February 23, 2006 at 11:38 am #10847
I want to thank Mantak Chia for his openess in introducing all of this to the West, regardless of the lineage or whatever he created it from, or modified, etc. He broke with tradition and as a result we have these alchemy formulae. It is a real priviledge. I was only addressing what I have heard about him from Erle and I didn’t mean any disrespect to him or Michael otherwise I wouldn’t be here wasting my time on this forum. I had my own personal practice of Tibetan, tantric buddhist, and damo yijinjing and xisuijing prior to learning about Chia and Winn. Now I finally found something I can fit in with and no matter what I will now use Winn’s (not Chia’s) formulae as my suprastructure just as Winn did with his Atlantean, Celtic, Dzogchen, hindu practices. My thanks go out to Winn and Chia for their hard work in all of this. All I want to know is the TRUTH and not any claims about where these formulae really came from.February 23, 2006 at 12:26 pm #10848February 23, 2006 at 12:31 pm #10850
hey ya’ll, you’ll just have to have patience with michael right now his laptop hard drive went belly up and he’s on a remote island in the carribean.
well put message. and certainly valid questions. all this has been addressed on this board at length before. if you search the archives you’ll find michael’s response to this same sort of question, though i don’t want to rob him the chance to say it again.
if you go thru the kan & li’s with michael he’ll spell it out as well. at that point i doubt you will care it came from as it will be alive in the present.
mike teeters 🙂February 23, 2006 at 12:44 pm #10852
Thanks Sining Arrow and Snowlion,
Your responses have been helpful. I know that what counts in the present is all that’s important. Yes, having the formulae now in the present is all I really need but getting some feedback from Micael on this would be very appreciated. Although, “no answer” is a good enough answer for me.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.