Aaron

nice! i am glad to hear that.. thanks

 

i was having a hard time even thinking of a secular culture to be honest. I didn't know that sweden was so non-religious.

 

I will see your OPs assertion inasmuch as abrahamic religions are dualistic and can be used to rally emotional support for war. But i still think most wars are a matter of resources and the urge to conquer based on xenophobia. Have you ever read guns germs and steel by jared diamond? I like that book, but i have never heard any critique of it one way or the other. He talks about war and colonialism and subjegation in depth, and never really mentions religions.

I didn't read the book but I did watch the three part documentary, which discussed the general principles regarding the development of cultures and such. I will not deny that most wars are based on greed and xenophobia, but I would ask to what degree the xenophobia is fostered by religious differences?

I'm not saying religions are the cause of war, at least not in most cases, but rather they are used in collusion to justify it.

Aaron

I have just sad that i hold the perpetrators at fault for inciting violence and those that follow blindly of stupidity. If an institution is at fault then so be it -- hold it liable. I am very familiar with the handiwork of some religions. They have caused extreme suffering...but some also caused great spiritual emancipation...

 

By your argument we would hold science guilty of mass murder too...right? Isnt there collusion between notable historical sociopaths and science? Would you justify hiroshima/nagasaki with nanking? So hold the zen monks guilty if they are guilty, but also hold the scientific community guilty for their inventions of the tools of war. Should we banish science along with religions?

In regards to scientists being held responsible, I would say only if the person who invented the tool declared it righteous and above reproach by mere mortals, then used there influence because of said invention to harm someone, which the monks historically do (you apparently didn't read about the monks actually joining the military force in order to fight in the conflicts and wars, if you doubt this, just do a little bit of research on the Ch'an Buddhists during the Korean War, the Zen Buddhist during the early part of the 20th century and WWII, the Thailand Theravada.... err... well pretty much all of them, to be honest, especially if it was against those pesky white devils... I guess I'll stop there).

As far as Hiroshima and Nagasaki goes, the person who decided to drop the bomb should've been held accountable for attacking a non-military target. In my opinion it wasn't justified.

Aaron

That would amount to roughtly 6000 very powerful energy healers on the planet. Sounds realistic to me, if not exaggerated. So what's the problem with the one-in-a-million statement? I thought Twinner doesn't believe it's possible at all (unless he sees for himself), not that it is rare.

 

By the way, Ya Mu, you believe Twinner wouldn't believe it even if he witnessed it, even willing to bet on that. Are you still denying that your ego is massively involved?

I believe people should be open to experiences that might be outside their comfort zone and that we should never accept absolutes, because that denies us the chance to experience change if it occurs at a later time, however I also believe that there needs to sufficient evidence before one should make a decision and that even if something sounds logical, it doesn't necessary mean it's true, science has proven this again and again, by the way.

Followup question: Are you willing to feel compassion for Twinner's probably sincere scepticism/confusion? Maybe he really would believe it once he witnessed it in a certain way, we should not apply rigid convictions. I would consider it an act of mercy and compassion to alleviate Twinner's pain and confusion by demonstrating it to him. Maybe his behavior is simply rooted in a longing for the wonders of the world that has been stunted by disappointing experiences in the past. Ya Mu, since it is a fact that you have impressive healing abilities that cannot simply be debated away if demonstrated, can you put your ego aside and try to help Twinner experience those wonders despite your current aversion for him? And even if he did still deny it as you so strongly believe (and I hope you don't send energy into that idea anymore), what do you have to lose?

This suggested approach is in the same spirit that your healing is, too. That people don't necessarily have to be taught a lesson, go through a hard trial, before they are allowed to experience relief, but that simple, plain action can mercifully help others not having to go through that.

Even someone who has a challenging attitude is in a way showing their despair and pain and disappointment. I find it skillful to not engage 'haunting' thought patterns (inner demons) of someone, but to totally circumnavigate them with compassionate action, and you are lucky that you have the means for that if you want to.

Your strong belief that Twinner would deny it nevertheless encourages the pain in him; you are actually inviting him to raise his degree of scepticism/denial. You are hurting/boosting his ego even more, and that makes it increasingly difficult for him to accept the truth of a powerful healing effect, because that admission would cause a lot of discomfort for him. Try to reduce that discomfort by forgetting all dispute that has come before.

 

Do you see how we are manifesting our beliefs in the outer world?

Ya Mu did nothing wrong, per se, he is only acting as his conscience tells him to. He might have been emotionally invested in the discussion, but why not? He has been practicing Qigong and TCM for several decades and I'm sure anyone would be upset if someone stated that what they believe and have dedicated their life to is false. I'm not offended by this in the least, nor am I in need of compassion in this regard. Believe me, I am not some lost lamb that has failed to find the flock, rather I have decided the flock isn't for me just yet. If at some point in the future, through meditation and practice I find things to be different, then so be it, but I am absolutely not saying people should not practice TCM, but rather they should do it responsibly. Don't believe something just because it sounds logical or it's deemed to be true, trust your own experiences and allow the truth to arise on its own.

A quick point, no one can make you feel emotionally anything you don't choose to feel. Every decision you make is your responsibility, so if I did suffer as a result of Ya Mu's comments, that's on me, not him.

Aaron

I am not saying that at all. Indeed people should be held accountable for their actions. So go find the instigators of religious iolence and bring them to trial.

In our prebious iscussion on religion vs dharma i had tried to explain the difference. One good statement is "religon is that with which one seeks rewards...dharma is that with which one seeks truth"

 

I have issues with people conflating the two. Religion is groupthink, dharma is individual. So instead of eliminating both, try and change awareness and intelligence of individuals to move towards dharma.

You realize you've just said, don't hold the institution at fault, only the individuals who actually perpetrated the acts. You can use religion and dharma as examples of your argument, but that seems to be the argument.

My point isn't that the religions should be cast aside and wiped out, but rather that these institutions often cause harm because they inevitably become tools of the government and rulers. If one is truly going to have a religion that doesn't harm anyone, then the only way to do that is practice tolerance for others and completely exclude religion from government.

It astounds me how so many religious leaders gave up their convictions for the preservation of their institutions. It shows to me a lack of faith in those same institutions. If a religion is "true" then it seems like it would continue to exist regardless of what happens, so the practitioner would not need to cow-tow to the ruler's pressure, rather stand on faith alone, if in fact the belief system was inspired by something greater than man.

Even without this, admittedly biased opinion, we still need to be aware of the capacity of the institution to do harm, so that we can try to prevent this from happening, not only in the here and now in Thailand and Sri Lanka, but also in the future.

Aaron

Okay...now we have a baseline. So your argument is that while you accept that there is qi and it can be manipulated, manipulation over long distance is not acceptable to you...right?

 

Some further clarifying questions:

 

A) do you agree that this can be (qi) be manipulated by another person in close proximity? Tat it can be projected/made to iduce movement in another individual?

B ) do you accept that it can be manipulated either by touch or without physical contact from close proximity?

Or

C) do you hold that only an individual can manipulate his own qi but not influence others?

Until I see evidence otherwise, I hold to C. I think it's possible for someone to manipulate another person's qi, but I think they're one in a million practitioners.

Aaron

If you had grasped the quote, you would not have responded as you did. In fact, your response was war-ful,...full of the "way of war."

I grasp the quote... any action that opposes someone else is an act of war... simple quote, but that's not what the topic is about, but rather the complicity of religion in warfare. I can see how this quote might have a very general connection, but not more than that.

Aaron

Not religion, nor not-religion will resolve this.

It is ingrained in the human nature. The opposites...the ability to love and to hate. Each one of us must decide for ourselves whether to love or to hate...

 

If you ask me violence is a agent of change. Nature balances things...sometimes quietly, sometimes with a bang. If tomorrow all religions disappeared from our collective consciousness, something else with take its place. There is no solution to be found....only individual development via meditation and introspection (self realization)

So religious institutions shouldn't be held responsible if they're complicit in the war? So the Zen monastery's have no responsibility for their actions during WWII, advocating the killing of Chinese because they were considered "less than human"?

This is an interesting defense for religion, because it generally says the religion is blameless, only the individual can be blamed, which gives them carte blanche to do whatever they want in regards to government and warfare.

Aaron

Aaron, I like to further expound on my previous post.

 

You mentioned before that religions are too violent that they eschew war too much.

 

Now I am talk about a simple truth right now.

 

The true teachings of enlightenment and immortality exists in every culture. The Chinese, the Tibetans, The Hindus, Essenes, Knight Templars, The Japs, etc etc.

 

But every time these teachings begin to flourish, the forces of darknesss will gather and find every means to destroy the teachings of freeing humankind from their bondage.

 

Look at how the Chinese destroyed their own culture and the tibetans. Look at how the Vatican destroyed the Knight Templars. The Essenes were destroyed as well. Jesus was one of the Essenes and look at how he was crucified.

 

If anything, I wish that the past spiritual masters have been more warlike. That way, they will have the means to defend the teachings which can free humankind from those who want to see such teachings destroyed.

 

WHy do you think so many spiritual masters are in hiding now? Because they know that the forces of darkness will use the ignorant humans to destroy them if they ever step forward into the public.

I don't think you understand what we're talking about here. You're in left field and we're in right field, and I think you're playing an entirely different game at that.

First there is no justification for rape or killing of innocents under any circumstances. Nothing you can say could justify that. I would assume that in your nihilistic juvenile understanding of the world that you have failed to grasp this concept yet, but perhaps with age you will.

Aaron

A Canadian said, "rallying for peace, is war."

So what does that have to do with price of beans in Jamaica, or this conversation for that matter? I'm not discussing rallying for peace, but the complicity of religion in warfare. If you had read the OP you might've gotten that message.

Aaron

"i am not saying that religions are innocent." ever get the feeling youre not being listened to?

 

religions are powerful and religious ideas can be used to stir adherents towards violence, especially when they believe their religion is being threatened. But that does not mean that people who adhere to religions are more violent. Look at Mao. He wanted religion eradicated from the Chinese vocabulary, so he declared war on taoists, buddhists, tibetans, anyone he felt represented religion... so obviously, non-religious people aren't immune to atrocity and acts of darkness.

 

I feel like you are looking selectively at one aspect of religious life, the power of religion to stir up emotions, and the power of those emotions to dominate the groupthink. You seem to neglect to address the idea that religious people have done a lot of good things, or that very few groups in the world DONT adhere to some kind of religion or spiritual philosophy... so back to my suggestion that perhaps its just human nature to be subject to our dark emotions.

 

The Hopi tribe is completely religious, absorbed to the last minute detail of their daily lives in love and devotion to the sacred spirits (kachinas) and to the creator, and they have never resorted to violent means except once in the 1700s when the Spanish tried to bring churchianity to them and convert them. Then they destroyed the mission. But they have a history of non-violence and peaceful lifestyle in spite of being deeply religious.

 

Now i challenge you to name me a non-religious culture who has also this history of non-violence and peaceful lifestyle, without a connection to the divine and the spirits, please.

 

if you can, awesome, i can't think of one, and if you can't please consider that most people form religions. Maybe that in and of itself is worth considering the worth and merit of. And most people at one point or another in their history become engaged in conflict. But those two facts alone simply do not prove a direct causal connection between the two phenomena. that is all.

I give you Sweden as an example. According to the last estimates between 46 and 85% do not believe in God and less than 2% actually attend regular church services (5% of the Muslims attend regular services). They have a very peaceful culture, one of the highest quality of life indexes and are also well known for their peaceful way of life. They remained neutral in both World War I and II as well, in fact they haven't been at war in nearly 200 years. They have a very low crime rate as well. I don't see them marching off to war anytime soon, so I guess they'd be an excellent example.

Aaron

Aaron,

 

Some important questions needs to be answered (by you) in order to establish a baseline for discussion --

 

a) do you accept that there is subtle energy flowing in our bodies that is called Qi/Ki/Prana?

b ) do you accept that there is a subtle network of channels through which is energy flows?

 

If you don't accept the above two, and in fact believe in the contrary, there is no point in continuing discussions. To be able to have a conversation on efficacy of Qi treatment, it is important to have a common ground. If that common ground is that you are a total skeptic then I'm afraid no amount of debate/discussion is going to change your mind. In fact, my experience with skeptics is that they are too closed to exploring other ideas and even experiential evidence is "rationalized" away...

I know there is subtle energy flowing in my body, I feel it when I meditate and I've used it to deal with pain in the past, so that's not in question, it's the level of ability that I question and the capacity for someone to manipulate that energy in another person.

I'm not an entire skeptic mind you, I just don't see any evidence, personal or otherwise, to say that someone has the ability to alter the chi in someone else or from a distance. I don't think it's possible, except for the greatest of practitioners, as in one in a million have this ability. There are far too many people claiming they have supernatural abilities, but not many that can actually show them to be true, that's my issue.

Were there men who could heal others by laying a hand on them, possibly, but I will hold to my skepticism til I see it for myself, which I haven't yet.

Aaron

Twinner,

 

Could you provide some sources on that?

 

I know there are different schools in Buddhism, I think the easiest way to categorize them is whether "people return to the world" as an act of compassion (Mahayana) or "ascend and then don't return" (Theravada).

 

Where you get the idea of the Taoist idea of compassion I would to know; I have never heard about that before.

 

IMHO suffering is a concept from Buddhism and is said to end with Buddhist enlightenment.

Read Tao and Zen. It talks about this difference in view between Zen and Mahayana Buddhism.

Aaron

Wow . . . this topic kind of got derailed, huh? Still, mostly an enjoyable discussion.

 

On the topic of pain: I too am a sufferer of chronic . . . I prefer to call it 'irritation.' At first the irritation manifested as a pain in my back that was occasionally pretty severe. After spending over a year (and quite a bit of money) consulting chiropractors, regular physicians, physical therapists, and massage therapists I finally found some relief through the practice of yoga, chi kung, and tai chi. It took a lot of time though, and the journey has not always been pleasant. Has the pain been beneficial? As a motivator, I suppose it has, but I still want it eliminated. I think some people become attached to their pain and are actually afraid to part with it.

 

Some of the most recent discoveries I've made about my chronic symptoms, is that they clearly have emotional components. I suspect now that emotional trauma can actually manifest as physical trauma and vise versa. I'm still pretty new to all of this, but I've seen enough first-hand evidence to convince me that there are indeed subtle energies at work in my body and tapping into those energies can be more powerful than any other 'western' therapy that I've tried.

 

As far as empirical evidence is concerned . . . allow me to quote a 2004 paper by Tom Rogers.

 

 

As an aside, I'd hardly consider that an article from an unbiased source, Tom Rogers is the president and CEO of the Qigong Institute, the people that run the website it appears on.

In regards to your back pain, I'm not a doctor or Medical Qigong practicioner, so I wont give you medical or energy advice, but what I will say is that from my understanding they've linked lower back pain to stress and anxiety for a long time now. Making that connection was quite brilliant in my opinion, many people fail to realize it. Good luck with your future treatments, I hope everything works out for you.

Aaron

Got to admit, even though from a totally misinformed or rather uninformed viewpoint, this post doesn't contain quite the level of animosity your others showed.

Trust you - not in a million years. You have never studied qigong or medical qigong yet have such a strong view; very funny.

 

When you say show you the western medical science, are you referring to the same science that said, through the "scientific method" of double blind studies, that (gee so very many now I can't recall the number) multiple drugs were completely safe and had efficacy above the statistical norm, yet history of use PROVED them to be harmful (actually deadly in many instances) and many of them to have no efficacy at all? If so, then no.

 

I am posting the following here for others, not for you, as I doubt you will go to the trouble of checking it out. But in reference to your last uninformed sentence, I would like to assist in providing a bit of edification.

The first program, Clinical Practitioner, requires generally a 3 year period. The 2nd one posted here, the Level IV Teacher, requires far more than 10 years of study as it requires 10 years of teaching instructors and clinical practitioners. I am a level IV Teacher with this organization and am also officially certified in medical qigong through the Baoding Qigong Healing Hospital in China(PRC).

 

from www.nqa.org:

 

Clinical Practitioner

This describes the person who practices applications of healing qigong with emission and projection of qi and may also teach prescriptive exercises. This level has the ability to generate qi, absorb qi from the atmosphere, and have trained their qi. They have built a strong energetic foundation through disciplined practice of qigong and possess an understanding of healing principles

 

at least 500 hours documented formal Qigong training

includes at least 350 didactic hours (see website for description) 200 of which are specific to Qigong

includes at least 100 hours of qigong treatment which may include contact and non-contact qi emission, adjunct massage manipulations, and teaching of prescriptive exercises or any combination thereof.

at least 2 years clinical experience

must carry a current liability insurance policy

 

 

Level IV Teacher: The Highest Certification Level Granted by the National Qigong Association. While not necessarily the clinician, the Teacher has at least 1000 hours of training and demonstrates a level of knowledge and understanding deeper than Level III. The Teacher should be able to generate qi, absorb qi from the atmosphere, has trained his/her qi. The Teacher has built a strong energetic foundation through disciplined practice of qigong and possesses an understanding of healing principles.

 

This is the top internal certification/recognition of the organization and denotes wisdom, insight, qi transmission, and empowering. These senior practitioners have taught instructors of qigong or qigong clinical therapists for 10 years or more. They act as mentors for others in the field and are acknowledged senior practitioners by the NQA. This level is recognized to teach all levels of formal instruction.

 

At least 1000 hours of documented formal instruction in qigong and at least 10 years of qigong teaching and passage of an interview process is required. These interviews could take place at the annual NQA conference and needs to include at least three members of the Application Review Committee.

 

at least 1000 hours documented formal Qigong training

at least 10 years Qigong experience teaching teachers.

must sit an interview with members of the Application Review Committee

A student of a level IV teacher has the option of, in lieu of listing course information from that teacher in the application, substituting a strong letter of recommendation from a Level IV NQA Certified Teacher that includes the number of hours of relevant instruction, general description of coursework, and descriptive comments about student ability.

 

Aaron, I strongly suggest you actually learn about these things before you bad mouth them and say totally misleading and wrong information.

I'm only stating what I know to be true, not what is necessarily true. The truth to me is found in the facts and I have yet to see any facts regarding the use of Chi in the healing of others.

As I said before, if you believe this to be true, fine, all the more power to you. I would rather not accept something on faith, but rather see concrete examples of it's usefulness and benefit (which have been documented in Tai Chi and Qigong, but not in TCM). If that makes me a hatemonger, so be it, but I'm not making these comments based on hate, but rather just stating the facts.

If I've failed at all today, it's by resorting to arguing when it's not necessary. Being right or wrong isn't important, but rather living as you should live. If you're doing that to the best of your ability then you have nothing to worry about.

Aaron

Twinner,

 

Could you provide some sources on that?

 

I know there are different schools in Buddhism, I think the easiest way to categorize them is whether "people return to the world" as an act of compassion (Mahayana) or "ascend and then don't return" (Theravada).

 

Where you get the idea of the Taoist idea of compassion I would to know; I have never heard about that before.

 

IMHO suffering is a concept from Buddhism and is said to end with Buddhist enlightenment.

Hello Chris D,

Give me some time to find the sources, but I have no problem explaining this rational. I should point out I was putting it into a context that compared the relationship of suffering to the Taoist ideal and the Buddhist ideal, but there are some references to suffering the Tao Teh Ching, at least indirectly.

Aaron

I will state upfront I have not read all the posts back and forth from Twinner and Ya Mu, I simply got bored. Sorry guys. It started out interesting, but hey...well you know.

 

 

 

Why raise your head above the parapets?

 

I simply won't discuss things of a personal nature. There is nothing worse than being told the way you have come to live with and perceive aspects of your life are wrong. EVERYONE's experience of pain is unique IMHO. Walk 30 years in my shoes and someone will know what I have been through, but will they be in the same place as me? See the world as I do? Feel the same about things as I do? No. And they wouldn't be wrong either. See the quote by Dr Xie in my signature.

 

 

 

I find this interesting, I had not conceived of the differences this way before. I will ponder this.

 

 

 

Well, you can write it any which way. But personally I feel that its semantics to argue that they are the same. Especially when you also say that sufferring results from pain. So they are the same but different eh? Just raggin on ya.

 

Suffering does result from pain, but pain is NOT suffering. And experiencing pain does NOT mean suffering will or has to follow. It means our attachments and projections can create suffering OUT OF the pain that is experienced. Liberation from suffering does not mean liberation from pain. It is how we respond to and deal with pain that either will or will not lead into suffering. That is my understanding and so far no-one has explained anything to me that makes me feel differently about that.

 

 

 

Again, I wholeheartedly disagree. Physical pain is very real. Emotional anguish is very real. But trying to put judgement values of worse on one or the other shows a gross over simplification and lack of experience in either IMO (apologies if this is not the case, but it is how it comes across to me). There is a very real cycle and relationship between mental emotional anguish and physical pain, a web far too intricate to unweave in any real sense.

 

I am not trying to start a who's translation is best argument, I will however add the following. As there are many on this board who stay silent who may benefit from an expanded look at the part that has been posted. And simply saying go read the original usually fosters little.

 

Regarding Chpt 13 of the Dao de jing.

 

Translation is one thing, interpretation something else entirely. Both are tricky at the best of times. Each to their own, regarding reading understanding into such old texts. I always go back to source if at all possible.

 

寵辱若驚，

貴大患若身。

何謂寵辱若驚？

寵為下，

得之若驚，

失之若驚，

是謂寵辱若驚。

何謂貴大患若身？

吾所以有大患者，

為吾有身，

及吾無身，

吾有何患？

故貴以身為天下，

若可寄天下；

愛以身為天下，

若可託天下。

 

Favour and disgrace are like fear,

Honour and distress are like the self.

What does this mean?

Favour debases us,

Afraid when we get it,

Afraid when we lose it.

The self embodies distress,

No self,

No distress.

Respect the world as your self:

The world can be your lodging.

Love the world as your self:

The world can be your trust. Addiss & Lombardo

 

While no translation is perfect. This is MUCH closer and more direct translation from looking at the Chinese. As an exmaple of the whole chapter lets look at the first two lines, which always tend to set the tone for the rest of the page anyway.

 

"Favour and disgrace are like fear,

Honour and distress are like the self."

 

Is fairly direct and virtually word for word from the Chinese.

 

"Welcome disgrace as a pleasant surprise.

Prize calamities as your own body."

 

There does not appear to be a 'welcome' or 'prizing' of anything mentioned in the lines of the Dao de jing you are referring to. The rest of the translation by Wu is really an interpretive translation based on HIS views, and not a close translation at all. Wu was not a Daoist, he was Roman Catholic, I personally would take his translation with a large grain of salt.

 

Every translation of this chapter is markedly different, and varies in the degree of re-interpretation by the translator. The Addis & Lombardo retains the writing style of the Chinese and sticks much closer to what is said, and contains far less 'additions' of their own.

 

As for reading understanding from the chapter, well that is tricky. It like putting your foot in a flowing river, you never enter the same water twice. Read it again in 10 years and your understanding changes.

 

Well now those reading this thread have the Chinese and a very close, with minimal personal addition, translation, and can come up with their own understanding. Which is best in many reagrds. I am not going to, or trying to debate the meaning of the chapter. Rather I am attempting to point out the pitfalls of translations and interpretations, and opening the referenced chapter up for wider understanding in the contaxt of the thread so far.

 

The understanding I get from reading the Chinese is not the same as that already posted . Neither myself nor the native Chinese readers I asked, can see anything about embracing suffering or 'welcoming' anything. So I encourage those interested to engage with the text itself to find their own understanding and meaning.

 

Best regards,

Most academics respect Wu (who was a nationally renowned translator and international lawyer, as well as a native Chinese) as having one of the most accurate translations of the Wang Bi version of the Tao Teh Ching. I have never heard of the translation you posted and it seriously deviates from all the respected translations I've read, so I have to assume it's not accurate.

Oh and I have read it after 10 years and 20 years and my understanding has changed... it took some life experience to understand it as I have today.

If you want to separate pain from suffering, that's fine, but you're essentially saying that someone can experience pain, but not suffer from it. In that sense is cutting your finger or having your arm chopped off painful then? If one does not suffer from it, can it actually be painful?

If you're proposing that the Buddhist mystics are capable of eliminating pain via detachment, I'd have to see proof.

Other than that, thanks for the responses and again, I'm not trying to insult TCM practitioners. You're free to practice as you see fit and if you feel through your experience that it's a valid method of healing, then by all means follow your heart, but I haven't seen any evidence to support my doing so in this regard.

Aaron

Again it show that you have not bothered to do a bit of research on the subject. Most people learn methods to get started in medical qigong in a matter of days. And proficiency within 3 years. Yes, it does require time&effort. So does anything else in life.

 

No one asked you to study it for an extended period of time. What I asked was that you quit speaking ignorantly, ie, making incorrect trashy statements about something you admittedly know nothing about. You have vast resources at your disposal for learning about the efficacy of medical qigong. Books abound. Do you think all the people who have posted here on what it has done for them and all the case histories are lies? Do you think the posts made by myself, Dwai, Kempomaster, and others are just fabrications? Do you think all the medical qigong hospitals in China were there to perform "smoke & mirrors" and that the many people who were helped in them were lying? Do you think I would have a 35 year success at clinic utilizing medical qigong if it didn't work? Do you think all the people who had the successes were lying? If so, that is YOUR problem, not mine, and has no basis. Do you think all people are stupid and would continue to go to a clinic where nothing worked? Again, your problem; a bit of research would show you that it is a valid system. I have often pointed to Dr Ken Sancier's qigong database, but it does require a bit of time & effort to search and it sounds like you are too lazy to invest in that research before opening your mouth.

 

"all I ask is that you don't cause entire species to go extinct for some miracle cure."

Sounds like a good idea to me. Just like it is a good idea for someone who knows absolutely nothing about the subject to not attempt to trash a whole system & profession just because they like dark ages ideas like "pain is needed" instead of progression in awareness.

 

The existing and failing system of medicine will fail regardless and there needs to be community based health care. Medical qigong could play a large role in that and I believe it will.

 

Thanks for screwing up a whole thread with your ignorance and personal insults. Several people had posted some really good info about pain and now are probably scared off because of your continued attempts to trash a complete system and now want no part of it. If you came and said that you had studied medical qigong and it didn't work for you or that you had a problem and went for medical qigong sessions and they did nothing for you, then that would have some validity in that they were your experiences. But here you are trashing the profession of a whole group of people, several who post here on this board, all while self-admittedly knowing not one damn thing about it. These personal insults should stop. And yes, insulting my and many other's profession simply because you want to is a personal insult. Do some research.

Yes I think you could have a successful clinic open for 35 years and still be founded on smoke and mirrors, simply because of the placebo effect and also people will normally get well on their own if given enough time. I don't believe that someone can heal someone else by waving their hands above them and manipulating their chi. I can understand how acupuncture works, so I have no problem with that, but I think chi manipulation as a form of healing is no more valid than a preacher laying hands on someone that's sick and curing them.

Trust me, I know a lot of people who believe in qigong traditional chinese medicine, and they spend thousands of dollars to learn it, but I have yet to see any scientific evidence supported by the Western world that says qigong energy healing works, hence the reason I say it's smoke and mirrors. it plays on the wishes of the patient and they either heal themselves through a placebo effect or they get better naturally, but we say it's due to the mystical powers of the great qigong healer!

Show me actual evidence in a western medical review, one that has been repeated, and I will be the first to go to a qigong healer when I find out I'm sick, rather than a normal doctor for treatment. Although I think the medical doctor is cheaper, so maybe not. Funny too, since one had to go to school for ten years to get their degree and the other just had to take a mail order course or weekend workshop.

Aaron

... a few years ago I made a challenging friend.

He was good looking, confident and women just love him. He grew up in his family home which is stunningly beautiful {like a fairy dell} with very wealthy parents who always gave him what ever he wanted. His parents were also very soft loving people who had the money to become stay home parents and give him full loving attention. He went to Steiner school in a beautiful location and spent his childhood singing dancing and making art.

In his own words he basically had no bad experiences, and had a Value system instilled based on Love, Pleasure, Relationships, Communication and Creativity.

He is the most loving person I have met. He has no Neurosis that I am aware of. No fidgets or twitches in his nervous system. He is utterly relaxed. He deals with negative energy from others in a really gently and beautiful way that benefits them both.

 

He really pushed my buttons when I first met him, and snidely I was just waiting to see shit hit the fan for him, that he [in my mind] had no back bone to deal with. But He is beautifully Integrated. He also has an active spiritual life, which challenged me because I also used to think that if people Had it too easy they would not grow or be Inspired to grow, but it is just not true.

That old 'suffering is good for you' mind set is just an archaic hang over from barbaric times.

 

Seth.

Your friend was lying. We all have bad experiences. Are you telling me he never had another child take his toy away from him because they wanted to play with it? Are you saying he's never had a loved one die? Are you saying he's never failed at a task that he put a lot of effort into? Has he led a privileged life, apparently so, but I would say that it's the combination of good parenting and learning from his mistakes that have made him the person he is today. The nice thing about pain and suffering is that the effects are drastically minimized if you have a kind and loving support network that helps you through it (and you can still get all the benefits from the experience of loss or suffering.)

Again my point is not that we need to be (or should be) masochists, but rather that pain is essential in order for us to understand what is beneficial and harmful, in fact that's the full purpose of pain, to show us what is harmful so we don't end up doing the same stupid things over and over.

Now there are people who suffer and never learn from their suffering and there are also people who suffer with no apparent cause for that suffering, but the essential truth of the matter is that the vast majority of people use pain as a learning tool, whether they care to admit it or not.

Now the problem is that we're kind of out of whack with our definition of pain. I'm saying we learn from those things that cause us to feel discomfort and pain. If we never experienced pain it would be almost impossible for us to die of natural causes. This goes for physical and psychological pain. We'd end up getting murdered or having a horrible accident.

Do you think the Buddhist monk who is showing compassion to others is doing it simply because of an enlightened state or is it because they empathize with the other person's suffering? Didn't suffering help them to empathize? That's my point, it's experiencing something that allows us to relate to others on a human level. Anyways, this is getting way out of hand, so I'm going to stop here unless someone comes up with an actual argument to disprove my translation of Chapter 13... i.e. give me the "correct" translation.

Aaron

Dwai,

There is no offence intended here, but let me clarify, there is no way in hell any of us are ever going to be free of pain, unless we're dead and that sort of makes the point moot, doesn't it? Pain is inevitable and essential. People who can't feel pain end up having numerous accidents because of the condition. Pain is essential, it lets us know something is wrong. You can believe you can transcend pain, but as a friend of mine pointed it, give that person who claims that he doesn't feel pain or suffering anymore the hammer, because he's really the one who needs to bop himself upside the head, so he can get a reality check.

The degree of suffering isn't important, rather it's the act of suffering that allows us to grow as individuals. Nothing anyone's said disproves my point, it just directs the argument in another direction. Does the enlightened person no longer have nerves? From what I've heard there are a lot of Buddhist monks that go to the dentist when they have toothaches, Taoists too. Can they manage pain better than others, perhaps, but they are not without pain and suffering.

People seem to take this to the extreme, as in I'm advocating masochism, rather than looking at the practical argument being made. The irony is that most Buddhist masters will tell you that the one has suffered much finds it easier to reach enlightenment. It's understanding suffering that allows us to transcend it and develop compassion for others, you can't understand it without experiencing it and realizing it's nature.

Aaron

."..lets just say I don't buy into what you're saying, not because I don't understand it, but because I do."

Of course you don't. As in no clue whatsoever. IF you had even looked through books at the rich and vivid history of medical qigong and had read about it you STILL wouldn't understand it. This type of understanding does not come from reading a book but actually studying it. Now what you can do is actually research it, read about the rich & vivid history of use in hospitals in China, read abstracts from the scientific papers, read about its success in clinic, etc. Then you would know it is a valid aspect of Chinese Medicine - not "smoke & mirrors", which is total ignorance on your part to say.

 

And, of course the belief that suffering is NEEDED is religious dogma. And IMO, a very sick part of that dogma. People do not have to suffer.

 

I have uttered no passive aggressiveness - just responding to what you write, and I must say, it certainly would be nice if people (such as YOU) had a little more education about a subject before making such incredibly uninformed & outlandish statements as you have. This is my suggestion to you.

 

Now if you want to cut the bullshit and get back to the subject, you did make a valid point about pain; it IS more difficult for people to treat pain in others without having experienced it, at least initially. Though with some experience this does fall to the wayside for those trained in medical qigong.

Ahh... so you come back with the ever effervescent reply that all the "greats" give you, that only by studying it for decades can one ever understand the power of "insert mystical mumbo jumbo here".

I'm not going to continue to discuss something that I have no intention of studying for any extent of time in order to learn the 'truth'.

If you've read this post prior to this edit, ignore it. If you want to believe in TCM, that's fine, all I ask is that you don't cause entire species to go extinct for some miracle cure.

Aaron

There are these philosophical questions, where you must make a tough decision. I remember one was something along the lines of:

 

Killing people is bad...but lets say there's a man who is killing thousands of people, and you have the opportunity to stop him. The only way is by killing him yourself...and it's easy, safe and guaranteed to work.

 

So what do you do? Kill one bad life to save a thousand good lives, or adopt non-violence and allow a thousand good people to be killed so that one bad life may continue?

I doubt the Buddha ever spoke of this exactly...but why can't a Buddhist contemplate this type of thing for themselves? What if the Buddhist sees that their own personal actions are the same as the actions of all other people...then if they adopt non-violence in the scenario, they are actually killing thousands of people by proxy, through their decision. The blood is truly still on their hands.

 

I think I remember hearing a Buddhist teaching about making the better decision at all times. So it would make sense for the Dalai Lama to say that it'd be good if a terrorist were caught. It's not purely good, but it'd be better than the alternative.

 

Life requires complex decisions sometimes, and you just have to try your best.

 

War can be incredibly complex, too. For instance, not everyone that participates in an unjust war committed unjust acts. Maybe not even 99.9% of the people do. Judging others from across time (if it happened in the past) and across much space (half a world away most often) can lead to incredibly inaccurate conclusions regarding the people involved. We need to be there to truly know.

 

It can be easy to say religious people are hypocrites, for many reasons. The most obvious is that, as human beings, anything we try to do ends up failing, since our minds like to maintain balance. The more rigid you are, the more you are destined to fail. Rules are meant to be broken. Etc. Just look at New Year's Resolutions.

 

So hypocrisy is a very common thing...a human thing. War also seems to be a very human thing, since it's taken place all throughout our known history. Something to accept, and keep in mind for our own benefit...not to be ignorant of.

 

My personal belief regarding spirituality is that accusing other people of things, wanting to punish them for their misdeeds, to oppose them since we're on the "good side" and they apparently are not...these things destroy our spirituality quicker than anything. Then it becomes just a facade. If we're acting in such ways, then how can we even begin to speak of other people's spirituality, since our own is already gone? Saying any religious person is a hypocrite is simply coming "straight from the horse's mouth".

 

It's better to take it easy, trust that other people are trying their best and that we don't know the full story, forgive, let go, help people in need even if they've made mistakes, etc...these things are true spirituality. True religion.

 

So, hopefully it makes sense why we're instructed to not judge other people.

 

Buncha random thoughts...hope you enjoy.

See my response above Scotty... You've made some good points. My argument though, is that we need to be aware of what's going on in order to be able to make any valid and real changes in the future.

Lets just look at the complicity of the Christian religion in regards to the war in Iraq. I can't remember many churches opposing the war, even though there was very little real evidence to support it.

So, what I am getting at isn't placing blame so much, but rather that we learn from our mistakes and stop blindly following religious leaders under the pretense that every decision they make is ordained by god, buddha, or enlightened thinking.

Aaron

it doesn't claim to solve or address the problem, although it does address the problem by suggesting that the problem might lie in human nature. hahaha you are criticizing me for not solving the problem of religious war with a single post.. get serious.

 

i am not saying that religions are innocent. but it seems that you have already made up your mind what you think (so there goes the ability to be flexible in conversation).

 

how do you place blame on a religion. a religion is a collection of ideas?! you can't place blame on an idea. you can place blame on a person. but the moment you say "religious people are more prone to war than non-religious people" i will ask you to prove it. thats all.

 

the logic of A. people form religions B. people fight wars THEREFORE C. religions are the cause of wars has major holes in it. there may well be other factors at play that you are not considering.

I don't think I was advocating that you solve the problem in one post, rather that you avoid solving the problem by absolving blame.

I'm interested in seeing how often religion is used as a motivator for war and how often the religious leaders follow the public sentiment in order to avoid displeasing the government or the masses.

I think I provided enough examples of the Buddhists doing this, I could provide more if that would help. I don't think we really need examples, I think most people can see this quite clearly.

All in all, there is no religious institution that I know of that isn't without blame in this regard, so my original intent with this thread was to point out how religions back war and oftentimes distort their doctrines in order to support those acts.

Aaron

Aaron,

I don't buy into religious dogma, but hey, that's just me; you are welcome to it.

 

These aren't my ideas but the way Chinese Medical Qigong is taught. It is real and involves no smoke and mirrors. History of use has proven its efficacy and needs no defense from me. I am certainly not the only person in the USA who teaches about the 3 methods; if you want to hear about it from another high level practitioner take a class with Emfrem Korngold.

 

But I certainly can see how someone who is stuck with religion, who knows not one single thing about medical qigong or high level Chinese Medicine, who thinks a person named Lao Tzu wrote collections of writings from different time periods that are at the very least (and in some translations so far from the original meaning as to be very hilarious) distorted through translation,; yes, I can certainly see the lens through which you view these things.

Heh... you must not read many of my posts. I'm perhaps the least religious person on this board, in the sense that I do not follow dogma, but rather examine texts intensely to see the practicality of what's being taught. Believing that Tao Teh Ching made a good and valid point, whether it was Lao Tzu or someone who attributed the writing to him, doesn't mean that I have fallen into a religious dichotomy.

Hmm... come to think of it, perhaps you have read my post and you're trying to push buttons. Now that wouldn't be very nice, but it wouldn't be the first time now would it?

I'm actually fairly well versed in the principles of traditional chinese medicine, so my beliefs have little to do with a bias, but rather an examination of what you're saying from a practical understanding. I believe that acupuncture is a valid medicinal option for instance, but I don't think eating ground tiger penis is going to make me more virile, so lets just say I don't buy into what you're saying, not because I don't understand it, but because I do.

Of course if you want to continue with your passive aggressive attempts to pull me into a argument, you can, but I would suggest a subtler attempt.

Aaron

While no one's "bible" impresses me as much as that which is real, saying pain is NEEDED is pure nonsense (it doesn't make any kind of sense). Saying joy & suffering are the same thing makes the same kind of no-sense.

 

"We prize calamities as our own body because it reminds us that we are alive." The thing is we don't have to have calamities to remind us we are alive. The key is to not indulge oneself in the outcome of any particular "calamity" and I do think that is what is being referred to in what you quoted.

 

"...I would urge them to question why they feel the need to be free from suffering?..." So are you saying that people should go ahead and suffer from pain when they don't have to? If so, this also is nonsense and reeks of some type of religious dogma.

 

Your last two paragraphs indicate to me that you don't understand about physical pain and have possibly had much emotional pain. It simply is not true that "Our emotional pain is every bit as real as our physical pain and cause infinitely more suffering, that's a fact" While it is true that emotional pain can be just as debilitating and real as physical pain and both have trauma as their source, it is not by any means true that emotional pain causes infinitely more suffering, and that statement is nowhere near "fact". I do understand that for you possibly emotional pain has been immensely more, but you obviously haven't been exposed to physical pain to the same extent. Someone who had only been exposed to physical pain of great extent and not emotional pain would make the reverse statement, and also be making a false statement.

 

In the end, this distinguishing between the two is not needed on our part as Chinese medicine practitioners as we are not really concerned with either one; only helping a person achieve his/her Destiny. The side effects of alleviation is due to touching and manipulating the raw source of the trauma and it doesn't really matter if it is physical, emotional, or Spiritual (at least in the system I do) as high level practitioners effects encompass those of low level and mid level practitioners; but for those are still really side-effects.

 

I would also argue that sympathy and compassion are two different things. We can have sympathy for a person without having true compassion. Most healers have learned true compassion and realize there is no room for sympathy if we are truly compassionate enough to do something about a person's problem. Someone can sit on the sidelines and mumble about being sympathetic to someone's pain but never try to learn how to do something about it; it is therefore only sympathy and not true compassion. Compassion requires action, sympathy does not.

 

"Suffering is a very natural process and there is no need try and add existential qualities that don't exist, merely for the sake of sounding smart and mystical"

Is that what you are doing here with what you wrote? Trying to sound smart and mystical? Who on this thread has added "existential qualities that don't exist"? And what are those "existential qualities that don't exist" except possibly for what you wrote about people needing to suffer?

I understand physical pain. I've had numerous serious injuries, including cutting my toe off and having it sewn back on. The problem is that you're not understanding what Lao Tzu said. We do NEED to suffer, without it we do not grow as people, simple as that. You cannot have sympathy for someone if you have not experienced suffering, how could you? You would not understand what's happening to that person. You've never experienced hunger or pain, yet you see someone hungry, how do you understand what they're experiencing if you haven't experienced it yourself?

You idea is twisted in my opinion and smacks of holly roller, hallelujah miracle working. What you're talking about isn't reality, it's smoke and mirrors. In reality it is the world's preoccupation with avoiding pain that is causing much of the woes in the world these days. With that said, there's no need to suffer without purpose. You don't walk through a thorny bush for no reason, but in the same way, if you do suffer you should take the time to understand why you're suffering, rather than immediately find a quick fix for it.

Aaron

Ever heard of the big bang nucleosynthesis? There wasnt a shred of iron in the universe for millions of years.

Hmm... Well I must have heard wrong. Anyways, it's the same iron that's been around for billions of years. I cite the discovery channel show about cosmic collisions as my source.

Aaron