Talk:Mantak Chia
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. [FAQ] | ||
 |
This article is supported by the Taoism WikiProject.
This project provides a central approach to Taoism-related subjects on Wikipedia. |
|
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
|
- Please stop lambasting this spiritual figure's name. He is highly respected all around he world. The plagiarism case failed, he is not conisdered new age, as these are ancient teachings*
FIRESTAR, Why do you keep deleting changes???
-
-
- The fact is that Master Chia is a very powerful healer and teacher. This is not new age, but ancient teachings brought to light. The sexual aspect of his teachings is a very small fraction, yet integral to the holistic taoist paradigm, in which the entire being is coordinated with the virtue, compassion and wisdom of true enlightenment. It makes me upset to see this teacher disrespected in this article.
-
I disagree
- You'll be amased, but his teachings really work. I recommend you the Cultivation of Male Sexual Energy --Gil Groe 15:17, 3 January 2006 (UTC)
- This article seems totaly bias to me. Of course Jing is replenished!? New age? Tao is ancient! He is not a "self proclaimed healer" but VERY respected in the Chinese Martial Arts community and has MANY MANY documented healing cases for both himself and his students, the winner of a number of awards. Firestar, will you source ANY of these wrong accusations and stop preventing edits to WIKI! How do you justify! We need to discuss.
- I'd like to agree that this article at present has a pretty obvious western bias. Taoism is not New Age in any way.... the article is written in a way that makes it seem like this stuff is 'magical' or something. I myself (tho I know this won't count to most) have taken advantage of his teachings regarding male orgasm and ejaculation (which he does seem well known for). It works. If it works then these ideas are not magical hooey, they are just not well understood in a western framework. If you are into the scientific method, get one of his books on the topic out of the library, and put some work in yourself. I can't repeat my experiment; i cannot unlearn my understanding of sex and energy, and i'd rather retain it! the benefits of multiple and full body orgasm are huge folks..... I would recomment that the loaded language ('self-described healer', 'New Age') be removed the claim that 'His teaching is not without controversy especially within...' be backed up with something rather than nothing at all!... I've made the edits.
Basing your edits on your own experience is unfortunately original research. Chia's teachings are an idiosyncratic blend of sex-cult Tantrism and Taoism with some McDojo chicanery thrown in to boot. I am going to partially restore the earlier version. --Fire Star 火星 18:48, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
- Fire star, we need to talk? How can you be reached? How can you allege Chia is "new age" and and "mcdojo". Yes his teachings on sexual energy have been adopted for mainstream in the Orgasmic man/woman and Couples books, but overall his system draws from ancient sources. There have been countless scientific testaments to Chia's integrity in healing, enlightenment and martial arts. Mcdojo? That would be people NOT teaching about Chi. Master Chia introduced the INNER STRUCTURE of tai chi to the West. You must not be familair with his teachings if you are calling it Mcdojo because although they are not secret, they are esoteric and firstly revealed by Chia from ancient times. Yes his system is widespread and not hidden, does that make you mad? It is not so important that one learns 108 movements forms of tai chi, says chia, as long as they know how to do properl the 13 moves (with the inner structure.) If you call this new age Mcdojo and sex-cult, you are disrespecting history!!!!!!!!!! Nothing here is to do with original research but that experienced by numerous adepts. For example, look at the two books written by Solala Towler, placing Chia in the realm of the NI family...this is far from new age! The methods of converting ching to chi to shen are ancient!
Please cite these idea: Chia is new age, he is not well established, there is controversy over his teachings in China, the Jing-Qi question. Also, please remove any idea that Chia is a "self proclaimed healer" as he requires CNT and other teachers to have case reports showing the efficacy of their work. I am sure these could be made available if one is bias against Chia (for some reason) and not willing to beleive his integrity (or at least not wanting others to, for some reason.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.35.163 (talk • contribs)
- These things you say are all claims that Chia makes. His books are sold primarily through New Age vendors and his claims that he teaches Iron Shirt Kung and the "inner structure" of T'ai Chi Ch'uan are unverfiable claims to sell those books, with nothing but his word to back them up in other words. It is fine to have them in the article, but they have to be qualified as claims. As for the sex-cult stuff, he has been on Rick Ross' and other cult watchdog lists for a while now. Again, that is a claim, and should be qualified too, but on the whole Chia is a subjective character, at best. --Fire Star 火星 22:20, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for clearing that up a bit. Yes New Age vendors such as which? Where does Rick Ross claim this sex cult idea? I think any Taoist scholar would tell you that Chias sexual techniques and respetability int he sacred Taoist tradition is respectable. The inner structure is an idea Chia made. Chang Sang Feng sis not say much of anything about, did he? Iron Shirt Chi Kung has thousands of different versions. How can we know which is the true one? All of them are valid. Master Chia is friends with Grandmaster Yuanming Zhang. He has been recognized in the East West world Qigong federation with the likes of other master qigong teachers like Lam Kam Chuen of Shaolin.
- I've restored the earlier version, but took out the New Age bit. His books are usually in the New Age section of bookstores, but I agree that probably isn't enough. The latest version was loaded with way too many weasel words and had so many unlikely extensions (how could a sex-oriented teacher be associated with celibate Chan Buddhism?) that it looked like an advertisement more than an article. I haven't been able to find the Rick Ross thing (it may have been taken down, or perthaps my memry failed me) but there isn't any mention of it in the article anyway. Generally, we can't imply that Chia represents all of Taoism, as the recent edits seem to want to. Chinese Taoists simply don't obsess about sex the way Chia does, which is another aspect of his teaching which is more than a little New Age, although our readers will have to make that association here. The controversy bit has been changed to represent the plagiarism Chia is accused of and should stay. I myself am a Taijiquan teacher and a qigong teacher, having trained in China with the famous Wu family. Besides my personally regarding Chia's teachings as sensationalistic and more than a little sleazy, none of the Taijiquan families recognise Chia as a qualified Taijiquan teacher, let alone "master". The thing is, just like many other teachers of his type, his results are all based on claims. Because of that, the article has to have qualifying language. I am the same way about all of the qigong and traditional Chinese medicine related articles, regardless. I practise and teach martial arts and TCM, but not blindly. There is a lot of fraud and half-understood teaching out there, as there is simply no regulatory body for these things. Anyone can declare themselves a "master" if they have the right clothes. There is a need for valid criticism in our articles if they aren't to become simple ads for their subjects. --Fire Star 火星 13:52, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
-
- The Tao Te Ching and Buddhist scriptures are relegated to the "New Age" sections of most book stores as well. It is hardly an accurate indication of the classification of Chia's teachings. A notation that in the West his teachings, like most Taoist teachings, are considered "New Age" *might* be appropriate. Chia's connections to Chan Buddhism are well-documented. The interrelation of Chinese folk religion, tantra and Chan Buddhism is also well-documented. Chia is admittedly on the more sex-energy focused end of the spectrum, however he is not outside of the normal range on that count. (I myself as a student of Tao have mocked Chia's sexual inclinations and do so with glee. However, that is a subjective point of view.) Asserting that the view of the taijiquan families is binding is against NPOV. Orthodoxy has no monopoly on legitimacy, correctness or such measures. Orthodox Christianity rejects the legitimacy and authority of Unitarian faith, but that does not mean Christian Unitarians are not Christian nor does it mean they are unable to speak with authority. I personally read Chia's writings after being taught Taoist "internal alchemy" by a Chinese sifu. While some of his teachings are aberrant, or heterodox, the differances between what I was taught and Chia's teachings are not greater than the differances I have observed among the various Taoist schools teaching "alchemy". You obviously have taken a non-NPOV biased against the teachings and legitimacy of Chia. We need to work out some balance between pro and con views so we can expand this article. If you would, please give me a summary list of things you would like to see added/corrected. Personally I would like to see:
- 1) More substantive information about what Chia teaches. There is no mention of such crucial practices as Fusion of the Five Elements or Innner Smiles. 2) More substantive information about Chia's relations with various teachers and groups. 3) More information about Chia's organization. 4) More biographical detail. Vassyana 04:37, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
Chan Buddhism is a vast subject and not all sects are celibate, for sure. One the art print from High Pine Mountain, it shows how Bodhidharma and Lao Tzu come together representing the Universal Tao, a modern Taoist group. A search on google for "Rick ross mantak chia" yields nothing, nothing at Ross's website too. I agree Chia does not represnt all of taoism. In the West, however, he is clearly the most popular teacher. The Tajiquan families are not representative of what Chia teaches. Chia is a Taoist and Tai Chia families are peoples who took the original tai chi (derived from either Chen or in my opninion more likely, Chang Sang Feng) lineage and changed it. True there is no way to measure a "master" excpet perhaps for personal opinion and looking at who tey studied with. Chia has studied with the great tai chi masters of our time, if you care to look into it. When you say "his results are all based on claims" where can you show evidence of the opposite for the supposed real teachers? Master Chia's lineage appears to be the most real...he explains how learning long 108 forms is not really what is important. The tai chi he teaches on his level two tai chi chi kung, he says, is derived from the palace guard (forgot what dynasty). The reason a shorter form is prefered is that it includes all the benefits when repeated and allows for more awareness of the inner structure. Master Chia covers the internal alchemy 9 times more deeply than any other tai chi "family" teaching and therefore his system, in my opinion, has a lot more integrity and usefulness. Without knowing the subtle aspects of tai chi and qi gong, a practitioner will certaintly hurt themself and die before they had to. What do you mean his results are all based on "claims"? What qualifies the opposite of a "claim"? What constitutes "blindly"? I have studied many forms and met with a few Wu teachers. I have been in touc with the chairman of the Wu taji research institute...numerous highly accomplished "family" stylists also have deep respect for Mantak Chia, who also studied with the families in addition to real taoists. He is friends with Grandmaster Yuanming Zhang. Tom Clancy wrote an article for his website. Tiger Woods is featured as a student at Tao Garden. I have never met Chia myself and have to inclination to "advertise" for him. I used to be addicted to sex and studying Mantak Chias system helped me control my energy and gain dicipline throug the study of taji and qigong. I can say I have been healed very deeply by studying Master Chias system. Although his teachings are not perfect (and cost a bit of money), he has done a tremendous serivice to many around the world who do not have access to the inner Taoist teachings. He will continue to heal many through these teachings. To see what level Chia's teachings are on, look at: http://www.taohealingarts.com/changsbio.html Mantak Chia, like Dr. Chang, teaches about semen retention. This is a subject that numerous Taoist teach about. Look at Dan Reid, Jolan Chang, and many others. I have also read that retention is a thing that Buddhists practice in the book "tao and longevity" and this book gives both pros and cons, Taoist and non. It is written by a Chinese. Another auther who touches on this point is Alex Anatole, he says that it is not natural to retain too much semen. In the end, it is a balance: to come or not to come. Yes, it does enhance martial power in potential. Young men, like myself, can afford to ejaculate once every 4 days or so. As you become older, like at 40, you need to slow down and ejaculate once every 2 weeks or so. Monthly after sixty...there are different guidlines for different people/ages, but the point is that this is a valid science and mentioned by Huang Ti. There is no doubt that Taoists transform jing to chi to shen, and then emptiness. The energy is replenished with qigong movements and taji that works with the three treasures, of course. Thank you for considering these points, it is fruitful to engage in this discussion.
I really think this article needs to be mosty re-written for accuracy. The paragraph about sexual energy is really not very helpful to the reader. Also, the claim that Chia addresses te spiritual side of a human being is unfounded. The UT system addresses both physical and spiritual holisticaly...while most teacher address one or the other, Chia is among the rare few who address both polarities of Heaven and Earth.
- You have your opinion. And I have my opinion. What we have to follow, regardless of opinion, is Wikipedia policy, especially WP:Not. There are many links to health studies done on traditional Taijiquan at that article, as well as a reporting of the various theories of the origin of Taijiquan as well as why the Taijiquan families are considered representative of the art internationally. But these are all things in the public domain, nothing that our editors have made up or are directly espousing in the articles. To make a point about how our encyclopaedia works, for example, while I personally wholeheartedly agree with the Zhang Sanfeng Wudangshan origin theory, I also know it is only my opinion and would never report it here as fact, even at the Zhang Sanfeng article. We can report that others believe it (and we have to say who and add links to verify it) but we can't ourselves say that Zhang Sanfeng actually invented Taijiquan in the 12th century by watching a fight between a snake and a crane. I hope that gives you an idea where I am coming from. --Fire Star 火星 16:04, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm not a fan of Mantak Chia personally - while I like the fact that he openly shares a lot of material that has been kept secret for a long time I've found his work to miss details - perhaps this is also his style of expression. I not sure why someone who doesn't seem to like him very much would want to put a wiki up here though.
[edit] divide and conquer
Wow, this terrible short article has spawned such a lively discussion! Why not create a separate, maybe long, section for criticism?
As an outsider (who an encyclopedic article should be written for), I couldn't care less who respects who. Looks like all can agree he's a businessman and not a monk or a pastor, so why not describe what he does for a living and who he's done it for? In particular, why is he notable if his teachings are so indistinguishable from his peers that plagiarism could plausibly go either way? Potatoswatter 07:40, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Divide and conquier? substantiate this crap
Why did someone delete the reference to Lee Erwin's article and regarding Yudelove, Lewis and Win? Whats up?
- I've restored that sourced statement. I've also restored other deleted info and provided references. Vassyana 13:15, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
