Are you sure about the existance of Chi?

[Buddy]

"To the original questioner. It is easy to determine that chi is real. If I shine my hands on an unbeliever and they feel it then it makes them believers and it validates my own knowing."

 

 

Well, maybe so. But you might be wanting to believe. Maybe they feel nothing without you telling them they should.

 

"Chi can heal"

 

Prove this one first.

 

"but it will not do miraculous healing, that's a different ballgame. Oftentimes a person will have good healing ability on others but will not be good at using their own ability on themselves, either through negligence, karma, or because the injury is simply something which is beyond their capacity to work with."

 

Well that's very convenient. Let's just make it the hurting persons fault because their karma is to blame.

 

"Healing abilities with chi are on an inverse proportional scale. The fewest have the most and the most have fairly little."

 

What? This is total....(careful Buddy you're trying to be even handed)...commentary with NO evidence to back it up. Please...PLEASE site where you can prove this....bovine excrement.

[Starjumper]

What? This is total....(careful Buddy you're trying to be even handed)...commentary with NO evidence to back it up. Please...PLEASE site where you can prove this....bovine excrement.

 

 

Hello dimwad, are you still at it? Anyone with an once of brains knows this inverse proportion type of law is prevalent in all systems.

[Taoist81]

Hello dimwad, are you still at it? Anyone with an once of brains knows this inverse proportion type of law is prevalent in all systems.

 

Sure Star, anyone with a "once" (that's an "ounce" right?) of brain and familiar with mathematics would know that inverse proportion exists. While we are on the subject, Inverse Proportion is not necessarily in "all systems", rather it is present in cases when the (2) variables are directly proportional, and in those cases it is a constant. But by calling Buddy a "dimwad" (perhaps you meant "dimwit") you do nothing to address his question/concern. You still provide no evidence, other than your own subjective and suspect experience, that "qi" is inversely proportional to anything. Just making a claim that qi and healing are inversely proportional is just like the new age nuts who claim that "the Secret" is real because they use the words "quantum" and "mechanics" and those are "big words". Randomly grabbing scientific words does not make the subject you are speaking of scientific.

 

As noted in another thread, Darren Brown can do some crazy shit, making people unable to move, or to move as he wishes, making them change their beilefs, etc.. He admits that it is not "magic" or "qi" or anything other than mentalism and psychology, and he actually has science behind him. Do some public, peer-reviewable, double blind studies where the people don't know it is you "qi teasing" them and then you may have a claim to be made. But name calling and unfounded claims only make you sound foolish, you are better than that.

[Starjumper]

Sure Star, anyone with a "once" (that's an "ounce" right?) of brain and familiar with mathematics would know that inverse proportion exists. While we are on the subject, Inverse Proportion is not necessarily in "all systems", rather it is present in cases when the (2) variables are directly proportional, and in those cases it is a constant. But by calling Buddy a "dimwad" (perhaps you meant "dimwit") you do nothing to address his question/concern. You still provide no evidence, other than your own subjective and suspect experience, that "qi" is inversely proportional to anything. Just making a claim that qi and healing are inversely proportional is just like the new age nuts who claim that "the Secret" is real because they use the words "quantum" and "mechanics" and those are "big words". Randomly grabbing scientific words does not make the subject you are speaking of scientific.

 

As noted in another thread, Darren Brown can do some crazy shit, making people unable to move, or to move as he wishes, making them change their beilefs, etc.. He admits that it is not "magic" or "qi" or anything other than mentalism and psychology, and he actually has science behind him. Do some public, peer-reviewable, double blind studies where the people don't know it is you "qi teasing" them and then you may have a claim to be made. But name calling and unfounded claims only make you sound foolish, you are better than that.

 

Your observations have merit, but Buddy, who is worse than a dimwit, he is dimwad, is not deserving of explanations.

 

It's true there are other proportions and I was incorrect in saying all systems. Some systems have direct proportionality. it's more like prevalent in all systems where people are working to 'gain' something. Whether it is health or wealth or chi power. If we plot these things we will invariably end up with a bell curve.

 

The bell curve is so prevalent in nature that I think we can get away with calling it a law, a law of statistics, if you will.

 

Depending on how we count and arrange our graph paper, a bell curve can also be represented as a hyperbolic curve along X and Y axes. Using wealth as a well known variable we find that the fewest people have the most money, a moderate amount of people have a moderate amount of money, and the most people have the least. Common knowledge.

 

We can apply this to health and exercise too. The fewest people do the most kinds of most effective exercise, many do a little of some that may address only one facet of health, and the most do the least.

 

I'm sure its the same with chi, master who are very powerful with chi are very few. People who cultivate some chi power are moderate in number, and most have little or none. Again, common sense. Asking me to try to prove such a thing is almost as stupid as Buddy is in every post, I think Buddy is enough, don't you?

 

Like the friggin moron, Buddy's, response to my statement that chi can heal is: 'prove it'. Well I've seen it done and I've done it so I've proved it to myself. If the moron ever got around to anyone with any abilities he would know it himself but instead all he does is he sits at his computer typing 'prove it' to all statements. If you consider the impossibility of proving anything on a forum then you will realize how outstandingly stupid he really is. The worst thing, though, is he's such a pain in the ass and he's been focusing on my statements.

Edited January 31, 2008 by Starjumper7

[Taoist81]

Your observations have merit, but Buddy, who is worse than a dimwit, he is dimwad, is not deserving of explanations.

 

It's true there are other proportions and I was incorrect in saying all systems. Some systems have direct proportionality. it's more like prevalent in all systems where people are working to 'gain' something. Whether it is health or wealth or chi power. If we plot these things we will invariably end up with a bell curve.

 

The bell curve is so prevalent in nature that I think we can get away with calling it a law, a law of statistics, if you will.

 

Depending on how we count and arrange our graph paper, a bell curve can also be represented as a hyperbolic curve along X and Y axes. Using wealth as a well known variable we find that the fewest people have the most money, a moderate amount of people have a moderate amount of money, and the most people have the least. Common knowledge.

 

We can apply this to health and exercise too. The fewest people do the most kinds of most effective exercise, many do a little of some that may address only one facet of health, and the most do the least.

 

I'm sure its the same with chi, master who are very powerful with chi are very few. People who cultivate some chi power are moderate in number, and most have little or none. Again, common sense. Asking me to try to prove such a thing is almost as stupid as Buddy is in every post, I think Buddy is enough, don't you?

 

Okay, we can agree that there are fewer people who cultivate than there are who don't. We certainly can't agree that Buddy is stupid, primarily because neither of us know him beyond a few posts on a messageboard, but also because his posts often show much intelligence.

 

All that said, you still never addressed the question at hand. You note that individuals can "feel" or "experience" qi, and most of us here know that that is true, most of us have "felt" "qi". But millions of Mormons "feel" and "experience" the Holy Ghost. Even more Pentecostals "feel" and "experience" the Holy Ghost in a very different and more distinct way. Many guru's (even fraudulent ones) have had their followers "feel" many things. Thousands of Scientologists experience the "effects" of auditing. Ceremonial magicians have felt, heard and seen spirits. Carl Jung saw Philemon on a regular basis, and he "knew" that it was his subconscious. Darren Brown has demonstrated his abilities to cause people to be unable to move without touching them and to change their beliefs back and forth between atheist and theist on demand. Criss Angel walked on water and put his hand through some "volunteer's" chest.... Is it necessary to go on? Our experiences are all subjective, and even moreso when we are dealing with internal or "un-outwardly-detectable" experiences.

How do you, or at least how do you suggest we, determine whether these experiences are mental interpretations of biological functions (i.e. your "charisma", at least subconsciously, causes the subject to expect a sensation so they do) vs. an undetectable-other than by internal (mental) means- energy?

 

...you added this piece after the above was posted:

Well I've seen it done and I've done it so I've proved it to myself. If the moron ever got around to anyone with any abilities he would know it himself but instead all he does is he sits at his computer typing 'prove it' to all statements. If you consider the impossibility of proving anything on a forum then you will realize how outstandingly stupid he really is. The worst thing, though, is he's such a pain in the ass and he's been focusing on my statements.

1. People do "Cold Reading" without realizing it all the time. And Humans tend to remember the "hits" and forget the "misses" so, without going so far as to make any impications on your abilities (as stated above, what is being questioned here is not whether something happens, but rather the nature of the thing happening), many people have "abilities" that they should question.

2. Amen, about proving things on a messageboard. Though, we should likewise not be offended when others question our unprovable claims on the same messageboard

The testing should be done, though, double blind and peer reviewable (like the studies our acupuncture college does)

Edited January 31, 2008 by Taoist81

[Starjumper]

Okay, we can agree that there are fewer people who cultivate than there are who don't. We certainly can't agree that Buddy is stupid, primarily because neither of us know him beyond a few posts on a messageboard, but also because his posts often show much intelligence.

 

All that said, you still never addressed the question at hand. You note that individuals can "feel" or "experience" qi, and most of us here know that that is true, most of us have "felt" "qi". But millions of Mormons "feel" and "experience" the Holy Ghost. Even more Pentecostals "feel" and "experience" the Holy Ghost in a very different and more distinct way. Many guru's (even fraudulent ones) have had their followers "feel" many things. Thousands of Scientologists experience the "effects" of auditing. Ceremonial magicians have felt, heard and seen spirits. Carl Jung saw Philemon on a regular basis, and he "knew" that it was his subconscious. Darren Brown has demonstrated his abilities to cause people to be unable to move without touching them and to change their beliefs back and forth between atheist and theist on demand. Criss Angel walked on water and put his hand through some "volunteer's" chest.... Is it necessary to go on? Our experiences are all subjective, and even moreso when we are dealing with internal or "un-outwardly-detectable" experiences.

How do you, or at least how do you suggest we, determine whether these experiences are mental interpretations of biological functions (i.e. your "charisma", at least subconsciously, causes the subject to expect a sensation so they do) vs. an undetectable-other than by internal (mental) means- energy?

 

You've got some good points there. I used to believe that all such things, including chi, were nonexistent. However upon spending some years with an advanced master I found I was wrong every single time (except for the existence of a monotheistic god =) so now I try to have no beliefs and I am open to all possibilities. An agnostic, if you will.

 

I know people can be victim to suggestibility but I also know the power of mass belief (combined elementals) can create power so it is a very ambiguous situation. I can make up a situation to explain the experience of the Holly Ghost in terms of my reality but what's the use. I like to be practical and don't care much for theories about what is reality. What I feel is reality to me and that's good enough for me, I really don't care what others have felt since there's nothing I can really do about that. The exception is my students, who have the goal of cultivating chi power, and so I check in on what it is they feel and can do with it. All I can suggest is that if people really want to experience chi then they can do the right exercises and learn it for themselves. Even the charlatan Max Kunlun can provide that experience for them. Anything that is internal and mental and based on feeling is not provable to the great unwashed, ever!

[sheng zhen]

"Chi can heal"

 

Prove this one first.

There has been done some research on chi healing. I dont know, maby it has been done A LOT of research on chi healing. You might want to check it out Buddy.

[三江源]

Hi peeps.

 

Couple of ting from me.

 

One is a forum practical point - Thanks to Wayfarer for mentioning this - it's really nice once you utilise the 'ignore' function on someone who bores/irritates you.

 

Secondly, something about chi for those honestly wondering if it's a Derren Brown type thing, because they dont yet have any direct experience of it.

 

I have been moved from behind by chi. I have been in a slumped position on the floor with eyes closed, deep in some interior state, and been lifted up physically by chi, by my teacher behind me.

 

No co- operation could have been possible by me in such an instance. No mind control can work on someone from behind who has their eyes closed, and is in a noisy room, and is mentally far from alert.

 

I fully sympathise with StarJumpers exasperation. This is a board, largely, for people who work with chi. Bickering over first principles is a drag.

 

As for what people are feeling when they activate a connection with whatever they believe to be holy and meaningful, in various religions or belief systems like Scientology.

 

Of course it is perfectly possible that they are releasing psychic tension, enjoying an ego flooded with freedom, saturated with abnegation of responsibility in that moment, due to the great relief of handing themselves over to A Higher Power.

 

It is also perfectly possible that this psychological release/relief has a physiological effect of flushing through their meridians and giving them a great sense of well being.

 

There is after all, no real barrier between psyche/soma, and when the ego is loosened, stagnancy can shift.

 

Essentially, people benefit from loosening up the ego grip, and Religion, Spirituality, etc, is beneficial because it can facilitate that experience for some.

[rain]

,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain

[VCraigP]

Would like to comment on this from Buddy:

 

And yet, one might wonder why Bruce isn't a better person all around, in addition to the health aspect. The same might be asked about some of his students.

 

Combined with This from Seadog:

Opening up your meridians and filling your body with Qi doesn't make you a spiritual person.

 

 

It is not necessary to "feel" Qi in order to do Taoist practices - however you define them.

 

I wholeheartedly agree that even should we agree on the existence of Qi that it is quite a separate issue from the question originally posed which I feel HowAboutTao clarified in his follow up comment:

 

"The thing is that if Chi is only in our mind, then its effects on our spiritual development are very limited, since in Tao it is the balancing of Chi, opening meridians etc that is supposed to make us become more and more spiritually developed."

 

Regardless of whether Qi is only in ones mind (warning mind is a loaded term and may mean a lot more than you intend ) it is important to understand that having full flowing Qi, physical power and good health have little to do with spiritual development. It doesn't hurt. But it doesn't necessarily help either.

 

The original question which seems to have veered of into the discussion about the veracity of Qi was about choosing a Spiritual path.

 

I have known some very strong, powerful martial artists who while arguably could be said to have powerful Qi did at the same time have little interest in spiritual development.

 

On the other side of the coin.

In order to make real progress in the Taoist path of Jing-Qi-Shen Vitality-Energy-Spirit Cultivation the first layer requires attention and usually primarily until Vibrant Health can be developed. While it is possible to develop all three layers at once. From the Taoist perspective ( or maybe only from mine ) it is first very important to establish this foundation.

 

Now it can be seen in good martial arts schools that many are developing better health through good practice.

But it is also possible to focus only on health and physical power to the exclusion of overall 3 layer (jing-qi-shen) development.

 

Is Qi Real? I don't see the need to address that one in order to answer the question at hand.

 

What is the real question? Will this path called Taoism suit my goals. In truth I don't think anyone here really knows exactly what HowAboutTao means by this question. It is really quite broad. I can only answer as to what the question means to me. Will Taoist practices suit me for my path of cultivation? I have already answered that for myself. Taoist practices mean martial arts,qigong, meditation seperate and combined in one. In my view proper cultivation of the 3 layers does entail development of the physical, energetic and spiritual layers, and they are not separate but a continuum.

 

Craig

[三江源]

True enough there are practitioners packed full of chi, who can move people about and do great healing, but they have no interest in spiritual development whatsoever.

 

Actually one of my teachers who was as I described above said he was "too Yang" and didnt expect to make old bones. He would burn out, he said.

 

Accumulating and packing and martial arts can have interesting psychological effects to do with boosting Yang. Despite learning not to let liver chi rise, the fight reflex can be over activated very easily.

 

 

One of the things which particularly interests me, is how it comes about that people pick up different strands from within a transmission. There may be spiritual wisdom in a transmission, which one person will pick up, and another one wont.

 

I think it is like Maslows pyramid. The physical has to get to a level of ok - ness, before one's experiences can climb to the peaks.

[Buddy]

The qi paradigm has not been proven (unless it was in the Scandinavian langauge bit I couldn't understand). The problem here is that many of you are invested in it being true and resent any intrusion on your beliefs. You even get very hot and bothered to the point of personal insult. This is very interesting.

I have questioned many of your beliefs and made fun of things that are easily made fun of. When challenged about my making fun, I ask for one thing-prove it. That's all, you believe it I don't. The onus is on you. I make no outlandish claims and the one's I do make I can prove.

I see a lot of passive/aggressiveness in people who claim they are on a spiritual path and it's amusing. I'm just a regular guy and have no need to present myself as anything but that. It's a liberating position.

[howabouttao]

[rain]

..................

Edited April 18, 2008 by rain

[sheng zhen]

The qi paradigm has not been proven (unless it was in the Scandinavian langauge bit I couldn't understand). The problem here is that many of you are invested in it being true and resent any intrusion on your beliefs. You even get very hot and bothered to the point of personal insult. This is very interesting.

I have questioned many of your beliefs and made fun of things that are easily made fun of. When challenged about my making fun, I ask for one thing-prove it. That's all, you believe it I don't. The onus is on you. I make no outlandish claims and the one's I do make I can prove.

I see a lot of passive/aggressiveness in people who claim they are on a spiritual path and it's amusing. I'm just a regular guy and have no need to present myself as anything but that. It's a liberating position.

No Buddy, the onus(whatever that means) is not on us(if my feeling of "onus" is correct). Dont be so lazy. Go get the information, get your experience, see someone who claims to be able to chi-heal and figure it out.(Im shure you have done a lot of that all ready, so why do you think it is false??) You cant expect us here on the forum to "prove it" in any way you would be satisfied with. You should rather ask some of the scientists who have done the research.

 

As for the qi paradigm to be prooven it needs to fit the science paradigm. You see? Just another paradigm. It all comes down to what you accept as the "true paradigm", nothing more. You, and most westerners, might believe that the science paradigm is the only truth, and that all claims can be tested through the science paradigm. And if the testing dosent fall through, then it is not accepted. To me it sound just ridiculous to have such limited views on reality.

 

And Buddy, there is a lot of scientific research on qi-healing so it does fit the science paradigm. Its just the mechanisms that has yet to be expained scientifically.

Edited January 31, 2008 by sheng zhen

[Buddy]

There is no carrot.

[Ian]

I ask for one thing-prove it.

 

What would you accept as proof?

 

That's all, you believe it I don't. The onus is on you.

 

Not so. You don't merely not believe, you actively assert that it ain't so. That's a different thing. The onus is equally on you to prove that you know the universe well enough to be able to say that what you haven't experienced categorically doesn't exist.

 

Which requires more than just mentioning "laws of physics". Laws of physics have evolved with our increasing knowledge, continue to do so, and last I looked were already pretty wild.

 

Incidentally, I don't really believe much. But I have a very open mind.

[rene]

True enough there are practitioners packed full of chi, who can move people about and do great healing, but they have no interest in spiritual development whatsoever. (...) One of the things which particularly interests me, is how it comes about that people pick up different strands from within a transmission. There may be spiritual wisdom in a transmission, which one person will pick up, and another one wont. I think it is like Maslows pyramid. The physical has to get to a level of ok - ness, before one's experiences can climb to the peaks.

 

cat - thanks for this post. All the people I know who are 'packed full' of chi also reflect a genuine and rather advanced spiritual nature. I always thought the two evolved together naturally. From what I'm reading in here, that might not be the case. I'm not familiar with the dynamics of 'transmission' but there might be a predisposition for understanding, just as there are predispositions for other types of development(s), and if so then Maslow might play into it but not exclusively: spiritual development might not require physical ok-ness.

[Buddy]

Hi Ian,

"Not so. You don't merely not believe, you actively assert that it ain't so."

 

No, I've said I'm agnostic. I don't believe in, for instance, the video of the alleged qi master making folks dance as some sort of viable health practice. I don't believe in magic powers or wizards and sorcerers.

 

But the actual existence of qi, I'm on the fence about. I'm open to it being true but the jury is still out.

[rain]

There is no carrot.

 

 

I like you.

 

perhaps not. but lets say fex like einstein the friend of procurator who's a fraud..

"that genious and progress is having the ability to see new connections between ideas already

there."

and lets play with that idea

fex you do believe in arteries and veins? lymphatic system, the nerves in your body?

do you believe in bio- chemistry and electrisity? na+ cl- etc. ions, (yin yang , positive negative.?.)

 

meridians??? noo? you don't?

 

say fx that those meridians are the energyfields where those three other (blood, lymph and nerves) already are combined..a result.

could be a thought?

the acupoints along thiese areas receive energy and changes the ions. this has been scientifically proven. energy is being stimulated. chi gong.

Edited January 31, 2008 by rain

[Taoist81]

Secondly, something about chi for those honestly wondering if it's a Derren Brown type thing, because they dont yet have any direct experience of it.

 

Darren Brown demonstrated his abilities from first behind someone (made her start and stop-to the extent of being unable to move- walking without even touching her) and in complete silence. Then, he put his hand on her back, had her pick a random person on the street and "transmitted" his ability through her to make a stranger on the street who couldn't see them start and stop as she wished. The lady was thoroughly freaked out, and it is likely that few people know how he did it, but he is clear that there is nothing "mystical" or supernatural about it.

 

I suggest you contact these organizations and ask for scientific results:

 

There is no question that various techniques have been shown to work, we treat patients with great effect at our clinic all the time. Acupuncture has had somewhat well put together studies show its effectiveness, to a lesser extent so have Qigong healers and reiki (although the more efficiently controlled studies usually do not show any higher rates of healing for qigong healers, reiki or prayer). But there is only correlation. None of it can prove causation unless qi can be detected other than "internally". Certainly different acupoints have slightly different electrical charges that can be detected, but, again, these can all be related to physiological systems. There is still no real evidence that qi is anything other than a mental interpretation of a systemic physiological response.

[三江源]

cat - thanks for this post. All the people I know who are 'packed full' of chi also reflect a genuine and rather advanced spiritual nature. I always thought the two evolved together naturally. From what I'm reading in here, that might not be the case. I'm not familiar with the dynamics of 'transmission' but there might be a predisposition for understanding, just as there are predispositions for other types of development(s), and if so then Maslow might play into it but not exclusively: spiritual development might not require physical ok-ness.

 

You're welcome and yes, you 're right. Actually, I have been told it is a 'pre - disposition' that influences what parts of a transmission we will pick up. I'm glad you made the distinction and reminded me of it... I dont need to deny 'predisposition'... it isnt elitist or fatalistic.. I probably just slightly fear that I will shut down on people in some way if I allow myself too much to think of their 'disposition'.

 

One of the things about these practises is that we can loosen our tendencies and 'change our fate'... maybe I am a bit attached to that idea.

 

Darren Brown demonstrated his abilities from first behind someone (made her start and stop-to the extent of being unable to move- walking without even touching her) and in complete silence. Then, he put his hand on her back, had her pick a random person on the street and "transmitted" his ability through her to make a stranger on the street who couldn't see them start and stop as she wished. The lady was thoroughly freaked out, and it is likely that few people know how he did it, but he is clear that there is nothing "mystical" or supernatural about it.

 

Hi Taoist 81. Yes, I am aware of what you are saying. Actually I read Derren Brown's book, which was fun and enlightening - up to a point! He will of course say that he uses NLP to implant and anchor suggestion and he is an absolute master at it. So what he does has no bearing on someone experiencing a chi transmission from someone who has no training in NLP.

 

You can paint a white dog with black spots but it doesnt make him a dalmation except to someone not looking very closely.

[steve]

Howabouttao -

 

Excellent questions. In my view there is nothing more important than healthy skepticism and nothing more dangerous than faith. I applaud and respect Buddy's stance as it is all too easy to begin to pretend to believe when everyone around is yelling 'don't you see it?' At the same time, I respect everyone who has experienced something, labels it qi and acts accordingly. Please continue to post tough questions. If certain member on the forum seem to get their dander up that's more about them than you.

 

My experience with qi - When I started practicing taijiquan and xingyiquan combined with dao meditation, I began to "believe" in qi. I am able to experience my yi (intention) guiding the qi (a sense or awareness within the body) in the taiji form, xingyi forms, qigong, and most intensely during dao meditation. To me, qi appears to be an awareness of the physical being or an interaction of the consciousness with the physical being. I look at it more as a process, movement, or interaction than as some sort of stuff. It seems that practice can intensify this awareness. It is a perception that really doesn't seem to exist actively in conscious awareness unless trained.

 

I think the definition of qi is what is at issue rather than the existence. People who practice dao meditation, taiji, qigong, and other disciplines are able to experience a conscious perception of the physical being that goes beyond the average Joe in everyday life. This perception can be useful for health and martial purposes. This is what I interpret as qi. It is the process of existence or perhaps life, depending on your semantic leaning.

I have never experienced the more magical qualities of qi that people claim. Until I experience them, I will remain skeptical like a few others on this forum. Many of the amazing effects attributed to qi healing and manipulation can be easily explained by other means. Many people exploit others' beliefs in this area - spirituality is a hugely profitable business.

 

"perhaps Chi is just a product of our imagination..." This is an interesting question. When I first started taiji and was trying to understand what I was supposed to be feeling I read a little book by Waysun Liao about taiji. It gave instructions for using the imagination to experience qi in the beginning and this worked for me. The real questions is not whether qi is a product of our imagination but - is anything NOT a product of our imagination? Everything you know and experience is percieved by your brain. In this sense (and perhaps a much larger sense which I won't get into at this moment) you create the universe. Sound does not exist without an eardrum and brain to convert air pressure variations into music, for example. So yes, qi is a product of our imagination, IMO.

[Buddy]

here's Derren here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=G18NfN76bAs

 

 

 

"So what he does has no bearing on someone experiencing a chi transmission from someone who has no training in NLP."

 

But it does bear on that if someone is suggestible and wants to believe that they are experiencing some sort of transmission--they will feel it. The mind is a funny thing and easily manipulated.

[rain]

.................

Edited April 17, 2008 by rain