As illuminating as quotes from books can be, I am not sure of what your point is, Gerard. I practice my qigong every day, and work with it guiding addicts through detox. I also use it in my martial arts. I am extremely comfortable in my perception of qi, and we can all percieve it however we choose. To say I am wrong in that is fine with me, but I think you should ask yourself what you are really looking for. Does it come from Chinese soap operas, kung fu movies, and B.K. Frantzis books? I don't deny that interesting things can happen when you really start exploring your body, but the search for some kind of holy grail or matrix-like existence is an unsustainable pursuit. My Chinese teachers, both in qigong/IMA and Chinese medicine strike me as being rather pragmatic, and the tend to laugh at the westernized perception of qi. A French acupuncturist defined qi as "energy"... does this mean that it must be definitively that? Ask a Chinese person what qi is, and you will find that there is about thirty different answers, depending on the location and function. I think what I am getting at is that you can call qi, and qigong whatever you please-- the practice is what counts, and I tend to be a little skeptical of people who seem to be attached to an unrealistic, hollywood version of what is really going on. That sort of dialogue merely fuels people who don't share the same romantic terminology to not try an amazing system of health and balance.
Hahahahahahahahahahaha Nice one (You obviously haven't met many of the MA 'masters' I have then! lol most of them smoke, drink, like the odd 'j' and are fornicating like rabbits at every available opportunity - usually with various partners lol. Chen Man Ching famously drank himself to death and Yang Cheng Fu lived a short life due to over-indulgence in the eating department lol) All: The warnings given by past qigong masters are because people who develop their qi are historically prone to getting 'into' their power at a base level and their ego's tend to get out of control. They fail to progress to a higher stage of development. Think about it: all day long people are calling you 'master' and constantly bigging you up. You feel filled with energy and power. You can do stuff with ease that other folk just gawp at.... it's a trap - and most people don't see it til they're well and truly caught in it. That is what the masters mean by 'immoral' - a life out of balance, selfish, excessive, egoistic, indulgent, dispassionate, uncaring, cruel etc etc If you guys don't like to hear that, I'm sorry. But that is the Way as expressed by traditional Taoists and Buddhists alike. More secular teachers have their own personal values to put forward which will depend on the individual teacher... I don't think you're patronizing - I agree with you on that, but I don't think that's what gerard is doing really. I just guess others don't like to hear his point of view - I also suspect there may be a 'history' at work here? Peace people - we are merely at different points on the yin yang circle - each has his place in the Tao :Angel:
I'm gonna jump in and then jump back out... Part of the "immorality" issue comes from the fact that SOME chi kung practitoners were also Taoists. "Virtue" has a very specific definition in Taoism. TjB nailed it on the head however with the following statement: "They fail to progress to a higher stage of development." They get themselves stuck in a spiritual rut, live imorral lives of excess and egoism, and yes, that has an impact on the body. Abusing your body can and will impact your personal energy. Smoking, drinking to excess, eating the wrong foods to excess, and yes, even sex to excess, will stunt your spiritual growth according to the masters; when your spiritual growth is stunted, so is your qi. Taiji, I thank you for your eloquence on this matter, it was a much needed reminder for this reader anyway
TB, good post mate Its not that I did not appreciate the quote that Gerard provided. It's the context in which it was put. Indulgence is weakness. That is a precept I study and understand well - boiled down into 3 words neat huh? I don't need Gerards holier than though surmon. Which is how it seemed to be presented. I think he might consider that when using other peoples thoughts and opinions, and would question his need to do so. Sometimes its not what you say its how you say it.btw I know you rock when it comes to the qirunch I'm a romantic too at heart, but mostly with the ladies o yeah I forgot some people dissaprove of that aswell ye, ye I know you're not supposed to...you'll have to teach me that sometime.... Gerard, on the whole I like your posts(informative) and respect your beliefs. You regularly put a smile on my face-in a good way. Please don't think that I would in any way was/would be tense over this I am quite at ease with feeling and not being touched. Some people might find me a tad too detached & relaxed..I am also though a compassionate person so I hope you are feeling my happy thought vibrations to you. We all have certain beleifs and that's cool but we should all do our best to be less judgementalof others. peace Diamond mind, Willow heart.
Gerard, I don't mean to get down on you either-- I am sure that you have a very fulfilling practice. Here's the thing: As I make my way through acupuncture school, one thing that pleases me continually is that there are far fewer discrepencies between the Chinese functional body and the western model than I had originally thought. As we poked and prodded our way through cadavers, and learned western physiology next to Chinese physiology, I realized that both of them came from people observing functioning in the body. This functioning is what there is, for better or for worse... I think that the difference in the two models comes from the application of that physiology. Now, does that mean that most people are not capable of more? Of course not. And spiritually, I think that there is a whole other level of practice, which, as Frantzis and many others have pointed out, is wholly contingent on essentially clearing your physiology of imbalance. I think that we are both on the same path, bud. It really just boils down to semantic differences. What I find is that, as a person who is going to try to spread a concept of qi to as many people as possible, I tend to find our westernized romantic views of it to be doing a disservice to the concept. In place of practice, we substitute metaphor and fantasy.
I don't mind looking at things from a new POV at all, i just don't like to be 'threatened' to do so by 'fire'n'brimstone' methods. No history though ! Gerard, i'm not trying to 'pick a fight' with you. I suppose i just couldn't help it when i saw your post, especially since i draw much on the powers of Chi too (not only as part of training, but also through the fact that it's part of my beliefs as a Mikkyo-practitioner) and therefore feel that i know a bit about how to 'handle those powers' too.
Between you and me there will be conflict: You were born in year 1972 (Rat) I in 1966 (Horse) So, according to the Chinese Zodiac: Rat and HORSE Unhappiness. Strong conflicts in in love and business relations. Personality clashes and bitter rivalry.
Bguy, You are generalising. Like anything in life nothing is eternal and that includes Taoism and Buddhism (law of impermanence). If individuals become immoral I don't care I still continue with my practice. Qigong is an amazing practice that could be used for the wrong purpose, hence its benefits will be quickly lost. Who cares about what others do, just focus in your own path. Like I do.
No problems gerard... just dont buy anything off me, I wont buy anything of you and lets not fall in love... .. as for the personality thing that is not predestined... if we agree to accept that would mitigate alot of that... (has happened before and we ended up being pretty good friends)... btw good posts
Hmmmm, all put together... I think i've figured out what Chi/Ki/Qi can do!!! It can make people disagree !! I think the whole issue on this is, that Chi/Ki/Qi does alot of different things to alot of different people. I may be wrong on this, but it sure seems like the only certain thing (after having read this thread thorougly ).
Gerard, while I may agree with you, you threw a quote out there which caused somewhat of a lively discussion! "Immorality", although subjective, can be generalized, and for purposes of the new path this thread has taken, is going to be discussed I guess. I'd dare say that every path defines "morality" and "immorality" in some manner. and since it was brought up, we need to address it.
Bguy, OK I quickly refer to Gautama Buddha's eightfold path: I. Right Intention, or the commitment to ethical and mental self-improvement. Buddha distinguishes three types of right intentions: 1. The intention of renunciation, which means resistance to the pull of desire, 2. The intention of good will, meaning resistance to feelings of anger and aversion, and 3. The intention of harmlessness, meaning not to think or act cruelly, violently, or aggressively, and to develop compassion. II. Right Speech. Gautama siad that words can break or save lives, make enemies or friends, start war or create peace (I need to address this path). Buddha explained right speech as: 1. Abstain from false speech, especially not to tell deliberate lies and not to speak deceitfully, 2. Abstain from slanderous speech and not to use words maliciously against others, 3. Abstain from harsh words that offend or hurt others, and 4. Abstain from idle chatter that lacks purpose or depth. Positively phrased, this means to tell the truth, to speak friendly, warm, and gently and to talk only when necessary. III. Right Action. This principle is explained by Gautama as: 1. Abstain from harming sentient beings, especially to abstain from taking life (including suicide) and doing harm intentionally or delinquently, 2. Abstain from taking what is not given, which includes stealing, robbery, fraud, deceitfulness, and dishonesty, and 3. Abstain from sexual misconduct. Generally speaking, right action means to act kindly and compassionately, to be honest, to respect the belongings of others, and to keep sexual relationships harmless to others. IV. Right Livelihood. Gautama mentions four specific activities that harm other beings and that one should avoid for this reason: 1. Dealing with weapons, 2. Dealing with living beings (including raising animals for slaughter as well as slave trade and prostitution), 3. Working in meat production and butchery, and 4. Selling intoxicants and poisons, such as alcohol and drugs. Furthermore any other occupation that would violate the principles of right speech and right action should be avoided. I left the other four out because they are not directly related to immorality. Hope this helps.
Please stop throwing out Buddhist and Taoist quotes and perhaps speak? You're tossing out some good stuff, but it seems completely unrelated to the topic at hand... Ok, after waking up a bit, let me try this again... what it looks like is you're strengthening your earlier position that Buddhism advocates bettering the self over worrying about what everyone else is doing, yes?
And, while there are Buddhist strains of qigong in China, Buddha was not actually advocating qigong. Taoism and Buddhism are two very different systems that may or may not lead to the same place.
And while we're at it....(lol) religious dogma and natural morality are two completely different things imo. Despite being a practising Buddhist myself (but not the type that follows that code above), when it comes to IMA and qigong I'm with the (non-religious) Taoist approach ie observe the balance and work with the flow :Angel: That's my definition of morality :Angel:
That is a good def TB... something I am aiming (with varying degrees of success (just ask my wife)) for...
As an outsider looking in....... I have been reading about and studying everything I can about chi/qi/ki for sometime, including the history and practice of accupuncture, moxibustion, and related arts. One problem I see with trying to understand what qi does is the disagreement so many have over what qi is. Based on my readings, I find that the original meaning of qi to Chinese philosophers and medics is very subjective and somewhat nebulous: it is an 'essence', or something that makes something work. Think of 'qi' as equivalent to the English word 'health'. Now ask similar questions as to what is often found in qi threads: Does 'health' exist? What does 'health' do? How can 'health' improve your martial arts practice? Answers: Health exists, and it affects your MA practice. You notice it more by its absence than by its presence. You don't really feel it, and you can't exactly measure it, but you know when you have it and recognize when there's something wrong with it. There are exercises you can perform to improve it. There are things you can do to destroy it. No, it can't be focused, shot out like lazer beams, or passed to other people. With all that said, no offense to any posters on this thread, but the greatest obstacle I have encountered to any understanding or acceptance of the possibility of chi/qi/ki, has been the well-meaning but left-field posts by those who believe in a very explicitly-defined, experiential, and incorrect (i.e.: non-historical) version of chi.
