Jakara

At risk of sounding over cynical I would like to ask the question: Is KunLun Bogus? Please be aware Im not suggesting that it is, Im asking a question, not making a statement. The reason I ask is because there seems to be a few things that are specifically non-daoist and a lot of statements being made that sound a bit sketchy. Maybe this is my missunderstanding or perhaps a genuine mistake on part of the website etc. But anyway, here they are. "Max Christensen is not out to make money, the teachings are free. You are your own teacher, you can do it by yourself." - The book costs $15, which is not an unreasonable price for a book, but this part is what gets me... Website: NOTE: This book is a great way to familiarize yourself with Kunlun, but to get the most from your practice you must have the ability transferred to you by Lama Dorje(!). Then you can perform the exercises to unlock what you have been given. This is best used as a companion to the seminars. - So I cant really learn from the book and practice effectively. The seminars (which cost $300 each) are an essential part of the program, along with the "initiation" so really im not my own teacher. Taking these into account it only takes 20 or so people to make $6000 for 4 hours work - 1 seminar. There are pictures of light emanating from hands and body etc. - If these are real, its very pretty. But why are't there any videos? Pictures can easily be fakes, so why use such system? A nice video would be much more convincing. "Max does not want followers:" - Then why create a system, write a book on it, make a website on it, do seminars on it and publicise it on the radio? "The results actually work, bliss can be felt, just try the practice for yourself!" - I have to pay money to try this practice, get initiationand travel to seminars. I can achieve a state of bliss by manipulating my body in certain ways, but this isn't enlightenment. Many have reported bliss feeling, im not questioning that, but feeling bliss is not part of the daoist tradition, it creates attachment to feelings. Scientific claims: "Practitioner will continue to do Level I practice in Level II. The purpose of this level is to generate and circulate magnetic energy through the body. When the energy is at its highest, magnetic power is able to flow through the body. " - Have you taken a hall probe to measure this effect and verify it is magnetic? Its easily insertable into various cavaties of the human body to make internal measurments of magnetic fields. "Technically, a black hole absorbs matter into a rotating vortex of magnetic energy. However, a black hole also emits waves and particles into space. One can use this form of energy for his personal awakening. This form of radiation from the "black hole" is called ultraviolet-three and is only found in the depth of space, or in objects such as meteorites. This radiation does not travel through the earth because of the earth's protective magnetic field will not allow ultraviolet-three to penetrate to the earth's surface." - Where is the evidence for this? Conveniently we can't find a black hole to test it. Theres no such thing as ultraviolet-three radiation. How do you know its found in meteorites, have you opened one up? Even if it can't penetrate the Earth's surface, why haven't satellite based instruments detected it? "Celestial Chi Gung is a sitting meditation that allows one to tap into the energy of the universe via black hole. " - I doubt that was the explanation given by the ancient masters who invented it. "As you become more clear, you become more magnetic. " - Should I worry about metal objects flying randomly towards me as I ascend towards enlightenment? "The video samples show people being affected by Max's energy. Can this energy be applied to anybody? Nothing is being done without people's permission. In fact, if someone is consciously aware of this type of energy being directed at them they can usually close themselves to it." - This is a typical trick proven with modern psychological methods. You have to believe you are going to be manipulated and then you are. If you don't belive nothing happens. Theres no mystical energy involved here. "These can be proven scientifically. Quantum physicsists understand but can't apply it. There's free energy" - Quantum physics is understood and applied every day by scientists everywhere. There's no such thing as free energy in the laws of this universe, and given we exist in it, its just not true. None of this can be proven scientifically, that would require correspondence with real scientists with logical methods. My apologies if I seem over cynical, its not my intention to cause an argument or insult anyone, but there should be some questions given the amount of people on this forum asking about these methods. Any input is much appreciated.

I've heard that sometimes during you sleep you feel like you are falling and your body jolts to wake you up. The explanation that I heard for this is evolutionary, stemming from our time as primates that slept in trees, being jolted awake would save your life if you slept in a tree and felt like you were falling. The instict is to be jolted awake and grip tight, presumably to the branch you are sleeping on. Just a theory of course though.

I just wanted to add that Daochild is correct in stating that you can only feel some sensations when you place your attention on it. The brain can invent feelings that aren't there. Evidence for this is supplied by those with "phantom limbs" who have lost limbs but can still "feel" them as being present. Another interesting phenomena is that humans can predict exatcly where their hands are in space even if their eyes are closed. If you close your eyes and wave your hands about somewhere then you will know exactly where they are without looking. You can feel where they are. Last is a phenomena known as "Sensory adaptation". The brain has so much information sent to it from all over the body that it chooses to ignore or suppress the majority of sensations that it is familiar with and only concentrate on what it deems as more important ones. For example, when you are sitting in your chair on your computer or walking along the street your brain largely ignores the feeling of your ass to the chair or how your feet feel in your shoes. Processing that information at a concsious level all the time would take away valuable brain power from the task you are currently performing. The brain does funny things to our senses, and whilst that doesn't mean everyone is imagining chi feelings, it has to be conceded as a posibility.

Its no matter, not really worth arguing about in the long run, just a difference in opinion. I get touchy when I'm being unfairly called biased in relation to scientific evidence. Calling a scientist intentionally biased in their work is like calling a politician crooked or a cop dirty. It is of course ok to state what is wrong with their theories/experiments if you have a valid logical reason. I think science is the ultimate tool is proving things objectivly and extends into this area of discussion. If anyone thinks science does not extend into this area then that is their opinion which they are entitled to state, just as I am to mine. The paranoid/religious wasn't directed at you speficially but an observation based on talking to many people that they are the most likely types to object to scientific evidence. I enjoy logical criticism and well thought out answers, even if they aren't based on science. I'm less keen on anyone using the same flawed piece of logic, like using quantum mechanics, again and again to justify their point when its not valid to do so. Here is a quote from wikipedia on quantum mysticism just for reference, which goes into more detail at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_mysticism: "It should be noted that the laws of quantum physics allow by calculation the prediction of observables, which can be tested in repeated experiments to a very high precision. This is a property shared with all other physical theories, but not with mystical beliefs." Anyway, I've answered the original question and given reasoning to my answers which was ultimately the reason I posted. All the best my friend.

That's fine, everyone is entitled to believe in whatever they want to believe, including scientists. There is no evidence to support the belief that the quantum world supports any kind of mysticism, or that it applies to macroscopic level phenomena. Those scientists are engaging in philosophy, they are not claiming their beliefs to be scientific or they would have proof.

Sorry I should have been more clear, I meant please provide an example of how they disagree with "my stand" on quantam physics.

You are taking what I wrote out of context to use to your advantage, so I'll elaborate what I meant further. Things that have been proven as scientific fact cannot be disputed. Theories can be disputed, experiments can be disputed, but if it has been proven without a shadow of a doubt as a fact then by definition it can't be disputed. Many things have been proven as such facts, many are still theories. We know that many theories have holes in them, thats why they are called theories and not facts. The holes in the theories are filled in over time as we learn more, they aren't excuses for people to fill it in with their bullshit. I didn't disagree with the experiment from personal bias, its because it wasn't in a controlled environment. If the experiment was so perfect, why have only a handful of people said it was acceptable? Let me guess, because they are the only open minded ones and the rest of us are too biased to see the truth? Its a romantic notion that the underdog is striving to persuade others that they have something that will change the face of science forever.... if only we'd listen! Oh wait, we listened, it was hog-wash. Fail. I never said the Yan xin report was a joke, I said it was bogus because the experiment was flawed, I meant no offence, just that the experiment should be done under a decent set of conditions. If you are so sure that it works then why leave the potential for errors when you could set up a more reliable experiment? Maybe the paper was just written poorly, perhaps the results are fine. I hope they are, I want to prove chi as much as the next guy, but I want to do it properly. I obviously can't comment on fields out of my experience. I have no colleagues in the chemsitry department to ask, I'm a physicist, not a chemist. I'd have about as much chance of understanding chemistry papers as you do. I'm not forcing my view on to anyone, take it or leave it. Its not my job to come here and point out the obvious mistakes, but I do it in hopes that even one guy doesn't end up taking a bite out of the bullshit sandwich that keeps getting served. At the end of the day you are going to believe whatever you want to regardless of what has been proven/disproven. I no longer have the energy or time to constantly defend logical arguements against irrational beliefs. You are attacking everything I am saying from all angles in hopes of finding flaws rather than offer logical reasoning or your own explanations for this phenomena. Write what you like, hopefully whoever is reading will have enough sense to make up their own minds. Please provide an example. Thanks.

What I mean is, if you open up a brain, you can't see dreams or love inside. But you can see the parts of the brain that are working to fabricate those things for us. So those things exist for the person because our brain makes them exist for us. But they don't exist as physcial measurable objects, and they are not valid for anyone other than the person experiencing them.

Phew, OK. I need to take a deep breath before answering some of these. So, the existence of dreams, love, thoughts etc. They are not proven by science as independent phenomena, that is although science accepts that people fall in love, think lots and have dreams, they do not exist outside of the realms of human consciousness. Therefore these can be said to be fabrications of the human mind. They mean a lot to the person experiencing them, but they don't mean anything to someone who isn't, unless that person has experienced something similar, but then they can only draw on their own subjective experiences as a comparisson - you can't explain colour to a blind man. The Buddha confirms this by saying thoughts and the like are all part of ego and inherently non-existent. It was only a matter of time before quantum mysticism popped up. Let me give an example of how ridiculous it is to state quantum mechanics as a reason for the existence of chi. Humans are made of organs, organs are made of cells, cells are made of molecules, molecules are made from atoms, atoms are made of electrons, protons and neutrons etc. etc. Now, is it a reasonable assumption to say that if I study a single electron (quantum of charge) in enough detail that eventually I'll be able to decipher and predict the behaviour of human beings? No, of course not, human beings are complex animals. They exhibit behaviours that are more than the sum of the individual parts that they are made of. It is the same with quantum mechanics. This theory is ONLY valid for the smallest possible fundamental building blocks of matter. When observing anything larger, the same rules do not apply, the system becomes more complex and doesn't obey the same laws. The subjectivity on quantum measurement only applies at the quantum level, not at any other level. Quantum tunelling for example predicts that particles are able to borrow energy and pass through solid matter. This phenomena is well documented and accounts for certain processes in our sun. Individual particles in the Sun, not the sun as a whole. If I were to run at full speed at a brick wall there is a minute chance that I will pass through according to quantum theory. That chance though is so small that it would never happen in billions of billions of lifetimes of the universe of me repeatedly running into the wall. It is a shade above impossible, it will never happen, but it is a non-zero chance nevertheless. Therefore to use this non-zero chance to explain macroscopic level phenomena like chi, is completely erroneous. It has no realistic basis for it whatsoever. There seems to be a consensus amognst the religious and the paranoid that science is some sort of slap-dash half-assed method that only fits a little but its accepted anyway. Its not true. Scince predicts things like the processes in our sun and other stars to the complex computer chips that power your PC, all to an extremely high precision. Science works and it cannot be disputed because its experimentally proven to work and a mathematical framework proves that it works. Part of science is also to define the limitations of the theory that has been proposed too. Those limitations are not excuses to inject pseudo science babble and religious dogma. We know which theories have which limitations. And remember a scientific theory is not the same as a proven scientific fact. Thats why its called a theory, its a work in progress. Science doesn't have all the answers yet, but that doesn't mean we should fill in the blanks with whatever bullshit we feel like. By all means make predictions and imagine what might be there, you never know your predictions could be true, but don't pretend that because science doesn't currently have the answer that it justifies or proves those predictions. I should also remind that the dualistic world is the one that we live in. There may also be a non-dualistic world, but that would exclude all phenomena, everything, including qi, and therefore also cannot be used to justify its existence either. I am also enjoying this discussion more now, though it is tough being the only defence.

I would definitely go to a clinic as suggested. If you don't normally associate yourself with western pharmeceuticals then of course you don't have to take them. Surgery though is quite generic in terms of where it comes from and western surgery is very good.

I can't comment on any of the experiments I'm not qualified in, that would include the chemistry based ones. All I'm saying is that the paper I read showed methods that I don't think were acceptable for that particular experiment. If a handful of others think they are acceptable, thats up to them.

Hi YM, I understand what you mean, why are we using technology to power cars that is nearly a centrury old? Well, its all about the money :-) Oil was cheap and plentiful, out planet wasn't known to be doomed and the combustion engine worked well. Companies are making money from it and it does the job well so no need to change it. There is a need now though, as we know that we need greener technology to combat the Earth's demise. As such, money has been spent on R&D. Electric motors have been around for Donkey's years but the battery technology to make them a viable option hasn't. Until now. Research into electric cars is now mainstream, check out the "Tesla Roadster" as one example, which can do 250 miles between charges, do 0-60mph in < 4 seconds and has an effective efficiency of > 120mpg! It will set you back a good $100,000 though ;-) because it isn't in mainstream production yet, cheaper production methods aren't available so prices are still high. In the next 5 to 10 years, expect to see a significant increase in the percentage of electric powered cars on the road. Remember that the electricity comes from multiple sources, and the generation is more efficienct than that of a petrol (gas) engine, making electric vehicles a viable option. I did not realise you were one of those conducting the chi experiment, or I may have been less blunt and more tactful. My apologies. I do still think the controls were not good enough for that particular experiment, but as you said, an experiment with improved controls would be very interesting. I'm not at all saying that no chi was projected, I was just saying that the scientific method was not accurate enough in that experiment to confirm it. I would also be glad to provide my services as a physicist, though I have no privately owned equipment, and I definitely don't own any funds :-) I hope someday soon we can confirm its existence scientifically.

Hello, Please appreciate that although I am a scientist, I do not represent the scientific community as a whole, so whilst I'm happy to answer the science parts of questions, remember I am one guy answering here. Ok so computing, well, yes they are sometimes unreliable, but thats not so much the physics of the components as the sketchy programming of the operating system, Windows is renouned for being unreliable. Try some linux variations or BSD perhaps. The internal combustion engine has improved in countries willing to spend on the R&D. Unfortunately its all about supply and demand. I take it you are from the USA? There is no large demand there for better efficiency engines yet, people there are happy to drive their gas guzzling machines. In Europe where the CO2 laws have been stricter for quite some time and the petrol (gas) prices are about 4x that of the USA, the latest cars can get around 100mpg on a petrol (gas) engine. Regular diesel engines here get around 60mpg, and thats old technology. I think you will start seeing more efficient engines over there soon though because of the Obama administration being a bit greener than the last. I'm a physicist not a medical researcher but as far as I know medical trials follow a loosely based law on what should work based on previous evidence. Huge amounts of money goes into R&D for new drugs and most of them never make it to the shelf. Statistical trials are performed to a drug that may work and are accepted if say something like 90/100 patients show improvement. Human volunteers are paid to take these drugs for these trials. They do this because the mechanics/science of the drugs are not yet fully understood, but drugs companies want to make money and people want to be cured quickly so they roll them out as long as the side effects are within acceptable limits as defined by your government. This process is not entirely scientific, its based on a statistical majority, which is where the flaws arise. Herbal medicine works well in many cases, asperin for example is found in willow tree bark, which is how they knew to look there. People used to chew the bark when they had a head ache! :-) Extracting and concentrating the active ingrediant in a herbal medicine is one technique that medical reserarchers use to develop new drugs. I'm sure if I scoured the end of the Earth I could find some papers describing experiments with chi, but none are in the mainstream literature for a reason. None of them seem to do experiments in a controlled envirnoment. That is, there could be 50 variables causing an observed effect and this needs to be reduced to just the one variable; is the signal I'm seeing from the guy sending chi or not? MD, Here is a link to the paper I read http://www.scientificexploration.org/journ...se_16_3_yan.pdf I find taking measurements of emitted chi in a lecture room full of people to be unacceptable in terms of a controlled enviornment. Feel free to disagree. If he wanted to prove it, he should have the chi emitter perform the experiment directly opposite a detector in an isolated environment and measure the output in an on/off fashion so that there is no shadow of a doubt that the signal is coming from the guy emitting the chi.

If you can feel chi then that is a good enough reason to practice chi kung in my opinion. Maybe one day we will be able to explain the mechanics of it. Since you asked, I think the studies done on Yan Xin are completely bogus. I read the article and downloaded one of his research papers and read the first 10 pages before I couldn't take any more. It was about measuring a chi transmission using a Lithium Floride detector. I happen to have done some unrelated research using similar detectors to the ones that he was using. The studies weren't done in a controlled environment amongst other things, but that reason alone is enough to invalidate the research.

11:33, I get the feeling I'm being set up here, but I'll take the bait anyway to see where you are going with this. First off, nobody has a confirmed, documented case of detecting chi directly with an instrument in controlled conditions. That itself puts into question the transmission of chi. But lets assume that someone can transmit chi for the sake of arguement, and that the detectors just can't pick it up, or that they are using the wrong type of detector. If masters can transmit chi, then all I can do is speculate until proper controlled experiments were devised. If you want me to list possibilities, it could be infrared radiation, microwaves, a simple direct transmission of electrical current from one person to another or any combination of these. Remember a moving current will always produce radiation. It might not be any of these at all, I'm just throwing ideas around here.

Hi 11:33, In my opinion (by all means disagree), the ancients established a theory of chi based on the feelings they experienced when doing things like chi-kung, and observations they made with healing experiments. They then extended their theory to the whole cosmos. I think that theory is not accurate. I don't think chi is an undiscovered force in contradiction to fundamental physics. I think that if Chi exists, then its well within current biology and physics. I think that its probably a combination of many factors that are well known individually, but when combined produce a relatively unique, and as of yet, undocumented effect. My experience with chi is as follows: Over 10 years chinese martial arts and dynamic chi kung, 4 years of meditation and static chi kung. I can "feel chi" throughout my body and direct it to any other part of my body. When I meditate my dan tian burns very hot and envelops my whole body, to the point where I can no longer wear clothes (classy I know). The effects for me definitely exist, that doesn't mean chi exists, I could be crazy. What are your thoughts and experiences? Has reading through this string of posts been of any benefit? A good post and a voice of reason. Thanks XueSheng, you're my new hero. Please elevate your name to LaoShi accordingly

I agree that one way or the other the phenomena exists and therefore it is irrelevant to the practitioner of chi kung what the true mechanics of it are. As long as it works, who cares? I don't have any problem with anyone saying anything about this topic, but as a scientist I do have a problem with people blaming scientists for not finding something that isn't the same as a 2000 year old theory says it should be. Im not saying chi doesn't exist, I'm saying that the theory needs adjusting, just as you pointed out that some scientific theories are adjusted over time. As you said, its our understanding that changes, not the phenomena, and our understanding of chi needs refining. I'll read over those articles in more detail, I only skimmed them as they seem to be a standard, "there's something there, but we don't know what" type of thing. Which doesn't prove anything either way. I do agree that this has become tiresome, I just wanted to give an answer to the question from a scientific background, by all means disagree with it. Someone has to give a balanced opinion for the other side, I didn't expect a religious forum to agree with scientific answers. Take care my friend.

We have studied biolelectric phenomena, we know how the human nervous system is mapped out and can measure the currents throughout. What do you think an EEG is? Everything I've said is backup up by proof, logic or reason. Perhaps you should get an education before you call someone else wrong without explanation. This is a discussion of science and chi, therefore the discussion warrants a lot of science. If you want to space out and wallow in ignorance thats up to you. See beyond knowledge? Apparantly you are stuck in the 60's on LSD. But a great tool for debate though, anything you say can then be proven by "yeah just see beyond knowledge, then its true". What about the blue gene super computer that has successfully emulated half a mouse brain, amongst other things? It has mapped the neurons of small animal brains and can emulate the whole brain accurately. The human brain is a much too powerful supercomputer to emulate - yet. Psychology can easily map out people's behaviours using logic. Your brain and your humanity are more logical and less mystical than you care to accept. I can appreciate analogies, but you are taking something that was never an analogy and making it in to one to suit your arguement. Many ancient texts were written as fact, until they were proven wrong, but hey, that was just a metaphor from the start, right? They certainly weren't intended as metaphors. But as soon as its proven wrong and there are a whole lot of red faces all around, then its "oh, but it was a metaphor!". Good one. For the record I believe fully in chi, perhaps not in the same way you do. I'd rather have the truth in whatever form it comes in than cling to an out dated theory because its romantic and gives a warm fuzzy feeling.

Its all very well getting into the arguement that "Nothing can be proven 100%" etc. And there is truth to that in terms of the dualistic world not being the ultimate. The tao for example can't be argued against, there is no logic against it. That doesn't automatically mean its true, but at least we can't say its false. Using that arguement is erroneous in this case though since if you are saying that ultimately nothing is really there etc. then that would also include chi too. We work with what we have got, logic and scientific method are proven time and time again to work. Every piece of technology you've ever used, including your computer and the internet, is based on it, it works and you've bought into it already - unless you think your computer is powered by magic? Most of us would also be dead by now if it wasn't for western medicine and anti-biotics. The plague wiped out half of Europe's population back in the day when there were no such medicines available. Its nice and easy to take cheap pot-shots at scientists, often people who are working hard trying to make the world a better place. Just because a theory that you want to be correct isn't quite how the universe really is. Science is the persistance of truth, regardless of what that truth may be. Its human desire and fear that steer the applications to create some of the monstrosities that have come about in the last century. You know how many people were burned alive for believing in what could be proven true with science but what some ancient books said otherwise? But hey, its fashionable to say science is wrong, so sit in your chair and take your pot-shots, us scientists will continue to prove the truth like we always have. It seems you want to go back to the age when people just believe whatever someone tells them without proof. That is ignorance, and as the Buddha said, ignorance is the root of all suffering. I can appreciate that if something is performed and you get a result again and again, then its worth investigating. Chi-kung is amazing, it really does work, the results are undeniable! But that doesn't mean that the ancient theories that go along with it are correct. It warrants further investigation. China was one of the the most advanced countries in the world at one time due to their science. They then turned "inwards" and dropped behind the rest of the developing world. Europe was in the dark ages under religious rule until the crusades brought back books in arabic about science (translations from the greek mathmaticians 1000 years old!!!), after that it turned the tides and we got great minds like Newton etc. The whole theory of things containing fire wasn't used as a metaphor or an analogy, they thought things really did have actual physical fire inside them. It wasn't correct in any way shape or form. Before science people really did think the world was made in seven days and that was a fact because some book/guy said so. But its not true, we know it isn't true now. Newton's laws are correct and still apply today for the majority of cases on our everyday scale to within a given level of accuracy. They required refinement for extra massive objects (relativity) and for extra small objects (quantum mechanics). I studied relativity, lorentz contraction and time dilation as past of my first degree, there's nothing there that contradicts science or logic. It only extended upon an already proven theory. These were proven mathematically, then confirmed with experiments, which are still going on today. Why is science having a hard time finding chi? Because it clearly doesn't exist in the format proposed by the ancients. They found an interesting phenomenon but applied an inaccurate theory and extended it too generally. The phenomena exists, and proper study will eventually provide the mechanics of what is really happening, and when it does, it won't be the romantic new force that some people seem to be fantasizing about. It won't be any less exciting though.

There are some points that are being over looked here. Observing a phenomena and then building a general rule around it does not prove that the rule is correct. For example, people used to think that everything contained fire and thats why things can burn. It fitted the knowledge at the time and the model could be used to predict other events. But its not correct. After further investigation we now know why things can burn. Its not a bias or philisophy, its common sense. You can't just say something exists and therefore its fact until you can prove it wrong. You have to propose a theory and show that all the data fits that theory to be able to prove it right before its accepted as correct. Chi is an ancient concept like many other meta-physical explanations that were produced at the time because there weren't any better theories available at the time. The data does not fit the theory, we can see into the human body and can't measure any chi. Yet things like electricity (which can't be seen) is proven to exist. There are many things that humans can do that haven't been documented and are therefore against the scientific "norm", and thats fine. But to say that these things happen becuase of something that is completely unprovable is false. We don't know why some people can do certain things, but that doesn't automatically prove their own made up explanations for it. There is no dispute that chi kung is amazing and makes people healthier, but that doesn't prove chi exists, it could be any number of factors causing the effect, it needs to be fully investigated without bias either way. The problem is, I can prove to you time and time again through experiment that certain things exist. I can then construct a theory about it and apply that theory to other things and the data also fits. Then I can produce a mathematical framework for its existence. Electricity is example of this, even though we can't see it. Nobody has yet to prove that chi exists though. There are no standard, controlled experiments for confirming it, there is no proven theoretical framework, and there is no physcal evidence for it at all other than a few guys getting hot and healthier when they do excercise. Chi, as a separate force, is an assumption, a meta physical, out dated and made up rule based on the best explanations at the time to try and explain something that nobody had an answer for. It could exist within current theories though, like bio-electricity, and just be a chinese term for something that we already know about, but just haven't investigated all that well.

Despite what you read in the tabloids and watch in hollywood movies, most scientists are neutral about their work. They use scientific technique to investigate something and thats it. Unless they are dishonest. Here is a fundamental truth for you: Scientists can't fund themselves! Meaning that whoever is employing the scientist is the one who has the biased opinion, and also who decides what the scientist they employ is going to research. Who in the west would fund a scientist to investigate chi? There's no anatomical evidence for its existence, we have detailed maps of the human body and no chi has been found. Theres no monetary gain in investgating something that thus far doesn't exist, and yes, companys do just want the money, thats how they work. In any research you need a director who tells the scientists what they are looking for, the scientists will then research other people's work to see if anything has already been done that they can verify and design new experiments accordingly. Peer reviewed science is a must to prove it is accurate. It must be a repeatable experiment to verify the results. Otherwise you go back to the times where every other guy has some miraculous medicine that can cure anything - no proof, but you can trust him, right? Why not design some experiments yourself to verify chi? There are many scientists on this forum who can help consult in terms of equipment, viability etc. Where would you start? By looking up what has already been done in peer reviewed scientific journals...

I very much doubt that this is what chi really is, I think if chi does exist, it will be well in the realms of an already established scientific theory. Its not going to be some undiscovered fundamental force, but more like a composition of complex forces that we already know about, but have not been investigated fully in their given state. That is, a phenomena becomes more than the sum of its individual parts. If chi were some fundamental force, there would be verifiable evidence of it in some form or another. I almost wish orgone energy were real and this guy had discovered something amazing, but its clearly not. Its normal (but very interesting!) everyday physics in practice. If Reich's results were reproducable by anyone fair enough, but they aren't, and the ones that are are easily explained by already established scientific concepts. Scientists study what is there, not what isn't. That's a philosopher's job. Ramon25, scientists for this reason should not say god does or does not exist, only that based on the current evidence it is either likely or unlikely. Lots of what was stated in the christian bible was written as fact, but has since been proven incorrect, which is probably why scientists give it a hard time. Athiesm however is as much a religion as any other, as there is no evidence either way. Agnostics are more logical.

"A complete guid to Chi Kung" by Daniel P. Reid has excellent theoretical information about chi and chi kung and also has some good practices. "The way of energy" by Lam Kam Chuen has great Zhan Zhuang exercises, I felt chi in my hands after one week of these excercises and gained a lot of energy in terms of daily vigour. "Xing yi nei gong" by Miller and Cartmell has great dynamic chi gong and stretching. I know taoist priests and kungfu schools that use very similar techniques. If I had to pick one to get first I'd go for "The way of energy" because its the most effective in the shortest time and should therefore give a good introductory flavour of how useful chi kung is. But I'd get them all if possible.

Hi there, How very interesting! Have you been able to communicate with the ghost at all to see what it wants? How do you know its a hungry ghost? I had a friend who was an American shaman, she used to burn holy sage thorughout the house as part of a cleansing ritual to rid a house of spirits - they don't like the smell, amongst other things. You could try that.

Hi, Definitely no, because depersonalization is described as "a sense of automation, going through the motions of life but not experiencing it". In enlightenment nothing is done by automation, the enlightened person is completely aware of everything, making concious choices and understanding those choices fully. A depersonalized person is running on autopilot, allowing their instictual and compulsive behaviour to make their decisions. This is therefore almost the opposite of enlightenment. Enlightenment is super-conscious, where everything is comprehended simultaneously. Depersonalization is a sub-conscious behaviour, running on compulsion and instinct.