Jonah

Yes, perhaps we are using the term water method and meaning two different things. B.K. Frantzis, who has been the main driving force behind classifying his school as the true water method, has no guiding of the chi whatsoever. Very bad to guide the chi with physical movement or thought. Chi awareness is developed through his dissolving process where you start from the top of your head and slowly, inch by inch, scan your body for anything uncomfortable, any blockage and then you focus on it and feel it slowly dissolve like ice to water and then water to vapor. All chi kung movements involve deep breathing into the dan tien and then simultaneously focusing on the downward dissolving process at all times. No guiding the energy with your hands or intent. Focus is always on down, energy going down into the ground as you move, do tai chi, or sit in meditation. Down, down, down is the mantra. Water goes down, fire goes up. Moving energy up the spine is a definite no-no, and many of the students would feel very threatened if you even mentioned the MCO. Such a dangerous fire practice, we certainly don't do that here. So when you said water method is the best, that's what I assumed you referring to. Bottom line, no method is best, no matter what your teacher says. Only what's best for you.

Hey Starjumper, Good to hear your feedback, appreciate your input. The information I posted was not an attempt to show one side winning over the other, as there is no actual competition to begin with. Water does not win, nor does fire. We are always striving for balance and completion. There is nothing to win. The whole water vs. fire battle is an illusion, there is no winner nor loser, only the most appropriate technique for you in the present. My three year journey focusing only on Bruce's water method chi kung and meditiation techniques did not bring about a lack of motivation but serious health problems including severe digestive problems, chronic constipation (not to get too graphic), a dramatic loss of energy, and a very depressed state because of this dramatic change from my formerly energetic self. While I wouldn't want to repeat that experience, I did learn that my constitution is much more yin than Frantzis's and that yin practices were not beneficial for me. His teacher Liu Hung Chieh must have recognized Frantzis's extremely yang constitution and prescribed more yin practices to bring him balance. On the other hand, Liu Hung Chieh taught his other senior student, Bai Hua, the exact opposite techniques -yang fire practices because of Bai Hua's more yin nature. Definitely not water method, but coming directly from the Taoist master Liu Hung Chieh himself. Both are Taoist practices, both appropriate for the right person. Finally realizing that the yin methods were making me overly yin and slowing my metabolism down, I switched back over to more yang exercises including, yes, the Microcosmic Orbit, and I slowly but surely recovered my health back. I now know I need more yang practices to maintain balance. If the methods you are using work for you and make you feel healthier and more balanced, that's great, by all means continue them. But to advocate that it's your way or the highway, and that the MCO is a horrible practice does a disservice not only to the multitudes of people today who have found this practice to be a lifesaver, but to the rich treasured history of such guided imagery techniques found all over the world not only in Taoism but in nearly every other tradition including ancient shamanism, and the mystical traditions Buddhism, Islam, Hinduism, and Western Alchemy. Bottom line, there is no one size fits all method for all of us. Variety is the spice of life, and thankfully long lineages of people before us have come up with a wide variety of techniques that work. It's up to us individually to find out which technique works for us the best. Keep up the good practice. Best, Jonah

Hey all, Having studied both under Michael Winn and B.K. Frantzis over the years, I have experienced first hand the benefits of using both physical methods to open the MCO as well as guided imagery. Both methods used together in a balanced fashion are quite effective. Michael Winn in fact now highly emphasizes chi kung forms, including Frantzis's own Marriage of Heaven and Earth form, to open up the orbit, and encourages his students to start with these movement forms and then sit down and meditate afterwards, letting the energies do their thing. Once they get moving you can just sit back and experience the energy flowing through you. Each school likes to say they are the best, and offer the "true" teaching. Both Winn and Frantzis do this to an extent and this is one of the reasons they have both become quite succesful. Yet Frantzis I believe has done a bit of a disservice to students continuously emphasizing that his "water" methods are the only gig out there. I love his teachings and have benefitted greatly from his work, but I do have to laugh when he claims that his teachings are the one true Taoist way, and that his water methods are far superior to the "dangerous and false teachings" of the fire method, i.e. his main competitors. An unbroken lineage of thousands of years leading directly all the way back to Lao Tzu... Sure. This whole fire vs. water method debate has been around for a while, and it's a false argument, as is any black and white thinking. That's the whole point of Taoism, the blending of opposites. Finding a happy medium between the yang of physical exercise and the yin of silent meditation is what it's all about. One thing I can say from personal experience is that focusing only on the yin and water for a few years, as Frantzis strongly emphasized, threw my balance off. It took some more yang meditation from Winn to balance me out. And I'm not the only one. I close with a letter to Winn from a longtime student of Frantzis who experienced similar issues. (Again, don't get me wrong, I love Frantzis's stuff, just realize that his viewpoint that over-emphasizes water and creates antagonism towards fire methods, does not ultimately bring about balance in the bigger scheme of things.) Over and out, Jonah Date: Sat, 30 Apr 2005 17:35:44 Subject: Water method Dear Michael, I .....run a studio teaching Taoist body work. I am contacting you with regard to your article re: the Water method vs Fire controversy. Which incidentally I think is one of those non starters like the specific or non specific state of hypnosis argument. I thought for a long time that I was the only person who had doubts about Bruce's WATER METHOD, which I think clearly is a part of something greater. I have had my doubts about Bruce's water teaching and the negative sides of a one sided approach to practice. Not only this I have taught many, many people who had found dissolving very difficult unless I acted as a guide to them by talking them into a dissolved state during sessions. ( leading to a dependence on me ) This initially got my attention, I on the other hand had an instant and deep response to the water method idea where as many people I have taught struggled. My dominant element is fire and so the dissolving process was a huge relief from my career and ambition driven dilemma. Although I have always had a natural skill with movement, I have been a pro-dancer, and kick-boxer and have studied martial arts since the age of 13, I was really self combusting at an alarming rate. The water method for me was permission to get out of the endless game. I thank Bruce wholeheartedly for this gift. I must admit at the other end of the scale that Mantak Chia's emphasis on Fire, Yang practices and sex was a turn off to his work for me. But I was also under the sway of the Frantzis mantra. You do address this in your article too. Primarily I had been teaching B.K. Frantzis material with his permission. I now view Bruce's work in a different light and have come across many obstacles over the validity of some of his strategies, some of which I am in agreement with and others that I clearly do not. I am one of the oldest B.K people. Thank you for the article. I will try to make this brief as I am apt to digress. I am in agreement with your article and I would like to add to your frozen state analogy. In my personal experience I took the water method to heart and turned my life 180 degrees. However after years of this method I lost my creative expression and ambition to succeed. My talent for movement became stagnant, and indeed this passivity simply made me indifferent to myself. I would describe this state as stagnant like a pool that needs some fresh oxygenated running water to cleanse it. I gave up on things I would have fought to overcome in the past. Realising this I would self reflect even more. Mmmmm. I see this pattern emerging in people who are now devoting inordinate time to his water method and it is a shame. The irony of all this being that Bruce has been devouring Dzogchen Teachings like a hungry ghost for many years now and uses Dzogchen as a synonym for Taoist alchemy. I have had no compulsion to study meditation with Bruce and still do not. I have always felt that if I wanted Chi Gung he is the man, but for spiritual practice he is not. My own research led me to the Dzogchen teachings of Chogyal Namkhai Norbu and I have had very good experiences with the work. It turns out that Bruce had already been there and moved on! I will cut this short now. I would like to interview you for my website at some point if you are interested and link to your article? I would like to try to some extent to open up some dialogue to get balance on these issues so that people can be informed and not fall into the Bruce propaganda emporium. He has slowly become the thing he says he does not want to be, which is his inability to take responsibility for his creation. Hiding behind the image of Liu Hung Chieh. He has become a Guru by default. By the way I must say that I am not an anti-Bruce campaigner, I have defended and do defend him even now, he is a fine teacher, with what I have experienced as superb energetic skill, and I would even study more if he dropped the act. Thought you might like to know that your article was a relief and thanks for writing it.

Hello all, I've been impressed with the high-level of dedication and expertise this group has and wanted to participate in the online craziness and deep wisdom that emanates from this board. I have been studying chi kung for over ten years now and there is so much to learn that I am really glad for reincarnation -- with only one lifetime you're going to just barely scratch the surface on this stuff. I look forward to learning more from the members of this group in addition to sharing my own two cents, and other bits of pocket change, to the collective bank of knowledge that is this site. Thanks for setting this thing up. Cyber-taoism, you know Lao Tzu would be proud. Best, Jonah

Sean, Glad to be here! Thanks for the opportunity. Best, JH