, an oak an oak they are both trees rightly or wrongly, they both stand in the ground and reach up to heaven, soak up the sun and feel the wind. All the best, peace SM

I was going to stay quiet lest i be mistaken for 'defending' Frantzis ha ha Winn's article which i read a while ago on his site reads like a self serving rubuttal to me. It also shows significant lack of understanding of the neigong and meditative approach taught by Frantzis. Frantzis' whole 'Fire' vs 'Water' thing, while containing truths about the differences in underlying philosophical methods and approaches to cultivation, is also written in a rather antagonistic fashion in places. Given that many seem to feel that he is directly talking about Chia's work it doesn't suprise me that Winn feels the need to defend himself by, er attacking? At the end of the day they both have an agenda and interests to protect, and Winn's article is doing just that. Unfortunately instead of creating a nice comparative piece looking at the two approaches, we get a rather crap article with little or no insight into either side. To my mind they are in fact talking about completely different things IMHO (whatever that is worth, which isn't much in the grand scheme of things ha ha). ON Winn's forum someone posted this in response; "If there is fire gate and there is water gate, then there are eight gates of Kumar's bagua. THE SPIRALLING ENERGY BODY DESCRIPTION Again please refer to Energy Arts Inc. website for a full description. This is generally the most powerful of B.K.Frantzis Chi Gungs and is only taught at retreats.I must emphasize that I do not teach this set and will not be offering it as a weekend seminar at all. THIS IS THE SET THAT REPRESENTS THE FIRE ELEMENT in Bruce's Taoist Water Method of Chi Gung. First students are given a personalised posture which is designed to open as many of their Chi Channels as possible. Next you learn how to start initiating the upward current of energy from the earth and how to generate spirals of energy at the Dantian.It is essential that prospective students of this method have practised the Outer Dissolving technique and the rest of the Energy Gates set before beginning this process,as this is the best protection against any potential problems that can arise. Other topics include how to neutralise both your own and environmental negative energy states and how to use the energy developed by this set to power the movements of the Energy Gates movements." Which clearly shows Winn either 'forgot' about this part of Frantzis teaching or chose to ignore it when writing his pov. Yet there has also been no reply to this?? I think the confusion lies in the uses of the metaphors of Fire and Water, they don't always refer to the same things every time they are used. Different traditions have different meanings for them and often use the same metaphor for various things within itself anyway. 'Water' can be used to refer to many things within neigong, as can 'Fire' or 'wind' etc and that doesn't even include the confusion that occurs especially when you only have the English and not the Chinese character to go from. I think it is all to easy to create and attack a straw man (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man) to point out your own 'rightness'. It is up to each person to decide who is doing what and why? Most approaches work well if studied CORRECTLY and fully, taking bits and pieces may not provide the results expected but that decision is up to each person. Personally i think both of the methods if engaged with thoughtfully and properly with the right guidance are helpful, it depends on what you are want, though i think the differences lie less in what is being worked with or done and more in how it is worked with, why and when in your progress. To each their own, ego's will always battle on. Avoid the propaganda wherever possible. All the best, SM

Hi I know kunlun has its fan's here so i thought this might be a good place to ask a question. I have read through some of the previous threads about it, but was left wondering what is the difference of it is to the other spontaneous movement practices out there? Some advocate a specific posture/breathing to help initiate falling into a 'rhythm' some don't. They all seem to want to start from a place of movement to remove blockages which tends to over time mean a more subtle vibrational movement ending in a more 'stillness' practice. Curiously, SM

Hi First of all thanks to all that have replied, much appreciated To clarify one point, transmissions are given in all of the traditions i mentioned AFAIK, though there may be differences that could be debated, such as the 'kind' of energy transmitted etc (stuff that usually seems to reflect local cultural colour more than anything else). The seitai i mention is Noguchi Seitai (there are different types, some are just like osteopathy with no 'energy' type stuff). Noguchi worked with energy projection, hands on healing and so forth. He was in interesting man from all accounts. I know of one student who links the transmissions back to shaktipat. The moving practice 'Katsugen undou' (the exercise that gives life??) is started with three breathing exercises and a kind of 'stretch' to initiate the movements until you can just do it. You let the movements play out until they are done. Seikijutsu, your body is prepared and then you sit on a stool and seiki transmitted down your spine into your sacrum. This as you learn to surrender to it initiates the rocking and spontaneous movement, rocking, swaying, circles, standing up and moving around, noises talking etc, you also let this play out until it's done. Regarding Osho, I have only worked with his Kundalini meditation which has already been described in part. It begins with shaking, which ideally should 'shake you' rather than the other way around, you then follow the other three parts into stillness. I understand Osho to have given transmissions, whether this was called shakti or not i don't know? I agree on the oddness of having timed 'sections' rather than just an entry into it and then going from there. Keeney shoots arrows or transmits 'energy' and shakes you, he advocates a process based on seiki though says you can do it without the initial transmission (though it might take longer), he advises no postures other than whatever you need to fall into the spontaneous movement feel the bliss/big love of the big god and have a good time. The emphasis is on 'being shaken', he avoids definitions of 'energy' and prefers to speak of the affects of it on you, though he calls everything from subtle humming and vibration to wild erratic movements and dancing as 'shaking medicine'. I was taught a spontaneous practice by a tai chi teacher though not really of the depth of the above, but its descriptions were similar to those given by Master Wong kiew kit, and Ken Cohen. Spontaneous sounds and noises and how erratic the movements are 'allowed' to get seems to be connected to the general cultural demeanor, those cultures tied with historical traditions like confucianism seem a little more conservative in their expression of it. Maybe it all heralds back to the erratic shaking and movement of ecstatically aroused 'healers' and over the years traditions occurred based on concepts of how to bring that about? So, overall, we know that the practices release physical tension, emotional and energetic blockages, and is preferably done with receiving transmissions that aid the process. But is there any difference? and if so is it just an 'academic' one of degree, that doesn't really affect the average person starting out? Other than what someone enjoys and is going to actually practice to get somewhere? I suppose where the practice is held within the system is one difference, which highlights the importance it is given. As far as i know this kind of spontaneous movement practice is what makes the later sensitivity exercises and people moving you around easier. My current neigong teacher says that spontaneous movement due to energy flow occurs when you have blockages that are preventing you from aligning properly. When aligned properly and with the mai open the energy (heaven or earth) will then move up and down powerfully though not move you as it has a clear path through, you might still hum and vibrate though, thoughts on this?? Kunlun you say uses various postures at different stages, so they are used to induce the movement of energy and the spontaneous movement? But if the different postures used are to clear different blockages/stimulate the energy in different ways (opening different mai etc), how is this effected once you start moving which from descriptions seems to be the point of the practice? Is the initial posture a 'primer' for what will then happen once you have begun moving? I saw on the video lecture on his site Max says the energy is not qi or kundalini? Does anyone know what he explains it is instead? I know that there are many, many different names that float around for different 'types' of energy even within one tradition let alone cross-culturally. Curiously ? I suppose at the end of the day you can't answer the questions without trying it out to see ha ha, experience is the mother of all things. So one last question for any that can answer it, how different is/are the transmissions given to qi transmission or shaktipat?? I live in the uk and wouldn't be able to go State side to meet Max. Peace and love, SM

This is a very true point you make, and one where i feel a teacher can be of help as they can often see what we NEED better than we can. Of course it still depends upon the 'school of thought' you, or they adhere to in the end i suppose. Some would say to delve further into the end of the spectrum where you are stuck until you come out the other side again. Lethargic? become even more so, to the point of excess, do absolutely nothing revel in it until that spark inside occurs that propels you towards moving and 'doing' something. Balancing these two extremes out and appreciating where you are at any given time on any day in light of them seems quite hard to do, it is quite easy to remain firmly attached to a routine and forget the continual patterns of change. Maybe this is where the problems come from in some traditions where only part of the spectrum is passed on for some reason or another?? Best regards, SM