mjjbecker

I appreciate that you, and many others, may have a bunch of questions you would like to ask. The limiting of the number to two questions per person is so that more people have a chance to ask questions. You have to bear in mind that Kostas writes for a hobby. There are many professional writers, martial arts and qigong teachers-he isn't one of them. He has a job that already takes up a lot of time, he has a family and on top of that there is time spent teaching martial arts to his students. His offer to spend the time reading and replying to questions is on his part a generous one, and information given freely. He has no business to promote in this, no new book to sell (the new book being available for free as an e-book), DVD or seminar tour (I will say again, I have never paid Kostas a penny for anything he has taught me). So please, keep it to two questions so that as many people as possible have the opportunity to ask their questions. Thank you.

Michael Lomax writes about cutting energy cords with other people in his book, 'A Light Warriors Guide...'. He writes about how to cut these cords when it is appropriate to do so.

"``You judge very properly,'' said Mr. Bennet, ``and it is happy for you that you possess the talent of flattering with delicacy. May I ask whether these pleasing attentions proceed from the impulse of the moment, or are the result of previous study?'' ``They arise chiefly from what is passing at the time, and though I sometimes amuse myself with suggesting and arranging such little elegant compliments as may be adapted to ordinary occasions, I always wish to give them as unstudied an air as possible.'' Mr. Bennet's expectations were fully answered. His cousin was as absurd as he had hoped, and he listened to him with the keenest enjoyment, maintaining at the same time the most resolute composure of countenance, and, except in an occasional glance at Elizabeth, requiring no partner in his pleasure."

Monks and nuns are not supposed to have children in other religions either. Outside of that...I understand that Wang Liping has a son, and various people connected to Quanzen also. Master Wan Sujian for example and his American student Michael Rinaldini. http://www.wan-qigong.com/strong-09/index.htm http://www.dragongateqigong.com/bio Tao thoughts? No, it's not. It is socialist central planning. Due to social issues caused by this there are calls for change here in China ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14287093 ). One thing for sure though-if not for the government bringing in the one-child policy, then enforcing it, it would not have happened. Another thing, there are doubts now to whether it was ever needed ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-11404623 ). The wealthy have flouted the rules and paid the fines ( http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/1550935/Chinas-rich-flout-one-child-policy.html ). The poor and less well off do as they are told-or suffer the consequences ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-15048213 ). The wealthy elite do what they can get away with-until it becomes an issue that causes mass public disorder ( http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/7191021.stm http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12088147 ). Corruption is rife-something the central government in Beijing have stated themselves more than once ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12088147 ). Those Chinese that have been able to have embraced Western culture, fashion, living, etc. This includes medicine-which is why G.E. relocated its X-ray business to China ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-14287093 ). The majority of Chinese people, in all the time I have lived here, have shown little to no interest in Daoism. Daoist thought certainly isn't mainstream. Confucian values, that is different. However, the younger generation, strongly influenced by Western culture, and coming from one-child families, are embracing individualism whole-heartedly. Again, not just my opinion but backed up by news reports. Not long ago the government here considered issuing an edict demanding that children take care of their elderly relatives ( http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-pacific-12130140 ). Unthinkable a few years ago, but now many would rather be independent from the family yolk (and again, we also come back to the problems caused by the single child policy). I had one student go and study in American just to escape his grandfathers dictatorial behaviour. He ended up marrying an American girl and now lives there. Another student, just returned from spending time in the USA told me he wanted to live there because there is 'much more freedom'. The 'Dao' of modern China is the shopping mall. Fact. Yes, there are those who follow the traditional ways, but they can hardly be considered the majority. Not a criticism, just reality. I enjoy living in China and admire much of what I see, and many of the people I know. It is though, like any other country, a place that has its own problems and issues to deal with. Not inherently better or worse than other countries.

I would like to see moderators dealing directly with people on the threads, rather than sending any PM's requesting action. If someone has written something offensive or inappropriate, then I would like to see the moderator post on that thread-advising the person of whatever action is expected. People can then see clearly what was done, what action was taken and why. I prefer this to the idea of moderator logs. I'd rather witness the process myself. I don't however feel the moderators are obliged to discuss their personal opinions in public. I used to act on my own volition when I moderated-though I used to discuss matters in private with other moderators. Moderators here seem to like to get a consensus before acting. I think like anyone else they are entitled to private discussions because they are entitled to their private opinions. Once they agree on an action, then I feel whatever needs to be said about a post made in public, should be moderated in public. Example. Someone posts an offensive comment at another member. Moderator points out to this person that their post is inappropriate and asks them to edit it. Member does so, we move on. Member refuses, then moderator takes agreed action-possible suspension, possible direct edit of said post. Requests, decisions and actions done in public. Repeated breaches of the rules/guidelines, or refusal to follow the moderator's request, then by all means suspend or ban people. There will be enough public evidence to show why this action was taken. People may not agree, but they will at least know the reasons why. To allow the moderators to take action in public does mean that other members need to respect the moderator's position of dealing with issues.

Both Scotty and Stig are sincere people, and I understand where they are coming from. On certain points I agree. Scotty certainly has a right to say he thinks decisions have not been correct. Stig certainly has a right to suggest changes that he thinks could improve the forum. People have the right to say whether they agree or disagree. The issue here though is Scotty and Stig demanding that there should be change-on their terms. The issue here is making statements that they can, and will, do whatever they want. They can't. Not a statement of opinion but of fact-and they have forced Sean and the moderators to prove this. Ultimately Sean DOES get to choose how the forum is run-he owns it. I am all for freedom of speach and opinion. I am not for individuals demanding what they want and constantly doing so. That isn't why I visit this forum and it isn't why other people come here. In the end it is the same as spamming and it distracts from the other discussion. It is clearly stated within the rules/guidelines to please abide by the moderators decisions. I don't think the moderators have any objection to someone questioning an individual decision. Constant demands though are not abiding by these decisions. Stig and Scotty constantly berated the moderators. Neither of them have the right-as per the forum rules/guidelines to do this. People may not like this-no one is forcing them to. They however don't have the right to force the forum to follow their opinions, nor do they have the right to force the owner to do what they want. If someone doesn't like how this forum is run then they are free to leave. If they want everything on their terms then the choice they have is to set up their own forum, where they are the owners and so they get to make the decisions. Stig referenced my post on self moderation in his thread, but he seemingly missed the point entirely. My post was all about individual accountability and responsability. When people consider the feelings of others, rather than being deliberately obnoxious and confrontational, then the need for the moderators disappears. It was not a call for the removal-or even change-of the current system. The idea that the moderators here are unreasonable, controlling individuals is not backed up by the evidence. They may makes mistakes, there may be some disagreement on their decisions. Such is the way of things. Some will agree, some will disagree. To claim the moderators are destroying free speach and discussion on this forum is simply wrong. Discussions and threads are continuing here, and have done so since the moderator roles were created. We can argue all day about 'fairness' and 'equal punishment for all', but that is not a 'get out of jail free' card. Deal with your own behaviour and actions. Overstep the mark and get moderated for it, you only have yourself to blame. You don't like what someone else says or thinks? Ignore them and move on. React, then you choose to live with the consequences, whether you like them or not.

Beautiful. Thank you for sharing. I think Mal can help you out with a personal practice forum of your own: http://www.thetaobums.com/index.php?/user/1090-mal/

No Stig. You have agitated for some time now against the moderators. You have criticised and attempted to undermine them. You've done this because of your own opinions in regards to how this forum should be run. That fits the definition of 'political agenda'. However, as a former moderator you are quite clear on what Sean's wishes are. You just personally don't agree, so you seek to impose your viewpoint on everyone else. You said as much yourself. And it is your viewpoint. You don't know what the majority of people on this forum want-and you don't seem to care. You only care what you want. You've banged on and on about what you want and to hell with the consequences or other people's feelings. Well, the consequences are that by you-and Scotty-forcing the issue, this bad feeling and divisiveness has happened. What do you expect to happen when you attack people, as you have done with the moderators? Do you expect them to be happy about this? Do you expect them not to be personally hurt? Divisive autocratic system? Not hardly. The moderators here are far more easy going than many other forums and a lot more accommodating. That is purely your opinion on how the forum should be run-you've offered no proof than the majority-or even a significant number-of forum members agree with you. As for friends being at each others' throats, this situation arises when a person criticises them and undermines them constantly instead of showing respect-despite whatever their personal differences may be.

6th Tibetan Rite. It's been discussed here in the past and there are also descriptions on various websites. http://www.reuniting.info/node/2271

There is lots of good information in the old threads. Well worth doing a search.

This may seem restrictive but I think it'll force us to grow up a bit and think about how to present our perspectives intelligently without just flinging unproductive rudeness at each other. No one, including the originating poster, gains anything from statements like "So and so is a complete moron" or "XYZ sexual preference is abominable". If you have an opinion and you believe it's relevant to a topic at hand, post it as constructively as possible so we can learn from you, debate with you, ignore you, whatever. If you can't abide by this simple constructive guideline, create a rant in "The Pit", a new little Off Topic subforum for the more primitive breed of taoist war. Sean. Further to this, Sean's clarifications on previously banning someone-from the same thread:

Writing 'fuck you' to people is abusive. You have done this more than once. That you did this since you were suspended is not the issue-you have abused people.

We've all read the rules. There is no 'letter'. They are not detailed. The 'spirit' of the rules though is 'to treat members with respect.' You haven't, and that is why you were suspended. The rules also clearly state 'to please abide by the moderators' decisions.' You have also ignored that. To that 'letter', you have broken the rules. I read the Seth Ananda thread, without bias. Yes, I agree he was abusive and insulting and this was wrong. However, what about your actions? He would not have reacted in the manner he did-and the key word here is 'reacted'-if you had not provoked the reaction. You talk about justice and fairness, but make no mistake, in a court of law or official tribunal, circumstances are always taken into account. You are no innocent here and you would have been held accountable in any other situation for your behaviour. I have been loath to get involved in any of this, utterly loath. However, it seems like Mal-and the other moderators-are being attacked in a manner far beyond any errors they may have made. FWIW, I feel Mal and the other moderators have consistently done a fine job under very difficult circumstances. They don't deserve the attacks that have been directed at them. On the subject of facts, if you behaved in the 'real world' in the same manner you have behaved here, you would be liable to prosecution. Being aggressive and abusive is against the law. To do it from behind a computer is simply cowardly. Clearly you have major anger issues. I hope you can resolve them, not only for your own peace of mind, but before your attitude spills over into the real world and you get yourself into possibly serious trouble.

I do. That is why I do not abuse people and that is why I am not suspended.

Stig, No one doubts your passion or sincerity. What I would ask is this: If the majority of the forum disagreed with your views on this, would you abide by that? I propose a simple vote with two choices: 1. We try the system that you are suggesting for 3-6 months (I think those were the timescales you mentioned). 2. We continue with the current system of moderators and abide by the moderators decisions. Let there be a poll, with a timed cut-off. It will not be open to new members registered after the time of this post-this is to prevent anyone from unduly influencing the result. Existing members only. Once the poll has run its course then we agree to follow the view of the majority. I am happy to abide by whatever result the poll delivers. What say you?

Then perhaps you can help me along the way by following the tenets in the prayer yourself?

This is Sean's forum. He owns the site and pays the bills. There are no 'rights' beyond what Sean agrees to. What is disappointing is the shocking amount of ingratitude and attitude of entitlement. Stig, you are missing the point entirely. There is no 'freedom' in the daoist sense here. There are rules-stated on the forum. One of them being that 'the moderators decisions should be respected'. The internet is also subject to the laws of different countries. It is not a free-for-all, where people can do what they want. Posting copyright materials, making threats against people, libel, etc. These are all subject to law. Sean, as the owner of the site, is subject to these laws-as are the participants here. Also Stig, you made it clear you didn't want to be a moderator-but you seem instead to want to be the owner/administrator. You want the forum to comply with your demands and wishes, what you consider to be correct and proper. Seemingly this did not agree with the other moderators/Sean-going from what you have written. Well, it is Sean's call. He put in the moderators-because increasingly members would not moderate their own behaviour. Putting it simply, this isn't 'your' forum. It is Sean's. If you want something different, you can of course set up your own forum and do your own thing. As it is, you are a guest here like the rest of us. There is nothing wrong with offering ideas on how things might be improved. You have however gone beyond this and seem to be making demands instead. You perhaps don't stop to consider that it isn't your forum, and indeed that other members here may not agree with you. On the subject of being guests, it would be nice for everyone to remember that this is exactly what we are here. It isn't for us to dictate terms, make demands or just do whatever we please. The simple plain fact is there would be no rules, laws, etc if people could control their own behaviour. The other plain, simple fact is that no one here gets suspended or banned without behaving in a manner that is disrespectful to others. Anyone that is subject to moderator action has done something first. Don't blame the moderators when you have done something that has led to action being taken. This is like a playgound fight between children. What the participants should remember is what their teachers used to point out. Who started it is not the issue-you took action which broke the rules and that is why action is now being taken against you. You don't decide what is acceptable or unacceptable behaviour-you follow the rules. This is life-in school or in society. There has been much bolding of text and subjective reading of the rules, in attempts to 'prove' one opinion or the other is correct. I thought the one guiding principle over all others was supposed to be: 'Treat other members with respect.' Where is the respect? Ultimately, whether we like it or not, we have little to no control over other people and their actions. What we have is the choice to control our own actions. 'Let he who is without sin cast the first stone.' This statement is not simply about what action we are going to take, but also the actions we have taken. Introspection and self examination. We blame and curse others, but what part did we play in this? What were our actions? If we had behaved differently, would the outcome have been different? It is usually the case. 'To err is human, to forgive is divine.' Non of the unpleasantness and anger on these matters can be making anyone happy or feel good. There is no satisfaction to be gained by this arguing. And that is all it is. It is not some great issue or matter. This is no 'spring revolution'. It is simply bruised egos. I like to read this prayer at times as it helps me personally gain some perspective: The prayer is an exceedingly difficult benchmark to live up to, and I fail in doing so every day. However, it doesn't change the value of the wisdom contained within, nor the benefit-to all-of at least trying to follow it.

We would not require moderators if the participants of TTB's moderated their own behaviour and followed the rules as set out by Sean. Given this, why are we having various discussions about the moderators and their actions? Surely we are just ignoring our own behaviour when we should be focusing on that more than anything else. If the moderators are needed at all, and if the moderators feel compelled to act in order to censure members, then it is for us-the members-here to question our own behaviour and motives first. Life is not 'fair'. Moderators are not perfect. Nor are forum members. Look first to your own behaviour before having a go at the moderators. There will be many people here, myself included, that could have taken a lot more care over what we have posted at times. We should spend our time dealing with our own behaviour first. If you want to make the moderators redundant, then do so by not behaving in a manner that requires the moderators to act.

I favour self moderation. The reason we have the moderator team is because more and more it became clear that many people won't follow the rules, as set out by Sean. Rightly or wrongly, people have left and people won't participate here because they feel it is too unpleasant a place to be. One thing to question something, quite another to go all pitchforks and torches. The latter has been all too common. There seems to be an overwhelming sense of self importance when it comes to the 'right' to have ones say. But really, there is no such 'right' here. The forum is privately owned but publicly shared. Sean pays the bills and as observed, bears the burden. There is no reason why he should not accept adverts to cover the costs. Anyone that doesn't like it can ignore it or leave.

One more thing. Dr Jerry Alan Johnson has studied the Hunyuan system also. He details the neigong exercises in his medical qigong book, though does not correctly attribute them regarding what they are. He doesn't even give credit to GM Feng in the book, despite including these teachings in the book. See page 682 onwards. The line drawings showing the exercises (p683 to 697) are in fact tracings of GM Feng demonstrating the exercises in his own book.