- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’m seeing a discrepancy between methods that have a very specific path of change, versus a more “bottom-up” way which focuses on removing the blocks to change: such as the inner/outer dissolving meditation. Compare to many of the fire methods which seem to be practiced like surgery, where you’re directing the path.
Is there really such a distinction between an organic approach vs a mapped out one?
Hey David,
Can you say more about what you mean by discrepancy?
Janak
I just mean difference by discrepancy.
If a practitioner prefers a more organic or mapped out approach and only really practices one of them, would there be something missing in this in the energy arts?
My understanding is both the fire methods and the water methods work well. Both approaches have been tested and found effective by generations of practitioners.
I think the water approach has one feature that is important in this day and age. Namely, that it’s safer to practice if you don’t have regular daily contact with a teacher. Some of the fire methods work extremely well, they are very powerful but if you make even small mistakes in your practice you can seriously injure yourself.
In the old days, this risk was much smaller because the only way to learn these methods was to find a good teacher and study with him regularly. These days, many students will learn a technique and then go off and practice it for months or years until they see their teacher again. If you happen to practice the technique correctly, you’ll be fine but if you get something wrong, you’re in real trouble!
Hope this helps,
Janak
I wrote-commented to the thread Simplicity? in the “Taoist Meditation I ching” grouping on this forum which I think is related. to this… but I see the idea being starting (originally) from a fully customized approach (each 1on1, start from scratch, and devel a diagnosis / fdbk) or applying a set of principles (from these ideas, lets adjust “things” to fit this model-design).
Those two aren’t the same- as both what you call “bottom-up” and “Top-down” (or as you wrote “have a very-specific-pathofchange).. are a bit of a mix of the 2 I mention, in first P (“fully” custom, vs principle-aligning)… as over-time it seems that “teachers” and learners figure they oft see XYZ (most often, this comes up first.. and then this… and if this isn’t shown early=confusion.. thus, let’s start with that)– the generalization then could be- we want to custom apply, but we always end up 123/abc… so (and the basis of evaluation-application is either Subcon.. or even if recog- is more an Idealized picture- “should be’s..)
…………..
add to this if trying to keep groups (all in a certain ‘year” -at about the same pace- so at end of “year1, and starting year2… all have in common…? -else if fully custom, each can be shown what is the greatest impact for them -at that time- but.. no commonality? Fine- unless seeking to have that common-vocab…)
also- not just within a certain “year’ but each following year/generation(the idea in my mind is Education- if “home-school” indiv-tutor.. only the “end-state” stands out…. could then teach in whatever order, and emphasis… but if you want all 5th year students to be at a certain place in common- then need be sure.. then, if the goal is that, to have 5th years one year- and then even a few groups later- those new 5th years also same (even though those students won’t study together…) -usually assumed, “standardization’ makes teaching easier (repetition, system- as well as larger groups, ie vs 1on1), as well as consistency of result-output (ie “no student left behind).
… ….
Issue then being how much is ‘always the same’ and how much difffers? (take a lot of time and effort to analyze each student and always come up with the same “first steps needed” ~less efficient?.. and yet…. -Counterpt, being able to Lecture-demo… presentation = recorded, book/videos.. etc.)
…..
Fire-method and Water-Method I think have more the issue of a different contrast (different time-period/schools.. mean they have the above issues also but…. more the question: Is “beyond the Ordinary” still in the ‘normal’ or not?
Thus up-to going “beyond the Ordinary” (developing “intermed” skill NeiGung… stress-relief, feel&bld chi flow- direct it, etc), that being in the usual config, just underdeveloped.But to go beyond that: is one still just developing “normal” (Water Method seems to see it is still in the usual config- ie the system could do this, just like tight-rope walking, or acrobatic-backflips and balancing are still “standing-up balance’ Just developed very-much…. vs a “new” (ex 6th) sense). …..
or
is it not “normal” thus changed (Fire Method seems to see it as adding not emergent quals from existing common fundamentals (: like stand-up balance above)- but like re-design the system)Like is developing an auric-field affect from either amping up and/or combinging the usual-acupt merid flow (just like others have- just developed and coordinated differently)… or making new connections- link the acupt merids in new ways (break existing “insulations”).. etc.
……
(implication- if “water-method” and not changing the base-quals, safer as all fundamentals in place.. if fire-method, unsafe (perhaps- just like “tightrope walking” needn’t result in danger, but need a net… and a coach…) as the idea being fundaments aren’t in place (bypassing prior safeguards, ‘remove’ limitations the “governor”…. also if “Fire-Method” (restructure) mixed with above “principle-based (make it be a certain way, not “custom-feedback… your system saying ‘no’ push through the burn.. I know how it should be… but mixed with “re-design” .. so more than strain-effort, its act in ways that “don’t feel natural” ~wouldn’t normally happen ( fight your reflexes not to ).. based upon what assumption that is correct?anyway- long write-up, not sure why but seemed it might add to try and write that here (ref the Great Stillness/Relaxing into your Being books- sections about fire-water.. only short chapters, above expanded from other comments from Bruce… and my interp from working with/application).
luck
You should take what I say with a grain of salt, as it is here that I heard first that something like a fire and water method even exist as distinct approaches.
But from the descriptions, most of the Qi Gong I learned before, especially that geared toward martial applications would be fire method Qi Gong.
I ran into problems once ot twice while working things out alone. The newest one can be found in Training Circle forum. So far I could work out all these problems over time when my understanding improved.
BUT, while I teach some Qi Gong and martial arts, I would not teach most of the more advanced methods. Except maybe to someone with strong background in energetics who happens to live nearby. Because I don’t want to take the risk that things go awry that are beyond my understanding.
To make it short, for me, Bruce’s Water Method is:
“The Natural is already the hights development. Training is removing everything that obscures this natural power”The Fire Method is:
“Training is an alchemical process that directed by knowledge transmutes your energy and your physical body from raw iron to steel, from lead to gold”.Actually, this sounds a bit like the distinction between matriarchy and patriarchy to me. ^^
This is an archived forum (read only). Go to our active forum where you can post and discuss in real time.