December 2, 2006 at 11:02 pm #19704
Or in other words, someone needs to separate chi kung into a system of exercises totally devoid of theological/chinese frameworks..
by doing this, by changing the language, the exercises can be presented as an end to themselves.. results are results..
they can be a medical hypothesis pending further proof
that doesn’t mean you elimanate the chinese versions, you just separate exercise from thoughts about the exercise..
then everyone can experience the results; it needs a new language, and a more speculative hypothesisDecember 3, 2006 at 2:01 am #19705
Seems to me you enjoy the results, but do not enjoy what that means in terms of the validity of its cosmology.
I will say the modern western language is laking in reguads to the energetic world. So translation is not easy. But there have been people like Michael Win and others that try to make this easier. As for science it has its place, and I warn against making it your god. I as I would warn against making religion your god. Both I feel have roots in curiosity and fear. Faith in ones experience, faith in ones self, freedom from collectivism. As you can see what has happend to yoga. Often devoid of the simple life that it was all about. But it is all up to us, we choose how to use the gifts we are given. Even when most feel that they work for god, often I find they work to fit god into there box.December 3, 2006 at 10:51 am #19707
I agree. It is our challenge to make this practice our own and therefore be a conduit for the world that surrounds us. It is easier said than done though to be purely objective. Everyone of us carries deep rooted beliefs that affect results…or affect how we respond to the results.
Wouldn’t it be more effective to teach this in a way that allows an examination of what is happening in the present, including what beliefs arise from the experience? Teach in a way that opens us up to our own power to craft our reality accordingly?
I used the cosmology to uproot and challenge beliefs of polarity I didn’t know I was using. They had become default. In this way the taoist cosmology served a purpose. The tricky part is when to put the map down because it obscures.
I think it is a losing proposition to separate the thoughts from the exercise. It may generate/support more inner divisions and illusions of objectivity. Why not teach a cosmology that embraces the whole and also teach in a way that allows the learner to digest what they find on their own?
I think this is what you are suggesting. a more speculative hypothesis, and this is exciting. But how to get there when we are talking about human transformation is the challenge. barryDecember 3, 2006 at 12:25 pm #19709
What i am saying is that if it’s “real”, then the exercises should be scientifically, biologically verified with the same vigorous methodology that has brought us neurochemistry, PCR mapping, qualified physicians, etc
these exercises should be expressable in a “proven” contemporary language involving dielectric, monopole, gravito-magnetic, synaptic etc terminology
these exercises should be devoid of “hypothetical” ultimates and projections, they should exist at the level of pure occurence and mapping
This is NOT what chi kung is.. chi kung is a primarily internal experience with cosmological projections built into it..
many people think it’s a self convinced placebo.. a product of continous self induced “metaprogramming” aka brainwashing
that’s fine as long as you truly relax and it benefits your life, i guess,
but, i for one, have had continued experiences of “mental fields”, and some sort of magnetic plasma and auras..
if it is true, there should be no question of it, obviously there is still doubt..
By using a language of scientific rigor a new future can develop more condusive to future development..
things simply cannot stagnate, the direction is scientific non-ubjective rigorDecember 3, 2006 at 12:27 pm #19711December 3, 2006 at 4:02 pm #19713
So why not this too? It is a language worth exploring I just don’t see how it is any more objective. Humans using the limits of their senses to understand phenomena and basing it on certain assumptions of what is real.
I heard a scientist explain with all the rigor of his field there is no difference between an organic carrot and a store bought general carrot. I am not sure he could trust his own senses and he was asking me to mistrust mine in the name of objective research.
Same could be said for taoist scriptures too, placing a belief or perception on top of the experience.
It is a good topic. I have aversion to scientific reasoning and need to look at that. It polarizes me. I am interested in how chi kung would be taught without the cosmology. Are you aware of sources of this? BarryDecember 3, 2006 at 5:06 pm #19715
i think this is a great idea, but no chinese will do it, cause they’re verry fond of being the source of such a science
neither the occidental folks will do it, cause they lack the motivation – why would anyone do it, i mean i a nice thought, will make us forget the indebtness we have for the chinese…
but it sounds like such a huge project. talking about science, who do you think will have sufficient objectivity (lest for a master)
yes, we have people like winn to do that, though…
i think this will happen only in time, and maturity tells us that it’ll happen only when we will contribute so much to this oriental art, that it will truely become a east-west symbiont, if not a universal art.
for the time being, we have to use their philosophy and terminology, as a gesture of respect, if not more. no matter how much we have paid until now to find out about inner alchemy, it is still not enough. we have a huge debt.
just a thought…
E,December 3, 2006 at 6:36 pm #19717
There are sources in science that justify alot of the stuff we do. Its been posted even on this forum. I see alot of this based in the fact that people are afraid and do not have faith. They need a bible or a manual on how the universe works to feel comfortable. Its like not taking a bath and enjoying it untill you know everything about the bath. You have to seprate the cold water from the hot water, understand what those bubles are all about. This is not to say that reaching a piont in understnading of the bath would not yeild an awww and enjoyment on its own. But you would then return to enjoying the bath water relizing your one pointedness of observation can never grasp the majestie that is the bath water. It is only through acceptance and a merging into the bath water that comes the joy of life. No more reaching, only an opening an acceptance of the life force. The source of all knowledge, and understanding. I my self have found the power of observation to be usfull in seeing the unconscious patterns reveal them selves. Why do I kept doing that when this happens. I am getting angry realy quikly at my family member why? It seperates my emotions and actions from my ego so that I can deal with them from a space of acceptance and objectivity.December 3, 2006 at 10:20 pm #19719
> someone needs to separate chi kung into a system of exercises totally devoid of theological.. frameworks.. >
On what basis do you say that? Sounds arbitrary and capricious to me. Perhaps based on personal and/or prevelent cultural preferences, not on a thorough investigation of what is what re: chi kung. (I might also add that going by personal bias and cursory observation is quite unscientfic.)
The obvious problem is that chi kung has an actual, and practical, relationship to spirituality. If you choose to ignore that fact, or don’t do the requisite investigation to realize that fact, then you are left with a crippled, weak system of chi kung.December 5, 2006 at 3:45 am #19721
The question is legit. But the problem is fundamental: what is chi? There is no clear “objective” scientific asnwer, because machines, the current tools of mechanistic western science, are unable to mesure the totality of human consciousness, its chi flow.
The results on health of chi kung have been “objectively” studied, see the 3500 studies on my articles page. But the essence of chi kung itself – its mechanism that causes it to improve health – cannot be “stripped down” in the typical reductionist western scientific way – because the Chi in Chi Kung is part of the entire field of Chi of the cosmos. That is why a cosomology helps you to deepen your chi kung.
If you practice chikung only on the superficial sensory level, you fail to perceive the subtle.
If you simple relanguage chi to call its the quantum field, you’ve just given your mental habit a placebo of a modern nature, and one that doesn’t quite match the original.
So like all deep and true things, there is a little mystery at the core.
One solution is simply to enjoy it.
michaelDecember 15, 2006 at 1:41 pm #19723
Or, in other words, is “chi”, or breath an internal nervous system thing or a genuine biological magnetism, or both.. and what proof is there of either. If it’s an internal thing it sounds more like a form of yogic involuntary nervous system control and is somewhere between a placebo and self medication.. if not, we ought to be able to use an MRI or something similar to see it, but I have not seen anything that shows MRI results from chi work
You must be logged in to reply to this topic.