August 14, 2006 at 10:22 am #16451
Just glanced two books
and Dragon rises, red bird flies
They are both connected as they are author of the first was the student of the later.
But this is not all.
Both have glaring characteristics that while they fully report the results of their process, they do not fully disclose their process.
Were the presented way of learning the only way, it would be a passive one: learning the character of inbalance through repeated contact with such state. Yet by the law of resonance only in wishful thinking would such act not result in sickness of practicioner. For it the training is passive only, the result can be only neutral or swallowing the wind of ‘pacient’. And later will happen if looked from future eternity.
This seems a systematic imbalance that would mean the school is either weak at root .
Or a system of discipleship was omitted from reporting.
For medical chi kung would be a active form of practice. And such training would be not dependand upon present of other people, thus relieving the practicioner from the need of grasping on to ‘pacients’ for learning.
Discipleship is the norm in chinese culture. It is so obvious it does not need reporting.
Yet if the author of the later book starts teaching university students from such context, such act is almost honest in western context.
Honest approch it that of Max’s wing chung kidney breathing chi kung which he recommended in conjunction with study of Indonesian breathing teacniques. He blatantly stated his school is a closed door system. And if you know that, you can derive the inner teaching by adjusting the outer teaching for the obvious hinted principles.
Learning to read the form.
(Will repaet also Max’s caveat: martializing the form is strenuous to the body)
Picture ad is edit from bellow post.
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.