The Max Christensen Facts Not Fiction Thread.

[Immortal4life]

Anyone remember "Yellow Bamboo"? lol-

 

But in reality they failed and got choked-

 

and then there was this poor deluded man-

 

and of course this guy, who used to make tons of money on no-touch videos and seminars-

[Immortal4life]

But this man may be the all time king of empty force-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVG1x-rh6FE

[Immortal4life]

Ok guys, Lama Thunderbolt is so behind the times.

 

It's like.... Radki. Remember "Radical Ki" practices? It was insanely popular with 8-13 year olds 5 years ago. Energy techniques, meditations, and visualisations based on the cartoon Dragon BallZ, popularized as an alternative to traditional ki practices, or "Tradki".

 

But....just like all the others, it got exposed in "The Radki Challenge"-

 

But don't worry, I have found the cool new in thing to practice. It's called "Airbending". I'm not even kidding-

 

Learn to Bend-

http://www.freewebs.com/tidalchaos/index.htm

Edited February 14, 2011 by Immortal4life

[sifusufi]

But this man may be the all time king of empty force-

http://www.youtube.c...h?v=tVG1x-rh6FE

 

...well..... maybe....

 

[Sloppy Zhang]

Thank you for finding it.

 

Does anyone see this letter as very defensive?

 

Defensive? No.

 

Standard response from spiritual groups? Yes.

 

Anyone remember "Yellow Bamboo"? lol-

 

But in reality they failed and got choked-

 

and then there was this poor deluded man-

 

and of course this guy, who used to make tons of money on no-touch videos and seminars-

 

Don't forget this one (another Dillman protege):

Edited February 14, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[PhraNgang]

The kunlun movie was shared on the neigongforum via website like megaupload, if anybodys interested.

 

Scroll down page 1.

 

http://neigongforum.com/comments.php?DiscussionID=17&page=1

[Jetsun]

When I first encountered Kunlun my first impression was that all the marketing and presentation around Max was absolutely ridiculous, I was reading Gurdjieff's books at the time and he was saying that one of the chief characteristics of ego was the desire to arouse astonishment in other people with regards to yourself and I could see that desire all over Kunlun marketing. But then I tried it and discovered it is a very powerful exercise, probably the most powerful I have ever done, so to me in my head anyway there was a contradiction between a genuine exercise and the absurd presentation of it which I think generates a lot of unnecessary controversy. Although if what they say about Max is true then there is no contradiction but they should have the foresight to see that most people won't believe it without proof.

[三江源]

.

Edited March 10, 2015 by 三江源

[Sloppy Zhang]

As for people 'not believing'.... if people 'dont believe' in the real effects of alchemy and transformation, why go looking for it?

 

Believing in a kind of alchemy, transformation, or what have you, is one thing.

 

Believing someone has it, or believing that a method can bring it about, is entirely different.

[三江源]

.

Edited March 10, 2015 by 三江源

[Sloppy Zhang]

Really. How does that work then.

 

Quite easily.

 

Here's an analogy- I believe that doing a backflip is possible. Do I believe you when you say that you can do a backflip? Do I believe you if you say you have a training method that can get you to do a backflip?

 

We may all believe in enlightenment.... so what happens when someone has the reputation of being enlightened?

 

We may all believe in some form of God.... so what happens when someone claims that God speaks through them?

 

You can't just say something like, "I speak with God" or "I have a method of becoming enlightened", and then turn around and say, "if you believe in God or enlightenment, then you should believe me, and if you don't, why are you even talking to me about spirituality".

 

That just doesn't make much sense.

 

We all might agree that something exists conceptually. But if someone supposedly has it, if someone supposedly does it, then we'd have to go through a method of actually working out if they are who rumors say they are, and if they can do what they can supposedly do.

 

In a case specific to Kunlun and Max, well, if Max has funky DNA, that should be checked, and the veracity of the claim can get gotten rather quickly. If people start disappearing from Kunlun practices, well, there should be some pretty clear evidence of that. And so on and so forth.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[三江源]

.

Edited July 23, 2014 by cat

[Mal]

@ Cat nice example

[torus693]

v

Edited February 22, 2011 by torus693

[Sloppy Zhang]

So you go looking for someone who can do a back flip. You meet someone who says he can do it, and everyone around him says he can do it, and he has a long history of being an athlete, and when you look at him you can see from his physique he is superfit and lithe, and when you meet him, he teaches you some training techniques that are very powerful that move you toward doing a backflip.... but you still dont believe he can do a backflip.

 

And this is considered logical.

 

Well, yeah, because at a certain point you have to ask yourself:

 

WHO IS DOING BACK FLIPS???

 

If it ain't the teacher, for whatever reason, then that's kind of fishy.

 

If it ain't the students, but they swear, honest to God that the teacher can do a backflip and teach you one too.... well.... I'll ask you:

 

Where is the logical basis for you thinking that this group of people can do/teach back flips?

 

Or is the scenario you describe more like this : You are wondering if anyone can do a back flip. You sit in your chair and look on the interwebs to see if anyone can do it. You see someone startling looking and exceptional who has been marketed to the max, and you guffaw as your eyebrows shoot up and ask lots of questions about it on the interwebs, saying he should film himself doing it and show you, while you sit at home and can then say the video was fixed. And this would be logical, or a game of the ego to keep it firmly glued to the spectator seat?

 

Well see thanks to things like the internet, we can gain a bunch of information and research whether or not something is true. This saves lots of time and money. Now in the old days, if you were sick and heard of a traveling doctor, you spend lots of time and money and travel risks to find this doctor, and it was a gamble of whether or not this doctor was real or one of the old snake oil salesmen (who may be much better marketed than a successful doctor!)

 

But now we have lots of ways of verifying whether or not someone is skilled in their field. Sure, there are lots of highly qualified people who just don't have a lot of credentials from the usual sources (like universities), but in general, we like standards that provide us a measuring stick that we can apply to people- we know that medical school is pretty rough, that there's a certain degree of skill you'd need to get in, and to complete the program, add in some factors like where they went, and in what position they graduated in. But even after that, you'd like to find out how much experience the doctor has actually DOING stuff- how long they've been in practice, etc etc.

 

Now you could argue some philosophical point that, well, you can never know for sure, that it could all be fake, that as soon as you get onto the operating table the person could freeze up and then you'd be dead.... meanwhile if you visited the "hack" who got kicked out of med school for being too brilliant was performing the operation by following along an instructional DVD, you ..... okay, well it's all possible.... but as long as we're talking about logical thought processes, you'd go with the guy who has verifiable credentials + a certain amount of actual experience.

 

Now I think it's just silly that so many "internet skeptics" are called, by members of the spiritual community, a variety of names and terms. They're accused of being irrational, of just going after people, of sitting back, of expecting people to just hand them stuff, of being immature, and blah blah blah. But really, you gotta ask yourself- are they really being immature? Perhaps they are TOO mature! Perhaps they are well experienced in all the ways that one can carry out a fraud, and rather than wasting their hard earned money traveling halfway across the globe, just so they can do the "proper" thing and visit a master "in person", so the other spiritual seekers don't accuse them of being immature brats, they actually are quite cautious within whom they place their trust/faith.

 

At the end of the day, SOMETHING has to get done. You can look the part. You can talk the part. But at the end of the day, if you can't PERFORM the part, then you are, well, not that part.

[torus693]

v

Edited February 22, 2011 by torus693

[Sloppy Zhang]

given the amount of time and energy dedicated to debunking on this site

it seems you have already succeeded in your task.

 

are you still wondering if he is fake? or, do you require

more proof apart what conscience tells you?

 

Several years of debate seems excessive

 

I'll assume you were talking to me....

 

I am not dedicated to debunking. And I'm not sure how you intended that term, but I do not think any "debunking" has gone on in this thread (I see "debunking" as meaning irrationally dismissing a conclusion- acting the skeptic, but disregarding any facts that go against the position you've already decided is the right one). In fact, I see in the spiritual community the OPPOSITE happening- people on the spiritual end go OUT OF THEIR WAY to provide reasons excuses for why they won't can't show any proof, despite how easy it'd be if only HALF of their claims were actually true. In order for there to be debunking going on, there would have to be some significant portions of evidence being ignored, but as it stands, only a few scraps of evidence are put forward, and they are shoddy at best (photos of "disappearing" people, for instance?)

 

I, for one, make a very serious point to distinguish between what I believe to be true, what I hope to be true, what I want to be true, and what I can prove to be true. Now sometimes something that is true is something that you can't (or at least, it's very difficult to) prove. So I try to preface what I say with stuff like that.

 

However, when it comes to many of the claims put forward by Kunlun, it wouldn't be that hard to actually prove them if it were true. It amazes me that this conversation has gone on for so long and NOBODY has really stepped forward. It amazes me how this conversation has gone on in one form or another for YEARS, and still we got nothing. All the promising candidates have fallen by the wayside, relying on the same old tricks and side stepping routines of those that have come before.

 

Even if all of the members involved had an emotional revelation, and realized that Kunlun was the one true path to everything, that would do absolutely nothing in the way of providing evidence for any of the claims put forward, I hope you see that.

Edited February 14, 2011 by Sloppy Zhang

[torus693]

v

Edited February 14, 2011 by torus693

[torus693]

I have no interest to prove.

[torus693]

v

Edited February 22, 2011 by torus693

[torus693]

v

Edited February 22, 2011 by torus693

[manitou]

Becoming changed by Kunlun or Kundalini Shakti is not really in dispute - but whether your DNA changes is the issue. Has anyone actually proved that this occurs by testing DNA before and after?

 

 

I haven't a clue as to whether it's the DNA or what, but after becoming kundalini active, there seems to be a very fundamental change in the thought process. Ever since that happened, my entire essence is about spirituality and the desire to help folks get over their own threshholds. This is really nothing I set out to do. I do believe that there was a chemical change of some sort; I am a different person. Maybe there's something to a DNA modification, because it is something more than just changing outlooks. It's to the bone.

[三江源]

.

Edited July 23, 2014 by cat

[humbleone]

I found out about Kunlun and Max recently. Took a kunlun workshop conducted by a facilitator trained by max. Then via this great website taobums found out about Jenny lamb. Got her DVD - spontaneous healing qigong, which is same as kunlun. After being stagnant for many years, my daily practice is thriving. I may do a private consultation with Jenny Lamb.

 

I think Max's Kunlun, has done more than anyone around to bring in new people into the Taoist fold. At the workshop I met people who if it was not for Kunlun, they would have never been exposed to serious spirituality.

I thank Max everyday for writing the book and making Kunlun public.

 

All the best.

Edited February 14, 2011 by humbleone

[torus693]

Edited February 22, 2011 by torus693