Recommended Posts

51 minutes ago, dwai said:

 

Qi can feel like many things. Electric, magnetic, hold, cold etc etc. They are all different ways in which the mind interprets Qi. 

It feels different internally vs externally. Internally, there is always however a feeling of flow/movement. Also, when we get to a certain point in our cultivation, the Qi starts filling up the inside, like air or other fluid filling a balloon.  At which point, externally, it feels like a field (i.e., the filling up internally generates a field externally). Like when you experience static electricity, or a magnetic field. It has a surface tension, like pushing against a balloon. That surface tension can be used to do various things such as transmit martial power, healing, etc etc.

 

Okay, that makes sense. For the most part, I don't subscribe to "our civilization" being entirely mine. Mine is a world of Hindu, Daoist and Buddhist civilization, informed by those frameworks -- only happen to be a resident of the Western world :) 

I don't quite see it that way. What we consider "mind" is essentially a conditioned layer of the one awareness. Like waves on an ocean. So when we consider ourselves to be the waves, there are 'differences' (some waves are big, some are small, some are powerful, some are weak) -- but when we consider ourselves to be water, there is no difference. By emptying ourselves of our conditioning, we are going back to being just water. :)


OK. If you don't want to describe a single discrete experience but instead a large category of experiences that you collectively describe as "Qi", can you tell me why you think something that can be so different "electric, magnetic, hold [I assume you meant "hot"], cold etc" how can you tell that they are all the same thing: "Qi"? Couldn't there be a lot of different types of experiences that you are just lumping together?

Well, I live in the 21st century even though I have studied under a wide variety of fairly old traditions myself. Even the lineage of Socrates---where I am a recognized Master---goes all the way back more than 2,000 years. Could you give me some of the evidence that led you to believe that your mind is "a conditioned layer of the one awareness. Like waves on an ocean"? I have suggested experiences and scientific research that would suggest that the human mind is not unitary (ie: the split brain research plus the disassociation phenomenon), what evidence would you present in favour of your hypothesis? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, Cloudwalking Owl said:

The implication is that the experience of a unitary consciousness that we "feel" is an artificial construct that unifies a whole lot of different mental and physical experiences. If it were something that is intrinsically unitary, how could a simple surgical procedure cut it in half? 

 

Well, another way of looking at it is that consciousness is not your body, but it interacts with your body. Say that your body is like a mobile phone that receives signals and consciousness is a specific signal. When the structure of the organs or the physical functioning of the physical body is in any way perturbed, this messes with the reception of the signal. This manifests as symptoms of all kinds known in both Western and Chinese medicine.

 

It doesn't disprove anything about Qi, as I see it. 

Edited by anshino23
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 2019-10-21 at 7:31 PM, Rara said:

 

I'd rather cut an avocado correctly right now, without leaving a load of it in the skin and having to scoop it out.

 

Flying in the air would suck if no one else could do it with me.

 

Yo Ra: ❤️❤️❤️

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
52 minutes ago, liminal_luke said:

 

Can I suggest a change in strategy?  So far you´ve been asking people to give you examples of their experience according to parameters that you´ve set -- relatively objective, free from cultural overlays, etc.  Nobody has stepped up to the plate, at least not in the way you´d like.  Since people haven´t been playing along, why not simply make your point without their participation?  Then people could agree or disagree as they choose. 

 

So far I think you´ve said that taking on ancient spiritual beliefs about the meaning of our experiences is not always useful.  Do I understand you correctly?  This is an interesting idea and I´d be open to hearing more about it. Can you give examples from your experience of how these belief systems lead people astray?  How might people approach spiritual practice in a more productive way?  


Well, ideally I'd like to create a conversation based on evidence presented by someone else so they are on the record as having such and such an experience. It allows me to learn the way they use complex and sometimes ambiguous terms in a way that encourages clearness. It's part of the Socratic dialogue to get people to start off on some common ground before you get buried in the complexities. And I don't want to just say something without basing it on some evidence and clear reasoning---otherwise it's just opinion, which is pretty much worthless on its own. 

I've already mentioned several very clear examples of experiences (eg: the taking a punch exercise, and, the splitting my visual field into left and right and learning to control which one is dominant) I've had, but which I haven't identified as Qi. I literally don't think that the term "Qi" really explains anything at all, so I think it's much better to just describe the experiences themselves and work from there. Various people on this list disagreed with me, so I asked them to give some clear descriptions of specific Qi experiences they've had. I suspect that most of the folks on this list haven't really thought about most of the issues I've raised and just assumed that I was a naive person who was accusing them of lying about their experiences. I'm trying to do something very different. I know that these experiences happen, because they've happened to me. But I think it's a trap to naively assume that the ancient theoretical descriptions and theoretical explanations are the "be all and end all" of how to understand these things. 

There are lot of different levels to this stuff, and I suspect that it is a trap to just naively accept other people's explanations about stuff. Perhaps this is part of what is being talked about when the Zen types say "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, Cloudwalking Owl said:


OK. If you don't want to describe a single discrete experience but instead a large category of experiences that you collectively describe as "Qi", can you tell me why you think something that can be so different "electric, magnetic, hold [I assume you meant "hot"], cold etc" how can you tell that they are all the same thing: "Qi"? Couldn't there be a lot of different types of experiences that you are just lumping together?

The "sensations" are the effect of the mind trying to apply a label on the actual experience, which has no parallels in the world of five senses. That's why I say, the sensations registered by the mind varies from person to person. What is consistent is the sense of flow and filling internally, and field effect externally.

9 minutes ago, Cloudwalking Owl said:


Well, I live in the 21st century even though I have studied under a wide variety of fairly old traditions myself. Even the lineage of Socrates---where I am a recognized Master---goes all the way back more than 2,000 years. Could you give me some of the evidence that led you to believe that your mind is "a conditioned layer of the one awareness. Like waves on an ocean"? I have suggested experiences and scientific research that would suggest that the human mind is not unitary (ie: the split brain research plus the disassociation phenomenon), what evidence would you present in favour of your hypothesis? 

:) Read Advaita Vedanta or  Kashmir Shaivism for starters. It is a directly verifiable, phenomenological fact. The entire "brain" makes consciousness paradigm is a fallacious one in my experience. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is litterally tons of different types of qi according to a few different masters i’ve consulted on the subject. Energy or power is qi, then there are many more or less concrete designations of qi such as food qi, wei qi, geographical qi, geological qi, a specific minerals qi, wind qi, feng qi and sui qi and so on and so forth. Some of these types correspond to quantifiable things in empirical science, others refer to certain relations and interactions, yet more others to more theoretical or descriptive things and then there is the esoterics, magics etc. Its a mess to be honest to narrow some of it down.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, anshino23 said:

 

 

It doesn't disprove anything about Qi, as I see it. 


I'm not trying to prove or disprove "Qi", I'm trying to nail down what people mean by it. There's a famous saying in physics where a theoretician said "this hypothesis is so bad that it's not even wrong".  I've been trying to get people to just describe a specific example of where Qi has done something in their life and I've just gotten a lot of vague dancing around. Come on people, I'm not trying to say that you are all liars, I'm just trying to get you to be clear and precise in your language. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, dwai said:

The "sensations" are the effect of the mind trying to apply a label on the actual experience, which has no parallels in the world of five senses. That's why I say, the sensations registered by the mind varies from person to person. What is consistent is the sense of flow and filling internally, and field effect externally.

:) Read Advaita Vedanta or  Kashmir Shaivism for starters. It is a directly verifiable, phenomenological fact. The entire "brain" makes consciousness paradigm is a fallacious one in my experience. 


Why do you say "are the effect of the mind trying to apply a label on the actual experience"? What evidence do you have that that is what is really happening? 

As for reading books, I want to hear about your experiences, not see an appeal to authority. I could find other books that would say different things. Why do your books have a privileged authority over anyone elses? 

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, Rocky Lionmouth said:

There is litterally tons of different types of qi according to a few different masters i’ve consulted on the subject. Energy or power is qi, then there are many more or less concrete designations of qi such as food qi, wei qi, geographical qi, geological qi, a specific minerals qi, wind qi, feng qi and sui qi and so on and so forth. Some of these types correspond to quantifiable things in empirical science, others refer to certain relations and interactions, yet more others to more theoretical or descriptive things and then there is the esoterics, magics etc. Its a mess to be honest to narrow some of it down.


Well there is obviously some sort of mess in this discussion---. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Cloudwalking Owl said:


 I've been trying to get people to just describe a specific example of where Qi has done something in their life and I've just gotten a lot of vague dancing around. Come on people, I'm not trying to say that you are all liars, I'm just trying to get you to be clear and precise in your language. 

 

 

You want people to be a certain way and they are refusing to do what you want.  Happens to me all the time.  If you think the Bums in this thread are stubborn, you should meet my partner!  I`ve read somewhere that this situation reflects a certain kind of disharmonious qi dynamic.  Kind of like when you reach for something and get an energetic pain in your back only on an interpersonal level. 

 

Well, I guess that pretty much explains it.  My work here is done. 

Edited by liminal_luke
  • Like 2
  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
20 hours ago, Cloudwalking Owl said:

OK. If you don't want to describe a single discrete experience but instead a large category of experiences that you collectively describe as "Qi", can you tell me why you think something that can be so different "electric, magnetic, hold [I assume you meant "hot"], cold etc" how can you tell that they are all the same thing: "Qi"? Couldn't there be a lot of different types of experiences that you are just lumping together?

 

Actually, yes. You're correct.

 

It is actually all taught within the Daoist traditions.  

 

Qi by itself has many different meanings, depending on the context within it is used. 

 

There is Qi of Chinese medicine - where one looks at the action and function of a channel system or an organ. For instance the Qi of the heart is the functional activity of the Heart system - if it has healthy heart Qi, it means it is working properly. So in Chinese medicine you are looking at Qi from the perspective of how well the respective organ systems or channels are performing their functioning. 

 

There is Qi of the channels. Within classical Daoist thought, Qi is born from Shen. In some traditions they call these channels "Rivers of Light" or "Hall of Lights", "Heavenly Streams" and many other words. Essentially they are describing a stage of spiritual development where one can consciously perceive these energetic channels. It is like an extension of consciousness through the body that can be directly felt and experienced. This is the channels that are worked with within Qi Gong and Nei Gong practice. One way they are worked with is through different exercises that then create physical and mental changes. The same applies in acupuncture on how inserting needles into specific channel points can affect our mental state. 

 

Then there's Qi of standing and martial arts which is more to do with the reaction of sinking and changing the physical body. The sinking of the Qi takes several stages. Relaxing the muscles, sinking the mass through the body, filling the lower abdomen, stretching the connective tissues, connecting the soft tissues, etc., etc. 

 

The cold, warm, itching, etc. - all these are actually bodily reactions to Qi, not Qi itself as I understand it. For instance in Qi Gong, some lineages detailed these reactions in a general grouping as the "Eight Reactions": shaking, excitement, feeling cold, feeling hot, feeling light, feeling sinking, feeling tight, feeling soft. In Buddhism they have countless descriptions and other groupings., 

 

As for physiological manifestations, within genuine Daoist lineages this is a thing. It's not just something that is experienced as a felt experience. There are actual physiological signs that manifest. Like imagine at a certain stage you grow horns or your skull bones shift around, you get five intense shocks of electric energy shoot up your spine and you see a white light in a specific shape manifest in front of you with open eyes. I don't think that's an actual stage, but it's just to give you an idea of the physical nature of these arts when they're taken far enough. 

 

These things have a huge amount of of secrecy around them for good reason. Imagine someone gave a kid the ability to change physical reality around them in any way they saw fit. Without having any wisdom, they could create immense havoc, not only to themselves but to others. With great power, comes great responsibility as the old adage goes... 

 

The issue in your own case sounds like that you gave up. It seems you have already concluded that it's not real. I mean, I get it. There's a lot of bullshit out there. But that doesn't mean it doesn't exist. It just means you didn't find a proper master and you didn't break through. There's a degree of faith in this. When you have experiences that affect the physical body directly that cannot be discounted you realise there's a clear system of development developed by these sages. And it's hardly some primitive science. It looks more like they understood the underlying building blocks of existence and how to mess with them. 

 

Hope that helps :)

Edited by anshino23
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I've learned a lot about the culture of people who pursue energetic practices from this conversation!

 

Thanks for the help extending my knowledge. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Cloudwalking Owl said:

Well, I've learned a lot about the culture of people who pursue energetic practices from this conversation!

 

Thanks for the help extending my knowledge. 

The problem with your approach is that you appear to be talking down to people, right from the outset of your thread. Maybe I’m reading it wrong,  but that’s how your posts come across. 

 

if you want genuine discourse, don’t start with a challenge. Rather, approach the discussion more amicably. Most of us have been members on the board for extended periods of time. So we sort of know each other and have a gauge of where one is coming from. You being a newcomer seemed to try to “stir the proverbial pot”. Therefore, changing what could have been a genuine discourse into a sort of challenge/confrontation :) 
 

BTW I said refer to Advaita Vedanta and Kashmir shaivism for clarification on a perspective I proposed. These are not books, though there are books on these traditions I can recommend if you are interested in finding out more about them. The reason why I recommend them is because the nondual teachings therein are direct, whereas they are hidden in the Daoist traditions. 
 

 


 

 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I use to like talking about Chi because it seemed to set me apart from others, thus making me special...and I want to be special. But my right sized ego keeps me from being arrogant and isolated. 

 

We might call Chi (and there's that word again) the action potential of a neuron. Look it up, it is pretty interesting. 

 

I promise there will be a short quiz on the above at the end of the week. So, study...

  • Haha 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, Cloudwalking Owl said:

Frankly, bringing in concerns about not wanting to make comparisons looks like a "deflection". That is in a conversation where someone changes the subject because they don't want to answer a question for some reason. 

 

Oh gawwwwwd, save your hypocrisy or put your MA to use responding with some sincerity to my post. 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/21/2019 at 6:32 PM, Cloudwalking Owl said:

Would someone please give me an example of their experience of Qi and try to describe it in totally neutral terms?

 

Qi is movement between the poles of a polarity.

 

It is not a substance of any kind.

 

It is Movement.

 

No Polarity = No Movement.

 

In the body there are many movements happening in many polarities, and even in "nested" polarities, and between polarities involving the environment.

 

All of these Movements are "Qi" of various kinds.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t see anything wrong with perusing both sides here. The problem is you can’t know, you can only sense or have evidence . It’s a personal choice. Sometimes choices get us a little entrenched 

 

 

I feel it but I don’t label it..i let it be. at this time not an interest to me to have an explanation or anything,but that’s just me

 

Im ok just experiencing. With things I can’t know, I’ll know when I know or I won’t.  I think it will be ok. 

 

I do like that this thread isn’t just pure mudslinging. It’s good to think about what you think sometimes... all sides 

 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
21 minutes ago, lrn2livorlive2lrn said:

I don’t see anything wrong with perusing both sides here. The problem is you can’t know, you can only sense or have evidence . It’s a personal choice. Sometimes choices get us a little entrenched 

 

 

I like your openness to experience. 

 

At the risk of further exasperating our cloudwalking owl, I´ll share my method for deciding if I want to provisionally accept a given teacher´s explanation of energetic phenomenon: I feel their qi.  Or maybe it would be more accurate to say that I feel how my own qi feels around them.  Everybody does this, I think -- we pick up the vibe.  I´m more inclined to believe teachers with good vibes.  Whether or not this method truly leads to capital T Truth I can´t say, but I like where it´s taken me so far.

Edited by liminal_luke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Cloudwalking Owl said:


Well there is obviously some sort of mess in this discussion---. 

 

Listen to Rocky, he is correct...

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Rocky Lionmouth said:

There is litterally tons of different types of qi according to a few different masters i’ve consulted on the subject. Energy or power is qi, then there are many more or less concrete designations of qi such as food qi, wei qi, geographical qi, geological qi, a specific minerals qi, wind qi, feng qi and sui qi and so on and so forth. Some of these types correspond to quantifiable things in empirical science, others refer to certain relations and interactions, yet more others to more theoretical or descriptive things and then there is the esoterics, magics etc. Its a mess to be honest to narrow some of it down.

 

A mess more than anything due to the impossible task of translating. That's why these threads go nowhere, because people dig for answers in a western way.

 

Chinese dudes be looking at this thread going "huh?"

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Cloudwalking Owl said:

Well, I've learned a lot about the culture of people who pursue energetic practices from this conversation!

 

Thanks for the help extending my knowledge. 

 

Ouch.

 

 

Edited by Rocky Lionmouth
Never mind.
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said:

 

Qi is movement between the poles of a polarity.

 

It is not a substance of any kind.

 

It is Movement.

 

No Polarity = No Movement.

 

In the body there are many movements happening in many polarities, and even in "nested" polarities, and between polarities involving the environment.

 

All of these Movements are "Qi" of various kinds.

 

 

 

 

 

-VonKrankenhaus

That is a great way to describe it! :) 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don’t think it’s fair that we say it goes nowhere because he’s coming at it from a “western approach”. it can go somewhere and it does all the time with so many things in life. It’s just another method of probing life for understanding. It’s the end result‘ what you do with that which is really the issue. Your inquiry can be false or unclear or have no enough information or...

 

What I mean by end result is when you take that limited knowledge and cement it into right and wrong and true and false.

 

the “logical” or “scientific” or whatever  organized inquiry is useful for gathering information which might help you understand. AND it may not, AND it might lead you down the wrong path. 

 

We’re all probing in the dark.. the potential insight should be interesting and considered. It seems other than having his mind kinda made up Cloud is still making this valid point that we should inquire about what we think or believe or perceive 

 

then there’s the benefit of sharing understanding, experience and ideas with others which is worthy in itself sometimes even if We don’t get too far..

Edited by lrn2livorlive2lrn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, lrn2livorlive2lrn said:

I don’t think it’s fair that we say it goes nowhere because he’s coming at it from a “western approach”. it can go somewhere and it does all the time with so many things in life. It’s just another method of probing life for understanding. It’s the end result‘ what you do with that which is really the issue. Your inquiry can be false or unclear or have no enough information or...

 

What I mean by end result is when you take that limited knowledge and cement it into right and wrong and true and false.

 

the “logical” or “scientific” or whatever  organized inquiry is useful for gathering information which might help you understand. AND it may not, AND it might lead you down the wrong path. 

 

We’re all probing in the dark.. the potential insight should be interesting and considered. It seems other than having his mind kinda made up Cloud is still making this valid point that we should inquire about what we think or believe or perceive 

 

then there’s the benefit of sharing understanding, experience and ideas with others which is worthy in itself sometimes even if We don’t get too far..

 

I don't dispute any of this. Never have, never will...you take my words so literally.

 

Point being, we could be having a productive thread right now about using Daoism practically/pragmatically but instead, we waste our energy splitting hairs over the OP's tone that hit a few nerves.

 

Can we talk about avocados again?

Edited by Rara
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, Cloudwalking Owl said:


Well there is obviously some sort of mess in this discussion---. 

yes.  yes there is.

life is one soup of messy life, consuming other life, to sustain life.

 

Sensory input arises.  This is primal.

 

Mind adds a label on the sensation "that feels like cool water sliding under the surface of my skin"

this is no longer the sensation, but a secondary layer, removed from the primal.

 

Then, often with me, comes the mind storyteller/builder who accomodates judgement about feelings that arise about the label.  "i enjoy this sensation.  i am distracted by this sensation.  this sensation is a sign of progress."  etc  this is another layer removed from primal.

 

Trying to transmit a semblance of the experience to another mind requires words.  So words that are mental notions, abstractions are used as models to aproximate and transfer some semblance of what is an internal, individual experience, to the mind of another.

 

This is so many layers removed from the primal, is it any wonder that agreement on this level is hard to accomplish?

 

 

We each experience, transduce and interpret the sensory input we know as reality. 

To try and define what another has experienced by logical deduction of their words... to me is akin to trying to swim in a picture of a river.  I may be applauded for my effort and diligence, but I will never get wet.

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites