May 27, 2006 at 2:21 pm #14453
>>”Why don’t they open up to some of you so you see them for who they are? Plato was with you in China for 3 weeks and you both even shared a room. So why is it that nothing is there? You don’t have to answer me if you feel it’s a loaded question.”
Max, I try not to carry or hold preconceived notions about people. I found Plato to be a very reasonable person and to have a lot of interesting ideas although I wasn’t clear on just what kind of meditation he did if any (I think he was more into some sort of yogic exercises). I was slightly skeptical about him claiming to have learned a little more knowledge than he recieved from the china trip on his original prostate website; but I noticed that approach changed.
The main issues I am having here was that a number of you guys, some of whom don’t appear to be around anymore, were acting like zen missionaries on the board and were heaping abuse on michael winn’s alchemical practices as being useless or his perceived capitalist approach. Plato appeared to be unhappy with his experience in China from what he was writing. People were being subject to character assassination for even questioning the posts, insulted in a sexually degrading manner, and numerous explicit pictures of corpses, homosexual sex, all kinds of bodily fluids and females being raped after beaten were being posted. In fact you guys even created your own blog (taobum) to rant about the situation, didn’t you? If all this has slipped your memory, there are a number of people I know of who can remember, who were also on the china trip, and have been participating in this interchange.
You can imagine why communication has been a little edgy. Anyway, I respond to people in a way that is appropriate to balance what I perceive they are saying from my own experience.May 29, 2006 at 12:35 am #14454
seeing things differently
I have one more thing to say about the trait of having to rely on character assassination. When a person has to rely on this, they are essentially making a statement about themselves that says:
“I feel inadequate, and have to put someone else down to make myself look/feel good.”
It is the perfect attitude of a marketing advertiser that relies on creating insecurity to sell a product people don’t need. But it goes a little further; they try to create an inner feeling of inadequacy in others so that they can feel good by comparing themselves to what others don’t have, that makes them dependent on and feeding off others insecurity and fear. What they are missing is the fact that by judging others, they are holding judgments about their own perceived inadequacy.
This is a general observation, no examples needed.May 29, 2006 at 3:24 am #14456
No. Michael was giving his observations on the methods of buddha, chia, Nan, etc. as it relates to the progress one can achieve in a spiritual science in response to criticisms from others of alchemy. If what michael said was incorrect in your view, why didn’t you argue them in a way that presents facts? Maybe you brought it up in discussion and didn’t like the answers, or couldn’t argue it thoroughly. We have been through this with the “Chan is only in the mind vs. Alchemy is spinning your qi” discussions (what do you expect from an alchemy based discussion board?). If Chia, David, Nan or Frantzis are concerned abouth the discussion why don’t you invite them on here to discuss it themselves?
I mean character assassination specifically like when you and your friends try to degrade others in an insulting manner by attacking their character by calling them “loser” etc. because there are no facts you can find that are valid to discuss with them.
If you are so satisfied with your practice why are you always coming on here to try and prove everyone else is wrong and alchemy is useless? Why don’t you just practice it and be content? Maybe some of you have personal issues with michael; you should solve them personally rather than making it everyones business.
“If you do not strive with others,
you will be free from blame”
– Lao ZiMay 29, 2006 at 1:09 pm #14458
Very interesting Max, what does this pattern of behavior reveal to you, spiritually enlightened behavior?May 29, 2006 at 2:30 pm #14460
W3RD!May 29, 2006 at 6:55 pm #14462
Thats such an old debate trick.
Are you confirming you agree you believe those statement?May 29, 2006 at 9:36 pm #14464
Another old debate trick is changing the subject or diverting the topic away from the original intent so that people can avoid answering the original issue.
I don’t have the background information and don’t know those people. I think Michael based his observations on Chia, Shen and Kumar from personal interactions, and on Nan from opinions he has discussed with scholars and other people in china, if I recall his posts correctly.
Maybe those were michael’s observations from his experience, I don’t know. I haven’t known him to willfully slander anyone to my knowledge. Yes I agree that I think michael is presenting the issues to the best of his knowledge.
Now how about max, plato, ron and crew answering as to why they resort to name calling, insults and slander when the going gets tough? You can’t get caught in a verbal trap if there is nothing to hide (“I’m not going to answer that because I see a set-up”). I notice that max has gotten better at debating recently without avoidance issues.May 30, 2006 at 12:01 pm #14466
my understanding is senior instructor Walter Beckley created the Name “Ocean Breathing” and taught this method, before him this method was not taught in the ht circles, is he credited properly?May 30, 2006 at 2:28 pm #14468
there is only one real answer to such biddings
f*** them female dogs
balls breaking was a favorite sport of all power ringers
and minions are always fast to jump in
did you shift from emptiness-chaste practice to emptiness-societal practiceMay 30, 2006 at 2:49 pm #14470
are you attached to your Name?
you did not present your homework.May 30, 2006 at 5:25 pm #14472
And how often do I say that?
Winn slips up and character assassinates all the time. His most typical error is to attack someone on psychological or emotional grounds rather than on the merit of their arguments (e.g., Buddha lost his parent at an early age so thats why he believes . . . ). This is what Id call Winns habitual flaw in arguing (and Ive called him on it a few times).
Winn shouldn’t do that (and neither should you Max — or I for that matter). An enlightened argument about Buddhas teachings should go to the MERITS of Buddhas teachings, not to his psychological make up.
By the way Max, I think you have a habitual flaw of your own. That is, an enlightened argument should not point to others faults as somehow absolving you of your own. You tend to resort to this sort of argument a lot and its a mistake.
For example, if youre shoplifting and I point out to you that your actions are both illegal and immoral it’s really not relevant for you to say “Well, Michael Winn shoplifts too — and I’ve even seen you shoplift on occasion, so there!”. All that might be true, but it’s completely irrelevant to the issue of whether or not YOUR shoplifting is illegal and immoral.
Closer to home, Singing Ocean was pointing out the tendency in the past that you and others have to make crude and personally insulting statements on this board about people who disagree with you, and your tendency to post a lot of adolescent and sexually based pictures, statements, etc. about people who disagree with you. Thats a fair critique. And one you should own up to and apologize for. To respond to that critique by saying Well, Michael Winn does some stupid things too and you guys just cant take a joke really isnt relevant. It might be true, but it doesnt at all address the criticism that Singing Ocean leveled at you.
Largely I think this is an ego issue and its surprising to me that its such a block for you. (I know, Im slipping into Winns bad habit here but Ill chance it). Why not just say Yeah, I posted some stupid hurtful crap that I shouldnt of, and Im gonna try not to do that any more ?
Hope youre well,
spyrelxMay 31, 2006 at 12:31 am #14474
Spyrelx, from where I’m sitting, you brought some much needed balance to the (not so) freindly debate.
In reference to your clear observations of those in the debate, I am reminded that while ones’ personal practice may be one thing, ultimately ‘yea shall know them by their fruits’
To me, that’s where real charisma lies.
mMay 31, 2006 at 2:28 am #14476May 31, 2006 at 2:37 am #14478
I call it character assassination because there is a distinctively reflexive insulting tone to the remarks in question, usually accompanied by some sort of boasting that calls the person inferior or arrogant indication towards the “truth”. “You will see it in the end”.May 31, 2006 at 2:43 am #14480
This may be a valid point; why don’t you mention it to michael if Beckley is not credited?
I have learned from other Chia-trained teachers that did not credit Beckley when they taught Ocean Breathing either.
On the other hand, Michael does credit Chia for passing on One Cloud’s system (with a discussion of the current differences), Zhu Hui for passing on Wuji Qigong, and Kumar Frantzis for the “Marriage of Heaven and Earth” movement, even though Kumar used it for different purposes (according to Winn).
Bagua, when you teach astrology or qigong classes, do you credit all the teachers that have taught you the movements/practices? Does Nan credit all his teachers when he presents a course, or does Bodri credit all the teachers he has learned from when teaching his methods?
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.