February 23, 2006 at 1:26 am #10804
I have just read a post of Fajin and just wondered about this.
Fajin’s post of Erle’s comment and posts in many other boards seems to harbour a general distrust of Chia and his methods and teachings.
I can definitely respect that various people have differing views about certain practices but it does seem that Chia seems to be the “whipping boy” on a number of issues.
Personally, I think all knowledge and experience is useful – whether I use Chia’s methods or Michael Winn’s or my cat’s methods – my kitty is *very* wise and I try to emulate him as much as possible 🙂
I am my own body and I am best placed to consider whether certain practices work for me or not.
It seems that Chia by being considerd the first person to share this information is revered and loathed in equal measure. I keep feeling that to dismiss him or attempt to reduce him is to “bite the hand that feeds”.
Does anyone have any thoughts on this?February 23, 2006 at 3:33 am #10805
If one reads books on taoist alchemy, most describe the process, not the method, you will see the Kan and Li methods are described, M. Chia did not create these methods. He may have added his own details based on his own intepretation and experience, but the method existed, just read Eva Wong, Cleary,Toaist Yoga book or some of Huang Qi Ni’s works, the outline is there.
Do not mistake minor differences in details for a totally different method, this is partly marketing, this is being done even on the most basic practices.
baguaFebruary 23, 2006 at 1:23 pm #10807
> by being considerd the first person to share this information >
Though that is part of what’s going on, I think its a mis-characterization to view that as the whole set of reasons.
Probably Mantak Chia & Team did the best that they could for a first try, but the fact is that its been a messy learning curve that is taking several generations to get this material put out there safely. Plenty of people get/have gotten hurt, and the Taoist & TCM community see it. There are considerable improvements that can be made (some which have been made) to the material that is presented in the original books. And these are serious issues, as people invest their sexual, physical, and spiritual health in the practices.
In the end, the intelligent question is not, “Should we praise/slam Chia?” – but is “How can we continue to clarify our understanding, and – if there are improvements to be made to the teachings, make them.” This benefits everyone, including future generations. – And, imo, is rather the sort of activity that sincere teachers are hoping to promote.February 23, 2006 at 2:38 pm #10809
btw, these sorts of issues were gone over in detail during the last wave of discussion participants (which lasted ~5 yrs) and many of the conclusions have been preserved at Alchemical Taoism.com.February 23, 2006 at 3:14 pm #10811
There are two different problems here.
One is widespread unspoken anger by Chinese at Chia giving away their “national treasures” to big nosed foreigners. Combined with jealousy of his commerical success, they often grasp at any failing they can find to discredit him.
Chia forced many of them to start teaching out their secrets since they were already published in his books. They used to string students along for decades, giving them little crumbs, while they built up their allegiance and their pocketbook. Chia forced them to suddenly get “western” , and sell their secrets in classes and books (as westerners expect).
We can be extremely grateful to mantak chia for having the chutzpah to release these alchemical teachings. He is clearly the pioneer figure that has made inner alchemy more widely practiced in the West than it is in China (my estimate, based on 9 trips to China).
I’ll take his honesty and openess – even with his mistakes and any excesses of commericalism rolled into it – over the secrecy and lineage manipulations that go on in China.
The other problem we could describe as Chia’s tendency to be “over creative”.
Alchemists by nature are experimental types, and Chia is no exception. After teaching out what he knew for about a decade, he began experimenting with a wide number of variations,partly out of boredome teaching the same stuff over and over as he travelled around.
Some of the variations were successful, many were not. It created some confusion as there were teachers certified by him teaching rather different methods, i.e. Old School progressive training and New Fangled quantum Tao.
Amazing how chinese history can repeat itself in the West, and even within an accelerated time frame….
Love to catch some of your kitty’s wisdom.
MichaelFebruary 25, 2006 at 11:23 am #10813
Earle is sharp and nice. Yet does not demonstrate the dan tien rotation principle.
Japanes hated bujinkan ninpo taijustu lineage holder Masaaki Hatsumi for openly teaching the weird eyed the Japanese way: the sorcery and the necromancy.
Glenn Morris described it ‘treson’ of universal proportion.
Yet he was just given top level government honorary ornament in recognition of obvious. His step worked and nobody could not see it.
Times change.February 25, 2006 at 2:48 pm #10815
>>Glenn Morris described it ‘treson’ of universal proportion< < Knowing Glenn this was meant as a complement. >>Times change.<< At last! NN
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.