Kundaolinyi

Okay, I admit, maybe I can sound close minded. I think you do too though. Can you really not see how comments like "maybe you'll come around in time" come off as if you're 'teaching down' at me? As if I'm in ignorance, and you need to enlighten me... -That's where my defensiveness is coming from. I totally don't want to 'jocky for superiority', I'm hoping we can somehow get passed that. The fact that you're saying now, that "it wasn't my intention to come off as adversarial or condescending" makes me think we have a chance at comunicating. Let's move on. "someone is cured of a terminal condition, and your attitude is, "yeah, but their balance is still off. how can that be considered healed?"" ...but you said they've been cancer free for 5 years! The cancer is gone, work on something else.

I've labeled, 1-5, specific points, so to stay organized. My responses will be labeled accordingly. 1. I'm happy to have a real conversation with you too. I'm not specifically close minded on the topic, I just have had no reason to change my opinion on it as of yet. I too, could easily accuse you of being close minded as well. Neither of us have shown any willingness to budge, so calling each other out for not having an open mind is pointless, we are both pots and kettles, and we are both black. I get it, that you think you're not close minded because you feel like you've 'been there done that' with my perspective, I think you are mistaken. We should just enjoy the diversity in our perspectives, and hope that we both learn something from discussion. 2. I've given a brief overview of some of my philosophy on the basics, and you say you've learned the same way. Excellent. I'm not sure why you have taken my abbreviated dissertation on the basics as an indication of the extent of my skill level though. I keep saying 'foundational basics', I said nothing about my advanced practices, or where I'm at now. I appreciate that you're taking the position that you've been where I am, and have moved on. I understand how this works, because I too have taken this position with others on different topics. I am not yet convinced that this is actually the case with us though, I'll address this more in point number 3. 3. This is where your idea of what I'm doing, where I'm at, what my level of understanding etc. has become a strawman. I'm not saying you did this intentionally, but you're clearly addressing a skill level and knowledge base, here, that is not representative of me, my skills, and my perspective. That makes the position you're taking, as the wiser more experience practitioner, seem questionable. I'm not struggling for dominance here, I just want to keep those attitudes you've brought in out of the discussion. I keep repeating my mantra of 'foundational basics', and you keep talking as if everything I've ever learned has been written here. I have to admit, this irks me a bit, but I can stay patient and hope we both walk away more knowledgeable. 4. "i've watched dozens of patients put their cancer into remission of the past... 5 years, let's say. many of them still have bad balance" Then they're not fully healed. The cancer is gone, but the bad balance isn't. Is that hard to understand? Some things were healed, some were not. Simple. It's an amazing feat, but it's not a complete heal, factually speaking. Once you have the youth of a child and no ailments, you are healed COMPLETELY. Curing cancer is great, I love it, but you're talking like it's the end of the road. The end of the road = back to the basics, this is what I'm saying. 5. Good for you! I too consider myself to be a student of principles, rather than systems. I still see no reason to think that my principal, that the basics are the beginning AND the end, is wrong, even after reading what you have written. I certainly don't limit myself to Chinese Gong Fu either, I'm not sure why you would imply such a thing. Too much strawman again, probably unintentional. I'm not accusing you of cheating an argument, communication just doesn't seem to be working between us. 6. That's not a paradime shift, it's fine once you're in a state of auto-regulation to allow the body to do on its own without micro-management. The cancer patients with bad balance you spoke of are not there, don't be silly. What we have here is a philosophical difference. You seem to be convinced it is a matter of progression, I am convinced that it is a matter of personal prioritization. For me, once you have progressed all the way, you can then joyfully embrace the basics. It's a circle. So, I might be mistaken here, but to me it sounds like you've turned your focus to more difficult things to heal, like cancer, but you have done so by lowering your standard for what you consider to be a final outcome, ie- just 'not having cancer' is good enough for you. If true, that's fine, but it's not my way. I'll admit, my expertise comes from confronting my own Chiari Malformation that I was born with (type 0 or 1), also considered incurable from the western medical community. I don't have documentation to prove my progress, but I'm about 90-95% symptom free. Maybe that makes me a low level kid to you, not sure, but I admit, I haven't healed cancer as of yet. Never had it, never treated someone with it. Have you actually cured cancer? Or was that a bunch of talk? It's okay, you don't have to be the big great master to have an opinion. Just say what's on your mind, it's all good.

Thank you for all the replies. It seems like there is an agreement amongst the majority, that the old 'give a fish or teach someone to fish' is an important philisophical application of both healing and teaching. I can't help but disagree with the notion that there is no such thing as a 'higher intention' though. The idea of categorizing intentions as higher or lower in one's mind will ultimately direct one's actions. "I consider this to be more important than that, so I do this more often than I do that." We often make these decisions without conscious intent. Consciously categorizing intentions not only requires higher level reasoning, but it also forms the basis for what we consider higher level reasoning to be. A more drastic example would be "should I practice MMA and beat people up, or should I practice Taiji and cultivate health, peace, longevity, and unity with my fellow man?" I'm not interested in judging, so I'll consider it a matter of personal philosophy, rather than fact, but to me the pursuit of Taiji is typically based on what I consider to be higher level reasoning, whereas pursuing MMA fighting is what I would consider to be ego-driven desire, or lower level reasoning. To the mma fighter, it may be a virtuous path, because that fighter's reasoning could be as simple as "I want to win, get money, and women." To me, that's lower level reasoning, but it is still personal prioritization. A personal choice, perhaps, but an important one. To me, there is a higher and a lower, even if it is by opinion alone. Those who just go with the flow with no intention, in my opinion, aren't actually doing that. They're just not conscious of the psychology at work. I don't see anything wrong with being self aware, and making conscious decisions about subconscious processes. So for the question at hand, if I have two career path choices, between healing and teaching, or some combination of the two, I want to take the 'most virtuous path', which to me is the 'highest' or 'best' path. Whatever adjective is used to describe the motivation behind the choice, I certainly want to make sure mine is more 'advanced', 'higher', or whatever than "get money and bitches", I think we all do. ...and between healing and teaching, there may be subtle differences, and perhaps I might find one or the other to be more Virtuous.

This may show my own personal limitations in where I'm at, or perhaps spark debate on matter of opinion, but I arrived at a surprising question today in practice, and I'd like to see what the community's thoughts on the matter are. To introduce the topic, I'll quickly propose two of my own personal philosophical decisions of which my inquiry stems from. One (of 2 here) of my relevant philosophies -on qi, chakras, vitues and power- The qi system, as in general, in my opinion, relates most strongly in the dantian to Swadisthana Chakra, and thus to open up to the heart past Manipura Chakra, conditions of Swadisthan Chakra (conditions of the qi system) must be prepared for the opening. Manipura, being a chakra in which the idea of "Power" must be pondered, the solution to the preponderance is found on the path of Virtue. Virtue is the psychosomatic chain to the health of the body, and the health of the body connects to the depths of oneself through the Qi system.... Simply put, Virtue is a necessary component of "Power", and the concept of "Power" is a necessary component of Virtue's discovery. Virtue controls "Power", and "Power" propels Virtue, this path opens up the heart beyond the desire for "Power" for the sake of "Power". At the same time as heightening one's spirit to the heart and beyond, one strengthens the physical body, and the Qi, via Virtue and Power. -Thus, I find that Virtue is important, very simple in the end if I sum it up like that, elementary. In caveman talk, Virtue = Good, I want to have it, lol. The second (of two here) of my relevant philosophies -on pondering concepts- Answering a philosophical question to me is to successfully ponder a 'conceptual virtue'. These philosophical decisions make up who we become in life. I ask, in a philosophical question -"What is the 'highest' of virtues for the sake of my psychosomatic health, my interaction with the world, my spiritual development, etc?" This is the root control point for our higher level reasoning, the development of personal philosophy. In everything we do in life, we have a personal philosophy as our reasoning. "I am this way, so I do this way." This is why I ponder Virtue, because its development is akin to one's sense of self, personal philosophy, and psychosomatic health to the body. The question of this thread- The question that came to me the other day was that of intention, in the moment, or in life. The question I propose in this thread, retaining in mind the above two paragraphs being its source, is- Between the 'intention to heal' and the 'intention to teach', which is the higher or more Virtuous intent? Or is it a matter of opinion? Or perhaps they are equal and can be categorized simply as ideas pertaining to an 'element', as if simply another Hexagram of the I Ching to be dealt with? What are your thoughts on Teaching and healing (as a life path, or just an intention in the moment) ? Save in mind that teaching to heal is a possible intention to use, and perhaps healing someone's knowledge maybe. I'm a little fuzzy past that point. I simply have not finalized my thoughts on the matter. What do 'thedaobumbs' have to say on this all?

This is the kind of thing I can't entirely get on with. Why would the final product of a healing technique be a mangled form that'll just harm you again? If you have a bad relationship with gravity, then you haven't healed all the way. If you can't even stand up straight, how can you be considered healed? It's ridiculous (sorry, no offense, this is just my thinking). I guess I learned about healing differently. Step 1 cleanse, step 2 flush, step 3 energize. Step 1 and 2 wont reach everywhere if things aren't aligned, Step 3 will harm you if the energy is knock'n about making tense spots and whatnot. It's not just about 'judging' a teacher, it's very important to healing. Basics are everything.

Although I agree that teachers become more heavily scrutinized as they gain success, I'm not sure if I can agree that spreading out is a bad thing. You have to remember that meditation, martial arts, etc.. has been taught by direct transmission for all of history, which is why those teaching methods work. Globalization of material through books and DVDs is new, so it's no surprise that this kind of teaching doesn't work very well... yet. Yet. Who's to say it wont in the future? I look ahead, and I see Virtual Reality devices like the Oculus Rift, and holographic devices like Microsoft's holoLense, and I can't help but think that this kind of mass teaching of eastern material is in its infancy, and can only grow. Fifty years from now, or a hundred, people probably will no longer say "you can't learn this without direct transmission from a teacher." Author's like Mantak Chia have taken brave steps to teach the world through books and DVDs. A lot of people just want to cash in on a booming business too, it's true. You can't deny that Chia has made some money along the way as well. I don't think that's the fault of the medium though, it's the fault of the state of our capitalist society, and the kind of characters it develops. The future could be really terrible, and technology could ruin everything natural, raping the DAO... or it could be a really cool time for dedicated individuals who cannot otherwise afford to travel the world looking for the right teacher. Good teachers still have to take those steps now, and risk the bad in it, to develop the way to reach more people effectively. Even within the context of books and DVDs only, there's still a lot that can be done to improve communicating eastern concepts to westerners. There's also a lot of work to be done in developing a better way for people who don't live in a temple. Beyond that, new mediums will become available. The old ways aren't actually that good, they're just the only thing anyone has come up with that works SO FAR. In actuality, direct transmission to a few students is pretty pathetic. It's inefficient. Teachers need to keep working towards future, and shouldn't avoid it just because modernization doesn't work well YET. It's a very exciting time, in the grander scheme of things. It's just slow moving enough that not everyone sees the potential yet.

As the one who revived this topic in the interest of defending Mantak Chia, I feel like such a fool for insulting Michael Winn, provoking others to defend him like I did for Mantak Chia. It's so easy to criticize. Although I prefer Mantak Chia's work, for myself, I don't doubt that someone could get something out of Winn's work. As for my Criticism of Michael Winn's postural mechanics, I should not have. There are many areas of expertise to have, there are many skills to develop, and one person's focus will differ from another person's. I have found, in my own practice, that opening the posture in accordance with Daoist principals grounds my spiritual development by being the outlet for it directly into the physical body, as nature intended. Because I value this very basic principle so dearly, I have clearly developed a bias for those who also do. It was wrong of me to be elitist about it though. I don't want to get into the Atlantis thing, therefor I'll just say that I don't know anything about Atlantis and am not pursuing research into this area at this time. For this reason, I'll refrain from criticizing Michael Winn, or anyone else on this topic.

This is an old topic, however, I came across it while searching something else and I couldn't help but want to add a reply for anyone else who comes across it like me. To begin with, I'm not sure why, but it seems like it's almost human nature to expect that teachers/gurus etc are supposed to be god level in vitue. A divorce, an imperfect system, as many failed students as there are successes... These things clearly PROVE that Mantak Chia is human. But why do we expect that his marriage, his life, his knowledge, his students, him, to be perfect? Find me the perfect teacher, one without fault, and then come back and judge Mantak Chia. The truth is, Mantak Chia is a man, with strengths and weaknesses. He learned and shared Taoist practices as he learned them to the best of his ability. He developed his school, his business, his books, his mariage, and his students to the best of his ability.. and because he is not a perfect god, somehow that makes all of everything he teaches worthless? Anyway, I've studied Mantak Chia's work for over a decade now. I've found too that his system is NOT easy to progress in. I've had to modify it, mix it, and combine it with multiple other sources of knowlege to even begin getting a handle on it. Some of the most core and powerful principles I adhear to are derrived from Mantak Chia's system though, and quite simply put, the only reason he has such a high student failure rate is because his system isn't easy. The difficulty level is too high for most people, possibly Michael Winn included. Micahael Winn's posture mechanics are proof that he just doesn't get a lot of it, and his ungrounded thought processes are the result of this failure. Fanciful spiritual dreams, unable to be grounded in the fat phsycial body with terrible postural mechanics that he just can't seem to master. Simply put, a lot of people don't do well with it because it's difficult, and people find it unsafe because it's powerful. The mistake I most often see made with Universe Tao or ANY system with a spiritual component is in the relationship between the phsyical side and the spiritual side. You see people imagining great and wonderful things, feeling their chi etc, all the while their physical bodies are completely out of balance. People tend to use relaxation as a crutch. Sure you can have good chi flow if you go completely limp, but why is your neck and upper back so scrunched and compressed? Relaxation is one of the results of proper developement, not the source of it. There is a difference between relaxed power and just going limp. The bagua is the ultimate balancing tool. In Chia's system, it's used to balance the organs on an emotional level, but it's VITALLY important that the phsyical alignment of the organs be balanced in movement and mechanics by the bagua too. It's all wonderful if you can see and feel and balance your chi when you're limp, but being able to manifest changes into your phsyical body in accordance with those spiritual principles is what opening the conception vessel is all about. Jing->Chi->Shen. We all know this concept. But it's only 1/2 of the practice. If you only do this half, you only ascend the governing vessel. The spiritual power developed by this transmutation must be harnessed and directed back down, so that Shen moves the Chi, and the Chi moves the physical body to change form. Without harnessing the Shen to transform the phsyical body to be more compatible with the spiritual concepts it employs, what results are fanciful and useless spiritual developement that has no connection to what we call the real world. Feel good Hippy stuff is all good, but it's no good if it leads only to ungrounded fantasy. I remember in Iron Shirt Chi Kung I, Chia mentions that westerners have a hard time straigthening their neck's. Go look at pictures of Michael Winn. He's not even close to Mantak Chia's level. And it's not because Mantak Chia is a bad teacher. It's not even because Michael Winn is a bad student. It's because what Chia teaches is REALLY difficult to learn and teach, even for himself. He is a man, teaching the spiritual wisdom and bio-technology beyond that of men. He is no more unqualified to teach than we are unqualified to learn. But we study anyway, and he teaches anyway. What I've come up with is different than Chia's system, but it is still based on the core principles Chia teaches. Everyone must do this. Everyone must make what they learn their own. Chia did this too, as will any of you who wish to progress. There is no perfect system, but the one we create ourselves, for ourselves. It's just how it is. Deal with it.

I'm probably not going to make any more friends with what I'm about to say, than the amount I'm going to make by bumping up an old thread (sorry) ... but.. This topic, and a lot of the responses, goes to show a HUGE problem with the state of qigong schools out there right now. Everyone gets so caught up with feeling and dealing with all these metaphysical energies without grounding their skills into their physical bodies. Except for the most talented people, there isn't much point in trying to manipulate this 'magical qi stuff' until you've actually bothered to gain proficiency with some of the more basic physical energies like the 'ground reaction force', 'tendon torque', and the 'pressure from the breath'. Anyone who's spent enough time figuring out how to drive the internal pressure of the breath (I'm talking about pounds per square inches here) downward, knows that the organs get in the way. So what do you do? You use the pressure of your breath and posture to align the organs (which are suspended in their fascia sheath) so that the breath's pressure goes BETWEEN them, which when done correctly PHYSICALLY OPENS THE DANTIAN. Postural mechanics are a must here. With the organs shifted, and Dantian (space between the organs) open and pressurized, the passage of the body's weight travels to the ground effectively, and the resulting impact forces is received back into the body. At this point, the tendons (including the diaphragm's) can be torqued, with the resulting tension being channeled into the internal energy system, rather than creating tense spots in the body. This is how the 'tendon changing classics' bother with tendons to begin with. All the forms, semen retention, and hitting with reeds, will only do so much without actually grounding your progress with physical skill. The Dantian, and all of the meridians physically exist. Well, that's not entirely accurate. They're not like a vein or a nerve. They're like a hole or crevasse BETWEEN THE PHYSICAL TISSUES IN THE BODY. When the Dantian is pressurized by the breath, they adjust as a whole system like an array of ballasts. Okay, so the point here is that the forms in qigong all open, close, pressurize, or depressurize the meridians (like ballasts) in specific ways that have a physical effect on which organs are open or shut off to the dantian, and in what ratio. The forms effect the body's internal dynamic from the outside-in. Each organ has a specific 'element' assigned to it, which determines quality of physical energy cultivated, chemical-emotional effect, and its psychosomatic relationship with the mind. Each form has an effect on these things, but only to a small degree if the person hasn't developed skill in this system. None of this requires getting into any metaphysical mumbo stuff. You don't need to sit there and ponder "does x exist or not", as if it were a philosophical dilemma. If you don't know what you're doing, then it's no surprise that you wouldn't be sure. Your points here are well thought out, but lack some understanding. The English Language IS a mental construct, but the brain has specific physical structures that handle language, and those structures exist with or without learning the language. You are confusing Taomeow's analogy by equating English to the meridians and dantians, when actually, English is the qigong forms. The Dantians and meridians are more like the language center of the brain, which exists whether you use it or not. Taomeow's post was spot on to begin with.

I'm not entirely a convinced evolutionist, but just to offer an opposing argument- Fizzards... You mean a creature that both lives in water and on land, and that has both legs and fins? We call those anphibians, not fizzards, silly.

Often times the heart chakra is visualized as the color green. In Taoist alchemy, the heart itself is associated with the element of 'fire', which is the color red. To make matters even more confusing, take alchemic adjustments into considerations. What are the 'chakras' like pre-taois-alchemic-adjustment? And what are they like post-taoist-alchemic adjustment? Does reversing Kan and Li effect the chakras, for example? Recently I came across a Kuji'in system that recognizes 9 chakras, one of which is located at the Jade pillow area, between the throat and third eye chakras. I've also been exposed to chakra systems that describe chakras as centers of consiousness, rather than energy. (whatever that means) I have to admit, there are times where my intuition is so strong that I feel like I'm being directly fed pure truth from God or Aliens ..or something. Then there are other times when I think all this stuff is a bunch of bullshit and I should just stick to physical anatomical qigong/neigong. At any rate, if experiencing universal love and compassion is really the final chakra stage, then I've been there done that many times over. You'd think there would be more to it than that. Especially considering how easy it is to experience such a thing with Chia's Fusion practices.

I would love to become a breatharian just to be able to quit pooping. Lol, I really despise pooping. I have to admit, there have been many times that I felt no need to engage in eating, but I usually ate because I thought that I was supposed to. I'm certain that I would have ended up hungry eventually though, but in some cases it seemed like I accidentally stumbled into getting a 'taste' of what it's like to be a breatharian. These random times when I really don't think I need to eat often occure when I'm having some success with connecting my internal system in my body to the external universe, rather than just focusing on my body/mind/spirit/qi alone. Not always the case though. In any case, the distance between me and becoming a true breatharian is long enough that I had better pack a lunch

^This is what I've been thinking for years. It seems as if there is such a thing as 'free will', but it is not what most people think it is. Free will, as it turns out, is actually just another factor in the equasion, a variable in the cycles of change. Many people have argued with me saying things like 'you always have a choice'. I generally felt like they must be wrong, because I've been on both sides of the argument, and they've only been on one side. Still though, seeing how people are often 'held responsible for their actions', I cannot help but seek out my own 'free will'. I don't like being held responsible for things that are out of my control, but to be honest, I really don't think that their definition of 'free will' is anything more than a false sense of power and conrtol. This too, I agree with.

The Tao is mine! No one can possess or distribute it but me! Ah... in an ideal world there would not be any money, fame, or recognition to fight over, nor the desire for such things. I suppose I wouldn't want to be plagerized either, nor would I want to be falsley accused of plagerism. I dunno who dun wut. I mostly just care that I have access to knowledge, even though I don't want to purchase it from the wrong source, if there is such a thing.