styrofoamdog

I've often wondered about his exercises. From what I have read about him, he was taught exercises called "Bagua". Some people say that he practiced Baguazhang, but I'm not sure if this is true. Considering the date at which he is said to have learned the exercises, Baguazhang wouldn't have existed. I've tended to think that his Bagua exercises were a form of Qigong... "What was the secret to his longevity? When he was 130 years old, he encountered a very old man in the mountains. This man claimed to be 500 years old and attributed his longevity to having practiced a set of exercises similar to Tai Chi Ch'uan. Called Ba-Kua, they included specific sounds, breathing instructions, dietary, and herbal recommendations. The mountain hermit taught these to Li Ch'ing Yuen and he taught them to Da Liu."

This thread is ridiculous. Nobody really knows a lot about Wang Liping, and we're all just BS'ing about whether we think a master should charge students or not.

It sounds very similar to what goes on in some pentecostal and evangelical churches ("speaking in tongues", "being slain in the spirit", etc.). The power of suggestion, coupled with stress or poor living conditions can have a big effect on some people. America: the new Medieval Europe!

If the seminar is $2000, I think that's a pretty reasonable price. Also, I think people should calm down and be reasonable about this. We don't know a lot about Wang Liping. His book and reputation make some pretty bold claims, and I think we're all just trying to learn more about the guy and what he teaches. Let's give it some time and keep our minds open to the possibilities, but grounded in reality. Drawing conclusions before we have the facts is irresponsible and unfair.

r.w. smith makes some compelling points. I'd also like to add that I find it strange that Wang Liping's teachers were of the "secret enlightened wandering master / hermit" variety, as this is often a cover for people who have no lineage, or less-than-impressive lineage. These teachers may exist, but between the ethereal teachers, the published book touting him, and supposed $10k seminars, something doesn't quite add up. He may very well be the real deal, but I'm not sure I would risk $10k on a seminar when he may not be. After all, it's only a seminar. It's not like the guy is going to hand the keys to enlightenment over to you, and the guy standing next to you with the khaki shorts and the camera hanging from his neck.

Nan Huaijin is a very respected Chan Buddhist master and teacher, but I believe your claim on him being considered "the best" is pretty presumptive. Nobody knows who the most advanced cultivators are, and there is no consensus within Chan Buddhism that I have ever heard about. Also, Daoism and Buddhism are based on desire? Where did you get this from? When I read Daoist classics, they don't mention desire as being of primary importance. The framework of desire/suffering is largely one from Buddhism. And with Buddhism, I believe the correct way to state your point would be that it is aimed at ending desire/suffering. Also, I would like you to back up your claim that full lotus "burns karma" with a reference from one of Nan Huaijin's books. What causes transformation of the body? Is it simply sitting in a posture? No, Nan Huaijin teaches that the transformation of the body is ultimately in the refinement and quieting of the mind and breath. He teaches that when the mind achieves stillness and the breathing is refined, Qi arises and moves naturally. The Qi transforms the body and gradually clears the channels in the legs. Simply stretching and contorting the legs is not enough. As you wrote yourself, being able to sit in full lotus comfortably is only a demonstration that the Qi channels have opened. By trying to use this as your argument, you are confusing the result with the cause. And again at the end, you devolve into pseudo-intellectual masturbation because you have can't point to an instance one of Nan Huaijin's books where he states that full lotus is essential for cultivation.

So in other words, you can't cite any examples of Nan Huaijin stating that full lotus is essential for cultivation.

Drew, by your logic, we should all be occasional smokers, because Nan Huaijin smokes from time to time. Still waiting for a quote from him stating that full lotus is the key to cultivation.

I think this is mostly an argument for or against esoteric methods, which favor lineages, transmission, etc. In more esoteric schools, there are specific practices said to speed up cultivation, or direct it. In other practices (most forms of Daoism and Buddhism), emptiness meditation is the principle method. The emptiness produces Qi, opens meridians, etc. naturally. For these, studying works such as Daoist classics and Buddhist sutras can point people in the right direction. For esoteric teachings, it isn't so easy. And I agree that studying is not a substitute for practice.

Ah, I think I understand your point. I also disagree with the way Bill wrote about it (which I found a bit disrespectful), which is why I recommended the Nan Huaijin book originally. My views are that for spiritual cultivation, only meditation without thoughts is necessary. From what I understand, this is the common denominator among religions and spiritual practices. But I don't mean to say that other practices are useless.

Drew, you still haven't produced a single example of Nan Huaijin stating that full lotus is essential. If you are going to keep trying to push this, you should back it up with an example. Vajrasattva and mjjbecker, I understand that you favor your experiences over books, but if you only draw from your own environment and experiences, you are ignoring what others have learned in the past. I understand that esoteric Buddhist schools have moving forms, but it is also understood by Buddhists that this is not the only way, or the simplest way. We should remember that Nan Huaijin has not only practiced Chan Buddhism. He is familiar with this form of Buddhism, but teaches Chan as the essential and most direct path. He also criticizes attempts to keep secrets within "transmissions", or hiding knowledge, when the Bodhisattva's vows compel Buddhists to teach humanity in earnest. Also, I should note that Bill's views are not necessarily Nan's. I don't think that Nan Huaijin would be so negative or take such a dogmatic approach saying that moving forms are useless. And Nan has written some favorable things about esoteric Buddhism, although there are few of his books available in English.

It's true that he did many ascetic practices and austerities, but did he become enlightened from them? Insofar as they pointed him to the path that he eventually found, they did. But did he become enlightened through practicing them? I don't think so. We know what he passed on to his disciples through the sutras. And the major Buddhist sutras, Daoist classics, Confucian writings, memoirs of Saints, etc. do not mention moving practices being key. There are certainly spiritual practices that involve movements in some traditions (such as Tibetan and esoteric forms of Buddhism), but in large, still meditation / prayer have been the methods of spiritual development used by Buddhist masters, Daoist sages, and Christian saints.

Agreed. I'm beginning to think that people confuse the causes with the results, and so they think they have to force Qi through different areas in specific ways to practice cultivation. I think everything unfolds naturally from emptiness meditation. Otherwise, did the Shakyamuni Buddha need to practice moving exercises? Did he move Qi around consciously to make progress? None of his teachings are about these things. What he does teach is emptiness, halting the conception of thoughts. In Daoism this is repeated over and over again as well. For example, the 250-year old Daoist immortal Li Ching Yuen said that the fundamental Daoist practice is to keep emptiness. If you are going to keep trying to use Nan Huaijin's reputation to lend credibility to your own views, then you could at least reference something from him stating that full lotus is essential. Nan Huaijin emphasizes emptying the mind of thoughts and discarding the skandha of conception. He doesn't teach that any form or posture is necessary, and introduces a variety of meditation postures for readers to pick from.

Frankly, everyone here disagrees on everything of this nature.... If you want clarification on this, I would really recommend Nan Huaijin's book Tao & Longevity, which answers the questions you have about circulation and how it relates to cultivation.

It's true, those are only artifacts from the compression. I wonder what Wang Liping's impressions of David are? And if he knows how much David charges his students for the foundation training?

Kunlun and Maoshan are mountains, not methods. I don't know why Max felt that he had to re-brand his teacher's qigong method. Notice also, that Jenny Lamb describes the practice as "qigong" and not "neigong". In other words, it specifically works with qi, not with a "bliss energy" unique to the practice. But in my opinion, anyone who tries to trace their practice back to Egyptian mystery schools might as well be selling magic crystals and wearing a tie-dye t-shirt.

Thank you for sharing your insight with us, and best of luck in your time away from society. I hope it is very helpful for you and your meditation.

This is very true. Especially in the Embryonic Breathing and Small Circulation books, it seems like half of the books are just translations of old classics written by Daoist cultivators, which include the original Chinese. This sort of pure, scholarly treatment is what drew me to his books when I was younger. He is also an engineer, and certainly brings that engineering mindset into his books. That's interesting about Liang Shouyu... I thought that he must have real skill considering his background in Gongfu, but I was always a bit confounded that he coached students in the standardized Wushu forms.

I have his books on Embryonic Breathing and Small Circulation. But unfortunately after experiencing more in meditation, I can't recommend them. I don't think that he understands the subjects well enough to be able to write authoritatively on them. It seems like most of it comes from book knowledge rather than real experience. But he is a very intelligent man with an analytic mind, not to mention a great Gongfu master.

Has anyone read my posts and realized that I'm not criticizing Full Lotus? As I've stated several times in the past, it's probably the most effective general meditation posture. However, I was and am still skeptical that it is the most important point in cultivation as some claim it is.

Thanks for clarifying this. Information on Wang Liping is a bit hard to come by, so it's always interesting when those "in the know" can shed some light on it. That may be true, but if I took everything that Sean Denty says seriously....

1. Nan Huajin covers the same subject in the book that I have read. To him, sitting in Full Lotus very comfortably demonstrates -- the key word -- that the legs have been opened. But the method of meditation that he teaches in order to achieve this state does not require sitting in Full Lotus. 2. I'm not familiar with Chunyi Lin and had never heard of him before reading your posts. 3. Wang Liping was going through very rigorous training from the beginning with no intermediate steps. But how does him learning meditation that happens to use Full Lotus, demonstrate that the posture is the key to his training? I've never heard of him or any of his students stating that it is a key element in cultivation. 4. I generally don't look to Yoga for cues on Daoist meditation.

Just about everyone who meditates has a high regard for Full Lotus. Nobody has disrespected it from what I have read. The issue is, and has always been, people claiming that it is the key to meditation and trying to say that certain masters agree with this view. To the best of my knowledge this has never been taught by Nan Huaijin and Wang Liping.

He's also wearing a white collared shirt.

Notice that Wang Liping does not say that Full Lotus alone can build the dan tian. He implies that one of the three variations of Lotus should be used. And also, it only addresses the stage of building up the dan tian, and not necessarily stages following that. In the Nan Huaijin book referenced, there is no requirement of any Lotus position under that section from what I read. In fact, it states that there are up to 96 different positions for meditation, and only cites Lotus as an example. Wang Liping's reasoning for Lotus (any of the three) is that it blocks off the legs so qi doesn't flow down into the legs. Nan Huaijin only states (Tao & Longevity) that Lotus (any of the three) postures are useful because they balance qi between the legs. So I have yet to see anything from them stating that Full Lotus specifically is required at any stage of cultivation.