Qigong Psychotic Reaction

Hi Krisno - when I said:

I was referring to FQ's comments specifically, but I am critical of enlightenment philosophies generally. I don't understand the basis of the idea that all existence is unsatisfactory or illusory and I don't like the idea of personal liberation from it through a process of non-attachment. I suppose it goes against some pretty core beliefs for me. I appreciate your efforts to keep things civil, really, but I think FQ's rants were so out of order that I don't think he should be encouraged. I don't think this thread should turn into a debate on the relative merits of Buddhism or other philosophies either.

That said, please permit me to go off topic in order to post something of a (hopefully) more humourous kind...

 

Tis done. The 4 tenets of the beary godmothers:

Everyone belongs to everyone else - we are all part of a collective effort. Personal freedom is secondary to the collective good.

The bear is your personal friend. And mine. Hooray!

Book learning is over-rated. Get out into the countryside for some fresh air.

Piggies, like all other creatures, are sacred. Long live the piggies and their sweet little piggy faces. Piggies are our friends. Hooray!

 

Typical could even wait till I left MAP and you are already corrupting the holy word.
It's the bad fire for you my dear.

The Bear.

 

The mind is the master of illusion.
If we allow ourselves to be critical of others, it is a distinct possibility that we might also expect criticism ourselves. You say that you are "critical of enlightenment philosophies generally", yet you go on to say that you don't understand the basis. My understanding is that criticism follows knowledge.
Anyway, that is ok, core beliefs are part of all of us.

Thanks Joanna, however I must confess that I generally didn't find FQ's post offensive to begin with, but refreshing.
Maybe I see it this way because I miss some subtleties of western style communication? IMO when the debate deterioated , it did so across the board, everyone's conversation deteriorated and I could sense that all participants feelings were being hurt. It generally takes more than one to participate in conflict, and I think what was said initially was not understood in the spirit that it was meant to be conveyed.

Agreed, and I'm not attempting to debate the relative merits as you say. Despite that in my own culture, especially following the old ways, life philosophies and world views are very much a part of the process one encounters along the martial way. So I learn still!

Thank you.

 

Just in case I gave you the impression that I dismiss Buddhist thought I should mention I am fascinated by Buddhism and by various forms of religion hence why I studied religions and classical Tibetan for my undergraduate degree and indeed am still focusing on East Asian religions for my masters. What I am dismissive of is pseudo-Buddhist waffle which features prominently in New Age writings or from people who read a few books on Buddhism or meditated for a while and which tends to feature alongside an arrogant attitude of looking down on others as not having achieved their level of great insight.

 

What I meant was that I could in no way empathise with that particular world view - I think I "understand" it well enough conceptually.

Perhaps, but I think that one person can act as a catalyst and deliberately fan the flames of a conflict by purposely being personal and offensive while others are trying to bite their tongues and calm it down.

I think this remark is well said. I sometimes think of this as "no-mind syndrome" after some friends spoke of a (white) Yogic community they knew who got remarkably competitive over who had "achieved the state of no-mind" for the longest. It makes you wonder how they knew

Edit - yes that last comment is deliberately obtuse for comic effect.

 

It is very funny!

CKava, good luck for your masters.

Cheers

 

This enlightenment talk reminded me of a quote, though I can't remember whom by atm:

"What do you want to be enlightened for? You might not like it!"

 

I can tell you now, my feelings aren't hurt at all. I do enjoy conflict, personally, but I only use it as a specific tool. Nasty things can be said civily, and wise things said confrontationally, is the truth.

As for conflict - if every part of your life is a source of conflict, from what you eat through to where you live and what you do as a hobby, then that's not the world - it's you. It's no great Buddhist insight or anything - if we just read our own words, think about our own actions, the point where we escalate or push someone in to taking a position of conflcit with us will stand out like a sore thumb - IF we want to see it. The words we used, the things we said, the way we stood, the attitude we took...

This is actually a key self defence issue, relating to de-escalation of situations. Understanding if it's in our nature to escalate situations, is useful. Joanna is a professional self defence instructor, but within four or five posts she's arranging for someone to fly over from America to have a fight with her - which is funny, but she designed that conflict. All the power to de-escalate it was with her - and it was a really good example of how we design the outcomes of situations.

Especially if we then think of ourselves as the victim of life. Joanna wasn't the victim of that situation - she actually designed it to escalate in to that outcome.

If you can then take that, think about actual self defence encounters at the point of verbal confrontation, then you'll see some pretty useful self defence related stuff.

It's not a big thing - it's a simple thing - we design these situations ourselves - we're fully responsible. Some times, of course, we have no choice - our body can only do so much. Sometimes we're just getting it, no matter what, with no choice... but then we still do have one choice - how we feel about that. And that's no big thing either. We don't actually have to feel like a victim. A lot of post-attack counselling is based on this principle - it's not the "ideas of Satan" it's the ideas of re-empowering people after trauma. There's only so long people can go on feeling like a victim before they become their own victim. There was a woman in the paper today who was raped a week or so ago and then took her own life. On the one hand, I can see how terrible it seems to say that she's not a victim- but that just comes from misunderstanding language use. She's the victim of a crime - that's the "function" of victim, but in her mind, she's also got the psychological state of victim - and that state is a killer, literally, and for me at least, "self defence" doesn't just end with how to look after yourself - it extends in to after the attack, because like that woman, the attack can still attack you, long after.

Sorry, but Satanic as it may seem, it is self pity that is the attacker. Self pity is a cold phrase, but that's what it is, and people need self defence from self pity, because, like that woman, it can kill you. The only real self defence, then, is to change the psychological state away from "victim", and re-empower that person.


The best possible example of not being a victim is the Italian man who literally was decapitated and said "now you see howe an Italian dies" - he held on to all the power - he died horribly, but that was out of his hands - he just wasn't a victim, except in the most functional sense of the word. Separating the "function" of victim from the "psychological state" of victim is a key self defence principle.

I don't by any means feel any anger whatsoever to Joanna - the opposite - I think she's sweet and i like her, and I think she's a true seeker. My **** is cold, I'm afraid - no anger at all. I've really nothign left to be angry at with the world.

 

That's not the best of it. We've decided that you misinterpreted your own message.

 

He challenged me to a fight and I am not in the habit of backing down. He started it and I don't think anyone should get away with trying to intimidate or threaten others. If someone picks a fight with me, they get one - it is as simple as that. People only pick fights with others because they think they're going to win, and that's bullying. I never start these things, but I do like to give people more than they bargained for in order to teach them a lesson they couldn't learn any other way.

It is all a bit different than just guys posturing with each other. If one guy picks on another there is pride and status at stake. I am a disabled woman and a rather slight one at that. I have to walk with two sticks - this isn't a bleeding heart story - it is a great success as the doctors were ready to consign me to a wheelchair 11 years ago. I'm not big, or strong and there would be no status gained from beating me up. Sometimes my own students have commented that I don't look like the sort of person who could look after herself. I'm quite used to being seen as vulnerable. There is only one way to prove otherwise. One time a homophobic gang set on a friend of mine and it was clear they were intent on finishing him. I happened along just as the ringleader was coming to finish him off. I told him that if he went near my friend he'd have me to fight. He laughed. The next thing he was on his face in the road with me grinding his nose in the gutter. He ended up running away yelling abuse. It is important that smaller and more fragile looking people stand up to bullies. It is a matter of principle. And events such as that one stood me in good stead. Word gets around. I can only hope such experiences makes the bullies think twice before picking on people that they think are weaker than them.

 

Yeah, but he didn't do any of that Joanna - he just assesed your level unfavourably.

I'm not saying whether anyone was right or wrong, just pointing out the psychology of it - that you had the choice to escalate it, or not. Maybe you were right to - that's by the by - what's absoloutley true is that the choice was yours. You always had power over that situation.

I dunno, Joanna - makes me think, seriously, why is anyone else important enough for you to feel that you need to prove anything to them? That's like giving power to Stiffnready, as if he's someone you need to prove something to.

Still - you know, I thought it was funny, and courageous.

Well, myself, I don't believe that that is what happened here - not the same kind of situation. Someone criticised your level, is all - not bullying. I'm not saying you're wrong to challenge him - I've done the same myself - just saying, as an overview, we always have the power not to.

He didn't bully you Joanna - you just chose to see it like that. Seriously, he didn't - he just said something about your movement which you took offence to. Or, chose to take offence.

Even later, I think he was just letting you know that his opinion had merit because of his background, and that he'd really hurt you if you had a fight - which he would, I'm pretty sure. Is he bullying, or just telling you what he thinks?

Again, a lot of self defence scenarios are like this - and the net is a good teacher for this, because people have arguments on the net, and then they go back and re-read what set them off, only to find that people never even said half the things that they thought they did.

Criticising people's level might be a bit rude, but it's not bullying. Mirror mirror - one thing to think about is if he's just saying what he thinks, and you then instantly escalate it in to "well come over and I'll kick your ass..." well, isn't it actually you who is trying to intimidate the argument? I.e., something which I've seen countless times on the net in martial arts - "criticise me or my thing and it will mean violence for you... " Isn't that what you did? Seriously - that would make you the bully, wouldn't it??

 

Like I said - he started it. And of course it was bullying - or sneering or some other kind of spiteful childish behaviour.

Seriously FQ - we'd have to see. I've dealt with psychos before now, so I'm not generally afraid of other martial artists - martial artists generally know they still have things to learn and their pure seething malevolence won't get them through any situation.

FQ - I don't see the need to criticise other individuals' movement at all. There are just too many schools of thought for any one perspective to be considered absolutely right.

As I said - he was the one who started it - he said we should fight. I think that unless you have fought someone you have no right to comment on your opinion of their skill. You can't possibly know, whatever you think you can see. I get plenty of positive feedback from other reputable teachers. Who are all these anonymous expert forum warriors who hide behind pseudonyms like Stiffnready or Fire-quan? At least people know precisely who I am and they are free to come and train if they wish.

And you are a stirrer, FQ. Everything you say is intended to wind people up. That's why you are called Fire-quan.

 

This thread has generated some interesting discussion however I fail to see how quite a few recent posts are contributive to the original topic. If anyone has an axe to grind with anyone else, MAP is not the place to do it.

With that in mind I am closing the thread for now.