cool mco quote

[Yoda]

Just found a cool MCO quote from Choosing Life by Michael Frost pp.85-86 that really crystalizes an issue that is under discussed by MCO teachers:

 

Sending energy to the brain is accomplished in two stages. The first is through the activation of the pelvic and cranial pumps and the second is through mind control.

 

 

I like that thought, that MCO is only half accomplished through flowing energy by using the mind, that you can't overlook using the pumping action for fluid circulation too.

 

This is consistent with Dr Lin, RJ, and Trunk's work on the subject.

 

Frost talks a lot about pc contractions, which haven't panned out the way tailbone contractions have for me. So I'd differ with him on how to practice the pumping action which most effectively sucks fluids away from the genitals and up through the rest of the body. I'm assuming by cranial pumps, he's talking about chin pumps, rotating the head, kechari, etc. All those are fine, but rely on tailbone mastery before they can really take off, imo.

[thaddeus]

Just found a cool MCO quote from Choosing Life by Michael Frost pp.85-86 that really crystalizes an issue that is under discussed by MCO teachers:

I like that thought, that MCO is only half accomplished through flowing energy by using the mind, that you can't overlook using the pumping action for fluid circulation too.

 

This is consistent with Dr Lin, RJ, and Trunk's work on the subject.

 

Frost talks a lot about pc contractions, which haven't panned out the way tailbone contractions have for me. So I'd differ with him on how to practice the pumping action which most effectively sucks fluids away from the genitals and up through the rest of the body. I'm assuming by cranial pumps, he's talking about chin pumps, rotating the head, kechari, etc. All those are fine, but rely on tailbone mastery before they can really take off, imo.

I was never able to get that Michael Frost book. We always say 'mind and body are one' so you would expect a physical coordination with the mental aspects. I think, as with thoughts, in the beginning it's a gross movement like a 'pump' but probably gets more refined to the fascia level on the physical side and becomes closer to simple intention on mental side...that's how the physical and mental merge and evolve..

[Ian]

I was never able to get that Michael Frost book. We always say 'mind and body are one' so you would expect a physical coordination with the mental aspects. I think, as with thoughts, in the beginning it's a gross movement like a 'pump' but probably gets more refined to the fascia level on the physical side and becomes closer to simple intention on mental side...that's how the physical and mental merge and evolve..

 

I've heard several teachers talk about the practice of mentally directing energy. What they say is: if you're not embodied enough before you start, then you are moving mental body stuff, rather than jing, or even proper chi.

 

You can still feel it, so you're outraged to be told it's "not real" but, they say, you are "playing cartoons". Wasn't it Voice's shaolin teacher who said that? I've heard others use the analogy of video games.

 

This description certainly fits what I was doing in HT. Not speaking for anyone else.

[三江源]

.

Edited April 18, 2015 by 三江源

[freeform]

.

Edited January 7, 2020 by freeform

[thaddeus]

Great point, cat! I think it's a very important distiction. How do youu know it's the 'real stuff'? and how would you know if it's 'cartoons'? I'd love to hear some comments - I've got my own understanding - but have not practiced for that long, so would love to hear other ppl's oppinions.

 

Maybe to differentiate try doing it as imagination only, then try and do it properly, and then tell us the difference.

 

This is a profound question. Probably the more sure you are that something is real, the more deluded you are.

Something to always be aware of.

T

[affenbrot]

Probably the more sure you are that something is real, the more deluded you are.

 

I'd say this holds some truth when it comes to believes, but not necessarilly when it comes to my perceptions in my practice. The interpretation of one's perception then again is another thing.

 

About true and real mco:

When practitioners argue about this is not real, illusory and that other is is the real many times they are not clear about what kind of plane or level or quality of energy they talk about, also they may hold onto different intents about why running the mco.

 

I believe there are so many layers and purposes of the mco, some can be triggered by visualisation, some by still sitting others by movement...

 

 

 

I had this experience with a qigong teacher who for years was warning us about

doing the mco because the way we knew it and it was written in books would not be the REal

thing but illusory. Other times he was warning us not to do it because it would be dangerous and may lead to paralysis, heart problems, neurotic behavior. - Kind of a contradction isnt it, on the one hand don't do it it doesn't work and on the other hand don't do it it is too dangerous it works so strongly.

 

Now ...finally he starts to reveal his TRUE way of practicing the mco ... drumroll....

lol, it came out that this basically was the way I have been practicing it anyway.

what i learned on this is trust yourself.

 

Btw, a shaolin monk I did qigong with 2 years ago proposed to run the mco mentally as a remedy when we where doing chan sitting and too much thoughts were up.

 

 

smiles,

affenbrot

[thaddeus]

 

Btw, a shaolin monk I did qigong with 2 years ago proposed to run the mco mentally as a remedy when we where doing chan sitting and too much thoughts were up.

smiles,

affenbrot

Couldn't one argue that the same effect could be gotten from counting sheep or doing the rosary? Doesn't mean there is anything special about it.

T

[affenbrot]

Couldn't one argue that the same effect could be gotten from counting sheep or doing the rosary? Doesn't mean there is anything special about it.

T

 

mh, applied with this purpose counting sheep probably works as well, but man, it always makes me so.. sleepy....

 

why I wrote this , is to show as I find that even some shaolin monk ( well i know this is cliche, maybe they are not educated in these matters very deeply at all , just because he is a "shaolin monk" doesn't mean he knows it all) feels free to apply this oh so powerful Mco as a mere mental excercise and point of focus to help in your meditation.

 

but on a second thought doing the mco (even doing it mentally) tends hold me in my body, counting sheep or doing the rosary not.

 

 

affenbrot

[freeform]

.

Edited January 7, 2020 by freeform

[Emelgee]

Why the fascination with trying to work out the "proper" vs "illusory" mco?

 

My teacher says "fake it till you make it". Once you "make it", you will "know it" and then it doesn't really matter that it was "faked" up till then anyway!

 

Be like a Nike ad - just do it

[freeform]

.

Edited January 7, 2020 by freeform

[rex]

When I have at least one person actully tell us their specific difference, then I'll reveal mine.

I've had momemts when energy is sensed from within the middle and back of the skull and this informaton is then relayed simultaneously to the back of the eyes. The difference being is usually I look and sense with front of the eyes. Doesn't make strict anatomical sense I know.

[freeform]

.

Edited January 7, 2020 by freeform

[thaddeus]

I personally dont believe there is a fake/true way of doing it - however many others do, so I'm trying to discover the difference. I agree with the fake it till you make it idea - that's the way I made it . Now I can tell the difference between 'faking' or pretending and really moving energy, so I guess this is what the others are talking about. There is a very specific difference in my sensory perception between the two - and I'm trying to get other people to discover their own sensory difference - because it will both help them and others reading this. When I have at least one person actully tell us their specific difference, then I'll reveal mine.

Hi Freeform,

When dealing with the world of self-perception and 'feelings' there is no way to tell if you are doing it right or if you are deluded. When I hear about people's experiences about things like the MCO, I don't give it much more than a grain of salt. Some people are better story tellers, writers, descriptors than others. Some people will speak colorfully of a geyser spouting streams of golden liquid bursting into arrays of colorful sunshine where the soul opened up into the eyes of g-d. Others say, 'it felt hot'. It may be fun to a point to talk about it, it just really doesn't mean anything--and it certainly is not an indication of correct practice or not.

Perhaps it's better to measure results. Is one getting sick, aging abnormally, how are one's relationships, how is one's ability to function in society, all these things can be the 'fruit' so to speak of correct practice.

Just talking off the top of my head..

T

[rex]

I think I get what you mean about front of eyes vs back of eyes sensing. Front of eyes feels more 'forced', whereas sensed at the back it just is.

Nicely put. On the Internal Chi Breathing tape Michael Winn mentions that people tend to be very front orientated and ignore the back.

 

Now I think I finally got the energy moving 'properly' - and I know this because I get what's called synesthysia

I get synestysia with taste and smells. A former girlfriend used to associate colours and shapes with music.

 

I can immediately and directly, without thinking, 'sense' it in the orbit.

This 'sensing' can also extend to an awareness of the affect of other practices.

 

Best,

Rex

[liminal_luke]

Totally agree with "fake it till you make it" for mco, as well as fusion and other practices. My experience is that if I haven't been practicing the mco regularly I may have to fake it, ie imagine, for quite some time before the experience starts to have a life of its own and feels more real. Sometimes I've gone a good hour just turning what feels like mental circles in my mind. Takes quite alot of patience and trust in the process to put in this "imagination" time. In hindsight, I think that even this "not real" mco was in some sense real as it led to the real thing (or at least something that subjectively felt more real.) IMHO worrying about whether the mco is "real" or not is a waste of time as the best way to get to the real is to spend alot of time plodding through the fake stuff.