mjjbecker

Guy I worked with, recently married, died of cardiac arrest in June. The Sunday after we broke up for the summer holidays. He liked to smoke, have a few drinks and party ('I'm not ready to hang up my dancing shoes yet'). I remember him telling me he needed to get so many hours overtime or 'my wife will kill me'. Seems the cocktail of all the above did. I'm fairly sure he was not yet 40. His widow has nothing now as his family in Australia took his body back there two weeks later. Moral of the story? I don't know but I think the persuit of money in order to fund a 'modern lifestyle' isn't bringing health and happiness to many people. I suspect queuing for the new iPhone 4 was not a postive life changing experience for most, though it was certainly a priority for hundreds of thousands of people recently. Sometimes it is difficult to think well of mankind, given the incredibly messed up priorities many seem to have. Giving to those who are greedy and selfish is often a wasted gesture and doesn't seem to make them better people. Compromising in matters of love, i.e. taking whoever you can get once the opportunity arises will just end up leaving you unhappy (seen that on more than one occassion-the sensible ones got divorced rather than play the martyr). Spawning, and then pandering to, selfish children isn't doing anyone any favours. In matters of lifestyle, if you are planning on getting married, it pays to be with someone that has similar values to your own. If nothing else you can be selfish bastards together. In life I think we can't always have what 'society' tells us we want. The media and advertising certainly do seem to lead some people along by the short and curlies. Despite all the 'wants' though, there are also choices. Try to make good ones. It's all a learning experience though, and everyone makes mistakes. Once made, try not to repeat them too often. That I think is the key. (Cue Dobro blues slide guitar to play out the rambling old bugger that is me).

I clearly stated 'the part I have made in bold'. 'since the heart is also yin energy and the sword fingers are yin energy so it creates a repulsion effect.' Your forgetting the details isn't going to help someone foolish enough to try what you say. Check and be sure or don't post it. I emphasise this to YOU, because some people seem to court your opinion. Rightly or wrongly some people think you know and understand the detail in such things. Clearly from your comments that is not so. I've never read 'Taoist Yoga' and have no intentions of doing so. I spend my time training what I've been taught, rather than reading 'theory'. When I have a question, I ask my teacher. That is the way it should be, in my opinion. Clearly people looking for advice on Spring Forest Qigong should be looking at the manuals or asking on the official forum you mentioned earlier. I really wish-for your sake-you'd go back to Chunyi Lin and finish the training that you started.

The part I have made bold. Not so, not at all. 1. The heart is NOT yin. 2. Identical energy in this case DOES NOT have 'a repulsion effect'. We are not talking magnetism here-we are talking projecting energy into an area. You most certainly DO add energy that is THE SAME. In Chunyi Lin's words: 1.'The vibration of the energy from the sword fingers does not agree to that of the heart. The quality of sword finger's energy is more negative while the heart's energy is more positive'. ('Spring Forest Qigong: Level 2 for Healing'. Page 47). 2.'I give energy back to the kidneys by using my sword fingers. Kidney energy belongs to Yin. Energy from sword fingers belongs to Yin too. They match up very well.' ('Spring Forest Qigong: Level 2 for Healing'. Page 50). Once again Drew, you have made a statement that FUNDAMENTALLY DISAGREES with what Chunyi Lin has stated. Why? I have to ask because you have expressed your opinions far and wide across the internet regarding qigong. In fact, I have seen you called a 'qigong researcher' in one interview. Some people seem to think you are some kind of reliable source of information regarding qigong in general and Spring Forest Qigong in particular. If you give interviews, then you are setting yourself up as some kind of authority. If you widely express opinions on a particular method, (in this case Spring Forest Qigong) then you are also setting yourself up as some kind of authority on that method. This being the case, you really should be getting the basic facts correct. It wouldn't bother me, except for the fact that some of your 'advice' is not only wrong, but it is also dangerous. I refer to the idea of talking in 'sick qi' and attempting to change it. You made this claim in another thread, yet Chunyi Lin expressly advises NOT to do this. As a curtesy to Spring Forest Qigong, Chunyi Lin, and especially to beginners in qigong who may not know any better, I feel you have an obligation to get your facts right. If you can't remember the details, then check a reference or even better, go back to Chunyi Lin and do a refresher. Don't just make things up. This is not a game and you have a responsibility to not mislead people in such potentially dangerous practices.

Please note the new contact email address: [email protected] Some people in the UK have generously offered to help out, so it is looking hopeful the seminar will happen. Any future enquiries should be sent to the above email address now. Please bear with us as it is early days. Anyone who emails us at the above address expressing an interest will be kept updated with progress. Once things are fairly certain, we'll put a seminar announcement up in the seminar announcement thread.

I am not inclined towards suspending people in general. I've seen much worse said. That said, things have in the past gotten rather nasty, so I appreciate what the moderators are trying to do. It is a thankless task and as a moderator you almost always end up being criticised. 'Cheerleader' may not seem like an insult, but the manner it was put was dismissive and demeaning: I'm not a woman, but I can see how such a comment might seem sexist and really quite insulting. It needs to be seen in that context. It wouldn't bother me from a male perspective, but a comment specifically male orientated in nature might. Say for example if I called you a 'dumb jock' (which of course I am not). It is a dismissive, male orientated remark implying stupidity and lack or intelligence. Cheerleader can seem the same when directed at a woman. I don't think Raymond intended to cause offense and it looked like a flippant comment given without much thought. I've done the same myself many times, but I do understand that such remarks can be hurtful. As for a KAP bias, I think that is unfair on Mal. It isn't that long ago that Santiago was suspended (by Trunk, I know). You let out your little cheer when 'Starjumper7' was suspended by Mal-was Mal being biased their against Steve, or does the fact you personally don't like Steve mean that it was OK for him to be banned? I'm well aware of Steve's track record and have been on the receiving end of his comments myself. I didn't let out a little 'yippee' over it. In fact, I think Steve has made some effort to be more polite, compared to the past. I feel I have to support the moderators because there is no way of pleasing everyone and they are doing a sterling job of a very difficult nature. I do look forward to Raymond returning also. All this is just conversation on the Internet and really no big deal.

Thanks to everyone who has emailed me. A good level of interest so far . Don't be shy if you are interested-do let me know. Thanks, Mike

Right then. I've communicated with Michael and asked him about the possibility of having a Stillness Movement workshop in the UK. He is available and willing, if we can get enough people interested to make it worthwhile. I will be back in the UK between 15th January and 15th February 2011, so we are looking at a weekend in that timeframe. I'm hopeful I can get some assistance on the UK side to organise things, and I am prepared to dip into my pocket to deal with initial expenses (I'm certainly not rich, so this is not something I'd do lightly). However. To make this happen, there does need to be some genuine enthusiasm from people based in the UK. For practical purposes I think we'd be looking to do this in the London area. This is the main transport hub for the UK and would be where Michael would fly into. His journey is going to be long enough as it is without him having to add extra connecting flights. Also, it provides rail and flight access for people in the UK and Europe. So. What I would like is this. Anyone seriously interested in attending such a workshop, please email me at: [email protected] Don't tie up this thread with replies to this please. We'd like to get an idea of the interest and proceed from there. Thanks, Mike

I picked up the book and the Nei Kung book when I was back in the UK on vacation. I don't have the DVD's for either. I've tried the exercises, though they are not part of my regular practice (time constraints, not because I don't rate them highly). I'm willing to speculate that Master Chu knows more than he has publicly released and that it would be worth the time and trouble to meet him in person and become a direct tudi.

Yes! But who's paying attention?

Yes, really. Re-read what I said as your comment does not contradict my point. The method/exercise/practice is named after the process. It is about making the MCO happen. The process came before the practice. It is a natural process, found in children before they hit puberty and become sexually active. Not my opinion, but from a teacher of a living, high level tradition. I really have no interest in Luk's book. I will take living lineage over old, translated text. There are a lot of translated texts around, but there are very few high level teachers with actual experience and an ability to pass on what they know. There seems to be some question over whether Luk knew anything of the actual practices or was simply someone who wrote a book. Throw on top translation from Chinese to English and you end up with something far removed from an actual living tradition. I've not read the book but remember Ken saying it was useful as a bookstop but not much else. Given that recommendation, and his background in a living tradition of what is being described in the book, I've no inclination to buy the book. In all fairness, the same goes for the various other translated texts that are out there. If the lineage is a dead one, then the all important verbal instruction has been lost.

The microcosmic orbit is not a 'technique' or a 'method' of training. There is no conflict between it and neigong-it is something that happens once a certain level of neigong is reached. The 'debate' on the other thread was in relation to methods that try to 'force' the microcosmic orbit vs methods that open it 'naturally'. You get your 'Microcosmic Orbit' exercises in some schools. In others you simply get told to 'practice and see what happens'. Some teachers prefer not to discuss this process because they believe it is better for the student to directly experience the process, rather than to be aware of it and then to try and make it happen (I am making an educated pitch, based on what I've seen, that this is the case with Master Chu and his neigong system). There is also some debate over the exact definition of the term. Some claim it is simply the movement of qi through the Ren and Du meridians (from what I recall). Others say the 'true' microcosmic orbit is a profound movement of qi through these meridians, a major, and rare, opening up of these channels, with very significant effects for the practitioner. My own personal opinion, FWIW, is to stick with the Chu Nei Kung, (because you have an affinity with it and it works for you) as well as the Eternal Spring Chi Kung (because he's added some extra neigong exercises into it) and add the meditation he is now also teaching. I believe Master Chu has a complete method of training and you don't need to add things on to it (possibly why your teacher seemed 'dismayed'?) From there, I am sure 'interesting' things will happen.

'Beautiful!'

Just completed an hour and a bit of Stillness Movement. Impressions. How easy it is. Nothing to remember; nothing to count; no special breathing or holding the breath; no straining with the effort; no mental or physical struggle. Sensations. Heat; warmth; 'clouds' of qi around the hands and arms; electric currents; energy moving down the arms and body; heat in the dantien. Feelings. Peace; tranquilty; self ease; acceptance-of myself, of others, of life; flowing-not grasping at any kind of 'result; belonging. N.B. Sensations are just that-sensations. Not something to be sought or chased after. Just 'be' and what needs to happen will happen.

I'm coming to that conclusion myself, and feel that way about my own practice (just to add my agreement-Sifu Lamb is I am sure WAY beyond my level ). I also doff my hat to her for sharing what she knows, and to other teachers like Michael. It really is very difficult to be a teacher and having the patience and compassion to deal with students-and that is just 'normal' teaching. Teaching this kind of stuff and doing it well requires a remarkable person indeed.

Hundun, I can understand how my comment caused offense and that was not my intention (it was supposed to get your attention). I should have been more clear in the meaning. In my experience, 'healers' often do not claim to heal anything, but rather to facilitate healing. When you made the comment on the Shaktipat thread that 'I can heal cancer' I was surprised, even though I did suspect there was an element of tongue-in-cheek. To make such a comment though, even in jest, implies hubris, hense my, and here I admit to my own lack of tact, response. My own comment did not rest only on this, but it was the root. I apologise for any pain my tactlessness has caused. I do believe you are a sincere person and like the rest of us trying to find some understanding of all of this. I appreciate your comments and again I would like to say there is no ill will. I doff my hat to you. Best, Mike

I worry about you sometimes. 'All those negative waves' (name the movie, people). You put yourself in the firing line far more than I would care to. It is hard to get away. The key I've found, is not to be attached. Getting better at it all round.

All your own words. All opinions given despite never having experienced Stillness Movement, having not read the book or in fact met Michael Lomax. Also your own words: Looking at what you wrote, I could not reach any other conclusion than you were being extemely critical of a practice and person you have no experience whatsoever of. My response was not caustic, it was blunt. You have said you like straight talking and that is exactly what you got. I appreciate it isn't nice though, from personal experience. Quite painful in fact, but moreso when what is said hits home. Saved up? No, read what I wrote to Steve. If my memory can stretch back to his comments in 2008, it can stretch back to yours in a recent thread. When I respond, I try to do so with as many facts as come to mind. Regarding Santiago, we have had email discussions and given our frank opinions on various matters. No problem whatsoever. Both he and I also like to say things as they are. We may not agree on everything, but then I can't say I even agree with myself on everything. Now, I can assure you I have no feelings of ill will or animosity towards you. In fact I have enjoyed reading many of your posts. If you could write them without the above sort of observations, I would be an enthusiastic supporter of what you have to say. My point is a simple one: you can get across a lot of good information without needing to belittle anyone else in your writing. If that is not your intention, then it is worth being aware that it is the impression being given. Please do engage in debate with me. Please pull me up if you disagree with something. I'm-and know I have been-wrong on numerous occassions. Having something pointed out is a good way of not repeating my old mistakes. Yes, I will vigorously defend my position, but I will also hold my hands up and admit when I am wrong. I have no problem apologising when I am wrong also, and have had plenty of practice doing so. I am sure you have a lot of valuable insight and experience that I, along with others, can learn from. Don't let some pompous bastard like me put you off. Don't give in to the temptation to be a pompous bastard like me either though. As with before, my best, Mike

I just remember stuff and the brain makes the connections. Probably the reason I ended up studying history at university. I remembered from way back you'd done the Hunyuan stuff. Did a search and the information came up. It is indeed like a dance, uncannily so when watching the daughters of GM Hu. Myself I prefer to sit on the floor, and I don't have the space to move around without bumping into stuff. If you have to avoid doing this, it isn't spontaneous any more. I can't directly post the You Tube links because You Tube is still blocked in China. Here's a link to a Chinese version though (thanks due to my Chinese friend Helen, who has been a massive help to me). Enjoy! http://www.tudou.com/programs/view/594-RjFZUyQ/

Then you will know that Hu Yao Zhen taught neigong to Grandmaster Feng? You obviously don't know that spontaneous movement is recognized within the Hunyuan system though. Don't believe me? Go and ask someone senior within the school. Perhaps you never got past the basic exercises? Relevance? Hu was also one of Wang Juemin's teachers. Not only that, but Hu 'invented' Stillness Movement neigong. He wrote a book on it in the 1940's. Hu's daughters still teach it*, and videos of them demonstrating can be seen on 'You Tube'. Yes, spontaneous movement with all the trimmings. Performed standing, and yes, sitting on a chair. That's the thing about making sure you drink deeply from the well of knowledge. A little does indeed seem to intoxicate some. *For anyone interested, the only places that I know of that they have taught is parts of Europe and currently in Beijing. Given this, learning from Michael Lomax is an easier teacher to access.

I speak as I see. If that does, or does not cause surprise, so be it. The intention is simply to add my tuppence worth to the mix. People can and will respond in light of their own experiences and opinions. C'est la vie. No one should blindly accept-or dispute-anything I write here. If they feel compelled enough, then they can take it for checking. That is how we learn. That is how I've learned and picked up information. Without the prior comments by Michael Lomax and others, I would not have bought the book and tried the practice. There's lots of good information out there from different sources. The purpose of reviews like mine is to highlight a particular one. There is the opportunity for others to do likewise by starting their own threads. I mean this in a non-confrontational way and without any intent to be unpleasant. However, this thread isn't about you. Like your comments elsewhere, I get the impression that you are jumping in more to say how much you know. I understand the point of establishing ones credibility, but that can be done in a far more concise manner. You're right in saying you know little about me beyond superficial details. That is because the strength of my arguement is far more important and relevant in a discussion that me banging on about how wonderful I am and how much I know. I can't cure cancer but I have been known to kick hubris squarely in the balls with attention getting results. Sometimes when one sees nice things being said about others, even if we disagree, resisting the temptation to jump in and piss all over it is a good thing. I don't think you needed to make the comments about Santiago on the 'Shaktipat' thread. If he didn't dispute the comparison to Wang Liping it is likely because he gave it little to no thought. He has always shown humilty and respect to his teachers, so he isn't prone to raising himself on a pedestal. He expresses what he thinks in a forthright manner is all. I've always had the impression that Michael Lomax is sincere in what he says and does. If I had doubts, I would go and find out for myself, or let it pass, rather than just jump in crying 'fraud'. I don't know you from Adam, so I would not presume to rain on your parade in such a manner. Claiming to be outspoken is not a justification for being crass. If you wanted to bring up the matter of the video, you could-and should-have done it on that particular thread. If I wanted to recommend particular books, I would show some tact. 'Buy this one, it's half the price and twice the value' kind of remarks on a thread reviewing a particular book is hardly polite. I don't think you would care to have someone behave this way towards you. Whatever the merits of those other methods are, they are not what is being discussed on this thread. It is not a 'Spontaneous Qigong' thread. I'd consider myself ignorant if I'd posted my thoughts on Stillness Movement in one of Jenny Lamb's seminar announcements, or in one of the Kunlun threads. They are specific to a particular method, not to a particular genre. If you do choose to investigate further what Michael has to offer, I hope you can do so objectively. It might also help to keep in mind the old zen advice about emptying ones cup beforehand. My best, Mike

'Raymond Wolter' and 'sifusufi' you are both very welcome.

Thank you, I really appreciate you saying so.