Transmissions

[3bob]

Perhaps an analogy would be of use in this case John and Ya Mu?

 

"quantum" like the differences in speeds in coming to a certain knowledge - for instance one method could include a slow, time consuming, deductive, if, and, or but, type of process - compared to that of a near instant, direct, and true intution.

[Ya Mu]

Perhaps an analogy would be of use in this case John and Ya Mu?

 

"quantum" like the differences in speeds in coming to a certain knowledge - for instance one method could include a slow, time consuming, deductive, if, and, or but, type of process - compared to that of a near instant, direct, and true intution.

You got it. True intuition IS instantaneous.

 

When Master Wang was still walking around with flesh in this dimension we did many experiments with qi projection. One was distance projection to see how much "time" it took to project qi from and to China. We did this over and over. It was always instantaneous, meaning the projection was on the quantum level. Since then I have noticed the exact same thing, over and over. So really not pseudo science but accumulated experimental evidence.

Once I set my INTENT it has already happened. In other words, a quantum level event.

 

An example of a linear event is: I walk over to my computer to type this. No matter how fast a walker or type-er I am it is a still a linear event.

[Apech]

You got it. True intuition IS instantaneous.

 

When Master Wang was still walking around with flesh in this dimension we did many experiments with qi projection. One was distance projection to see how much "time" it took to project qi from and to China. We did this over and over. It was always instantaneous, meaning the projection was on the quantum level. Since then I have noticed the exact same thing, over and over. So really not pseudo science but accumulated experimental evidence.

Once I set my INTENT it has already happened. In other words, a quantum level event.

 

An example of a linear event is: I walk over to my computer to type this. No matter how fast a walker or type-er I am it is a still a linear event.

 

OK I understand what you mean but I still think you are using the term wrongly - but I don't want to lead this thread up a blind alley of discussing scientific terms.

[3bob]

OK I understand what you mean but I still think you are using the term wrongly - but I don't want to lead this thread up a blind alley of discussing scientific terms.

 

No biggy; some words of definiton borrowed from the dictionary, 1. "quantum" as related to a discrete amount. 2. And the term, "quantum jump" a sudden, large increase or advance, and also a change in state.

[Ya Mu]

OK I understand what you mean but I still think you are using the term wrongly - but I don't want to lead this thread up a blind alley of discussing scientific terms.

 

If it happens instantaneously with no time delay then classical physics cannot explain it. So I look at it as a quantum interaction or non-linear event.

I understand your reluctance to apply the word "quantum" as I too did graduate work in quantum mechanics; I believe I see your point. But this IS the best I can describe it. I did say that it was only an attempt; IMO any description is a linear attempt to describe something happening non-linear which does not describe the actual thing itself.

In other words, as of today I have no other or better explanation.

[lifeforce]

You can get one straight from the source if you ask nicely

 

This is the best quote on the thread and everybody seems to have missed it !

[VCraigP]

OK I understand what you mean but I still think you are using the term wrongly - but I don't want to lead this thread up a blind alley of discussing scientific terms.

 

The question is not whether the term was used correctly but rather whether his meaning was understood. Language is the use of words which have accepted meanings. We are none of us quantum physicists (dont correct me if i'm wrong please)therefore use of this term may be inaccurate among physicists but perhaps quite intelligible among cyberpsuedotaoists.

 

As for me I understood the meaning Ya Mu was trying to convey quite clearly I think.

Therefore we have achieved communication, perhaps even resonance, probably not transmission.

 

Regarding like or dislike of the word Transmission it doesn't really matter. If the majority of people in this little subculture understand what meaning is conveyed then that is the appropriate word to use to describe something quickly and efficiently. Again, that is how language works. Further explanation of the meaning of tranmission is useful but I doubt we'll switch to referring to the phenomenon as quantum level energy event interactions - too many syllables.

 

Are you receiving my signal?

 

Craig

[VCraigP]

This is the best quote on the thread and everybody seems to have missed it !

 

 

Yes, but the question is "how can you best learn how to effectively ask nicely?"

[Pietro]

You got it. True intuition IS instantaneous.

 

When Master Wang was still walking around with flesh in this dimension we did many experiments with qi projection. One was distance projection to see how much "time" it took to project qi from and to China. We did this over and over. It was always instantaneous, meaning the projection was on the quantum level. Since then I have noticed the exact same thing, over and over. So really not pseudo science but accumulated experimental evidence.

Once I set my INTENT it has already happened. In other words, a quantum level event.

 

An example of a linear event is: I walk over to my computer to type this. No matter how fast a walker or type-er I am it is a still a linear event.

 

When Galileo wanted to measure the speed of light he went with another man over two hills, in the night. He would open the shutter of his lamp, and when the other man saw the light he would open the shutter of his lamp. Then Galileo measured the amount of time that passed between when he opened the shutter, and the light that he would receive back from the other hill, divide by two, and he would know the time that passed for the light to go from one hill to the other. At least in theory.

 

 

When he tried it out it came out that the light would take about a certain amount of time x.

 

Then he sent the man to another hill, at double distance. Expecting the time now to be 2x. Again he measured the speed and ... it was still x.

What they were measuring was not so much the time necessary for light to go through, but the time necessary for the other man to realise he had to act, and act.

 

The speed of light was just too fast to be measured with this crude method.

 

A better system would have used a mirror and a longer distance. And that was what was eventually used. I don't remember the details but I think it involved sending the light to the moon, and the seeing the reflex, or something similar. The light to travel from the moon to here takes about 1 second, so it is something that can be quite easily measured.

 

The idea that someone can measure "qi projection" speed, while we have no objective tools to measure qi is incredibly naive.

 

The idea that by measuring it in this way a person can check if the speed of qi is faster than the speed of light is even more silly.

 

The only reason why you guys are so fixated with quantum physics is because you do not understand it, it look good, and it fits well with your world view. It would be more honest to just admit so.

 

Just say, everything would fit well if it was a quantum effect, but of course we don't know.

[Apech]

"I think I can safely say that nobody understands Quantum Mechanics"

Richard Feynman quotes (American theoretical physicist, 1918-1988)

[Ya Mu]

When Galileo wanted to measure the speed of light he went with another man over two hills, in the night. He would open the shutter of his lamp, and when the other man saw the light he would open the shutter of his lamp. Then Galileo measured the amount of time that passed between when he opened the shutter, and the light that he would receive back from the other hill, divide by two, and he would know the time that passed for the light to go from one hill to the other. At least in theory.

 

 

When he tried it out it came out that the light would take about a certain amount of time x.

 

Then he sent the man to another hill, at double distance. Expecting the time now to be 2x. Again he measured the speed and ... it was still x.

What they were measuring was not so much the time necessary for light to go through, but the time necessary for the other man to realise he had to act, and act.

 

The speed of light was just too fast to be measured with this crude method.

 

A better system would have used a mirror and a longer distance. And that was what was eventually used. I don't remember the details but I think it involved sending the light to the moon, and the seeing the reflex, or something similar. The light to travel from the moon to here takes about 1 second, so it is something that can be quite easily measured.

 

The idea that someone can measure "qi projection" speed, while we have no objective tools to measure qi is incredibly naive.

 

The idea that by measuring it in this way a person can check if the speed of qi is faster than the speed of light is even more silly.

 

The only reason why you guys are so fixated with quantum physics is because you do not understand it, it look good, and it fits well with your world view. It would be more honest to just admit so.

 

Just say, everything would fit well if it was a quantum effect, but of course we don't know.

 

I never stated that what I posted was a "scientific" test. Of course it wasn't. Also I just gave the measurements that we did as an example because someone asked for an example. Never said it proved the quantum theory of qi projection or that it proved actual speed. But we did do testing. It was very consistent. We would write down the time we felt the qi and used synchronized timing (synchronized daily). We did it over and over. Phone calls for verification and synchronization ate big funds out of my pocket. Also, we did this not for publication but for OUR understanding. To me, although it proved nothing about actual speed, it was incredibly valid - not incredibly naive. I probably should not have posted it because folks who don't do this sort of thing really have no idea about it. In one of my last classes I did a distance qi projection to someone on the other side of the world, and we had that person on speakerphone. Verified by all students there, not saying anything, I started projecting qi and instantly the person said they felt it. Proves nothing about actual speed but this is what consistently happens.

 

I also don't understand quantum mechanics but DID do graduate study in it as well as extensive study in electromagnetic and acoustic wave propagation. I understand you are an academic - and I ask with all due respect as I am not an academic - is your field of study quantum mechanics and have you studied both it and distance qi projection enough to lend validity to your statements about how we are fixated on something we do not understand? If so then I think you make a valid point, but not necessarily correct. You are correct in that we don't scientifically know. But I have many times seen clients respond to the qi projection BEFORE I did it. Explanation other than quantum level? Scientific observation? No. Consistent observation? Yes.

 

The idea that someone can measure "qi projection" speed, while we have no objective tools to measure qi is incredibly naive.

Why do you consider subjective tools that were consistent over and over as "naive"? I am not incredibly naive but someone who actually does this daily instead of talking about it AND have studied it about as much as anyone. It is quite simple - we either feel qi or we don't. Or are you saying it simply because objectivity does not fit the scientific model? If so, then it will probably be quite some time before qi projection becomes real for you as it fits NO scientific model. Qi projection itself is not, at this point in time, scientific. How could it possibly work, then? Can we toss it out as a valid tool simply because it doesn't fit our preconceived notions of how things work and how to scientifically test their validity? If this scientific way of testing has to be done in order for it to be valid, then it should not only apply to the speed of qi but to the very existence of qi. And if that is our conclusion, since according to many scientists true scientific validation of the existence of qi is lacking, why the heck would we bother to practice qigong, receive acupuncture or medical qigong or Asian bodywork treatments? Because it feels good? So is it - sorry not valid as "feel good" is subjective and not objective? If so then there are many incredibly naive and silly people walking around out there.

 

So again, even though I have said it is only an attempt at describing something that no linear explanation can possibly describe, my quantum explanation is as valid as any other explanation.

 

I stand behind what I said. I would like to hear opinions from those that actually know how to do it and that do it daily. Do YOU think it is a linear or non-linear interaction? Does the type of projection YOU do transcend time and distance?

[3bob]

"transmission" can transcend local time, space and death, as has such has been sent to me.

 

(I'm not qualified to try to send except as in simple prayer)

 

Om

Edited May 9, 2010 by 3bob

[Cloudhand]

"transmission" can transcend local time and space and death, as sent to me.

 

(I'm not qualified to try to send except as in simple prayer)

 

Om

 

 

If the time comes and we are open the Buddha wll come. Cloud

[3bob]

If the time comes and we are open the Buddha wll come. Cloud

 

Agreed Cloud. Another meaning in relation to this string is the idea of synchronization.

[Apech]

 

I stand behind what I said. I would like to hear opinions from those that actually know how to do it and that do it daily. Do YOU think it is a linear or non-linear interaction? Does the type of projection YOU do transcend time and distance?

 

I have received transmissions ... and I have no problem with idea that they are instantaneous or at least not bound by the normal limits of the physical world ... the physical world has boundaries such as the speed of light because it is about particles like photons moving through space and as such is constrained to act within these limits.

 

There is a way in which we are all connected which physics would struggle to explain - its through this that we know things have happened which we couldn't possibly know and so on - I think transmissions happen in this same 'space' which is field or continuum in which we have our being.

[Taomeow]

There's different types of transmissions. The one I got from WLP was of the variety known as "daigong," not sure how to spell it in Chinese (only heard the word orally), I tried looking it up and the closest vocabulary meaning I found that might be right was "go-slow as a form of strike" (sic) or "lazy strike." In any event it was close enough to the subjective sensations. The purpose is not to strike you of course (though I've seen some people squirm in pain under daigong -- my own experience was, physically, intense pleasure in the kidneys and intense, gradually increasing pressure all over the rest of the body, like a steam roller...) The purpose is to get you... um, give you... um, don't know how to say it other than "to daigong you..." ...into the teacher's state -- the state he is in or rather, the entity he IS --

 

to get that projected into you systemically. Then... well, if you're ready to be the same kind of entity the teacher is, all of the transmission will be accepted by your system. If you are only partially ready, parts of you will "get it" and parts of you won't. If you're absolutely nowhere near ready, you won't get shit.

 

Imagine a vastly more efficient pattern of qi configuration superimposed on your own... there's going to be adjustments, internalizations, clashes and bouncebacks, some of you will get modulated and some of you will get, um, rejected, found incompatible, and so on. The amount of transmission you will actually get out of the experience depends on who you are. I.e. the teacher might project the same daigong at the whole group but reactions of the group members will be dramatically different.

 

Then, whatever you get, you can and should develop yourself, via cultivation practices you've been taught, following the system the teacher who gave you the transmission uses himself. Having received daigong will streamline the process and help you. But having received it and then not proceeding to practice will nullify it. So, like so many things taoist, a transmission (at least of this type, I don't know all of them, obviously) is a work of co-creation between the master and the student.

[Ya Mu]

There's different types of transmissions. The one I got from WLP was of the variety known as "daigong," not sure how to spell it in Chinese (only heard the word orally), I tried looking it up and the closest vocabulary meaning I found that might be right was "go-slow as a form of strike" (sic) or "lazy strike." In any event it was close enough to the subjective sensations. The purpose is not to strike you of course (though I've seen some people squirm in pain under daigong -- my own experience was, physically, intense pleasure in the kidneys and intense, gradually increasing pressure all over the rest of the body, like a steam roller...) The purpose is to get you... um, give you... um, don't know how to say it other than "to daigong you..." ...into the teacher's state -- the state he is in or rather, the entity he IS --

 

to get that projected into you systemically. Then... well, if you're ready to be the same kind of entity the teacher is, all of the transmission will be accepted by your system. If you are only partially ready, parts of you will "get it" and parts of you won't. If you're absolutely nowhere near ready, you won't get shit.

 

Imagine a vastly more efficient pattern of qi configuration superimposed on your own... there's going to be adjustments, internalizations, clashes and bouncebacks, some of you will get modulated and some of you will get, um, rejected, found incompatible, and so on. The amount of transmission you will actually get out of the experience depends on who you are. I.e. the teacher might project the same daigong at the whole group but reactions of the group members will be dramatically different.

 

Then, whatever you get, you can and should develop yourself, via cultivation practices you've been taught, following the system the teacher who gave you the transmission uses himself. Having received daigong will streamline the process and help you. But having received it and then not proceeding to practice will nullify it. So, like so many things taoist, a transmission (at least of this type, I don't know all of them, obviously) is a work of co-creation between the master and the student.

...

The amount of transmission you will actually get out of the experience depends on who you are.

But having received it and then not proceeding to practice will nullify it. ...

+++

Can't tell you how many times I have said the exact same words.

[sifusufi]

Ok, i been hanging out with you guys here and having a good time learning and rapping about things... and i hear lots of talk about transmissions

so, what exactly is it?

Somewhere between the engine and the driveshaft (hear furious laughter)!

 

 

Good Question! Peter Tosh named his band Word Sound Power

 

I spent my first 5 weeks of Tao Bums on the couch with a broken foot, a laptop and a bottle of Vicodin

I was sent back to work early due to my bone healing enough to full weight bear

I posted about my issues with arthritis as well, apepch7, Trunk, Ya Mu, and the author who mentions Yessod in the world of Assiah at the end of his first book were on the case STAT!

 

Not as flexable as Bikram yet but weight loss, less sleep READ: LESS PAIN and energy deluxe have been a work in progress.

 

The forum can take energy as well, it feels good to have allies giving props however that ONE (-) comment can make you stronger or eat energy. (Why did the great spirit make haters?)

 

I have to be careful, like James Coburn stated regarding Lee Jun Fan "If you don't use it up (energy) it will use you up" I still have to provide, pay taxes , and contribute. On more than one occasion I almost had to run to the hills(or mountain)due to too much energy or trying to describe it ( the spirit of the thing itself ), society is a cruel bit shhh...

MUCH LOVE back at ya (sometimes I feel posting validates all my work since 1981)

 

Peace, Robert

 

"Weight bear" is what you do when you carry something heavy.

 

"Wait, Bear" is what you say to Yogi when he tries to cut in line.

[Pietro]

Ya Mu,

let us clarify a bit of epistemology, or theory of knowledge.

 

There are things that are real, and things that are measurable. Something that is unreal cannot be measurable. But there are many things that are real but not measurable. At least until you find a way to measure it.

When something can be scientifically studied, per definition, it must be measurable. There is a bit of elbow movement if you use consistent statistical observations spread over many people, using a double blind. But the quality of the science coming out is much less consistent. Mostly because you are not measuring the stuff itself but the effect of the stuff. And you are not sure if something might have intruded in the gap between what you are measuring and what you suppose have caused it. And all this is why we have so many problems with medicine and sociology, respect to physics, for example.

But not just everything that is scientific is measurable (either directly or indirectly), but everything that is measurable is, or can be (and in fact should be), subject to scientific exploration and investigation.

 

So a first conclusion of this is that while I can laugh at your claims about the speed of qi transmission, I cannot laugh at your experience of them as something having happened. This is a very important difference. One is a claim about a measurement, the other is a claim about an experience. And a supposition (consistent and grounded in many observations) that there is something in reality that caused it.

 

As a scientist I cannot accept as "surely part of the external reality" what caused it. I need to keep it in a special container called: anecdotal evidence. Even if I had (which I did, as I have done meditation for many years) direct experience of it. In this a scientist, that is a scientist, cannot treat his own observations differently from the observations of anybody else. And must treat any personal observations as untrustworthy. Why? Because we, human beings, are very well known for missing the mark, remembering things wrongly, deceiving ourselves, being subject to all sorts of delusions. In short being a faulty measurement system. All this while being absolutely, honestly, convinced that we are telling the truth. Please do not ask me to dig the literature on this. I trust that having had a scientific eduction, you must have had this explained to you over and over.

 

So what you are presenting is not certainly false. But is not certainly true either. It is anecdotal evidence of the existence of something. And fair enough, this website is based upon anecdotal evidence. If we did not consider anecdotal evidence no school of meditation could survive, nor would we have important suggestions over what to study in science.

 

But where I see you going overboard is when you make claims about measurements (this is instantaneous). And then make claims that are based upon those previous claims (because this is instantaneous then it must be ...).

 

Measuring something as instantaneous is a big deal. It is a big deal to understand what does it mean that two events happen at the same time.

 

As a human being you have some limitations. There are plenty of studies made that show this. And you claim that you can measure something as being "instantaneous". Oh, and differentiating it from something that travelled only at the speed of light? Now something happening anywhere around the globe and affecting you and traveling at the speed of light would affect you in less than 0.04 seconds. Something so fast that you cannot even perceive. But no, you claim you can actually perceive something that took 0.0000 seconds. And then you wonder why I call this claim naive. I wonder why you wonder.

[3bob]

Ya Mu,

let us clarify a bit of epistemology, or theory of knowledge.

 

There are things that are real, and things that are measurable. Something that is unreal cannot be measurable. But there are many things that are real but not measurable. At least until you find a way to measure it.

When something can be scientifically studied, per definition, it must be measurable. There is a bit of elbow movement if you use consistent statistical observations spread over many people, using a double blind. But the quality of the science coming out is much less consistent. Mostly because you are not measuring the stuff itself but the effect of the stuff. And you are not sure if something might have intruded in the gap between what you are measuring and what you suppose have caused it. And all this is why we have so many problems with medicine and sociology, respect to physics, for example.

But not just everything that is scientific is measurable (either directly or indirectly), but everything that is measurable is, or can be (and in fact should be), subject to scientific exploration and investigation.

 

So a first conclusion of this is that while I can laugh at your claims about the speed of qi transmission, I cannot laugh at your experience of them as something having happened. This is a very important difference. One is a claim about a measurement, the other is a claim about an experience. And a supposition (consistent and grounded in many observations) that there is something in reality that caused it.

 

As a scientist I cannot accept as "surely part of the external reality" what caused it. I need to keep it in a special container called: anecdotal evidence. Even if I had (which I did, as I have done meditation for many years) direct experience of it. In this a scientist, that is a scientist, cannot treat his own observations differently from the observations of anybody else. And must treat any personal observations as untrustworthy. Why? Because we, human beings, are very well known for missing the mark, remembering things wrongly, deceiving ourselves, being subject to all sorts of delusions. In short being a faulty measurement system. All this while being absolutely, honestly, convinced that we are telling the truth. Please do not ask me to dig the literature on this. I trust that having had a scientific eduction, you must have had this explained to you over and over.

 

So what you are presenting is not certainly false. But is not certainly true either. It is anecdotal evidence of the existence of something. And fair enough, this website is based upon anecdotal evidence. If we did not consider anecdotal evidence no school of meditation could survive, nor would we have important suggestions over what to study in science.

 

But where I see you going overboard is when you make claims about measurements (this is instantaneous). And then make claims that are based upon those previous claims (because this is instantaneous then it must be ...).

 

Measuring something as instantaneous is a big deal. It is a big deal to understand what does it mean that two events happen at the same time.

 

As a human being you have some limitations. There are plenty of studies made that show this. And you claim that you can measure something as being "instantaneous". Oh, and differentiating it from something that travelled only at the speed of light? Now something happening anywhere around the globe and affecting you and traveling at the speed of light would affect you in less than 0.04 seconds. Something so fast that you cannot even perceive. But no, you claim you can actually perceive something that took 0.0000 seconds. And then you wonder why I call this claim naive. I wonder why you wonder.

 

If I may suggest Pietro, besides only creating the kind of set-up you've gone into above, (which does have its place and purpose) imagine a set-up that moves so exceedingly fast everywhere at once that it is standing still... What place or purpose could that have or serve?

[Ya Mu]

Ya Mu,

let us clarify a bit of epistemology, or theory of knowledge.

 

There are things that are real, and things that are measurable. Something that is unreal cannot be measurable. But there are many things that are real but not measurable. At least until you find a way to measure it.

When something can be scientifically studied, per definition, it must be measurable. There is a bit of elbow movement if you use consistent statistical observations spread over many people, using a double blind. But the quality of the science coming out is much less consistent. Mostly because you are not measuring the stuff itself but the effect of the stuff. And you are not sure if something might have intruded in the gap between what you are measuring and what you suppose have caused it. And all this is why we have so many problems with medicine and sociology, respect to physics, for example.

But not just everything that is scientific is measurable (either directly or indirectly), but everything that is measurable is, or can be (and in fact should be), subject to scientific exploration and investigation.

 

So a first conclusion of this is that while I can laugh at your claims about the speed of qi transmission, I cannot laugh at your experience of them as something having happened. This is a very important difference. One is a claim about a measurement, the other is a claim about an experience. And a supposition (consistent and grounded in many observations) that there is something in reality that caused it.

 

As a scientist I cannot accept as "surely part of the external reality" what caused it. I need to keep it in a special container called: anecdotal evidence. Even if I had (which I did, as I have done meditation for many years) direct experience of it. In this a scientist, that is a scientist, cannot treat his own observations differently from the observations of anybody else. And must treat any personal observations as untrustworthy. Why? Because we, human beings, are very well known for missing the mark, remembering things wrongly, deceiving ourselves, being subject to all sorts of delusions. In short being a faulty measurement system. All this while being absolutely, honestly, convinced that we are telling the truth. Please do not ask me to dig the literature on this. I trust that having had a scientific eduction, you must have had this explained to you over and over.

 

So what you are presenting is not certainly false. But is not certainly true either. It is anecdotal evidence of the existence of something. And fair enough, this website is based upon anecdotal evidence. If we did not consider anecdotal evidence no school of meditation could survive, nor would we have important suggestions over what to study in science.

 

But where I see you going overboard is when you make claims about measurements (this is instantaneous). And then make claims that are based upon those previous claims (because this is instantaneous then it must be ...).

 

Measuring something as instantaneous is a big deal. It is a big deal to understand what does it mean that two events happen at the same time.

 

As a human being you have some limitations. There are plenty of studies made that show this. And you claim that you can measure something as being "instantaneous". Oh, and differentiating it from something that travelled only at the speed of light? Now something happening anywhere around the globe and affecting you and traveling at the speed of light would affect you in less than 0.04 seconds. Something so fast that you cannot even perceive. But no, you claim you can actually perceive something that took 0.0000 seconds. And then you wonder why I call this claim naive. I wonder why you wonder.

Since you ignored what I asked about your qualifications in qi projection and quantum mechanics I must assume there are none and your argument is entirely based on the scientific investigation model.

If I actually still believed in that model I would agree with most of what you posted with the exception of your comments about quantum mechanics to which you do not clarify that you actually know much. One thing is for sure, your words make it clear to me why I no longer am a scientist and no longer wish to be limited in development of the human potential by archaic brain oriented rules.

But no where did I state that what I was doing or what I observed was scientific.

 

But where I see you going overboard is when you make claims about measurements (this is instantaneous).

And this is where you didn't actually read the context of what I wrote. I used the measurement that we did as an example and made NO claim that I "measured instantaneous" (I went to a lot of trouble to explain this) I DID make the claim that I have seen all these things as being instantaneous, and I have.

 

One part of what I wrote that you ignored so as to boost your "scientific theology" was where I stated that I had seen over and over that folks responded to medical qigong treatment BEFORE I projected the qi. So, if you actually did read that part, as a scientist I am sure you just chuckled to yourself and said to yourself, "ah, placebo effect", or some such nonsense (nonsense in that YOU weren't there and have no idea). Well this is not the case. Most of these people absolutely didn't believe in medical qigong qi projection, didn't believe I could help them, thought it was a total waste of their time, etc. They only made appointments due to family or friend pressure.

Another thing I have observed is the future/past interaction while in either the past or the future (of course I use those terms loosely for if one can interact with either then they are not absolute terms). As in many times. Nope, can't measure it.

 

The other thing that you don't seem to realize is this statement: "In this a scientist, that is a scientist, cannot treat his own observations differently from the observations of anybody else. And must treat any personal observations as untrustworthy" is absurd. Why? Because most discoveries have been made by individuals and not "teams of scientists". But of course most of these individuals seek verification by others. But not all. Did Tesla seek scientific confirmation by others? But more importantly, because it most certainly does not apply to what I am talking about. This observation to which I am referring has been made by EVERYONE that has actually studied the system I teach. Not as "I told you so so it must be" but as "wow - here is what I have observed and come to know."

 

Perhaps one day science will catch up and not be so limiting. I actually believe this will happen.

 

In the end, I could give you many examples of what I have seen that solidifies the simultaneous and instantaneous nature of the type of qi projection and interaction that I do. But it would mean nothing to you because you can't measure it. Also, I think it is impossible for a person that does not actually do it to come to know these things.

 

Most times I wonder which has been the most detrimental contributor to society - science or religion. Arguments could be made for each.

[mjjbecker]

 

Also, I think it is impossible for a person that does not actually do it to come to know these things.

 

Indeed. Is that not the measure of science? Experimentation. Many different energy workers throughout the ages were undoubtedly scientists. They tested hypotheses and observed the outcomes.

 

Most times I wonder which has been the most detrimental contributor to society - science or religion. Arguments could be made for each.

 

Neither. Dogmatic thinking within both has been the problem. Dogmatic thinking in any field of endeavour or study is detrimental.

[Ya Mu]

...

Neither. Dogmatic thinking within both has been the problem. Dogmatic thinking in any field of endeavour or study is detrimental.

Not gonna let me get away with an intentional dig at science and religion, are you. :lol:

 

You make a valid point. But I think both are inherently based on dogmatic thinking so it is at the core of both as they exist today; not that this should be the case. IMO science and religion COULD be non-dogmatic if both as they exist today did not rely on human brain based controlling rules.

I am one who actually believes (right or wrong) that science will change and evolve to acknowledge Spirit and energy healing. Right now it just can't get past the NEED to utilize instrumentation to measure. So this change will occur IMO when human consciousness evolves/recognizes the inherent energetic connections of all things on the non-linear level - perhaps at this point then instrumentation will be "invented" to measure this.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Ya Mu

[Cueball]

... there's going to be adjustments, internalizations, clashes and bouncebacks, some of you will get modulated and some of you will get, um, rejected, found incompatible, and so on. The amount of transmission you will actually get out of the experience depends on who you are. I.e. the teacher might project the same daigong at the whole group but reactions of the group members will be dramatically different.

 

That's pretty much been my experience too, especially that there's more than one type of transmission. Sometimes even when you think you're 'ready', you can end up biting off more than you can chew, in quality if not in quantity. (Obviously words not meaning a whole lot here.) I've found those adjustments and clashes to be very difficult at times. It's always interesting though.

 

I am one who actually believes (right or wrong) that science will change and evolve to acknowledge Spirit and energy healing. Right now it just can't get past the NEED to utilize instrumentation to measure. So this change will occur IMO when human consciousness evolves/recognizes the inherent energetic connections of all things on the non-linear level - perhaps at this point then instrumentation will be "invented" to measure this.

 

I think that's how it will be, with the real progress coming from a reworking of scientific methodology itself. So long as an arbitrary polarisation is made between subjective and objective - with 'objective' being the arbiter of reality - all sorts of phenomena becomes reduced to anecdotal (i.e. worthless) evidence. I don't see a radical overhaul being likely for a while yet....... but I'd love to see it happen.

Edited May 10, 2010 by Cueball

[Taomeow]

"Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic."

Arthur C. Clarke,

"Profiles of The Future", 1961 (Clarke's third law)

English physicist & science fiction author (1917 - )