- This topic has 40 replies, 15 voices, and was last updated 20 years ago by
.
-
Posts
-
Keith,
You are unquestionably one of the “good” guys. Who among us can match your reserves of care, dedication, patience and compassion? You broadcast these over and over, while I, for one, seldom have the time or even the interest to post. Yet I have learned Mega from everyone here. So please excuse me for once more returning to your post, perhaps in the spirit of ‘no good deed goes unpunished.’
You wrote: “For me, basically, this is not about attacking nor defending Chia, nor myself, nor any other. It’s about clarification for our own and others’ benefit.”
I don’t think so. What about: “The emperor has no clothes”?
To me that sounds more like the beginning of an attack than a clarification.
What about: “Now, both that title and the analogy are about the worst things a person could give for practical instruction. That view, employed in practice, will injure a large percentage of students. You almost couldn’t give someone instructions that’ll lead more directly to injury”?
That certainly sounds like an attack to me. Or wouldn’t you agree?
What about: “I came up with a very succinct description of the presentations in the products that are sold under Chia’s name: basically selling sensation and calling it “Taoism”… It is a very marketable strategy, certain to be popular, certain to be sensational yet to lead to no great resolutions (keeps people interested in more, more, more), and is just as certain to lead to injury for the vast majority of those that practice it dedicatedly for any great length of time”?
Well I never thought I’d be quoting Ronnie (the other one) but, “there you go again.” You sum up the work of someone who’s been practicing for 45-50 years (hey, how old are you?) with YOUR sound bite, then continue as if YOUR PUT-DOWN were the truth, pontificating on Chia’s marketing strategy leading to CERTAIN injury for just about everyone.
And then you add: I don’t know why he does it!!!
Please.
What you’ve written is nothing but an attack, and you’re entitled to attack Chia any time you want. But why should Chia include passages in HIS Tan Tien Chi Kung book on what YOU consider “the essential wisdom”?
“No-self, the deep-center of the tan tien, Emptiness and light” — these are your babies, your themes, not those of Chia’s Tan Tien Chi Kung. Don’t let their absence make you see red. See red in the energy that flows from the North Star/Big Dipper, or the leather of your new Porsche, or the cherry hue of your sweet thing’s lips.
How arrogant you become when you pin the word “the” in front of “essential wisdom,” and then allow that maybe, just maybe you didn’t find THAT wisdom because of your cursory read.
Who appointed you the white knight, the protector (“bad for students, bad for Taoism, bad for the world”), the savior to keep us all from CERTAIN injury?
Please.
Maybe, like Nicholas Cage in “Bringing Out the Dead,” the person you really need to save is yourself. I won’t go any further here because I know how intelligent you are, how aware you are of the “ambiguities” of your position. But lay off Chia for not giving you what you want or need. Find your own answers, apply them selfishly, let the world turn without you tonight.
I liked Spyrelx’s post (above) a lot.
Personally, I think Chia is like Miles Davis. It doesn’t matter whether Miles was playing in the 60s, 70s or 80s: the music behind him may have changed radically, but when you listen, Miles is always Miles.
So Chia no longer teaches packing as part of Iron Shirt, but (I guess) is now reintroducing parts of it in Tan Tien Chi Kung (it’s certainly not the focus of the practice). You react by saying Jesus, hasn’t this man learned his lesson yet? But I’d say Chia is reintroducing the practice because in his 45-50 years of experience he thinks there’s something important there that his students should know, and he’s been searching for a new form to communicate this knowledge.
At his seminar six weeks ago, Chia explained that Tan Tien Chi Kung emphasized the psoas muscle, the lower abdomen and, 1000% most importantly, the front and back kua’s, which, he continued, were the most difficult parts of the body to open.
When he was learning Chi Kung and Tai Chi, he told us, his master(s) would tell him to keep practicing and practicing and one day he would “get it.” Later he realized that “getting it” meant learning how to open the kua and transfer the force.
Chia believes you need this knowledge to be able to do Standing Chi Kung and/or Tai Chi well. He also believes that, having a superior knowledge of anatomy available to him than his master(s) had, he can help his students “get” opening the kua much faster than he could.
All of the dragon/tiger breathing and (gentle) pushing down is meant to (gently) expand the lower abdomen in all directions like a giant bowl, which helps the kua to open. At the same time you also “screw” your feet into the ground which helps open the kua further. And you pull up on your anus, which also helps open the kua.
You really have to study with Chia (or a teacher who knows) to get the breathing and pushing and twisting. Reading about the practice in the Tan Tien Chi Kung book won’t do you much good until you’ve got the basic movement and breathing. And the twelve animal positions are merely embellishments on a theme.
Okay, ‘nough said. I’ve got to go to work. I wish it were as warm in Zurich as it is in L.A. Take care,
Trip
Keith,
You are unquestionably one of the “good” guys. Who among us can match your reserves of care, dedication, patience and compassion? You broadcast these over and over, while I, for one, seldom have the time or even the interest to post. Yet I have learned Mega from everyone here. So please excuse me for once more returning to your post, perhaps in the spirit of ‘no good deed goes unpunished.’
You wrote: “For me, basically, this is not about attacking nor defending Chia, nor myself, nor any other. It’s about clarification for our own and others’ benefit.”
I don’t think so. What about: “The emperor has no clothes”?
To me that sounds more like the beginning of an attack than a clarification.
What about: “Now, both that title and the analogy are about the worst things a person could give for practical instruction. That view, employed in practice, will injure a large percentage of students. You almost couldn’t give someone instructions that’ll lead more directly to injury”?
That certainly sounds like an attack to me. Or wouldn’t you agree?
What about: “I came up with a very succinct description of the presentations in the products that are sold under Chia’s name: basically selling sensation and calling it “Taoism”… It is a very marketable strategy, certain to be popular, certain to be sensational yet to lead to no great resolutions (keeps people interested in more, more, more), and is just as certain to lead to injury for the vast majority of those that practice it dedicatedly for any great length of time”?
Well I never thought I’d be quoting Ronnie (the other one) but, “there you go again.” You sum up the work of someone who’s been practicing for 45-50 years (hey, how old are you?) with YOUR sound bite, then continue as if YOUR PUT-DOWN were the truth, pontificating on Chia’s marketing strategy leading to CERTAIN injury for just about everyone.
And then you add: I don’t know why he does it!!!
Please.
What you’ve written is nothing but an attack, and you’re entitled to attack Chia any time you want. But why should Chia include passages in HIS Tan Tien Chi Kung book on what YOU consider “the essential wisdom”?
“No-self, the deep-center of the tan tien, Emptiness and light” — these are your babies, your themes, not those of Chia’s Tan Tien Chi Kung. Don’t let their absence make you see red. See red in the energy that flows from the North Star/Big Dipper, or the leather of your new Porsche, or the cherry hue of your sweet thing’s lips.
How arrogant you become when you pin the word “the” in front of “essential wisdom,” and then allow that maybe, just maybe you didn’t find THAT wisdom because of your cursory read.
Who appointed you the white knight, the protector (“bad for students, bad for Taoism, bad for the world”), the savior to keep us all from CERTAIN injury?
Please.
Maybe, like Nicholas Cage in “Bringing Out the Dead,” the person you really need to save is yourself. I won’t go any further here because I know how intelligent you are, how aware you are of the “ambiguities” of your position. But lay off Chia for not giving you what you want or need. Find your own answers, apply them selfishly, let the world turn without you tonight.
I liked Spyrelx’s post (above) a lot.
Personally, I think Chia is like Miles Davis. It doesn’t matter whether Miles was playing in the 60s, 70s or 80s: the music behind him may have changed radically, but when you listen, Miles is always Miles.
So Chia no longer teaches packing as part of Iron Shirt, but (I guess) is now reintroducing parts of it in Tan Tien Chi Kung (it’s certainly not the focus of the practice). You react by saying Jesus, hasn’t this man learned his lesson yet? But I’d say Chia is reintroducing the practice because in his 45-50 years of experience he thinks there’s something important there that his students should know, and he’s been searching for a new form to communicate this knowledge.
At his seminar six weeks ago, Chia explained that Tan Tien Chi Kung emphasized the psoas muscle, the lower abdomen and, 1000% most importantly, the front and back kua’s, which, he continued, were the most difficult parts of the body to open.
When he was learning Chi Kung and Tai Chi, he told us, his master(s) would tell him to keep practicing and practicing and one day he would “get it.” Later he realized that “getting it” meant learning how to open the kua and transfer the force.
Chia believes you need this knowledge to be able to do Standing Chi Kung and/or Tai Chi well. He also believes that, having a superior knowledge of anatomy available to him than his master(s) had, he can help his students “get” opening the kua much faster than he could.
All of the dragon/tiger breathing and (gentle) pushing down is meant to (gently) expand the lower abdomen in all directions like a giant bowl, which helps the kua to open. At the same time you also “screw” your feet into the ground, which helps open the kua further. And you pull up on your anus, which also helps open the kua.
You really have to study with Chia (or a teacher who knows) to get the breathing and pushing and twisting. Reading about the practice in the Tan Tien Chi Kung book won’t do you much good until you’ve got the basic movement and breathing. And the twelve animal positions are merely embellishments on a theme.
—
Okay, ‘nough said. I’ve got to go to work. I wish it were as warm in Zurich as it is in L.A. Take carev and enjoy,
Trip
I have those two books and his tape series Meditative Mastery. I particularly liked Pathnotes.. I’m sorry he hasn’t written more.
There was a third book, I’m sure you can google it, or look it up on Amazon.com. I paged through it a long time ago, it didn’t seem worth buying at the time.
Morris used to have a website Hojinitsu something.com. Again if you google it, it will come.
Peace
Michael
I’ve reread a few of my posts and I do find a negativity there. Even in my compliment to Keith was a little back handed. It so easy to be negative. On the otherhand its we want to be think critically, we don’t grow if we take the attitude everything is good.
For example this posting sequence has been great. Wonderful information has been exchanged. Is the line crossed when a person is blamed instead of the persons idea?
I like to play the devils advocate. But the devils advocate is still a devil. When I post to SomethingTao, I rewrite it two or three times, mellowing out my answer each time.
I’m working on a nicer kinder me.
Peas
Michael
He is writing fourt book. On application of collective energies on the level of humans.
He has high regard for:
Chia,
Hatsumi,
Ilana Rubenfeld (aura feeling, caressins, and through talk guiding processing the inner bubble person enters when caressing areas)
Rich Mooney (he went off line, done lots of standing and irons shirt II movemenst, demonstrated ’empty force’ in martial art).
But his article with photos is still onlineTrip,
One last post, and thanks for the dialogue.
Although i disagree with you on most of your points, the seriousness of your path really comes through… i feel there is the context of heart and dharma-brotherhood to our aggressive debate. This whole thread reminds me of debate as part of monastic training in Tibet. Basically healthy. This forum is a really good service.t> What you’ve written is nothing but an attack, >
There’s talking with the intent to illuminate a situation – which can be beneficial to the extent that it does. Bringing to the fore an area of error for the purpose of clarification brings with it greater potential for resolution. Even if the info is not complimentary to who ever, or is difficult to listen to. Without this dynamic, painful as it may be, there is no correction, no self-refinement, no dynamic of refinement amongst community, no clarification of knowledge nor action.
Contrasted with: communication with the intent really just to damage another. Lacking any sort of illuminating content.
In the fable of “The Emperor has no Clothes”, none of the adults (not king’s attendants, not servants, not public) had the guts, the clarity, the innocence to simply say the truth. As the emperor paraded by the crowds, only a young child had the simplicity to just say what’s in front of him, to communicate truthfully, unencumbered, “the emperor has no clothes”. Turns out the remark was good for everyone.
Now, i’m not saying that my expressions are that pure. Only that that’s a classic fable for a reason.
“A child of five would understand this.
Send someone to fetch a child of five.”
– Groucho Marxt> But why should Chia include passages in HIS Tan Tien Chi Kung book on what YOU consider “the essential wisdom”?
“No-self, the deep-center of the tan tien, Emptiness and light” — these are your babies, your themes, not those of Chia’s Tan Tien Chi Kung. >Doesn’t have to be in that book. (Though its odd that its not, as the tan tien is where this transformation occurs, the whole book is about the tan tien, and “dragon and tiger mating” is a classic term for this.) Still it doesn’t have to be in that book.
But, it is such a foundational teaching that it should be in some of his books. The principle, at least, should run through the teachings. Again (as i said before and which you’ve so far chosen to ignore), this principle is foundational to all of the classic eastern writings.
Keith
Some of his links:
http://www.kundalinisupportnetwork.com/
http://www.wholisticarts.org/morris.html
Inner Peace,
Matt
I might look into his second book next time I am in a good shop. I really liked the first one.
What’s the tape series like? Would you recommend it?
I probably got the series 8 or 9 years ago as tapes. He may have redone them. I liked them. I think there were 8 or 9 tapes. Much of it follows his book. Guided meditation on creating Da Mo’s cave.
Discussions on the 7 Chakras or elements in ways of strategies and insights. Such as Water chakra, strategy is flowing, there are guided meditation to bring insights into it.
Some of it is hodge podge, but good hodge podge. Indepth review of yogas sun salutation. Discussion on healing. Breathing and visualization techniques.
He has a clear voice and is an experienced teacher. Like some of Winn’s audio tapes the production quality is so so. I.E. having to keep the volume turned all the way up to hear it. Random noises, etc.
If you connect with Morris’s book, it is well worth it.
Peace
Michael
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.