Source of the Inner Smile

Hi RichieRich,

>>>This is the key to my misreading. You write (my bold)
>>>
>>>With more detail, you are drawing in cosmic qi
>>>into the third eye as the ignition on a car,
>>>but upon entry into your body, it immediately
>>>meets and blends with the energy from your
>>>inner heart. This gives the qi its warmth,
>>>its emotion, and its sense of consciousness
>>>. . . everything we associate with the Inner Smile.

Yes, “the qi” is cosmic qi from the first part of the sentence, the qi under discussion. I probably should have “the quality from your inner heart”, to avoid confusion.

>>>For example, Michael emphasizes the inner heart,
>>>whereas MC doesn’t mention it but emphasizes the
>>>third eye. And neither mention cosmic qi [1].
>>>And though Michael emphasizes the inner heart,
>>>in his actual description of the Inner Smile
>>>practice (Chapter 5) much more emphasis
>>>is placed on the golden egg above the head.

Yes, but the actual guided meditation (Way of Inner Smile audio CD) is slightly more consistent. As far as emphasis and description, these are theoretical overlays, which is like one person’s interpretation. It’s much better, in my view, to just teach how to do the meditation, and let people discover their own understanding through practice. Rather than 140 pages of describing one meditation, in my view, it would be better to have one page. The best way to understand a practice is to do the practice, rather than read about it. Sometimes I think Master Chia writes too many books, and the few manuscripts that Michael does write are way way too long. To me, it is like reading a 400-page manual on swimming: getting in the water, being shown the strokes, and then trying/practicing yourself is the best way to understand it, RATHER than reading long tomes of words about it.

>>> And if the source of smiling energy
>>> is the inner heart, why does MC write (my bold)

Let’s be very careful when you say “MC writes”.
For the most part, Master Chia has other people write his books for him. He gives them a skeleton idea of a practice and to write a book. Then THEY write the book. Many of Master Chia’s first books were in fact written by Michael. So the words you quote are most likely from somebody else, and in fact could be Michael’s words. So you actually could be saying “why does Michael say this here, and why does he say this there?” 😉

>>>Whilst using cosmic qi may be quite common,
>>>I must confess that I’ve never come across
>>>it before! So I’m wondering where within
>>>the Healing Tao curriculum/alchemical
>>>formulas one would encounter its use?

It’s discussed in even the basic books, e.g. “Awaken Healing Light of the Tao”.
But usually in courses below Greater K&L–except for maybe Master Chia–as teachers, we usually avoid bringing up the term, to avoid having students get distracted by issues outside the body. It also helps cut down on questions that can go off-track.

For obvious reasons, I talk about it in the Deep Healing Qigong course, because of all the cosmic qi you are pulling into yourself at various times, especially in the supercharged version.

>>>I take you to be saying here that inner heart energy
>>>is very subtle and intangible and so it can help
>>>to mix it with a more substantial, tangible,
>>>manifest qi such as cosmic qi which can be more easily felt.

Yes.

>>>If one is using a visualized image as an antenna,
>>>does one simply assume that blended sun and moon qi
>>>is coming through. That’s as opposed to actually
>>>engaging in a practice where one is consciously
>>>blending the two energies. Given the numerous
>>>variations on the Inner Smile, is it possible
>>>to consciously blend the two and bring them
>>>directly into the third eye rather than
>>>via a visualized image?

Are you going to be experienced enough to know the felt difference between qi from the sun and qi from the moon, to know what they feel like separately in comparison with what they feel like blended? I suggest that you don’t try to dissect this or get too mental. Just do the practice, and through experience you will understand it.
As far as what is possible, very little is not possible.

>>>Your posts are the first mention I’ve seen
>>>of the classical Inner Smile practice. Interesting!
>>>Do you, by any chance, have any links to articles
>>>describing the classical practice? And what’s
>>>it’s name in Chinese?

No, you misunderstand me, I don’t mean classical Chinese. In particular, the alchemy of HT comes from a hermit tradition passed on to Master Chia, so Master Chia is really the only resource for the practices (although there may be similar practices in other alchemy systems or in Daoist literature, which I’m not getting into). So by classical I mean core/unmodified, rather than one of the many variations or creative changes that either Michael or MC make in any given moment. As an example, the guided meditation by Michael (or by others) tends to be slightly more consistent with unmodified practice as opposed to creative in-the-moment changes that occur from class to class, or in written suggested variations.

As an FYI, maybe you can take one of my retreats this summer. In any of my solo courses, I review/go over all of the basic Healing Tao alchemy meditations in addition to doing the main course topic. 🙂

Qi,
Steven

>>>From what you write elsewhere in your post,
>>>I think you mean that MC commissions
>>>too many books / has too many books ghost-written!!!

Correct.

>>>You define cosmic qi as a blend of sun and moon qi.

No, I made no such definition.
Cosmic qi is not that specific. It is simply any kind of post-natal manifest qi that does not arise from earth or life on earth. This includes the sun, the moon, the stars, the gases, the interstellar dust, cosmic radiation, anything. It doesn’t need to be just a sun-moon combination.

>>>So I create smiling energy via an image of,
>>>say, “being by the ocean” and draw it into
>>>my Third Eye. As I understand it, this
>>>image of being by the ocean is an antenna
>>>for cosmic qi – and, thus, the smiling
>>>energy I’m drawing into my Third Eye
>>>is blended sun and moon qi.

No. In this case, you are breathing in elemental qi from the ocean. This is not cosmic qi as in the case of sun-moon mixed qi. However, once it enters you, it meets your inner heart consciousness which gives the Inner Smile it’s shape and form. That’s the point. So you could very well use the ocean if you felt some resonance with that. Whatever outside source you are using, the consciousness of the inner heart is overlaid on top of it. Clearly there is some difference in the felt quality depending on what the external source is. However, since your focus and attention is on the quality from the inner heart, this is the major player. It’s more like 90%/10% split, with 90% of the effect coming from the inner heart and 10% from the carrier qi.

>>>I guess I’m curious as to how this antenna
>>>is attuned only to Sun and Moon qi
>>>and not to the qi of other heavenly bodies.
>>>Why, for example, is no Mars qi or
>>>Polaris qi or Saturn qi picked up
>>>by the antenna? Why is it not the case
>>>, for example, that the antenna
>>>picks up only Sun qi?

When you call your mother on the telephone, why do you not pick up the conversations of all other people who are also using telephones? Why your mother only?

Ans: She is the only one you have called, and she is the only one you (your phone) is tuned into.

Same thing. If you have your attention and focus on sun/moon fused essence, then that is what you are “calling”. You are not creating a “cell phone signal” to other things like Mars or Saturn. It’s your consciousness that creates the link. If you had created a focalized image and conscious attention on Mars instead, then you’d have qi from Mars.

>>>Does the Inner Smile resonate
>>>specifically/particularly with Sun and Moon qi?

One could use any variety of things, as discussed above. Like with your example of the ocean. The source for the qi that you use to imprint your inner heart onto is only 10% really. It’s one of the reasons why there are so many creative variants and options. Try a different proxy, get a different possibility.

That said, sun/moon is always typically used because sun/moon are easy to relate to, in terms of something intensely radiant. Most other things aren’t as intensely radiant that we are familiar with. A person could use a star as well, but they are more remote, more foreign, less familiar. Sun and moon are closer to home. But closer to home, there is not much that is comparable in terms of radiance as to the radiance of the sun and the moon.

Sun/moon also have a purity that rises above the messy nuances of the personality, which often acts as interference to self-acceptance. So outside of the carrier wave and radiance issue, this is another good reason for using the sun/moon here. The purity of the sun/moon essence without the personality contamination, allows for a deeper imprinting of the self-acceptance of the inner heart into the qi itself that is then used to flow and flood into the cells of the body.

More details about the importance of sun/moon in general, its purity, and how it is next step above the level of the personality is all covered in Greater K&L. Consequently, I don’t want to get sidetracked into a Greater K&L discussion. However, the point is, is that I think that this choice of sun/moon fused essence is no accident. I think it is actually helpful for the Inner Smile process in ways that may not be evident until you get into later training.

One could argue that maybe one shouldn’t even discuss sun/moon at the stage of learning the Inner Smile, since it has echos of Greater K&L. However, where I would disagree with this, is that the whole point of the Inner Smile is to cultivate unconditional self-acceptance, and that by its very nature immediately rises above the level of the personality, which is typically what is addressed in the first two formulas (Tao Basics + Fusion, Lesser).

I’m probably giving you too much information here.

Point is: I think based on my experience, that there are some very good reasons why sun/moon is used, and some of them can’t really be adequately understood until getting through the whole system. But as far as a meditation, you don’t necessarily need to explain this to folks either. You can simply say, “this is how you do the meditation”. Then have them learn the meditation. Then have them get spiritual acceleration through the direct experience of the meditation. The intellectual knowledge as to why certain elements of a meditation are chosen is not needed for enabling a meditation to work. Like driving a car or using a computer, you don’t need to know how individual components work or why certain components are used, to be able to get the thing to work or to have it be useful for you. Right? The reason is kind of irrelevant. In any case, some of the reasons can really only be understood after the fact, when a person has gotten a good amount of experience and has learned the depth of the system.

>>>So the classical version is the version
>>>passed from One Cloud to MC. Just
>>>wondering how you’ve established
>>>which of the various versions MC
>>>has taught is this classical version?
>>>Has he discussed it in a workshop?
>>>Have you asked him?

We have no idea what version One Cloud passed on to Master Chia. No one interviewed One Cloud. All we have is what Master Chia taught. He, like Michael, has changed things over time by bringing in his own insights.

Now, I’ve taken many Healing Tao classes . . . from many foundational senior instructors, not just Michael. Many of these people were among Master Chia’s first students. Many of these have told me adamantly “this is how it was originally taught”. Believe me, this is a big issue. Some of these seniors will fail people who take certification exams if you don’t deliver for them the exact meditation the exact way it was originally done. And they were there in person when it was originally done, so you better not argue with them. 😛 I’m not calling out individual names here, because I feel it is inappropriate to do so in a public forum of this type, but just trust me that I know what I’m talking about.

But even putting aside basic claims such as this (even when consistent amongst a few people) . . . when you take a lot of classes from a lot of different people, you begin to see commonalities amongst all creative variants. And seeing this root often confirms various claims. Nonetheless, there is no requirement that you believe me. I have it confirmed for myself, and that’s all that’s important for me. 🙂

Now that’s not to say that original is necessarily better.
Oftentimes, I like newer creative variants more; it depends.
Michael is very creative and it’s one of the things I love about him.

If I do like a newer variant more, I’ll often teach both.
As an example, when I teach the microcosmic orbit, I do this.

Qi,
Steven