QUESTIONS CONCERNING INTENSIVE COURSES
An Intensive Chi Kung Course in Malaysia
QuestionYour intensive course in Malaysia is quite expensive for me. An immediate option would be to attend the 3-day course at Madrid. Are the teachings you will give there good for what I need? Are those teachings at the same level of the intensive course?
AnswerBy ordinary standard, my intensive course is expensive for most people, including the rich. Charging US$1000 for three days of lessons is exorbitant compared to what most chi kung teachers charge, which is about US$50 for a month.
On the other hand, my intensive course students have repeatedly told me that the time and money were well spent, and that they had some of their best experiences of their lives. In fact I just received an e-mail from Neil of Canada who told me he would gladly have paid a hundred times more.
If coming to Malaysia for an intensive course is not within your budget at present, a good alternative is to attend one of my chi kung classes in Spain, Portugal or other places where I teach. These classes certainly serve the students' needs, or else I would not offer them. Even if I offered them, no students would attend if their needs are not fulfilled. My chi kung classes are also expensive when compared to other chi kung classes, but they are much cheaper than my intensive courses.
The content of these chi kung classes and of my intensive courses in Malaysia are externally the "same" but the result are vastly different. Many people, including Jeffrey and Luis mentioned earlier, who have attended both the classes and the intensive courses have mentioned the vast difference.
In fact Jeffrey who just completed my intensive course a second time recently (in December), wanted to attend the next intensive course in March. I told him that while he would certainly benefit from the "same" intensive course the third time, it might be better for him to repeat my Shaolin Kungfu or Taijiquan intensive courses instead.
The level as well as nature of my teaching in chi kung classes and in intensive courses are different. It is not that because students pay me more in intensive courses, I teach better. I believe a good teacher gives his best, and I practise what I preach.
The methodology and pace in teaching a class of 100 students are understandably different from teaching a course of 20 students. If they were the same, then either he is a poor teacher (he does not know how to tailor his teaching to suit the situation); or he does not give his best (he uses the same methodology irrespective of the situation).
When I have a small group, as in an intensive course, I employ the highest level of teaching, i.e. transmitting skills from heart to heart. This is not feasible when the group is large, in which case I employ the highest level of teaching suitable for the situation, which is often instructing according to the progress of the students.
There is also a vast difference in the learning process. In a small group I can easily monitor the progress of every student. When a student meets an obstacle, for example, I can go to the student immediately and help him overcome the obstacle, thus speeding up his progress.
In a large group I also try to monitor every student, but due to the large number each one would logically receive less personal attention. Hence, obstacles of some students may be overlooked, or even if I could detect them I might not have sufficient time to attend to them at the same time. Their progress is therefore delayed.
Such fine points may not make any difference in teaching or learning gymnastics or dance, but they make a great difference in internal arts like chi kung where training of energy and mind is involved. For example, if a dancer tenses a muscle, he can still perform his dance. But if a chi kung student tenses a muscle and it is not detected and corrected, he may have energy blockage throughout that exercise instead of enjoying beneficial energy flow.