February 12, 2014 at 9:57 pm #41909
The text “Daoism in the twentieth century” covers a whole range of topics, but interesting enough on page 297 forward give a fair positive appraisal of Healing Tao practices, Mantak Chia & Michael; so look into the text if interested. Its high time the scholary community gives recognition when do!
SnowlionFebruary 16, 2014 at 12:40 pm #41910
I dont see a so positive analyses…the author seems to be questioning if the Healing Tai is not a church-like new age group for consumers. He makes a interesting analysis in a outside point of view. But he seem to lack the practice or experience on what he analyses. So it all seems only as something “subjective”.February 16, 2014 at 4:04 pm #41912
“new age” TAO…
unfortunately the “article” mirrors the lack of discretion amidst the “new” groups themselves…
Mantak Chia does not seem so foofy… more like he was actually a Taoist at some point : )February 16, 2014 at 4:31 pm #41914
I tend to agree with both snowlion and Diogo at the same time.
I am pleased to see that Healing Tao is starting to get more recognition. Often it has been the case that it is not mentioned, despite it being one of the most comprehensive systems of applied Daoism around.
On the other hand, it was also clear that the author is not a practitioner himself. Much of his analysis seemed jaded (and in some cases, incorrect). Moreover, it didn’t really express in any clear fashion what the real purpose of our practice is, outside of “subjective experience”.
However, some recognition is better than no recognition.
The truly curious will learn directly for themselves, in due time.
SFebruary 16, 2014 at 10:51 pm #41916
I know Elijah well, he teaches “american religion” down in Charleston. He’s a good guy, has a chinese wife, and has been on parts of a number of China Dream Trips (he and David Palmer are coming out shortly with a book called CHINA TRIPPERS. But he is not really a Daoist scholar, although certainly he is well versed in it. But as an academic he has to come up with “categories” to describe the many movements that he follows.
I don’t think he really gets what is happening in the higher level inner alchemy retreats – that is far beyond merely being “subjective” or “consumerist”. All the marketing is just a dragnet to find the serious students…, so we can have some serious Qi Fun. 🙂February 17, 2014 at 1:27 am #41918
Just wanted to say, when I ran across the hardcopy version, I was suprised to see any metion at all; considering there are many teachers in the scholar community at any given chance to try and discredit Mantak Chia’s efforts or even take it serious. This has been going on for years, I heard it back in the 1980’s and just last week. My position is Orthodox Tradition and Modernity can co-exist together. My position is always be objective, and avoid talking bad about groups or practitioners which is very un -Taoist in a traditional sense. The Chinese practice systems are experiential which in the end is in the hands of the beholder.
So any mention is better than no mention at all. At least they are objective enough to “try” and give a well rounded review that is no slanted towards one side or another. Valued pointes made from everyone that replied.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.