chanwu Qi gong

[Chan Wu Gongfu]

Qi gong is known throughout most of the world as a practice of internal/external exercises that benefit an individual’s San Bao (three Gems). The three gems as referred to in the Chinese language are: Jing, Qi and Shen or when translated into English are referred to as Essence, Vital Breath and Spirit. They are also thought of as the three universal forces that are reflected in humans and are essential to our existence.

The fundamental aim of practice is to achieve long life by preserving and nurturing these three gems with various techniques that centre on the three main principles of regulating the body. The body can be regulated through posture, respiration and the mind through meditation and non-attachment (avoiding disturbances and worry etc). In addition there must be a regulation of diet and the time of day to practice. Careful regulation will ensure the three gems are preserved and are not dissipated keeping the body pure, which in turn prevents or slows the decline into old age and death.

For both religious and health purposes it was necessary to exercise or refine the three gems to make them stronger and purer. This is accomplished with daily practice of exercises that lead the Qi around the body with the mind. This takes a great deal of practice and it should be done under the instruction of a qualified Master of Qigong.

There are many exercises that have been developed and taught and they all can lead you to a stronger and more healthful life. One such exercise is called the Standing Pole and resembles a Mabu or horse stance. It is a very simple and basic stance that is observed in basic gong of Shaolin Gongfu, Taijiquan and many different martial arts systems. It stems from both a Taoist and Buddhist origin and has immense benefits if done properly and with diligence.

Click here to continue reading...
www.chanwugongu.com

[Scott R. Brown]

I am wondering where all the extraordinarily old Chi Kung practitioners are? If these practices actually provide for a longer and more vital life, then where are these people who have achieved extraordinarily long lives?

Periodically on the news we hear about the latest oldest person in the world. Not one of them have credited their long life to Chi Kung exercises. Many of them smoked and drank alcohol and some or most of them lived in cities with noise, air pollution and processed food.

I have personally known more 100+ year old people then most people (I would say around 20-30) and over 200 who where over 80 years old and older; not one of them attributed their long life to Chi Kung! If these practices are as beneficial as the practitioners claim then lets see the living proof of those who demonstrate statistically a longer, healthier and more vital life by wasting their valuable time practicing meaningless exercises designed to help them avoid the normal processes of life.

Why is an extraordinarily long life a good thing? It would seem it is only a benefit if this is the only existence we have. If there is an afterlife then there is no reason to pursue an extraordinarily long life; if there isn't an afterlife then there is nothing to lose when we die. So what is the benefit? If we seek to have an extraordinarily long life are we not demonstrating a fear of death that is nothing more than an attachment to life? If life is merely part of the eternal process of a Tao, isn't it of greater benefit to accept what our life gives us without attachment to a long life or a short life?

I am not suggesting anyone should avoid exercise, clean air and water and healthy food, however this is NOT Chi Kung. This is simply smart living. Neither am in intending to discourage anyone from practicing Chi Kung if it is a practice they enjoy.

I do think that convincing people to practice anything the takes as much time and dedication and self-discipline as Chi Kung by playing on their fear of death is manipulative. Especially when there is no actual empirical evidence there is a clear benefit over less time consuming and more enjoyable activities.

[Doc Stier]

"....convincing people to practice anything the takes as much time and dedication and self-discipline as Chi Kung by playing on their fear of death is manipulative. Especially when there is no actual empirical evidence there is a clear benefit over less time consuming and more enjoyable activities."

So, aside from advising others, what about you? Do you regularly practice any form of chi-kung, and if so, what method do you practice, and why?

Also, I think there can be a number of good reasons to strive for a long life that really have nothing whatsoever to do with a fear of death, but all of which definitely represent attachments to someone or something.

Doc

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Doc,

I have spent time (a number of years) training in Chi Kung and Chi Kung like exercises. No special school and no formal instruction. I do not believe instruction is necessary. Of course some disagree, but they are those who have an emotional investment in Chi Kung and cannot demonstrate empirically that Chi Kung provides any special benefit above and beyond other less time consuming and easier methods that HAVE empirical evidence to support them. So why should anyone believe the empty claims of Chi Kung practitioners?

Advertisements, such as the above post, are designed to play on people’s fears and emotions. Who wouldn’t want a long and healthy life after all?

Whether I have trained in Chi Kung or not has no bearing on the questions asked. Chi Kung practitioners make claims that cannot be empirically supported. That is the issue. I don't need to take a mercury pill or jade tablet to know they will not give me exceedingly long life and will eventually kill me. I don't need to practice Chi Kung for 20 years to know there is nothing special about it that cannot be accomplished by easier and less time consuming methods.

It is not incumbent on the lay person to demonstrate why Chi Kung is nothing special. It is up to the proponents of Chi Kung to demonstrate their claims are supported by REAL evidence, not just empty "late night TV advertisement-like" claims.

There is nothing that Chi Kung has to offer that cannot be achieved by an easier and more convenient method.

The above post is nothing more than an advertisement. It is cheap huckstering on a BB.

The salient comments are:

"The fundamental aim of practice is to achieve long life..."

"…regulating the body."

"…The body can be regulated…"

"In addition there must be a regulation of diet and the time of day to practice."

"Careful regulation will ensure the three gems are preserved and are not dissipated keeping the body pure, which in turn prevents or slows the decline into old age and death."

The above advertisement proposes a longer life IS the benefit. If this is not an appeal to the desire for a long life then I don’t know what is.

There is an awful lot of regulation going on here. There is so much regulation one could claim it is over-regulation. Over-regulation is generally discouraged by contemplative/philosophical students of Tao. The middle path of moderation is encouraged by both Taoists and Buddhists and is clearly illustrated in the example of Yin-Yang.

Over-regulation cultivates contrived behaviors. That is behaviors that are performed from the outside in rather than the inside out. An outward performance is less beneficial than an inward change/transformation. Over-regulated behaviors are less beneficial and than behaviors that are moderated and tend to create negative effects associated with excesses. This is not merely a philosophical view, it can be demonstrated empirically.

The dedication necessary to regulate ones mind and actions in order receive the mentioned benefits implies the individual practicing these methods IS preoccupied with long-life. I propose a GOOD life is healthier and more beneficial overall than a long life. In order to regulate ones life in the manner prescribed, I question whether one isn't perhaps missing out on the normal healthy experiences of life.

It is the expectation that one will receive special benefits from these time consuming practices that is the problem here. If the practitioner realizes that the same thing may be accomplished through less time consuming methods and still chooses to practice this over-regulation of their life, then they are making an informed decision and no harm done. However, the implication of this advertisement and those like it are that SPECIAL benefits will accrue. This means that ignorant individuals HOPING for a longer life will waste time in an attempt to accomplish something that may be accomplished in a much easier and less time consuming manner. Following the principle of “Conservation of Energy” a lesser time consuming method to accomplish the same thing is the most beneficial method and therefore the better choice.

If you think there are a number of other good reasons to practice Chi Kung, that is fine, please state them for the benefit of us all. I have already qualified my comments with,

I am not suggesting anyone should avoid exercise, clean air and water and healthy food, however this is NOT Chi Kung. This is simply smart living. Neither am I intending to discourage anyone from practicing Chi Kung if it is a practice they enjoy."

Whether you or others train in Chi Kung for other reasons is NOT the issue and I have clearly qualified that in my comments. The issue is the false statement that it will provide one with a longer life or the implication that it is an efficient means of achieving long life. Chi Kung of the above described manner takes a great deal of time and self-discipline and there is no demonstrable benefit over simpler and less time consuming forms of activity.

Oh Yeah, AND it is blatant huckstering!

[AJM]

Can't really vouch for longevity. On the other hand the expectation of longevity would not be unreasonable as after over thirty seven years of chi gong people tell me I look thirty five to forty. I'm fifty five.

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi AJM,

To restate my position, I do not intend to discourage anyone from the practice of Chi Kung, and I actually agree with Doc that there are many attending benefits other than longer life and the slowing of aging. I am not even saying that Chi Kung will not improve health and appearance.

What I am opposed to is the marketing of Chi Kung in a manner that suggests it is the best or only manner to accomplish those purposes and the blatant huckstering of false or misleading claims such as the claim made by some that Chi Kung practice will allow one to achieve immortality.

I am 48 ½ years old and no longer regularly practice Chi Kung. I have not regularly practiced Chi Kung for nearly 10 years. I too look like I am in my early 30’s. I do not attribute my good health and youthful appearance to Chi Kung. It is partially due to genetics and partially due to living a healthy lifestyle both of which are most likely the case for you too.

I have known quite a few 90+ year olds who look and act like they are in their 70’s and I have known quite a few 70+ year olds who look and act like they are in their 50’s. I have even known a few 90+ year olds who look and act like they were in their 50’s. I have known a few elderly with little to no facial wrinkling as well. None of these individuals practiced Chi Kung or anything like Chi Kung and none of them exercised to the level I have in my life or live what is now generally considered a healthy lifestyle. This demonstrates that the claimed benefits of Chi Kung occur quite naturally without purposeful and time consuming practices. Once this is demonstrated, Chi Kung practitioners have the onus to demonstrate that their claims exceed random occurrence and exceed the demonstrated benefits of merely living a healthy lifestyle. They do not do so. This makes their claims suspect, in regards to the claims of longer and healthier life and the suspension of the natural aging process.

While many Chi Kung practitioners claim the goal of immortality or excessively long and healthy lives there are never any statistically meaningful demonstrations to this fact. One must then question the emotional stability of such individuals. They are following a method with only empty claims to support its practices for the stated benefits. This is not rational and these people are wasting valuable time and energy attempting to accomplish an impossible dream? To me this indicates an unhealthy emotional attachment to longer life or fear of death and appears to be contrary to the processes of Tao.

As I have previously stated, if there is an afterlife there is no real reason to pursue (with emotional attachment) an excessively long life or immortality, since we are already immortal. If there is nothing after death, life is inherently meaningless and there is nothing truly lost in death since we never truly had anything permanent to begin with.

While there may be little doubt that Chi Kung exercises provide individuals with specific benefits, it is my contention that Chi Kung exercises are not necessary in order to achieve the same benefits. Other methods of exercise and healthy living accomplish the same benefits, but require less sacrifice and dedication than many Chi Kung methods teach are necessary in order to achieve their claimed benefits.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

QiGong, Chi Kung, or some other variant.. is simple energy work. Attachments or claims are another matter.. Walking, with intention to circulate energy and improve one's health, is as much QiGong as contrived disciplines.. Long life? outstanding, hooray!! short life? outstanding, hooray!!.. after-life, who knows? I'm holding stock in my belief that the energy and consciousness that maintains this physical vessel will also maintain a level of cohesiveness beyond the confines of the physical presentation.. it's not empirical or scientific, its my choice.. the real beauty of Living is the freedom to choose.. Scott chooses to present himself as a somewhat authoritarian, though somewhat sterile, voice of his notion of well-reasoned understanding of Tao.. Conversely, i ramble-on about the benefits of just living it, not overly concerned with the balance or extremes.. Scott reduces most things to a well-reasoned and finely balanced equation, and he does so from a very defensible position.. but, after careful ponderings, i prefer the sweet spontaneity of Life's moment by moment revelations to the carefully calculated balance of a sterile equation.. this is not to imply that Scott's actual existence (as opposed to the virtual Scott) is similarly sterile.. it is merely an observation of the evidence presented in this forum..

It is amusing to observe Scott present pejorative arguements then follow-up with a phrase or platitude that neutralizes or diminishes the derisive assertion.. as in:
"While there may be little doubt that Chi Kung exercises provide individuals with specific benefits, it is my contention that Chi Kung exercises are not necessary in order to achieve the same benefits. Other methods of exercise and healthy living accomplish the same benefits, but require less sacrifice and dedication than many Chi Kung methods teach are necessary in order to achieve their claimed benefits."
Scott: Forgive me for having fun at your expense, but.. you tend to present both sides in such a way as to counter any question of your position, which is obvious, but.. you tend to give yourself an "out", in the event someone makes a well reasoned but contrary assertion.. and, of course, you will point out that this is perfect accord with Tao.. well-balanced, both sides represented, etc.. Personally, i am more comfortable with the personality that shows some passionate inspiration, some willingness to explore the extremes of unbalance.. yet, as i have often said, you have some of the best analogies and examples relative to Tao i have experienced.. they are simply presented so blandly balanced, so carefully structured, so thoughtfully articulated, so full of escape clauses, that i am left wondering if this is simply an arm-chair academic's conceptions, or.. the result of an inspired Life?

Be well..

[Scott R. Brown]

Hi Bob,

Once again you behave in the exact manner in which you criticize. On the one hand you characterize my method as being sterile and then attempt to ameliorate the criticism with a statement that indicates you actually don’t know if I am in fact personally sterile or not. You behave in the exact manner in which you criticize, when you claim I play both ends against the middle. It has long been my contention that your attention is better focused on yourself rather than preoccupying yourself with apparent flaws you project onto me.

While I appreciate your personal approach to experiencing the processes of Tao, you have recently demonstrated little willingness or ability to understand a different perspective even though reasoned explanations and illustrative metaphor have been provided for many years.

You continue to fail to recognize the very authoritative attitude you project yourself. While my authoritative conclusions are supported with reason and metaphorical illustration, yours continue to be based upon “sensing” and “feeling”. This is a method of perceiving I have never criticized in you. In fact, my criticisms have always been idea based and NOT personality based as some of your most recent posts have been towards me. Personality based attacks are the last stand of an intellectual position that cannot be supported. As I have stated on our other thread, an experience that cannot be supported with reason or metaphorical illustration cannot be substantiated. This leaves the reader with the only option to accept the conclusion on the basis of authority. Those who follow authority blindly are prone to errors of judgment and are more easily manipulated.

The reason I describe principles in the manner I do is because I understand them. I don’t just experience them, or feel them, or sense them, I also THINK about them. I understand how and why they fit into the larger picture of Tao because I investigate and contemplate them. I DO NOT believe I have the corner on understanding; however a position that has no means for determining its validity or truth, which cannot be supported, is merely empty opinion.

It has never been my intention to belittle or diminish yours or anyone else’s personal experiences. However, WHY we believe what we do IS important. If we cannot explain why we believe the way we do we provide no real benefit to others or ourselves other than stating “Believe me just because I said so and because I mean well.” This is an inadequate means for validating Truths to others and cultivates foolishness. We are more likely to live in ignorance when we do not use our reason to support our insights. This is not my opinion only. I would encourage you to read Hui-Neng, D.T. Suzuki, Thomas Cleary’s works including his, “Taoist Meditation”, Nagarjuna, and many other Taoist and Buddhist works. You will find my method of utilizing reason has a solid foundation in the history of both Buddhism and Taoism and just about every other religion on the planet. Insights are to be balanced by reason and reason is to be balanced by insight. The fact that I succeed rather well in the reasoning department is a benefit. The fact you seem unwilling to appreciate it is a reflection on you, not on me.

It is my observation that you do not have a comprehensive understanding of many of the principles we discuss. Your recent manner gives the impression that when you are presented with well reasoned and metaphorically illustrated principles you do not understand, rather than considering the new interpretation, or asking questions in order to gain a deeper understanding of them you deride the messenger or the manner of the messenger’s presentation. This method interferes with the cultivation of an understanding of the concepts and seeks to avoid the uncomfortable possibility that the principles under discussion may not be comprehensively understood by you. You do not like it that I presume to understand a principle in more depth than you, yet you do not recognize that you presume to understand the principles in question in a greater depth than I. The difference is that I am able to describe how the principles fit into the larger picture of Tao using reason and metaphorical illustration while you support your conclusions by “sensing” and “feeling” the principles. Sensing and feeling are “A” means of experiencing the principles, but do not provide a comprehensive understanding and do not automatically bestow the ability to communicate the principles effectively. The ability to comprehensively communicate the principles takes skill and practice.

I am not responsible for your inability to clearly and reasonably present your opinions. I am not claiming perfection or superiority here, however if you would take my method and adapt it to your experiences according to your own personality, your ability to communicate your experiences would be more reasonably presented. By “reasonably presented” here I mean, presented in a manner that validates the conclusion through reason and metaphorical illustrations. I am not stating your conclusions are unreasonable, only that the support you provide for them is not based upon reason, but merely “sensing and feeling” and reflect a lack of full understanding. “Sensing and feeling” absent rational validation is dangerous. If this method is odious to you then you must accept that you will be unable to support your opinions with reason and illustrative metaphor and they will be less intellectually supported and more easily disproved.

Before you accuse me once again of arrogance please recall that it is you that have attacked my method and personality for a few months now while I have merely responded to your attacks and pointed out to you that “the pot should not call the kettle black”. Your time is better spent dealing with your unwillingness to accept me and my method for what I am and what it is. This is your own flaw to deal with. You assume that your perception of me has a valid basis and presume to advise me when you are unable to follow your own advice or realize that you behave the same manner in which you accuse me.

Your preoccupation with expectations of my behavior demonstrates an attachment to how you want me to behave. I am not here to live up to your expectations. Your unreasonable expectations are your own issue to recognize and overcome. If my arguments frustrate you, you will benefit more by examining your own beliefs, your own feelings, your own sensings, and your own flaws. You appear preoccupied with changing my behavior rather than attempting to change your own. Your disappointment in me does not motivate me to modify my method of presentation because I am not responsible for your discomfort; you are responsible for your own discomfort. Your discomfort and disappointment comes from inside your own unrealistic expectations and misperceptions of me.

You have misunderstood my point regarding Chi Kung. Perhaps I am not clear enough in my presentation; on the other hand it is just as likely that your own prejudices influence your misunderstanding. Rather than characterize my comments as amusing perhaps a question that asks for clarification concerning what appears to you to be contradictory statements would be preferable in order to more clearly understand what confuses or amuses you.

The “specific” benefits I ascribed to Chi Kung exercises are NOT excessively longer life or the acquisition of immortality. These were benefits described/implied in the original post. The “specific” benefits I DO ascribe to Chi Kung exercises may also be acquired through other means. THAT is the salient point of my most recent post. There is nothing mysterious, nefarious, amusing or rationally convoluted about that position. If you wish to discuss what those benefits may be, let us discuss them in a straight forward manner and avoid veiled ridicule.

No one has made a well reasoned argument on this thread yet Bob so I am wondering how you come to the conclusion you have. If you are referring to our philosophical discussion on the other thread, you misunderstand a comprehensive understanding of the topic with playing both sides of the fence. You further confuse a comprehensive and well-reasoned understanding of the topic and an ability to communicate effective through reason with sterility. Reason is just as necessary a component of insight as “just living it”, “sensing it” and “feeling it”. I will once again refer you to the example of Yin-Yang and refrain from a long explanation of the principles of, “mutual arising” and “the qualities of equal value” I have discussed in the past.

If you believe my comments play both sides of the fence it is of greater benefit to ask questions in order to further understand how and why I have come to the conclusion I have. It is okay to say you do not understand my point or ask why it appears to be a “both sides of the fence” comment. Veiled ridicule serves no other purpose than to stroke the ego whereas asking for clarification seeks to understand what is being said. Seeking to understand serves a greater benefit it would seem.

[mawali]

Scott,

You are the most balanced person I have read on this forum based on your presentation! If your life is as such, you are the man indeed!

Happy New Year

[mantis108]

Qi gong is known throughout most of the world as a practice of internal/external exercises that benefit an individual’s San Bao (three Gems). The three gems as referred to in the Chinese language are: Jing, Qi and Shen or when translated into English are referred to as Essence, Vital Breath and Spirit. They are also thought of as the three universal forces that are reflected in humans and are essential to our existence.

IMHO, this part alone is problematic already. The way this is written suggested that San Bao is both an ontological AND comosological problem as it is stated as essential and existential. It would need a very competent teacher to be able to not only expound each of these problems but also demostrate the direct relationship between the two. It is a huge task.

The fundamental aim of practice is to achieve long life by preserving and nurturing these three gems with various techniques that centre on the three main principles of regulating the body.

This is perhaps the most illogical. If long life is needed to preserve and nurture the San Bao, then the San Bao is phyiscal substance which means it will cease to exist in the form of San Bao eventually as with all phyiscal substances. So why do we need to work on this fragile and dependent substance? So definitely something is off here.

The body can be regulated through posture, respiration and the mind through meditation and non-attachment (avoiding disturbances and worry etc). In addition there must be a regulation of diet and the time of day to practice. Careful regulation will ensure the three gems are preserved and are not dissipated keeping the body pure, which in turn prevents or slows the decline into old age and death.

Let be honest here, NO one has yet prevented death from happening. That's a myth. We're all going to die. But we can prevent dying a meaningless death (ie disceases, violence, etc).

For both religious and health purposes it was necessary to exercise or refine the three gems to make them stronger and purer. This is accomplished with daily practice of exercises that lead the Qi around the body with the mind. This takes a great deal of practice and it should be done under the instruction of a qualified Master of Qigong.

Why is Qigong a religious exercise when it is an health exercise or vice versa? Will a person gets the same benefits if he/she has different a conviction? What is health?

There are many exercises that have been developed and taught and they all can lead you to a stronger and more healthful life. One such exercise is called the Standing Pole and resembles a Mabu or horse stance. It is a very simple and basic stance that is observed in basic gong of Shaolin Gongfu, Taijiquan and many different martial arts systems. It stems from both a Taoist and Buddhist origin and has immense benefits if done properly and with diligence.

Click here to continue reading...
www.chanwugongu.com

I think Scott pretty much covered the rest. ..

Anyway, I think this is not a very well thought out presentation. Personally, the author's understanding of the discipline of Qigong is a little confusing at best.

Just some thoughts

Mantis108

[Scott R. Brown]

Scott,

You are the most balanced person I have read on this forum based on your presentation! If your life is as such, you are the man indeed!

Happy New Year

Hi mawali,

Thank you for the kind words.

[AJM]

Scott, I'm completely with you. I practice chi gong because it makes me feel better. Fortunately my Shifu never made any claims about it at all. He just said do it. I've known of hucksters for so long now that I laugh rather than get discouraged. If you know my back story at all, I used to live close to "The father of iron palm in America" so I'm sorta used to horses patoots.

[Egg fu young]

Wow! way over my head. So many words I did not know.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Hi Scott: Time has passed.. i have pondered your admonishments and found merit in some, in some i found none..

Once again you behave in the exact manner in which you criticize. On the one hand you characterize my method as being sterile and then attempt to ameliorate the criticism with a statement that indicates you actually don’t know if I am in fact personally sterile or not. You behave in the exact manner in which you criticize, when you claim I play both ends against the middle. It has long been my contention that your attention is better focused on yourself rather than preoccupying yourself with apparent flaws you project onto me.

Observation or criticism, to the observer my intention is not obvious..As to my statement as to not knowing your actual character, i don't.. you once cautioned me that you will play "devil's advocate" as you see fit, so.. i am left to speculate as to what represents your actual beliefs, and which represents your gamesmanship.. while i appreciate your debating skills, i am neither preoccupied nor projecting.. i am following my "nature", when something piques my curiosity, i test it.. A more sound reply to the above referenced quote would have been appreciated, but.. returning the criticism without addressing my observation will have to suffice.

In fact, my criticisms have always been idea based and NOT personality based as some of your most recent posts have been towards me. Personality based attacks are the last stand of an intellectual position that cannot be supported.

While the intention was not personal, it is clear in hindsight that it is easily perceived as such, humble apologies (very sincerely).. however, the second part of the quoted post is an off-hand dismissal without merit.. "an intellectual position that cannot be supported" that is presumptous.. testing differing opinions by probing the personality behind them has no bearing on the "intellectual position".. but, it is quite revealing..

It is my observation that you do not have a comprehensive understanding of many of the principles we discuss. Your recent manner gives the impression that when you are presented with well reasoned and metaphorically illustrated principles you do not understand, rather than considering the new interpretation, or asking questions in order to gain a deeper understanding of them you deride the messenger or the manner of the messenger’s presentation. This method interferes with the cultivation of an understanding of the concepts and seeks to avoid the uncomfortable possibility that the principles under discussion may not be comprehensively understood by you.

You are correct, i do not have a "comprehensive understanding of many of the principles".. Please do not mistake the testing of your own self-perceived understanding as my position of rejecting consideration, i afford your concepts great consideration.. again, you presume that i am "uncomfortable" with my deficiency in "comprehensively" understanding your interpretations.. i am not.

While my authoritative conclusions are supported with reason and metaphorical illustration, yours continue to be based upon “sensing” and “feeling”. This is a method of perceiving I have never criticized in you.

You are currently criticizing my method of understanding through direct experience, i.e.:
an experience that cannot be supported with reason or metaphorical illustration cannot be substantiated. This leaves the reader with the only option to accept the conclusion on the basis of authority. Those who follow authority blindly are prone to errors of judgment and are more easily manipulated.
The reader has more than the option you assert, they can edeavor to recreate a similar experience to substantiate its functionality..

No one has made a well reasoned argument on this thread yet Bob so I am wondering how you come to the conclusion you have.

While i am prone to emotion and interaction on a more robust scale and may have missed something, please point out where i conclude that "i" have made a "well reasoned" arguement.. i only assert well-experienced insights..

We are more likely to live in ignorance when we do not use our reason to support our insights. This is not my opinion only. I would encourage you to read Hui-Neng, D.T. Suzuki, Thomas Cleary’s works including his, “Taoist Meditation”, Nagarjuna, and many other Taoist and Buddhist works. You will find my method of utilizing reason has a solid foundation in the history of both Buddhism and Taoism and just about every other religion on the planet.

Likewise, i would suggest Red Pine's translation of Tao Te Ching, with historical commentary i.e.:
Verse 71: Su Ch`e, (1039-1112) one of the eight great prose writers of the T`ang and Sung dynasties, treasured by Buddhists and Taoists alike for his clarity says: "The Tao is not something that can be reached through reasoning. Hence it cannot be understood.
Li Hsi-Chai: (?-1167) Taoist Master and noted Yiching scholar, says: "Understanding depends on things, hence it involves fabrication. Not understanding returns to the origin, hence it approaches truth.

The reason I describe principles in the manner I do is because I understand them. I don’t just experience them, or feel them, or sense them, I also THINK about them.

Please do not assume i do not think about my experiences, that would be a mistake unbecoming of your skill.. do not assume that i am without a substantial level of research, that would be incorrect.. our differences are in application of knowledge/experiences gained.

Your preoccupation with expectations of my behavior demonstrates an attachment to how you want me to behave.

While i have no interest in how you behave, Scott.. i was genuinely interested in Scott, the personna on this forum. i deeply appreciate much of the wisdoms shared in the past. i misplaced a concern that some of that wisdom might be lost to certain perceptions based on style of presentation.. my mistake, complete with humble apologies.. i do hope we can continue other dialogues, metered by my careful questioning.. i still enjoy the insights and i will adjust my "taste" accordingly..

Be well..