Ignorance is bliss!!Originally Posted by cam
Registered User
Ignorance is bliss!!
Registered User
Well Mr. Brown, there are plenty of Taijiquan Masters who all state that standing is an integral part of their training.
Then there is YOU!
Do you wish to guess who's opinion I will listen to?
Registered User
Greetings..
I suggest that you were able to accomplish some measure of the qualities described as "Chi Kung".. but, absent the training and definition of Chi Kung, it was fortuitous at best.. Chi Kung is a discipline, unachievable except through that discipline's standards.. One may achieve similar results but, by definition, it is not Chi Kung..I was able to perform this skill without any Chi Kung or Tai Chi training at all. I learned it “on my own” without a teacher 27 years ago long before Chi Kung was well known and had become the fad it is today. I hadn’t even heard of Chi Kung yet.
No, my introduction was as a definitive discipline without suggestion of other approaches.. in hindsight, i agree that we can achieve very similar results, but i cannot call it Chi Kung.. as in most things, hindsight offers a variety of options unknown during the journey.. sort of like navigating to a distant place without a map, then.. having someone hand you a map, you see the obvious short-cuts.. like the Taoist "short path" school.. very short, very dangerous, very rewarding.. a person, realizing the obvious "short-cut" after reaching the goal, decides to teach others the short-cut.. but, without the foundations of discipline, many of the pilgrims suffered great calamities and injuries... others, more open-minded, reaped the rewards..Of course my first question would be, “Have you tried or known anyone who has tried?”
Without instruction or a "map" of where it is you intend to go, aspiring for some unknown quality is difficult and risky.. if you know you want to achieve a particular or known goal, it is likely you will also follow at least some of the guidelines for getting there.. if i decide i want to cultivate Chi through standing meditation, i already have an insight or understanding of the goal and some indication of its path.. that i modify that path based on other such experiences, i have only modified a process, not by-passed it.. if i perform a set of exercises without knowing the goal, i may just as likely miss the goal out of ignorance..Most of the time the popular methods of training are not the quickest or easiest methods to learn. It is commonly the most exotic appearing methods that attract the largest number of followers. Exotic methods allow the beginner and limited thinkers to think they are learning something unique and special; this makes the student feel special and unique. The need to feel special and unique is an emotional attachment that must be transcended if one wishes to gain deeper understanding! These feelings also lead to prideful attitudes that limit ones deeper understanding as well!
It is easy to look back and realize that i didn't have to go through all that to get here, but, that's exactly how i got here.. it seems to me, that to say you've stood in Zham Zhong without formal instruction or associated "baggage" is contradictory.. to say you have achieved similar results without the repetitive discipline is more appropriate, IMHO... Certainly, i accept the notion that it is ALL attainable by sudden realization.. but, without some notion of what it is, how would we know what we have attained.. and, having that notion, presumes some knowledge of the process, tainting the spontaneous realization with the prejudice of the process.. so, i surmise that it is hindsight that informs us of the needlessness of discipline , and hindsight that informs us of attainment without the influence of the discipline.. in other words, having attained Zham Zhong qualities without discipline or prior knowledge is only recognized as such when it is revealed to us.. i only pursue this nuance because some will seek "short path" rewards having no idea where they are going.. from 30 some years as a surveyor/map-maker i know that two things are required to arrive at a place.. knowing what/where the place is and knowing one's current relationship to that place.. the journey, as you say, will be the providence of one's intentions..
Be well..
TaiChiBob.. "the teacher that is not also a student is neither"
Registered User
Hi Bob,
I would say it is not Chi Kung according to YOUR definition (and those who agree with your proposition). That is all! We must not forget a system of teaching and learning is only A system. That is, "One of many!" There will be some similarities between systems that seek to accomplish the same goal, but they are not required to be identical. The belief system you adopt is based upon what you have been taught, what you accept, and your experiences whose interpretation are limited by the system you adhere too.
It is easier for most people to redefine phenomena that do not fit into their pre-established and limited belief system than to expand their belief system. It is easier but, it is also intellectually lazy. It is a path that leads to stagnation and not an ever expanding life of understanding.
See above once again!No, my introduction was as a definitive discipline without suggestion of other approaches.. in hindsight, i agree that we can achieve very similar results, but i cannot call it Chi Kung.. as in most things, hindsight offers a variety of options unknown during the journey.. sort of like navigating to a distant place without a map, then.. having someone hand you a map, you see the obvious short-cuts.. like the Taoist "short path" school.. very short, very dangerous, very rewarding.. a person, realizing the obvious "short-cut" after reaching the goal, decides to teach others the short-cut.. but, without the foundations of discipline, many of the pilgrims suffered great calamities and injuries... others, more open-minded, reaped the rewards..
It is presumption to assume a path you haven’t walked is more hazardous because it is not the path you were taught. Even if our accepted authority tells us it is more dangerous, that does not make it so. It presumes our authority knows it all. It does not allow for the limited belief system of our authority either. All systems by definition are limited. Therefore confining to our growth and understanding if we do not understand the inherent limitations within the system. We all accept the authority of our teachers and it is necessary in order to learn according to the teacher’s method or system. However, other systems exist beyond the underlying structure of the system we have learned. Some people are more comfortable being followers their whole lives feeling safe and secure within their self-imposed limited belief system and that is ok for them! Others seek to be leaders or independent thinkers, not limited by systems. These individuals are innovators and expand the bounds of the possible. Some notable independent thinkers would be men like: Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Columbus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.
That is not the point. The point is, the system for learning is not limited to the one you and others here propose. For example it is not necessary to stand. One may sit, or lie down. This is a fact. Now, if one wishes to perform moving as opposed to stationary exercises there certainly will be some difference in result. However, it is similar to the differences between rowing and running. Both develop your cardio-vascular system, but the direct affects on your muscles will differ. Running develops the legs as you train, while rowing will develop your back and legs and arms. The overall goal of aerobic training occurs for both the specific effects differ.Without instruction or a "map" of where it is you intend to go, aspiring for some unknown quality is difficult and risky.. if you know you want to achieve a particular or known goal, it is likely you will also follow at least some of the guidelines for getting there.. if i decide i want to cultivate Chi through standing meditation, i already have an insight or understanding of the goal and some indication of its path.. that i modify that path based on other such experiences, i have only modified a process, not by-passed it.. if i perform a set of exercises without knowing the goal, i may just as likely miss the goal out of ignorance..
In addition, the idea that an instructor is necessary is simply not true. I will concede it is beneficial and easier in most cases, but to say it is required presumes too much. This is nothing more than saying, “Because it is outside of my field of experience and what I was taught, it can not exist!”
The "baggage" is not the actions performed, it is the attitude that “this is the ONLY system that is proper or possible to learn from!” It is no different than saying you can’t develop aerobic fitness unless you run! Or you can't defend yourself effectively unless you learn “X” style of MA. The FACT is you can learn to defend yourself effectively without learning ANY style of MA!It is easy to look back and realize that i didn't have to go through all that to get here, but, that's exactly how i got here.. it seems to me, that to say you've stood in Zham Zhong without formal instruction or associated "baggage" is contradictory.. to say you have achieved similar results without the repetitive discipline is more appropriate, IMHO...
Do you think that the concept of chi is unique to the Chinese? You are learning a defined system described by only ONE culture that is all. It is not the only method, nor are the Chinese the only culture to perceive and utilize the phenomena of Chi. Ask an American Indian Medicine Man!
I have no argument here, but that was not what I was inferring from my post in question. It is true one may discover something, but not actually fully understand what it is they have discovered or how to utilize it. My point is that the formalized methods that many here accept are not the only methods possible and are in fact NOT NECESSARY to learn the prescribed skills. This is not a criticism of any particular system(s), but a criticism of limiting our experience by saying there is only ONE system possible. This attitude is foolish, ignorant and limited!Certainly, i accept the notion that it is ALL attainable by sudden realization.. but, without some notion of what it is, how would we know what we have attained.. and, having that notion, presumes some knowledge of the process, tainting the spontaneous realization with the prejudice of the process.. so, i surmise that it is hindsight that informs us of the needlessness of discipline , and hindsight that informs us of attainment without the influence of the discipline.. in other words, having attained Zham Zhong qualities without discipline or prior knowledge is only recognized as such when it is revealed to us.. i only pursue this nuance because some will seek "short path" rewards having no idea where they are going.. from 30 some years as a surveyor/map-maker i know that two things are required to arrive at a place.. knowing what/where the place is and knowing one's current relationship to that place.. the journey, as you say, will be the providence of one's intentions..
My example was meant to demonstrate the same effects may be gained using another "unknown" or "unconsidered" system. If I chose to teach the method I used, it too would be a system. The foolishness occurs only when I teach it is the best or only method and all others are useless!
It is always a pleasure my friend!!
Last edited by Scott R. Brown; 10-26-2005 at 12:47 AM.
Registered User
Hi cam,
Saying it is an integral part of training is not the same thing as saying it can’t be done without this method. I am not intending to discourage anyone from standing training. I am attempting to expand narrow perspectives and limited views.
A system of learning is a tool we use to a gain a specific result. There is never one method to learn anything. Kicks are an integral part of Tai Boxing and many other MA’s, but absent from Aikido and many others. I may learn to defend myself effectively without learning kicks. I may also learn to develop and channel my Chi without performing standing exercises. That is not to say that standing exercises would not be beneficial. But there is a difference between something being beneficial and something being NECESSARY!
It is superfluous to say many or most Chi Kung instructors say it is necessary. By nature we will tend to teach the way we have learned. So it should not be surprising that is what they teach. Also by nature most humans are not especially innovative. Just because something is not done or you or your instructor has not heard of it does not mean it is not possible. Just because I have never heard of France does not mean it does not exist.
Just as on the “Traditional Chinese MA” thread, many here have very narrow experience with thought systems or traditions outside their narrow field of study. It might surprise you to know that the concepts of Chi exist in most Nature based religious systems. The principles are also not foreign to Christian, Jewish, East Indian, and Greek traditions. It is culturo-centric to think only the Chinese have the traditions, the learning systems and the patent on everything, especially MA and Chi!
Ideas, concepts, principles and physical properties are present for all men (and women) of all traditions to discover, develop, utilize and teach to others. They will each devise their own system for passing on the knowledge. While there may be some similarity, they will not be identical!
I would advise you continue to follow the tradition you are learning, but I would also encourage you to transcend your narrow understanding of what is possible and what is not!
Registered User
Greetings..
Scott: If i were to advocate that any particular system was superior or necessary, your post would be on point.. i do not. I do advocate that to say you have learned Chi Kung you must have followed that discipline.. or, you can say you have achieved similar results through personal insight and experience. This is not unlike a plague in my profession, where unlicensed activities are encroaching on licensed activities.. there are laws that prevent unlicensed tradesmen from claiming to offer services only legally obtainable from a state certified professional. Chi Kung is a recognized system of discipline and result (ambiguous at times, granted...) Chi Kung means "energy work", your description seems more like "energy enlightenment"... self-discovery and self-realization... I am not so rigidly bound by definition as to discount self-discovery, it is the vehicle of progress and the basis of "Chi Kung" as it exists today.. But, i find it worthwhile to acknowledge those that have chosen a path and dedicated their training to it..
It is quite possible to achieve Chi Kung results through many paths, even paths not yet known... please do not conclude that i dismiss things outside my range of experience, i spend more time exploring than following.. i do recognize a benefit when it reveals itself, both from existing systems and explorations.. It is risky to advise people to adventure into energy work without some guidance, there are dangers that can be avoided with experienced guidance.. yet, i am a proponent of experiential learning, knowing that a direct experience with unfavorable results will be more likely internalized than a verbal caution from a guide.. but, certain of those unfavorable experiences can be quite dangerous.. i favor guidance to the point where a student can recognize their own potential, then letting them explore that potential..As noted above, i have no issue with the notion that an instructor is not necessary.. but, as in my last post, i feel that embarking on a journey without a reasonable concept of where you are going implies you won't know when you get there.. if i decide to go visit my high school friend (i havent seen in 40 years) and i don't know where she lives.. do i just travel until i find her? No, i have at least some research and some idea of where to look.. otherwise, the desired result will likely elude me.. The process of guidance is intended to maximize the efficiency of the purpose and set the stage for the student's ability to embark on self-discovery.. Ideally, there is no confinement of experience, no "closed" system, no "only" way, just "fingers pointing at the moon", enjoy the moon.. I heartily advocate experiencing various systems AND self-exploration.. wisdom is where you find it, and it can only be found by looking..In addition, the idea that an instructor is necessary is simply not true. I will concede it is beneficial and easier in most cases, but to say it is required presumes too much. This is nothing more than saying, “Because it is outside of my field of experience and what I was taught, it can not exist!”
Yet, those same people built their independent thinking on the work of others.. they learned language skills, mathematics, philosophy, science, etc... all of which brought them to the point of insight and the self-discovery, they had foundational guidance... so, in short, i give credence to both guidance and self-discovery.. each dependent on the other, as self-discovery yields new insights it is transmitted to others as new guidance.. it is the growth of knowledge..Some people are more comfortable being followers their whole lives feeling safe and secure within their self-imposed limited belief system and that is ok for them! Others seek to be leaders or independent thinkers, not limited by systems. These individuals are innovators and expand the bounds of the possible. Some notable independent thinkers would be men like: Buddha, Lao Tzu, Jesus, Columbus, Galileo, Newton, and Einstein.
Be well..
Be well..
TaiChiBob.. "the teacher that is not also a student is neither"
Registered User
Another long post of mine deleted, very frustrating!
Bob, good post!
"If I have seen further, it is because I have stood on the shoulder's of giants" Newton I believe.
Scott, in North America there is not an over-abundance of skilled Taiji/Qigong teachers, if one is lucky enough to train with one then one should consider themselves quite fortunate. When you say that there are other methods, you may be quite right but unfortunately there are also a lot of frauds that will make plenty of promises to unsuspecting students.
Registered User
Hi cam,
Your point is well made! Following is a reply to Bob in an attempt to clarify my positions more clearly.
Registered User
Hi Bob,
I do advocate that to say you have learned Chi Kung you must have followed that discipline.. or, you can say you have achieved similar results through personal insight and experience.
Chi development exercises are not the sole possession of the Chinese culture. Chi is a universal principle perceived understood and developed by many other cultures, not JUST the Chinese.
I never said I “learned Chi Kung”. I didn’t say I didn’t either, but that is not the point! I never proposed my exercise was a form of Chi Kung. I said the effects of Chi may be experienced outside the tradition of formalized Chi Kung exercises. In reference to “experiencing the effects of Chi” I said,
“Actually this is relatively easy to do without all that activity. [That is without extensive traditional Chi Kung exercises] I have done it many times. This action [exercise] does not require any knowledge of chi or its circulation, nor does it require any intent to cultivate, store or move chi. All it requires is mental focus.”
In other words, it is possible to experience and utilize the effects of Chi without actually understanding it is Chi you are experiencing. It is unimportant to KNOW what it is, only to learn what is possible and this may be discovered as you go. I did not state a full indepth understanding of Chi would be gained. Nor did I propose the exercise I mentioned should be a replacement for Chi Kung training. Only that it is easier to experience without practicing the formal exercises required by traditional Chi Kung training!
The heading under which this thread was started was,
“what is the best exercise for developing and feeling qi?”
Since you have no knowledge of the exercise I refer to you really have no foundation to make a valid critical review! And if I had described it you could still not give a valid critical review until you experienced the effects I have using the same exercise.
This is not unlike a plague in my profession, where unlicensed activities are encroaching on licensed activities.. there are laws that prevent unlicensed tradesmen from claiming to offer services only legally obtainable from a state certified professional.
Chi Kung principles are not licensed by the state! Chi Kung is merely a formalized tradition. Chi is unregulated and is not owned or controlled by any specific culture. The fact someone in your trade may not have a state license does not indicate he doesn’t know the business. It only demonstrates he is not licensed according to your State law and your professional organization, and therefore may not “legally” practice. It is no direct reflection of the individual’s, education, knowledge, experience or abilities, only his legal status. Someone with similar training as yours may be licensed within another nation, State or municipality. The knowledge base required to be licensed would likely be similar but not identical to the requirements where you are licensed. As such there are other traditions that practice, train and teach the principles of Chi without following the specific practices or traditions of Chi Kung!
Chi Kung is a recognized system of discipline and result (ambiguous at times, granted...) Chi Kung means "energy work", your description seems more like "energy enlightenment"... self-discovery and self-realization... I am not so rigidly bound by definition as to discount self-discovery, it is the vehicle of progress and the basis of "Chi Kung" as it exists today.. But, i find it worthwhile to acknowledge those that have chosen a path and dedicated their training to it..
I described briefly, not in detail, ONE exercise I used to perform regularly over 25 years ago that presented results identical to one you mentioned you experienced through Chi Kung training. You know nothing about the exercise, why I performed it, or what results I obtained other than they are similar to the ones you described. I have not described my exercise, only its effects. Further the only experience you have of me is a narrow perspective that I present on this BB which is subject to your own personal bias. I recognize this follows the same principles of how I formed an impression of you, but perhaps it is premature to try to characterize my experience for me.
It is risky to advise people to adventure into energy work without some guidance, there are dangers that can be avoided with experienced guidance.. yet, i am a proponent of experiential learning, knowing that a direct experience with unfavorable results will be more likely internalized than a verbal caution from a guide.. but, certain of those unfavorable experiences can be quite dangerous.. i favor guidance to the point where a student can recognize their own potential, then letting them explore that potential..
I agree there are benefits to having an instructor. I disagree there are dangers in not having an instructor beyond the relative dangers of learning anything without instruction. Instruction without a doubt provides guidance that may help to avoid pitfalls and promote efficiency in training. However, not everyone NEEDS instruction. Even if MOST people do, we don’t know who it is that needs instruction and who it is that does not. My intent is to state that a “Chi Kung” instructor is not NECESSARY, not that an instructor is not beneficial. Chi Kung is not the sole possessor of the Chi tradition! There are other traditions from other cultures that utilize Chi. They may not call it Chi, but it is the same thing! These traditions of study have their own systems of instruction just as valid as Chi Kung!
i feel that embarking on a journey without a reasonable concept of where you are going implies you won't know when you get there.. if i decide to go visit my high school friend (i havent seen in 40 years) and i don't know where she lives.. do i just travel until i find her? No, i have at least some research and some idea of where to look.. otherwise, the desired result will likely elude me.. The process of guidance is intended to maximize the efficiency of the purpose and set the stage for the student's ability to embark on self-discovery..
Please do not confuse my principle of not being attached to the ‘baggage” as implying a structure of learning is not necessary! In principle I agree it is best to have a determined purpose, a plan, and an organized system of training to accomplishing the purpose. But it is not beyond the scope of possibility to learn as you go either. Knowing and stating this is not the same as advocating or encouraging it. There are some on these boards who think there is only ONE way to do things or ONE tradition that teaches these principles. This is a narrow-minded and limited perspective. The result is the student is confined by his attachment to form and bound by his narrow perspective. This limits understanding and growth and should be avoided and discouraged. One method of accomplishing this is to identify the malady and present alternate but just as valid perspectives.
There is a long tradition of Chi Kung-like training in many other cultural milieux. These are just as valid and capable of providing the knowledge base and training desired. My purpose is to expand narrow, limited views, not to negate Chinese Chi Kung systems.
I have not intended to criticize the Chi Kung tradition. I used one instance in my own experience to demonstrate that the effects of Chi maybe be experienced through apparently a non-traditionally Chinese exercise and without instruction. This fulfills the premise of this thread which is to find a way to experience the effects of Chi while also transcending the narrow perspective that it MUST be a form of Chi Kung!
Last edited by Scott R. Brown; 10-26-2005 at 11:12 AM.
Registered User
Greetings..
Scott: I agree with most of your assertions.. but..
The original request was..I have not intended to criticize the Chi Kung tradition. I used one instance in my own experience to demonstrate that the effects of Chi maybe be experienced through apparently a non-traditionally Chinese exercise and without instruction. This fulfills the premise of this thread which is to find a way to experience the effects of Chi while also transcending the narrow perspective that it MUST be a form of Chi Kung!So, i conclude that the individual has a specific interest in a culturally specific concept on a forum dedicated to culturally specific practices.. had the person asked about "energy" rather than Qi, your approach would have been on point. Qi, and its related exercises, are uniquely Chinese concepts.. energy, and its relation to bio-mechanical processes may very well simulate Qi concepts, provide similar results and have no noticable differences, but.. staying on point, is a consideration, here.. We could deviate into a plethora of possible known systems that produce similar results, even explore new possibilities.. but, i sense that would only further confuse the aspiring "Qi" student.. As i have stated, i am in complete agreement that the notion of "Qi", absent of its cultural implications, is limitless.. but, the reference to "Qi" infers a cultural bias.. my responses have been in consideration of the request, not as a forum to expand personal preferences.. As long as we use Qi (Chi) as a reference, i feel we are bound by its cultural implication.. Of course, we can introduce other systems or our own non-Qi (based on cultural inference) experiences, but i think it is important that we be clear that the information presented either be tied to the initial reference of Qi, or be clearly noted as a similar reference but not specifically Qi per the classic Chinese concept.. which brings me to the issue of...So my question is this - what is the best exercise for developing and feeling qi?Perhaps, i am implying that "other cultures that utilize Chi" also utilize differing terminology. As such, there is wisdom in maintaining cultural identity reference, or in asserting one's own unique reference perspective.. it offers the aspiring student valid references, without the confusion of source/result ambiguities.. once the aspiring student realizes the similarities and differences (foundational work) it is appropriate to suggest they have their own experience free of further prejudices..Chi Kung is not the sole possessor of the Chi tradition! There are other traditions from other cultures that utilize Chi. They may not call it Chi, but it is the same thing! These traditions of study have their own systems of instruction just as valid as Chi Kung!
I realize that we are dealing with semantics at some level, but.. i think a clear perspective is needed to advance the cause of Qi exploration.. too much ambiguity will cloud the issue. If the original query was regarding "Prana" then Hindu references would be in order, etc... Reference to Qi as a general energy is accurate, but not appropriate if the aspirant is interested in the Chinese concept of Qi..
Be well.. (excellent "point/counter-point" discussion)..
TaiChiBob.. "the teacher that is not also a student is neither"
Registered User
Hi Bob,
So, i conclude that the individual has a specific interest in a culturally specific concept on a forum dedicated to culturally specific practices..
You drew a reasonable inference, but it does remain only an inference. Your inference led you to focus upon the cultural tradition and expression of Chi Kung, while my inference led me to focus on gaining the experience in a quick and easy manner. My perspective does not encourage or require a narrow focus. If we promote through our teachings or attitudes “method” or “cultural” biases we encourage narrow thinking even if that is not our intention.
Narrow thinking must at some point be transcended. If we discourage narrow thinking from the beginning, it enhances the learning process. Narrow thinking may be compared to weeds in a garden. If I keep the weeds under control, pulling them before they become rooted too deeply, my garden remains healthy. If I neglect or ignore the weeds allowing them to over run the garden, I risk damage to my garden’s health and well-being. Neglected weeds grow deeper roots and removing them becomes increasingly difficult. It behooves us to remove weeds while they are small or not allow them to grow at all. This principle applies to narrow views, if we ignore them they become tenacious and more difficult to transcend at a later date.
energy, and its relation to bio-mechanical processes may very well simulate Qi concepts, provide similar results and have no noticable differences, but.. staying on point, is a consideration, here..
As noted above, the “point” is subject to personal interpretation and biases. Yours focuses on accepted systems to achieve the result. You believe this is the easiest most productive method. Mine focuses on a more direct and therefore easier method that has no cultural/method bias. I believe my method is the most productive means to achieve the desired result. You argue your perspective is proven and accepted. I argue mine is quicker and with less attended “baggage (weeds)” that must be transcended at a later. The results are the same; it is only the path that differs.
We could deviate into a plethora of possible known systems that produce similar results, even explore new possibilities.. but, i sense that would only further confuse the aspiring "Qi" student..
I sense it would not, unless the issue is created out of nothing. I originally mentioned no cultural context, only a deviation from traditional training methodologies:
“This action does not require any knowledge of chi or its circulation, nor does it require any intent to cultivate, store or move chi. All it requires is mental focus.”
Methodologies are merely tools used to get from point “A” to point “B”. If we attach ourselves unreasonably to the method we tend to forget its original purpose; to get us to point “B”. Which is more important, arriving at point “B” or the way I get there? Some may consider the method more important, I do not! To me; if it works, it works! I do not intended to discourage systematized learning, which is beneficial, I mean to keep in proper context that the goal of the system takes precedence over the methodology.
Exercises require no cultural context to practice. Cultural context is something that is imposed from without, not something inherent within an exercise. I am assuming my exercise is non-traditional because I have not seen it within my study of Chi Kung, but it does have inherent similarities to traditional Chi Kung exercises. If a Chi Kung student learned the exercise within the context of a specific Chi Kung tradition then to that student it would become a traditional exercise. The exercise does not change only the context in which it was learned. When the exercise is learned within a traditional context it is colored by the attitudes “baggage” of that tradition. When it is learned outside a specific tradition it acquires none of the superfluous attached attitudes. Under these conditions it is practiced within its purer form.
my responses have been in consideration of the request, not as a forum to expand personal preferences..
Bob!! How you “consider” the request and your “manner” of expressing it IS a reflection of your personal preference (bias)! You cannot avoid expressing anything as YOUR personal preference; neither can I or anyone else!
I respect your ideas, your perspectives and the manner you chose to express them, but don’t think it isn’t your “personal preference”.
As long as we use Qi (Chi) as a reference, i feel we are bound by its cultural implication..
This is your “personal preference”, bias. I don’t agree!
Of course, we can introduce other systems or our own non-Qi (based on cultural inference) experiences, but i think it is important that we be clear that the information presented either be tied to the initial reference of Qi, or be clearly noted as a similar reference but not specifically Qi per the classic Chinese concept..
This was clearly inferred within my post:
“This action does not require any knowledge of chi or its circulation, nor does it require any intent to cultivate, store or move chi.”
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of Chi Kung would clearly see this as contradictory to Chi Kung teachings. I intended it to be so! This fulfills your first criterion. The second to, “be tied to the initial reference of Qi” should be very clear as well since the subject of my comment is the experience of the effects of Chi!
Perhaps, i am implying that "other cultures that utilize Chi" also utilize differing terminology. As such, there is wisdom in maintaining cultural identity reference, or in asserting one's own unique reference perspective.. it offers the aspiring student valid references, without the confusion of source/result ambiguities.. once the aspiring student realizes the similarities and differences (foundational work) it is appropriate to suggest they have their own experience free of further prejudices..
I realize that we are dealing with semantics at some level, but.. i think a clear perspective is needed to advance the cause of Qi exploration.. too much ambiguity will cloud the issue
I somewhat agree with you and have acknowledged in previous posts here there are benefits of learning within a formalized system. However, it is not NECESSARY to confine a student to any specific system. Sometimes venturing outside the system creates confusion, sometimes it clears it up.
Your comments here do not directly apply to this discussion because I did not promote another system nor did I introduce any new terminology. I did ‘mention” what I perceive to be an unorthodox exercise. Your implication is that this will lead to confusion in the student and this is non-productive. I disagree!
There is benefit to confusion:
Confusion creates questions. Questions lead to searching for answers! Searching for answers leads to finding answers. Finding answers leads to an increased knowledge base which is equal to growth! Therefore, confusion leads to growth and can be seen as a GOOD thing not a bad thing! If a student becomes overwhelmed with confusion, that is a different matter. However, this is a condition that can be resolved.
Questioning is good! It is only “considered” bad if the instructor adheres to unproductive or less productive teaching methods or is embarrassed because he cannot answer the questions. Some answers to questions must be learned through experience, but that does not negate the value of the question. Questioning is the attribute of an adventurous mind seeking to know Truth and this is a Good! Venturing out creates questions within the student which increases the desire to understand. This leads to investigation and questioning of methods. If a system is fully developed and the instructor well trained and mature then questioning will provide depth to the student’s experience. If the system is not fully developed, the instructor is not well trained or mature then it will reveal the weaknesses of the method or weaknesses of the instructor to the benefit of both the student and instructor. When I teach I never discourage any type of questioning. Only the timing and underlying motivation of the question is examined and then, if necessary, redirected to a more productive time or consequence.
To me, confusion can be considered a detriment if we make an issue out of something when it is not necessary. This can be considered a detriment only because it redirects the discussion away from its original theme. On the other hand, a discussion that leads off the topic can also be considered a benefit. It can be considered a benefit because it provides opportunities to learn something new. Yin-Yang! It is good or bad according to our “personal preference!”
This present discussion is a result of comments that did not understand or accept my “personal preference”. It is this secondary discussion that, to me, risks the possibility of confusion, not the comments I originally made.
Last edited by Scott R. Brown; 10-27-2005 at 08:28 PM.
Registered User
Scott, perhaps if you were to post a thread titled, " Chi, another Cultural Perspective" you could then expand on some of your experiences.
Myself, I am ignorant of the Native American philosophy regarding a great many things!
Registered User
Greetings..
Scott: To be clear...
If we promote through our teachings or attitudes “method” or “cultural” biases we encourage narrow thinking even if that is not our intention.
The reference to Qi (Chi) sets the bias in play.. At no point do i suggest a superior or exclusive method, nor do i encourage "narrow thinking".. relating the subject, Qi, to its cultural origin seems appropriate, but that's just me
As noted above, the “point” is subject to personal interpretation and biases. Yours focuses on accepted systems to achieve the result. You believe this is the easiest most productive method.
I'm not sure that is wholly accurate, re-reading my posts i don't see that i suggest that accepted systems are the easiest or most productive methods.. they are the most recognized, the most available, the most structured (repeatable, consistent).. Re-reading my posts, i note that you fail to recognize the points where i support your perspective, where i agree that your process is valid.. i am not bound by cultural reference or ideology, i am quite interested in and open to whatever experiences produce intended results..
Methodologies are merely tools used to get from point “A” to point “B”. If we attach ourselves unreasonably to the method we tend to forget its original purpose; to get us to point “B”. Which is more important, arriving at point “B” or the way I get there? Some may consider the method more important, I do not! To me; if it works, it works! I do not intended to discourage systematized learning, which is beneficial, I mean to keep in proper context that the goal of the system takes precedence over the methodology.
In this, we are in complete agreement.. it is the "preference" or "interpretation" of unreasonably" that is at question.. it seems that any suggestion of cultural methodology is viewed by you as confined thinking.. i am very comfortable with structure AND exploration.. neither exclusive to the other.
If a Chi Kung student learned the exercise within the context of a specific Chi Kung tradition then to that student it would become a traditional exercise. The exercise does not change only the context in which it was learned. When the exercise is learned within a traditional context it is colored by the attitudes “baggage” of that tradition. When it is learned outside a specific tradition it acquires none of the superfluous attached attitudes. Under these conditions it is practiced within its purer form.
Here, is an example of your own "bias", and a source of contention.. i do not assume that simply because someone learns from a system that they attach to that system.. if that has been your experience, it differs from mine.. it's just another tool.. your reference to "its purer form" is purely a personal interpretation of a personal experience, it is equally valid for another to have differing and valid interpretations.. it is my belief that it is the "experience" that has merit, not its origin, whether that origin be self-intended or systemized.. the value gained is independent of the vehicle used..
Bob!! How you “consider” the request and your “manner” of expressing it IS a reflection of your personal preference (bias)! You cannot avoid expressing anything as YOUR personal preference; neither can I or anyone else!
LOL.. i couldn't agree with you more.. but, attach an agenda to that preference and it mutates.. asserting preference is appropriate, asserting that any preference is superior to another is subject to scrutiny..
This is your “personal preference”, bias. I don’t agree!
I hope you realize i deeply respect your right to disagree, and the manner in which choose to express it.. And, we do disagree, thankfully..
Anyone with even a cursory understanding of Chi Kung would clearly see this as contradictory to Chi Kung teachings. I intended it to be so! This fulfills your first criterion. The second to, “be tied to the initial reference of Qi” should be very clear as well since the subject of my comment is the experience of the effects of Chi!
And, that is my point.. "Anyone with even a cursory understanding of Chi Kung".. we cannot avoid the cultural references when contemplating Qi, therefore.. there is a necessity to mingle the "narrow thinking" you tie to systems with the limitless potential inherent to the concept.. your intention is noted and appreciated, but.. it leaves the impression that a system is inferior to a non-structured approach, which may be true for some, not so for others.. i leave that open for the individual to determine, i only present options.. ( something i make clear at every class i teach )..
Your comments here do not directly apply to this discussion because I did not promote another system nor did I introduce any new terminology. I did ‘mention” what I perceive to be an unorthodox exercise. Your implication is that this will lead to confusion in the student and this is non-productive. I disagree!
Well, that's your perspective.. you do promote exploration outside recognized systems, which can be concieved as "your" system.. but, of more critical importance, you assert that adherence to a system is "narrow thinking" to be avoided.. my objective is to point out that it is equally possible to be completely open-minded AND adhere to systems.. i "assume", by your dialogue, that you have exposure to "systems".. and, probably have trained in "systems" (i don't know, but the assumption seems reasonable, to me).. yet, you seem equally able to think clearly.. the position you assert regarding "narrow thinking" could discourage the aspiring student from otherwise beneficial experiences in systemized Qi development.. Certainly, you comment on the beneficial potential of systemized learning, but.. more certainly, you judge it as "narrow thinking", leading to confusion of intent.. is it beneficial or, "narrow thinking" to be avoided? Is it possible, as i assert, to be assimilate the value of systems AND the wisdom of self-exploration?
This present discussion is a result of comments that did not understand or accept my “personal preference”. It is this secondary discussion that, to me, risks the possibility of confusion, not the comments I originally made.
I agree that this discussion is deviating from the intended purpose of the thread.. i disagree with the notion that your original comments don't risk the possibility of confusion.. and, i will leave it to the observer's wisdoms to sort it out..
Now, i return this thread to its original programming....
Ou Ji: In order to feel the effects of "Qi" (classical interpretation) you will need some idea of what it is you are trying to feel.. any exercise program will cause changes in physical sensations, you will need some criteria to measure your experience against.. i suggest that you research a cross-section of printed material that describes Qi and associated sensations.. compare the accounts of those sensations, look for common themes, and.. evaluate your own experiences to determine if your sensations are consistent with the common elements of others.. recognizing elements of consistency, it becomes increasingly easy to recognize Qi effects in many of the orthodox AND, as Scott suggests, unorthodox exercises in your training..
On cold days (seasonably appropriate), i use a Taoist technique if vigorous shaking of the body.. feet flat, using the quads to shake the body vertically, while keeping as much of the rest of the body as relaxed as possible.. do this for 2-3 minutes.. when you stop, stand for a moment in the WuJi posture and feel the adundant AND chaotic energies bouncing around the body.. then, 10-15 seconds later, stand in Zhuan Zhuong (tree-hugging) with the plams relaxed and facing each other 6-8 inches apart.. put your mind and intention between the palms and, with some practice and intention, you should feel the pressure of Qi building between the palms (where mind and intention are).. aside from pressure there are often tinglings and an odd sensation between the shoulders where energies are directed into the arms.. this is a simple and effective method of feeling some of the effects of Qi.. there is much more potential once you get comfortable with feeling a "Qi Ball"..
I hope this helps.. Be well, all..
TaiChiBob.. "the teacher that is not also a student is neither"
Shiso Sensei Shonaibudo
TaiChiBob knows his stuff. As do many others on here, including cam, and scott.
Here are some of my brief thoughts on this:
----------------------------------------
Qi is, on the most simplest level, energy.
However, just around the corner we have another broad approach.
Qigong (or chi kung), is just one of many methods in which we balance mind, and body.
That is, we train our minds to be sensitive to the processes within it.
In Qigong, our focus is on the qi, and we do such through relaxation, sinking, and breathing while remaining focused on the latter, and yet nothing all at once.
As we all know, qigong, is the cultivation or study of qi. I will use the term qigong for lack of a better term throughout this post.
Neijia incorporates mostly internal aspects, whereas with weijia, the focus is on the external means by which to achieve an end result.
The trend has not only to add internal aspects to external systems, but to expand upon the understanding of what the purpose of such system is in the first place. By expanding in certain directions, we find that many weijia include neijia aspects. That is, their (instructors or systems of training) intention is for the student to achieve a level of personal awareness, by understanding, and finding the connection between their mind and body.
When we are sensitive to our bodies, we cultivate our awareness. This leads us to being able to focus on our Yi (which to me is a combination of our consciousness and our set of emotions {ie. our "heart"}). Our human spirit (not the soul), is referred to as our shen, and our shen is linked to our emotions and our mind.
When have a grasp of who we are, we then use that part of our self to lead another part, and that is qi. This is what many refer to as, "Yi leads the qi".
There is Li energy, which is tied to our muscular system. It is in abundance at birth, stablizes for a period of time, and then beings to decline as time moves us closer to death.
In some cases our Li can be limited by our own mind. Which is and example would be to say that "the body doesn't know his own strength". In other words, all things the same, there are no set limitations either from the boys mind, or from the expectations of others, to tell him otherwise. This applies to girls as well, as this is not gender specific.
Then there is jin(jing) energy. This is referenced to as an unyielding force, likened to a strong, sudden wind. Many TCM practitioners agree that there are many types of Jin energy. For example, there are three types of "Sensing Jin" (Jywe Jin), sixteen types of "Manifested Jin" (Hsing Jin) comprising active and offensive, nineteen ‘Passive Jin" (Yin, Shoou, Huah Jin), four "Neutral Jin" (Fei Gong Fei Shoou Jin) and eleven "Leg Jin" (Twe Jin).
But regardless of the terms we use, I believe that many of us agree that there are good and not so good ways to travel down a given path.
Sometimes the path takes us in different directions, and we wind up at the same destination. While other times, we take the same path, and wind up in different destinations.
Life is about the journey. It is about understanding yourself, and using what works for you to get from one point to the next. Once this journey is over, in my religious worldview, I will be judged and then begin another.
I will stop there and summarize by saying that any exercise in which you increase your awareness of your internal self and the energy within it, is a valid method so long as you do not experience any adverse effects.
There are typically four types of qi cultivation or qigong.
They are:
1. Lying
2. Sitting
3. Standing
4. Moving
To me, they are in order of least effective to more effective, but that is based upon my own testimony, and may not reflect the views of others. In Taijiquan, and Neijia, we speak in terms of testimony, rather than proof. I say this, because the mind, and the emotions both play a crucial role in understanding the philosophy and the structure behind such eastern philosophy.
I will end with that.
Good luck in your quest, as I hope others continue to contribute as well to this thread.
Current:
Shogerijutsu Naibu {Internal}Karate-Do Instructor
Taijiquan/Chinese Boxing/Kung Fu Student
Past:
Goju Ryu - Nidan, 1st Dan TKD, Kickboxing, Shotokan, JKD, Jujutsu
Registered User
Hi Bob,
To save space I will refer to each section I will respond to by its first few words:
The reference to Qi (Chi) sets the bias in play…
This is a fair inference, but still assumes much. I refer to water as “water” because that is the word I have been taught to use when referring that particular liquid. There is no inherent harm when I am asked about water to include additional information concerning its properties, it uses, or where to find it. The same with Chi. The word does attach itself to a specific culture, but that does not imply we should be bound to that cultural perspective.
I did not to mean to imply I thought you specifically have a superior or exclusive view of Chi, Chi Kung or anything else for that matter. My intentions were to address the superior attitude in general. I know you to be well-informed, open-minded, and flexible in your attitudes as intentions. I apologize if any of my remarks seemed to imply a direct criticism of you as having a superior attitude. I have deep respect for your views, even when i don't agree with them.
I was not intending to criticize the use of specific cultural references when discussing this topic. I intended to argue your perspective is only one view of many and that having that view is not required to understand Chi. Other views are just as valid.
Your interpretation of the original question was different than mine. So I approached the subject from a different angle than you.
I'm not sure that is wholly accurate, re-reading my posts….
Perhaps so! We all interpret information according to our own personal biases. I am no different just because I am aware of my biases.
i note that you fail to recognize the points where i support your perspective…
Please do not confuse not "referring" to points where you support my perspective with "failing to recognize" the points where you support my perspective.
I tend to not acknowledge information we agree upon for a few reasons. One is it does not further the discussion. If a discussion occurs where two parties agree then, to me, it is not a very interesting discussion. When two parties share differing views about the same subject then both parties have the opportunity to expand their understanding through the interaction.
The second reason is, my posts tend to be too long as it is, LOL!! I generally do not say anything or make any point without an accompanying commentary. This would make my posts even longer and I understand many are not inclined to want to read them when they are excessive.
i am not bound by cultural reference or ideology…
Once again most of my comments are not necessarily a direct criticism of you, but of the general attitudes many possess. I am very clear that you are open to exploration and learning in a pragmatic manner.
it seems that any suggestion of cultural methodology is viewed by you as confined thinking…
It is attachment to cultural methodologies I encourage resistance too, not the methodologies in and of themselves. It isn’t the method that creates narrow-mindedness, but the attitude an individual brings to the any specific method.
Here, is an example of your own "bias", and a source of contention.. i do not assume that simply because someone learns from a system that they attach to that system…
Neither do I assume so. I merely identify attachment IN GENERAL as a danger to continued progress. I seek to point out that attachment occurs and that it is in our best interest to avoid it. When alerted to the limiting effects of attachment an individual is better prepared to recognize it and attempt to avoid it. I don’t see how you can say you do not come into contact with it in your experience when it is prevalent in everyday life with nearly all people. It is one of the most common phenomena found in all people, myself included! Perhaps your interest in identifying it is less than mine. I would be happy on another occasion to engage in a lengthy discussion with you on the topic of attachment.
attach an agenda to that preference and it mutates.. asserting preference is appropriate, asserting that any preference is superior to another is subject to scrutiny…
A preference implies an agenda. The two are inseparable, like two sides of a coin. To discuss any topic is to argue for an agenda. Once an opinion is voiced it states an agenda and that agenda reflects our preference.
My only assertion has been that the exercise I mention is easier to practice than Chi Kung exercises and attaches less bias to the experience because it is not learned according a formalized system of practice which will define it and structure it. Thus the results are free from excessive bias which I define as a purer experience.
I think I understand your premise, which seems to be: “Without a structure to define it, we don’t really know what we have learned and cannot understand what we have learned.” I cannot argue against this, but the original question was posed by an individual with some pre-existing knowledge of Chi. The exercise mentioned would fulfill at least a part of his purpose. Results would occur relatively easily and confirm some of the anecdotes he may have heard concerning the effects of Chi. His comments seem to imply he would be more inclined to devote time and energy to the process when he has gained some certainly as to the existence of Chi. My exercise would be a relatively easy method to start that evidentiary journey.
You are certainly welcome to scrutinize, but you haven’t done so fairly. You cannot fairly comment on something you know nothing about. You may know about some forms of Chi Kung, but you know nothing about the exercise I practiced. Therefore, your comments concerning it are unfounded. It seems to me you have ruled it out as a fair measure of the existence of Chi, yet you know nothing about it. You may fairly comment upon my perspective, but not the exercise itself since you know nothing about it or its results.
I hope you realize i deeply respect your right to disagree, and the manner in which choose to express it…
I am very clear on this!
And, that is my point.. "Anyone with even a cursory understanding of Chi Kung".. we cannot avoid the cultural references when contemplating Qi, therefore.. there is a necessity to mingle the "narrow thinking" you tie to systems with the limitless potential inherent to the concept.. your intention is noted and appreciated, but.. it leaves the impression that a system is inferior to a non-structured approach, which may be true for some, not so for others.. i leave that open for the individual to determine, i only present options.. ( something i make clear at every class i teach )..
Ok, I think I understand what the issue is here!! Either I have not been clear or your personal biases have colored my comments or both have occurred. I am inclined to believe it is a little of both.
I basically agree with you’re your thesis here. I will try to clear up what I perceive to be a misunderstanding. My intention when using the term “narrow thinking” seems to be different than how you interpret my meaning. If I read your meaning correctly, you believe that to me: to follow a structured system IS narrow thinking. This is NOT what I meant to imply. To me narrow thinking is a consequence of an “emotional attachment” to any SPECIFIC system as being necessary to learn the subject in question. Narrow thinking is NOT adherence to a system. It is not systems in and of themselves, but the attitude one has towards a system. Some systems do encourgae these unhealthy attitudes we refer to these as cults!
To me everything we use to learn is a system. Our perceptions and interpretations of those perceptions adhere to a system. Systems are a valuable and necessary, we cannot do without them. Systems are the foundation of all that we know and understand. Systems are inherent to functioning of the mind.
i only present options…
Exactly!! My intention as well. If it has seemed I implied anything else I was inadequately expressing my view. To me it is all about being open to and exploring options! Structure is valuable and necessary, but, as a friend of mine said many years ago, “it should be like the tail of a kite that helps you fly rather than an anchor that weighs you down!” When our attachment to any system or structure begins to impede growth it is time to expand our perspective or stagnation occurs. (As an aside, I cannot fairly criticize stagnation either, as it is merely another process of life from which valuable lessons may be gained!) I do not seek to avoid systems; I seek to avoid unhealthy attachments to systems. After all, the attitude of “avoidance of attachment to systems” is but another system of thought.
I won’t comment on your last few paragraphs as I hope this has cleared up what to me has appeared to be a misunderstanding of my thesis.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote