Interview with Bruce Frantzis

[Jetsun]

Pretty interesting video, he talks about his life and about Taoism. What do you guys think? he comes across like he has a lot of enthusiasm and looks like he has a lot of power, yet it seems like he has a pretty big ego for someone who practices so much meditation and he is often out of shape. I guess you shouldn't judge Taoists though as they are meant to defy usual conventions.

I do like his Water meditation and practice it a fair bit, yet I am not particularly drawn to him as a master or guru, I wonder if that creates a problem as people say that it is good to practice the methods of someone you want to emulate.

[orb]

That's not a bad judgement - that's the main idea of any spiritual path.

The skill is going to be useless as we get old.

The power is going to be lost because our batteries do have a limited life span.

And what is left is exactly that - your Ego.

And if we don't take care of it - the ego is going to be too dirty or too weak or just plain wrong and not allowed in Heaven.

[Ish]

If what he's saying is simply the truth, maybe there isn't a big ego behind it.

OR maybe there is, I don't know Bruce Frantzis.

 

What I do know is that sometimes being "modest" can be a subtle (or not so subtle) form of ego clinging.

 

Either way, I enjoyed the interview, and from my feeling he is legit. The dissolving technique is great too.

[Reed]

I do like his Water meditation and practice it a fair bit, yet I am not particularly drawn to him as a master or guru, I wonder if that creates a problem as people say that it is good to practice the methods of someone you want to emulate.

 

I saw this interview the other day and also enjoyed it. However, I'm in a similar situation to yourself where I'm not sure if I'm that drawn to him as a person -- it's difficult to say for sure as I don't really know him -- and I also wonder whether that might create problems in the long run.

 

I've only been working on his water method a few months so I can't really comment on how good it is yet (seems okay so far) but I know a much more advanced person who has found it personally useful and also with his students.

[GrandmasterP]

Hadn't heard about this guy before I came on here read a couple of his books since and enjoyed the interview, thanks for posting it.

Good guided meditation at the end.

Here's someone who has made this sort of thing his life's work and made a living from it along the way.

An interesting fellow with a fascinating tale to tell which is told well.

In a pond containing not a few sharks and charlatans, Mr. Frantzis is of the righteous system-sellers I'd venture.

[Jetsun]

I do really like his Water Method meditation, I think it is a really powerful technique and his books are some of the best books I have read in this field, he talks about healing and meditation in important areas which I have found very few teachers talk about. But there are a few contradictions in that I would personally expect so see him a bit softer if his methods go beyond what most others do, I see some Buddhist masters and they seem much happier and open hearted than he comes across. And his method is meant to clear any traumatic imprints from his system but he says in his autobiography that he had seven automobile accidents in seven years which suggests that either he is really unlucky or some sort of karmic imprint is trying to work its way out of him, or something is going wrong anyway.

[GrandmasterP]

Maybe he's just a bad driver.

;-)

[Reed]

But there are a few contradictions in that I would personally expect so see him a bit softer if his methods go beyond what most others do, I see some Buddhist masters and they seem much happier and open hearted than he comes across.

 

I think that this is roughly what my concerns revolve round.

 

Maybe he's just a bad driver.

;-)

 

[Jetsun]

Maybe he's just a bad driver.

;-)

 

Could be, but whenever I see things like this in sevens the alarm bells start ringing. Passing through the seven gates or tests or defeating the seven demons seems to be the passage through the chakras in nearly all paths.

[GrandmasterP]

Sevens!

Aaarrrgggghhhhhhh.

I much prefer...

"Comes in threes"

[i am]

He's the real deal. Having said that...I just get a feeling from him...he thinks highly of himself. In a way I don't like. But I like his books, his system is for real, and he is accomplished.

[GrandmasterP]

Maybe it's that element of salesmanship. He has been pitching his wares this twenty years past or more according to the interviewer in the intro. Most salespeople come across (to me anyway) a bit like Mr. Frantzis does in the interview, not that he's hard selling anything he just has that slightly 'slick' manner.

I'm not saying that for a bad thing at all it's just the impression I've got from seeing him here for the first time in person.

I enjoyed the books they contain BS-free QiGong forms and are well written, anyone could learn something useful from them.

My abiding issue with any of the system sellers is that with QiGong, these days; you can find everything you need for free online.

That said , a lot of folk don't know where to look nor what for so, from what I have seen of it; Mr Frantzis system is the best I've come across for a sort of 'one stop shop' to get anyone up, running and cultivating successfully.

[Creation]

Jetsun,

 

Thanks for posting! I enjoyed watching this.

 

About Bruce not being "soft": It seems to me that the point of the water method is to let go of whatever is obstructing the spontaneous flow of your energy, and to do so in a way that is very gentle and unforced. But that does not necessarily mean that you will be gentle and unforceful after you have done so; that will depend on you personal energetic composition. For example, a fiery person can practice the water method and that would bring out their natural fieriness, but tempering any negative tendencies or imbalances that they may have accumulated.

 

Re "ego": When I feel a person as "egotistical" in a negative or spiritually unwholesome way, it either feels like a defensiveness coming from insecurity (trying to protect their conception of themselves, their "rightness", their "OKness", etc.) or an offensiveness (is that the opposite of defensiveness?) that is trying to get a response from others people (wanting praise, adoration, respect, prestige, etc). I do not sense either of these from Bruce. There is a certain expressiveness, boisterousness even; he is not at all reserved or meek. I personally do not find this to be indicative of lack of development, but just who he is. Now, someone could certainly feel a personal incompatibility with this type of person that would make Bruce a bad choice for a teacher, but that is a separate issue.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Creation

[thetaoiseasy]

Bruce has a good mind.

[idquest]

http://www.taichimaster.com/bagua-zhang/bagua-zhang-roll-the-ball/

[RobB]

Bruce has a good mind.

 

A friend of mine who trained a lot with Bruce (qualified under him, travelled to the states to train, hosted him in Europe) says he has a huge amount of material, some of it very rare. He also says that he has absolutely no heart.

[Taomeow]

What people say "about" him is always filtered through the prism of who they are... There's this episode in the interview where he describes an average student who comes to a master with "Mommy! Mommy!!" as his unconscious expectations... This student will be disappointed by a teacher who won't be that. There's enough "masters" catering to this frustrated infantile quest, Bruce is not one of them, he's going to give real stuff, not serve as a receptacle for projected needs... many people will be uncomfortable with this I'm sure. He is absolutely not "heartless," he just has a better idea than most what "heart" really is and won't fake it to cater to immature hearts' desires...

 

I'm finding (not just from the interview -- I'm familiar with his books from way back when) that I'm in agreement with much and in disagreement on one crucial point with him, but "ego" or "heartless" or some such ain't where it's at. I don't stand to lose anything from his refusal to "play house" with a student. I'd stand to lose a lot if he taught BS like many who don't refuse to play this coveted game do in order to compensate for the fact that they teach BS or for whatever other reason. His practice is good, though its simplicity is illusory -- it is a very difficult meditation requiring discipline and courage. Assessing his value without doing it is pointless. The value is in what's in it for you, not in what he is or isn't like vis a vis your expectations. (I mean a generic "you," not anyone personally.)

[RobB]

What people say "about" him is always filtered through the prism of who they are...

 

You are right of course. I've already overstepped the mark by advancing someone else's report rather than my own first hand experience.My friend has experience other than their training with Bruce and their opinion is as much a professional one as a personal one.

 

Just anonymous tittle-tattle on the internet. Take it or leave it.

 

Cheers

 

Rob

[Creation]

*perks up ears*

I have my guess as to what she is referring to...

Edited January 5, 2013 by Creation

[Taomeow]

*perks up ears*

 

I'll give you an earful of MHO but first I want to give Creation a chance to share what he thinks I'm referring to...

 

I have my guess as to what she is referring to...

Let me guess... It's not the color of his shirt you think I had in mind, is it?

[Creation]

I'll give you an earful of MHO but first I want to give Creation a chance to share what he thinks I'm referring to...

My guess is that your principal contention with him is the belief that Buddhism and Taoism essentially lead to the same goal, which his primary teacher also believed.

Edited January 6, 2013 by Creation

[Sloppy Zhang]

Haha, it's funny about what people say about the guy. I think he's legit. I think his material is legit. And I don't think he really cares about making an impression, whether "good" or "bad". He just does what he does.

 

And his method is meant to clear any traumatic imprints from his system but he says in his autobiography that he had seven automobile accidents in seven years which suggests that either he is really unlucky or some sort of karmic imprint is trying to work its way out of him, or something is going wrong anyway.

 

He mentioned at an event that he had gotten into several car accidents. A new age-y kinda person was there and said "that would clear a lot of your karma."

 

He said "it would clear karma, yes, but not necessarily yours." He then hinted at the fact that one of the functions of a Taoist priest (which he was initiated into) involves, in some cases, taking on the karma of others in some cases (for instance, healing). That karma would then have to work itself out in some ways and, well, you never know.

 

But then he moved on and I don't know anything more about the topic so I can't say anything further. Since the comment was made publicly and in passing I don't feel too bad about repeating it.

 

Sufficed to say, spirituality and spiritual traditions can be rather complex. I think Frantzis has been around the spiritual block. So if one wishes to complicate the system by mentioning things like balancing karma and all that, rest assured, if Frantzis were in the room with you, I'm sure he would quickly complicate the situation even more than you might be prepared to handle.

 

That, I'd wager, would also be the case if you were talking about human anatomy, human energetics, emotions, mental thoughts, psychic issues, the essence of human beings, or the nature of the Tao, all of which his tradition explores in depth.

 

And that's not to say that he would complicate the situation for the purposes of baffling and confusing you. He'd simply tell it like it is. And the world is complicated. And the spiritual world is complicated. And if you want to hear it told like it is, I think he will tell it to you. And if you misunderstand him, or don't misunderstand him, he's not going to take responsibility for it.

 

That said, he has mentioned in several contexts that he won't reveal stuff until people were ready. Because information in unready hands will be at best useless, and at worse harmful. And he doesn't want to damage his tradition nor does he want to damage people. For instance, in the forward of his new sexual meditation book he writes that he didn't want to publish it until his children were all grown up. He mentions in the Hsing I DVD's that he doesn't teach Hsing I that much because... most people don't want Hsing I, even if they know what it is, they just aren't ready to receive the material. So he's not going to waste it like that.

 

So if people can't understand the complexities and subtleties of a fully realized spiritual system... why even bother?

 

His practice is good, though its simplicity is illusory

 

Something he mentions in one of his books is that practices are like a spiral, in the sense that advanced levels of a practice don't cover any "new ground", they cover the same ground, but going deeper. A higher level student, or even a master, isn't necessary going do a practice that's different or better than yours. They are just going to do it in a more experienced, refined way.

 

That's what I found incredibly refreshing, and looking at a book such as, say, "Opening the Energy Gates of Your Body" is quite revealing when you look at it with that in mind. At one point in the book he says that experienced practitioners can open the energy gates like you open or close you eyes, and masters can open the energy gates of other people.

 

So for someone like myself, who has worked with those practices for a while, am I anywhere near to being through with that book? Hell no. It takes me quite a bit of "settling" and focus before I can even begin to work practically with an energy gate, let alone open it fully, let alone opening it like an eyelid, let alone messing with gates of another!!!

 

I'm finding (not just from the interview -- I'm familiar with his books from way back when) that I'm in agreement with much and in disagreement on one crucial point with him

 

I too am curious to hear, although I'm not courageous enough to hazard a guess as to what the point might be

Edited January 6, 2013 by Sloppy Zhang

[Reed]

It seems to me the general consensus here is that books on meditation/qigong/internal alchemy etc like BKF's 'relaxing into your being' should be viewed more like car maintenance manuals as opposed to books like Suzuki's 'Zen mind Beginners mind'?

 

ie just like with car maintenance manuals we don't really care about the personality of the author or their attitudes and how they behave etc, the important issue is whether we have a set of techniques which do the job efficiently and safely.

 

What do people think about (seriously) training directly with a teacher in real life? Do our priorities change or is the important issue still developing techniques which 'do the job' when it comes to things like meditation/qigong/internal alchemy?

[Cheshire Cat]

It seems to me the general consensus here is that books on meditation/qigong/internal alchemy etc like BKF's 'relaxing into your being' should be viewed more like car maintenance manuals as opposed to books like Suzuki's 'Zen mind Beginners mind'?

 

ie just like with car maintenance manuals we don't really care about the personality of the author or their attitudes and how they behave etc, the important issue is whether we have a set of techniques which do the job efficiently and safely.

 

 

It's hard to say.

In fact, it seems to me (based on physiognomy) that BKF's personality is much more balanced than Suzuki's. I think that there's a "special way" in which the true teaching can pass through guys who (maybe) don't embody it in its fulness.

Otherwise, we should admit that teachings like those of Milarea have been lost with him, since none today can do what he did.

Edited January 6, 2013 by DAO rain TAO

[Taomeow]

My guess is that your principal contention with him is the belief that Buddhism and Taoism essentially lead to the same goal, which his primary teacher also believed.

Actually, it was my impression that he makes a quick nod of acknowledgement toward Buddhism so as not to offend the buddhists (or the Buddha) but believes something different. He was in fact the first author who made me question this premise myself. I didn't before. My first teacher of things tao was a Tibetan Buddhist (Dzogchen) monk, and he led me to believe exactly this. (By the way, he was a feisty, opinionated, strong character not unlike Bruce personality-wise. He was also a Westerner who went off the deep end into what he was after, spent 12 years at a monastery in Tibet... but I digress.) Bruce was the one who got me to doubt it (although with Dzogchen specifically he does think there's much similarity, but he attributes it to a more ancient influence of taoism on Tibetan buddhism, not vice versa. I know nothing about it, what I do know is that Dzogchen retained quite a lot of Bon, and Bon has a lot in common with proto-taoist East Asian shamanism, but I would hazard a common source rather than an "influence.") So, no, this is not where I disagree with him -- because I also think that there's types of buddhism that are not quite Indo-European essentially, that are very East Asian in their practices and goals, and these may lead to the same place as taoism.

 

No, the disagreement is regarding the torture table metaphor he uses. He believes that you don't have to know what it is that is wrong, all you need is get rid of it, and his (well, not "his" his) dissolving practice is designed to accomplish this... without engaging consciousness. "Consciousness," to me, means more than omitting this part of it (e.g. thinking) and emphasizing that part of it (e.g. physical sensations and emotions without attribution). Consciousness is an integration of the totality of meanings of actual processes and events that have taken place: "this happened, and this is how exactly, and this is what it meant to me then, and this is what it means to me now, and that's why I feel this, and this is what it did to me, and this is why I am a certain way." Usually reducible to one thought-emotion-sensation, i.e. total integrated systemic feeling, which is the human way to have meaning. E.g., translated into words which feelings aren't but which can be used to "label" them for quick reference, "frustrated need for closeness," or "abandonment," or "my being fully alive is what they won't allow," or "I'm afraid of them," and so on.) Consciousness, to me, is "what really happened." I don't believe in "tension," "contraction," etc. that "just is." I am not a machine. I believe in tension that is brought about when something happened that made this part of my consciousness (and muscles and nerves and qi and so on) contract. And I believe that if you don't know what it was, and make sure you never will, it may happen again (under a different sauce, so to speak, but the same thing all over again) and you will be back on the torture table.

 

So, he thinks it's about getting off the torture table. I think it's about becoming someone no one and nothing can drag onto the torture table. And Consciousness is the only way toward this goal. It's not about knowing everything about every change an event has caused in every muscle and bone and every brain wave and every qi channel -- this, indeed, is irrelevant. It's about the totality of the event. When you eat a bagel and you have celiac, it does not matter how much you know about immune conflicts and the precise mechanism of destruction of the intestinal lining and the flood of internal painkillers that makes you not know that you're doing damage (or being done damage to) -- but it is crucial to know that you ate a bagel. If you miss out on this one primal piece of the puzzle, the actual what-is-as-is real-life happening, you can spend your life taking antacids, prescription painkillers when you run out of your internal ones, this drug or that to alleviate the symptoms, and for a while all of it will work... and none of it will Work with a capital W. What would work is a capital C -- Consciousness. Of the bagel. You did eat it. And knowing it is the only thing that can stop you from eating it again. (Or someone made you eat it, which is what everybody's childhood is about -- no choices yet, you don't do things you are, you are made to do things you aren't. Knowing they made you eat it gives you a free choice for the first time in your life, gives you back your free will. You can keep eating this bagel, or you can stop. Consciousness is the natural biological mother of free will.)

 

His system does not provide for finding out about the bagel. This is not his fault or his teacher's. This is a cultural taboo. If you use a system that lets you find out that what is doing the damage to you is exactly what's in charge of you, the power not to be challenged under any circumstances, you are going to be a danger to the whole set-up, what the whole civilization is running on. So you circumvent this danger by "not knowing about the bagel." You know enough to repair your own life (at least until the next bagel comes along), but the built-in limitation is, you can't be led where you will know something that would potentially repair all lives. Not just get you off the torture table and make sure you never get dragged onto that table again, but something that can potentially overturn all torture tables for everybody else once and for all. This is not allowed, and the danger of it happening has to be prevented... and therefore Consciousness is bypassed by the process.

 

This is not unique to his system though. It's a pretty everything and everybody deal. But that's where I disagree with everything and everybody... except what went before this particular power structure we're living.