- This topic has 10 replies, 6 voices, and was last updated 18 years, 2 months ago by
.
-
Posts
-
To Anyone–> On the cd Michael Winn says that “Mantak does not do the fire in the water or the sitting in the cauldron” and in another part says that “Mantak had only trained as far as Lesser Kan and Li”..
what does this mean? I thought the whole point of Kan and Li was fire in water and water in fire? And I thought Mantak got this all and taught this all from a Hermit named ONe Cloud. If Mantak doesn’t teach fire in water and v/v, then what was he teaching?
-digdug
I would recommend emailing michael personally on this one; he should answer it in the context that he’s explaining it in his course during the moment he was in. All I can say is that both(Michael & Mantak) are unique and have interpeted these practice’s and presented them within the realms of their expierence with them.
Some students like Mantak Chias version and likewise some like Michaels. Probaly best to get past the personal views (theirs on each other) and just focus on the material as related to the practice.
Snowlion
It would be nice to Michael to clarify this, because a lot of people are studying under teachers who have been train with Mantak Chia and nobody wants to spend some time and money on formulas that don’t work. I mean, if even Mantak Chia has only trained as far as lesser kan and li, I would be damn scared his higher formulas, considering that he is known for changing the formulas (formulas that, according to the comments of digdug he hasn’t really try himself). Someone please clarify this, it is really confusing.
Thanks a lot!
William McDuffHello:
I know both of them and know what they teach in detail.
It is absolutely ridicoulous to think M. Chia didnt know all kan and li (and much more), he taught Michael the formulas, without Chia, Michael would not have learned them.
I like both, somethings from each of them I dont do as my personal preference is different, but these are not important, for example, michael has added his “tunning sounds” of which I dont use.
Its really sad that this type of dialogue has to occur.
Each of them has their own personal destiny and cultural karma and view aspects of life, emotions, humanity in their unique ways, Michael presents his integration of his understandings in a poweful way, it will resonate with some and not with some, thats the way it goes. No one is perfect and no one will appeal to all. I haven’t had any problem learning what many people teach.
Both deserve respect for being pioneers and making significant contributions to the Taoist Community.
Do not ever underestimate the knowledge and skill of M. Chia, he has much to offer, few have his depth and range and I often look back at his videos and I get more impressed.
Its best to ask Michael directly about your questions.
And you must realize Michael has evolved over the past 10-years and has modified his presentation of formulas, this is a normal thing, one reason is just to try to be clearer.
regards,
bagua
Uh, well I don’t know..
I just know what was said on the cd. I am not aware of any sad dialogue?
I just don’t get the planet thing (yet?)
-digdug
Its sad that you need to present this as Chia vs Winn.
If you have questions on Michael’s work then just ask him what he means, he is very good at responding to his students.
bagua
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.