Question for Michael

<<>>

Look closer. It was said created, not made up. Based on all the sources available at the time. Does it mean it’s not effective? No, it doesn’t. Is it much different from the alchemical principles cultivated at that time? No, it’s not. Is Chia/Winn’s Kan & Li in disagreement with later taoist texts? No, in fact, the formulas reflect the texts.

I personally heard the One Cloud story gradually changed over the years. From his name to what he taughed and when he tought it. Same with David Shen and his dealings with Chia.

I don’t have the problem with formulas, only with claims. And there was a reason I told you that over e-mail instead of this forum. This subject was discussed many times already. Use the search function.

Fajin,

I am not sure where Max gets his ideas, as he wasn’t around when these formulas were first taught, or have other reliable sources of information as far as I know.

Max is a student of a buddhist meditation teacher who teaches that Taoist alchemy is dangerous and qigong a waste of time, so it’s possible that has influenced his views of Mantak. I think max was trying to avoid a re-critique of his teacher on this forum, which was probably correct on his part (search Nan huai chin).

Your question is welcome here, and fair question for any seeker to ask.
I have answered it before, but always happy to clear any mis- of dis-information.

Mantak Chia did not make up or create any of the original 7 kan & li formulas. They all came from One Cloud, whose history you can find in the beginning of my article on Daoist Alchemy as the Language of Nature (in articles section).

They certainly did not come from David Shen, who was 4 years old when Chia started teaching them out. David channeled in another Taoist called Dajen, a few of whose methods chia borrowed – which did nothing to improve the original formulas in my opinion. The main dajen methods that stuck is method of chanting the names of the 8 trigrams, which chia inserted into his fusion formula. And techniques of drinking urine.

Chia has stopped selling any and all DVD’s that he made with David, one of which was extremely dangerous (involved women sticking metal pipes with sharp edges inside their sexual organs/anus).

The issue which Max has unfortunately distorted but probably meant to discuss, is to what extent the formulas were practiced exactly as One Cloud taught them. I have been public in criticizing changes made to some formulas (you can also read those articles, i.e. Clearing the Confusion Over Fusion) since Chia taught them here in the west.

But I think that its accurate that Chia originally taught the formulas as he learned them up to the Greater Kan and Li. I have questioned him closely on this. Beyond that he had a description and principles of the other formulas, more than an initiation, which he has used as the structure for further unfolding of his understanding of the alchemical process.

I essentially did the same thing, and came up with some different results in methodology from him in the higher formulas. I did a lot of research into internal alchemy and experimented for several decades, and extended One Cloud’s structure and initial process based on my experience of what worked best. i integrated a lot more qigong and neigong into the process,as well as 5 shen theory from the same school of Taoist inner alchemy.

I will be posting sample lectures from those courses in coming months so you can get a better idea of where I’ve taken them.

Chia’s website now uses my description of the higher formulas, I noticed recently. although he failed to mention I was the source. I’ll take it as a silent compliment.

He has also re-organized his teachings into 9 formulas, since he acquired a lot of other material. He needs to explain how he shifted from 7 to 9 formulas, however, otherwise it looks like he is rewriting history.

But the original 7 formulas of One Cloud and their descriptions were published in a typewritten, privately published book on the orbit as early as 1980.

Hope this answers your question.

michael

I got the information from you Michael, and not just once. But my memory could be faiding, or could be yours. David Shen has nothing to do with kan&Li but has something to do with your breathing practice, isn’t it?

And I don’t mind if you critique Nan Huai-Chin. I smile every time I remember you said the reason Buddha talked about suffering is because he culdn’t resolve his birth trauma related ‘issues’ with his mother.

Max,

You would greatly enhance your credibility if you could answer or discuss issues clearly without giving a warped take on things through hidden implications and accusations with no evidence.

So why is it that to date you still have not given us any description of your cultivation practice yet you still constantly reappear to assert that you practice “pure daoism” when clearly you are a chan buddhist. Whenever we get down to discussing classsic texts or talk of definitions of spiritual terms you simply leave the discussion. Have you noticed this happening in your observation of mind?

Eva Wong calls it the School of Interior Gods, a reference to five shen who are in charge of transformation. Most of these alchemical practices existed in various forms, for thousands of years as private oral transmission; and some of these were organized more publicly during the Song Dynasty, starting in 960 ad. and running for a couple hundred years. this was a period that many “secret” documents emerged into public view, including the Turtle and River Charts (hetu and luoshu), which are mentioned in texts a thousand years earlier, but never shown.

so realize this is a mountain lineage of hermits passing down practices, not a monastery where people are gathered together under one roof like a typical “school”.

There are a wide body of texts in the Taoist Canon (Dao zang) that might have been used by different adepts of this “school”. Some may have used the I ching. A 13th cen. text that has similar teachings and alchemical language hidden in its poems is the Book of Balance and Harmony, trans. John cleary.

You appear to speak english quite well, is it just because I will not agree with your point of view that you dropped out of the discussion?

To my memory, each time we started talking about emptiness meditation (and buddhism), you refused to elaborate on the subject of whether the spiritual realms from your point of view are dynamic or absolute (frozen), and what exactly is in that ultimate state of emptiness anyway? Is it something separate from the physical plane or in harmony with it? Is it conscious as a collective or is it separate from human consciousness? And what the heck is semblance dharma anyway, something that resembles real dharma but is fake? That is a slick way of downplaying alchemy without having to explain yourself, kind of a moralistic judgement couched in fancy terms.

When we discuss daoist texts, you also could not reasonably answer the points that were put forward about qigong and alchemical references in ancient texts (the nei yeh, dao de jing, zhuang zi), but we still speak the same language.

FROM YOUR POINT OF VIEW “there is no difference between “pure” daoism and buddhism”, thanks for attempting to take away my free will to experience what I choose to do by making decisions for me in a condescending manner and telling me what my point of view should be (“apparently you see there is. It will pass”). We have been unable to discuss exactly what “pure daoism and buddhism” is so far, so when you are ready to explain your point of view I will listen.