Qi and science (please no trolling)

Last link:

http://www.pilotbaba.org/


About a living yogi who proves all the stuff I have just mentioned.

Also interesting is the fact that he mentions stuff that many of the people in here are aware of: Samadhi. The Great Consciousness, Enlightenment :Angel:



Fu.

 

Ah, well, I'll just get your permission before I make any more posts here at all then, shall I?

I'm not used to being lectured by a two year student. When you can do what I can do with ch'i, my friend, then you can take that tone with me with impunity. You said I was utterly wrong, I wasn't. Who needs to do more research?

I've been friendly enough with you, but you have shown yourself to be arrogant and inaccurate. I am a full time teacher who represents one of the best internal schools in the world. An apology is expected.

-HKP

 

I didn't say that. Simply back up with anything you put forward.

Never judge a book by the cover. What do you know about me?

There are many masters in many disciplines who don't see beyond their eyes. Unfortunately they haven't reached Enlightenment. Still stuck in reality.

I don't see qi as nothing but a mere physical thing. You lost the whole point if you focus your life in what's inside reality. Typical of martial artists. Who's being arrogant you or me?

Personally I believe that qi is just a side effect of practice. Look at the bigger picture my friend.

Who's arrogant again. I am simply Gerard and I'll remain as such. Just a being as simple as that.

If sorry is what you want I give it to you but it won't change your ego.

 

Can't we all just get along?

 

I am trying too. But ego is a very powerful thing to get rid of. I am working on it too

Anyway this is a forum of debate, so it's logical that different points of view end up colliding. Personally who cares, everything is relative. Like this:

:woo: :Angel:




Peace, love and fu (good luck charm) for everyone

 

All of the examples you mentioned are contained in the one webpage you referenced, and I wasn't able to verify them anywhere else independently. I am always skeptical of anything with only one reference (in this case, the webpage you mentioned). Please don't take that personally....I am just as skeptical of any websites/posts that seem to be the only source for information, even if that information supports points of view that I agree with.

I checked the reference list at the end of the post. None of the 'research' with yogis included any references to juried articles or medical records that could be checked by others. The number that I found for the world record for unaided underwater breath-holding (12 min. 47 sec.) was from Guiness, although admittedly it was a back-copy (not the 2004 edition).

The point of the article in your link, though, seemed to be that all of the physical effects of meditation were caused by control of physical processes (throat/abdominal muscles, e.g.), and not by any spiritual/mystical effects. If I am understanding your posts, I think (??) that you agree with that conclusion. (If that's not what you mean, and I'm just misreading your posts, please forgive me for being a total dunderhead, and re-post so I can understand your view on this.) What do you see as the dividing line between the spiritual and the physical in the question of chi/ki/qi and meditation?

 

Fair enough. I'll provide you with the references you are after. It was my fault for not providing info with Academic Journal Articles, Conference Papers, Books (in the first link respectable authors and their books were provided, i.e. Eliade Mircea who took his doctorate in 1933 - his thesis dealt with the history of yogic techniques. He was also appointed as Associate Professor the same year).

The link is:

http://www.noetic.org/research/medbiblio/biblio.htm

You are providing a wrong fact. I am also a recreational freediver and the current WR in static breath-holding are:

Male: Martin Stepanek (Czech Republic) 8'06" in 13-11-2003


Female: Annabel Briseno (USA) 6:21 min in 3-7-2001


Source (reputable): http://www.aida-international.org/current_world_records.htm

BTW the Guiness Book of Records is as reputable as the facts given in commercial TV

Sorry but Human Science does not have the tools to measure metaphysical events. Period.

Re-read what I have just said before. I am just providing info about the side-effects of meditation.



Regards.

 

Within us there is a hidden part of our own Ego that is never visible. As the Moon has two faces, one that is visible and another that is hidden, in the same way we have an occult part that is not visible. You my friend are projecting to other people what you have inside: Arrogance and innacuracy.


Anyway, I can tell you things about me that make me imperfect:

1. Impulsiveness

2. Doing too many things at the same time

3. Criticising people.


They don't make a Buddha, but I am working on them. It takes time though.


But arrogance and inaccuracy? No way.


爱和和平

 

Gerard
I think you may, if you don't already enjoy this forum.
http://www.cyberkwoon.com/forum/index.php
I feel many of the members there, discuss simular topics as you, Soggy Cat and Mad about Bagua are fond of.
See what you think.

 

They gotta start breathing again eventually. Wouldn't that be a cool obituary though? "He just meditated himself to death."

Anyway, all I'm saying is...breath is part of it and isn't it neat how oxygen is what causes metabolism. I think it's neat that those guys figured it out way before exercise physiology caught up.

 

I want to second some things a few people have said.

First - what does physical conditioning and extreme fitness have to do with the supernatural effects of chi? Even if these yogi's were able to hold their breath for longer than 10 minutes, what is the evidence that that has anything to do with the metaphysical/supernatural?

Second - It's always a laugh reading some of these posts. I thought I knew the definition of smug before I found this site but it's amazing how high some people can make their own pedestals.

Third - if some of the claims and "evidence" for these arguments were shown to any university professor, or high school teacher, as part of an assessed report, they'd be laughed out of the room.

 

And once again, the taoists are fighting. Whatever happened to the wise man saying little?

 

Who's fighting? I said what I've said and I stand by it. I remain unconvinced otherwise. This is an impasse, not a fight.

Saying little in this case is indeed wise, though, there's no point arguing with someone who isn't interested in actually arguing. :cry:

Cheers,
-HKP

 

Ah, I don't think that exercise physiology HAS caught up! They are reinventing the wheel, IMO, and they have a few centuries to go...

-HKP

 

From my very limited experience of things that don't quite fit in with our "rules" or "understanding", I think you are right. I would apply this to any science. In my opinion I think we are way off the mark in most of these areas!

There's also plenty of historical evidence to suggest that this would be true.

Isn't it funny, how people always live under the dillusion that we are at the pinnacle of understanding. Most people don't even understand themselves.

 

Sorry, I have to take issue with this:

That, in itself, dosen't mean it's wrong - everyone from Aristotle to Galileo thought that 'heavy objects fall faster than lighter ones', without actually bothering to check. That's about 2,000 years of being wrong.

 

Just guessing
But I would say Nzric is talking about "evidence" as support for claims of truth within a framework based on logic and reason.
Since everyone loves links so much maybe this one will be a good read.
http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/skepticism/blskep_flaw.htm
So if we can all agree to use rationally justified Claims then we are all argueing from the same basis.

The emphasis here is that truth of claims are not based on (or should not be influenced by) tradition, ritual, dogma or authorities; instead logic and reason derived from rational evidence.Free thought is based on reason, for a claim to be true it must be testable (supported with evidence, open to repetition of tests), falsifiable (disconfirmed or disproved by evidence), parsimonious (requiring the fewest assumptions) and logical (free of contradictions). Freethinking is probally the best format we have for these types of discussions.
Ofcause logic and reason is not an absolute law that governs the universe nor is it a guideline for behaviour.There are limitations to logic and reason so feel free to branch into your metaphsyical philosphy debates.
Sorry just pulled stuff from an essay I was just completeing.
Anyhoo you all just argue on & on & on

 

Beliefs can never be proven or dissproven because they are in our minds, i.e. religion. The day that 'science' can delve into our thoughts and emotions and decide whether they are true or not is the day being alive has no meaning. The mind is not something to toy with.

-Sean

 

That website should be required reading for everyone on the forum. It's fun figuring out which fallacies you're guilty of-- I tend towards begging the question and the genetic ad hominem myself.

 

Let me ask you a question:

Can you read?

If so please re-read my fifth post in:

http://www.martialartsplanet.com/forums/showthread.php?t=14273&page=2&pp=15

There you'll find attached two links. Once you find them gor for the second one, check it and above all READ IT!. Then, let me know about the background of the authors. However I'll give you a clue: They all hold PhD's.

If you can't, I recommend you to enrol in a school in your local area.


Thanks.