But isn't that exactly what you do? Whenever someone disagrees with your point of view, "they're wrong, they are caught up in mystical tripe yadayadayada..." But as soon as someone thinks the same way you do, "finally! someone who understands!"
Will YOU please stop with the condescension? You keep asking questions to which I take the time to compose reasonable answers, and each time you just keep going back to your tired, old, "there's no evidence and you're all crazy." If we're all crazy then why continually ask us about the details of our delusion? You seem to want clarification, but when I give it, you ignore my actual points and dismiss the whole thing with your highly ironic, "there's no evidence" argument. You complain about how qigong is all vague, subjective and non-standardized. You complain different schools have different ideas of what qigong is and that you had no guidelines, finding yourself wondering whether you had to concern yourself with this, that or the other when practicing qigong. Then, when I give you clear-cut, unambiguous answers you have the nerve to accuse me of elitism and egocentrism! In other words, if we remain vague, we're being wishy-washy and unscientific; if we give clearcut opinions and answers, we're being egocentric! If you want any more answers out of me about real qigong, then you'll have to start being a little more polite and reasonable with the responses. Otherwise, I'm just going to ignore you and your broken-record arguments.
I would say that qigong is an introspective practice which involves focussing on one's self and one's own physical sensations. There are also links to sexuality. So the practice puts you more in your sensual body - in your nervous system. There is a concept in Sikhism which equates nicely with qi (and by extension its cultivation) - the concept is called Haumen. No, I wouldn't use such terms. I'm just stating the case for the opposition. For myself, I'd rather not have to do it, but I have a duty to do so to try to save people from it. Wherever there is qi, I have to oppose it because it is a deification of human beings. It is "Manmukh." This isn't opinion, it's the truth. Onyomi - sorry for offending you - I'm sure you have a valid point there. It is just that the whole thing is a world view that, as far as I can see, contains no evidence for itself - all of its logic is circular. It starts with some basic tenets and expands on them, but I cannot see any evidence for it. How do people know they have a ren-du channel? Where is it when you cut someone open? If it cannot be seen, why can't it be seen? Are you really saying that we have an "energy body" in addition to our physical one, like the Yogis do? If so, why should the dantians of Chinese energetics be considered more credible than the seven chakras of Indian energetics? Also, I believe Shiatsu uses slightly differently placed meridians - why is there inconsistency? Are the Indians and Japanese wrong? Are they built differently? What about Europeans?
I'm sorry, but it is your opinion. You have no duty to "save" anyone. What are you supposedly saving us from? Don't you think it is egotistical of you to assume that you have some duty to "save" people, who may not actually need saving? What makes it your duty?
My commitment to God makes it my duty. This isn't about my ego, but my rejection of it - my credibility takes quite a battering for taking the position I do. I would no doubt have a more positive reputation if I talked the same talk as other people within the "IMA" community. I've wanted to walk away and save my reputation many times, but God hasn't let me. This isn't easy, and it certainly isn't about me. I'm just trying to deliver the same message that God and his prophets tried to get across to the Hebrew nation again and again - the same message that Guru Nanak took out across India, but again and again people slip into superstition, ritual, magic and humancentric rather than God-centred mysticism. It isn't just you I'm trying to save from you - I'm trying to save the rest of the world from you too. Qigong corrupts everyone it touches. It makes people feel justified in being their own moral compass. It gives people delusions of sagehood. Its philosophy says morality is relative and it promotes pragmatism over goodness. As I've said before, qi needs to be put under "the triple microscopes of science, religion and rational martial practice." I have a duty to promote the pursuit of the truth in all three camps. Science is best equipped to ascertain what is possible - whether qigong's claims are credible in any kind of physical sense. By extension, medical science can try to ascertain whether qigong's purported physical and psychological health benefits are true. As there are so many differing viewpoints and variations within qigong and wider "energetic" practices, which perspectives are correct? If energy centres are real, do the Indian Yogis have it right, or the Japanese or the mainland Chinese or the Taiwanese - who is correct? Why do different perspectives of them exist, even within mainland China? We should bear in mind that scientific studies can be biased in favour of trying to prove a particular viewpoint. Some people argue that science is neutral, but studies are invariably financed by someone. Also, I think there is such a thing as an evil scientific development if it designed to further selfish, short-sighted, partisan human interests rather than the greater good for all creatures, great and small. I would say that the microscope of science is not enough on its own because not all that is scientifically possible is necessarily moral. I'm not having a go at science here, merely stating that I don't think science should be elevated to the importance of a god. Even if science decided that qigong was useful, in my view, that would just make it all the more dangerous. Religion is (I think) best equipped to ascertain what is morally acceptable. Without a commonality of purpose and a united sense of the greater good, in a consumer driven society that places freedom of choice above all else, all opinions become equally valid and then there is nothing to distinguish whether it is better to nurture or destroy, to indulge own's own whims or seek to be more dutiful and compassionate towards the rest of creation. For me, Humanism is too intrinsically humancentric to be good enough. For those that say that God is irrelevant, I would argue that where life is relevant, then the source and the purpose of life is also relevant. But as the concept of God causes many to cringe, I will ask those people to simply substitute the term "the greater good" or "the greatest good of all." You could also equate God with "the truth" in the sense of the deepest possible and intrinsically moral truth. What is best for the whole of the world or even the universe? I would argue that the selfish pursuit of indulging sensory pleasures is a step in the wrong direction. If you indulge sensory pleasures, they grow stronger and you become a slave to them. The Hebrew word for addiction means "to sell yourself." People are decadent enough already without finding ways to heighten their sensual awareness and by extension their sensual pleasure (here this is relevant because so-called "internal alchemy" practices, just like Tantric practices, are thoroughly interwoven with sexuality.) Other moral questions are "if the claims of qigong are untrue or misleading, isn't that immoral?" "if qigong is taught in such a way that purposely withholds information and imposes a structure of Master and Disciple, isn't that immoral too?" As Willem DeThouarrs eloquently points out, he recognises "no master but God." I think this is a very worthy sentiment - the best. The third microscope is martial success - do the so-called "internal" styles out-perform the arts they condemn as external? If the added dimension of health must be brought into the equation (as is often insisted), we could again ask "do the so-called "internal" practices out-perform other forms of exercise?"
So basically, the beliefs of anyone who doesn't agree with you are wrong because your beliefs say so. You said Well, I say exactly the same thing with reference to your statements that you have actually SEEN god in a PHYSICAL form and had conversations WITH god. You are living in a fantasy world. There is not a SCRAP of evidence that any of this is real.
Apart from the history of religious revelation, the fact that most of the world believes in a single creator God and sees creation as evidence of God and there exists no alternative explanation for why the universe exists. God is the totality of all and the source from which everything comes, you can question what that means, but there is little sense in questioning that the universe exists and stems from a source. Even Daoists describe the Dao as the creator, the creation and the way of creating. I'd say that describes God pretty well, providing you acknowledge that human sentience is not the highest or only form of sentience.
Yeah, come on jkzorya. You can't hold the fact that they have no evidence against them. But but but, you cant get rid of the vague subjectivity of Chi Gung, people do if the the bloody vague. They just love the subjectivity of being the ones to decide if a (point less) activity is doing them any good in the absence of any real out put of (that word again) evidence. OOOOO he has the r3al!!!!11!!11!!!!!!
"Millions of Chinese can't be wrong!" If you choose to believe that. Which I don't. Again, it comes down to your opinions. You think your opinions are more correct than anyone elses, and you base this on your religious convictions. Arrogance. EDIT: Actually, I can see this isn't going to be much of a debate. No matter who say's what, you will not be open to discussion, because your beliefs keep you closed minded and arrogant.
My religion is better than your religion? That has never been a solid basis for winning an argument. Anyway that is the stuff that wars are made of...just ask the Huguenots or the people of Ulster.
JK, I agree with BT, these are your beliefs and you speak out against Qigong: Ummm, pot meet kettle. Are you not trying to make yourself feel "justified" as you are "saving the world" with your own "moral compass"? Do you yourself not have "delusions" of grandeur/sagehood by saying you are trying to save the world? So "Qigong corrupts everything it touches?" I happen to have had Qigong teachers that were devout Christians and believed in Qigong and Qi and felt it a gift from god. You yourself however, have this "esoteric and mystical knowledge" that it is wrong. So who is right who is wrong? Sounds very Zen, buddhist and Taoist to me, but also must be quite christian so who is right or wrong here? Let's be honest here JK, here yourself have done a fair amount of speaking against Onyomi's, BT and my own credibility quite frequently with many of your attacks against Qigong. Our own credibilities have been put on the line and we are still here. I know I for one don't fit into "the MAP" community b/c of my belief in Qigong and Qi, we are absolutely the minority here. So you must also know how we feel, yet you continue to disrespect our practice and our knowledge. But to the best of my knowledge none of us have spoken out openly against you, or your beliefs. In fact, I respect that you are trying to get Tai Chi away from the "new agers" and respect your knowledge of the arts. Even if I don't agree with not teaching about Qi, that does not change the fact that you have good knowledge of the arts we have discussed (so much so I asked for your knowledge in the applications thread.) Yet b/c of our "esoteric" practices you refuse to show us the same kind of respect, even though we (imo) have not been "mystical" or condescending, or spoken out against you or anyone else who does not practice "our way." 1) Sorry, but to the best of my knowledge god has no place in science 2) Qigong is put "under the microscope" of religion (just not your own) 3) Some would even argue "The christian god" has no place within the MA either. By setting these as your standards Qi can never be proven as these areas (in many ways of thought) will never meet or blend together. You have already biased your "scientific" model. Science has not ascertained that God is possible, yet you present yourself as one seeking the truth. You are hiding behind science saying Qigong is not proven when it suits you, yet you are not willing to question God when science cannot prove it. The lines are getting blurry JK. On the basis of what is right, what does it matter? No one can prove they are 100% correct can you? I challenge you to prove to me w/o a shadow of a doubt that you are 100% correct in what you are saying. Why do different perspectives of Christianity exist? Why do different perspectives of right or wrong exist? Why do different perspectives. exist? b/c we are human and mistakes are made, things are embellished, beliefs are questioned. This hardly supports your argument against Qigong when the same could be said for what you practice. Two sides of the same coin JK, science can be biased to prove a particular viewpoint. Agreed, but that can be biased towards the viewpoint that is also does NOT exist, this easily works both ways. As you have pointed out, what if Qigong research was done showing that it at the very least helps improve stress and lowers stress hormones in the body (which has been seen). But this was funded by a drug company that literally makes billions off of psychotropic drugs. Of course, they stand to lose billions if people just need to breath, relax and do Qigong. So they would bias the results. If this was the case JK, according to your post above, which outcome would you believe? With these two statements we have to throw out Science from under "your triple microscope" b/c many times morals and science don't always work. If you take drugs, you are taking drugs that more than likely were tested on animals. God's creatures, where are the morals there? Never said god was irrelevant, I care for as much life as I can, god, heaven, love etc. does not make me cringe. I do all I can to benefit "the greatest good of all." This is part of my own belief structure as to why I study Qigong and CAM. I find it hard to believe that god would want us to poison our bodies by that which man has created (i.e. drugs). I view my own body/mind/spirit as a gift from god, so why would I pollute any of it with man made substances? Yet we do this day to day with drugs (OTC and otherwise), dyes, preservatives in food, pollution etc. We are all over destroying god's creations. It is through my own Qigong and CAM practices that I have been able to stay away from some of these "unnatural causes" of disease that was not created by god. JK, You are assuming b/c I practice Qigong and Qi and CAM I have no belief in god or a greater good. You are quite simply wrong, it is BECAUSE of these practices I have a belief in a higher power and good. So which is it JK am I evil and indulging in my own "sagehood" fantasies (which if that is the case I am indulging in god) or am I completely wrong and should stop what I am doing "so I can be saved?" So this rules out all master plumbers, carpenters, electricians etc??? I don't know how you use the term "master" JK, but to me it denotes a level of skill. A Master carpenter (such as it is said jesus was) is merely extremely proficient in his/her skill. Same goes for a "master" MA or a "Master" in Qigong, they should not claim mastery over god or the world or anything else (I for one have NEVER seen this). I agree with Willem DeThouarrs "no master, but god." but that does not mean one cannot be considered a "master" in a certain set of skills. The true relationship behind master and disciple is slightly different from Teacher and student. The slight difference (from what I was taught) is that a Master and Disciple relationship is more of a Father and son relationship. It becomes a tighter bond, more familial, nothing more. As a child Father is the guide, the teacher, and a compassionate person that wants to see his child develop the best he/she can. They do not take the role of deity in any shape or form, this is the same with a master disciple relationship. Again, Me, BT, CarysB, Onyomi or any other practitioners of Qi (as I have known on my short time on MAP) have EVER condemned "external" styles. In fact in my last post I see then as different paths with the same goals. And so long as "IMA" and "EMA" teach effective and GOOD MA there is no difference and I have great respect for them. But this is something you have chosen to ignore for sometime as you continue to bring it up in your arguments. I have NEVER claimed superiority over any other MA, as I see the power of a MA comes from the individual. Yet you seem to have this "superiority" issue over anyone that practices a "IMA" with Qi CONDEMING it as false and wrong, thereby making your way superior. I will agree with your statement here JK, this is how it STARTS out. But then again so does any MA as these too can put you more into your body. And at least for men, when they work out or get "aggresive" this releases testosterone, oh, there is also a link to sexuality within the MA. This is not singled out to Qigong and not as one sided as you are arguing here. Many other things besides Qigong and Qi "starts with basic tenets and expands on them." Some even showing little evidence for it. Again, here is one article that only ONE person has ever commented about and (I have discovered) unless it is a youtube link few on MAP go to links. So here is a brief study done on meridians: MERIDIANS Although reports of acupuncture have been recorded in the west since the 1800's, it wasn't until the 1970's that this method of therapy became well publicized. A reporter for the "New York Times" became ill with appendicitis while traveling in China and had an appendectomy without anesthesia, but with the use of acupuncture. This was widely reported in the western press. Doctors tried to explain the technique by saying it was the "placebo affect". This is the phenomenon in which 30% of people will be shown to be able to self heal in experiments when given a sugar pill instead of the "real medicine". However, this was shown to be a false belief because animals (who couldn't possibly respond to suggestion) also responded to the analgesic properties of acupuncture. In the 1960s, western scientists developed a special tissue-staining technique that allowed him to identify these meridians in rabbits. Western scientist ignored this research until the 1980s when two French researchers, Drs. Claude Darras and Pierre De Vernejoul repeated Dr. Hans experiment using radioactive tracers on human beings. They injected and then twirled radioactive technetium into the acupoints of patients and used nuclear scanning equipment to follow the flow of technetium. They also injected non-acupoints. At non-acupoints, the radioactive tracer diffused outward from the injection site into circular patterns. When the true acupoints were injected, the radioactive technetium followed the exact pathways as the acupuncture meridians in the ancient charts of the human body! They also found that when acupuncture needles were inserted into distant acupoints along the same tracer-labeled meridians and the twirled, a change was produced in the rate of flow of the technetium through the meridians. This research supported the ancient Chinese claim that the acupuncture needle stimulation affected the flow of ch'i through the body's meridians. Well that is a break through study indeed! Even using very modern methods of science! Hmm, but must be a "placebo effect" cause it is not possible that exists, I bet the people they injected the isotopes with knew where the meridians were and what would happen exactly if this were done. Meh, nothing big. Even if this was shown on ONE person this study deserves much further exploration in the very least. There are many others showing acupoints and meridians have lower electrical resistance etc over the body. Modern science has no idea what this means as we are just being able to measure this. Odd though, that this was "discovered" 1,000s of years ago. JK, I can respect you as a very knowledgable MA, I can respect you for your beliefs and how strongly you adhere to them, I can respect your opinions and views, I will not force my own on to you or anyone else (I refuse). You are just trying to help people and do the best you can in everything you do and that includes your beliefs. I simply ask that you keep it civil and realize that I am just trying to do the same thing. Onyomi and I have already stated that Qi and Qigong are HIGHLY misunderstood in the west, even you arguing and condeming us shows that. Many "western masters" that write Qigong books are doing 1000s to Millions a disservice by actually hurting people and feeding on people's need to have "esoteric and romanticized" ideas. This is NOT what Qigong and Qi is about, it is merely used to help one get healthier. Other than some imagery and visualizations it is not that different from western calisthentics (which some light imagery is now being incorporated into calisthentics i.e. stretch to the horizon, twist all the way around etc). At the very least if you cannot respect our practices, MA, or knowledge, we absolutely deserve the same respect as fellow human beings. I merely ask for that.
Fantastic post Taoquan, you put this into words far better than I ever could have. I was interested to read this section: Fascinating stuff.
OK - so many points - I'll just try to cover a selection: So from this I assume that you do not think that your opinions are more correct than mine and that you are open minded and humble enough to consider arguments against qi? I don't get my opinions from me, but from religious traditions that seek to serve God. I don't pretend to be open minded, but I don't think I'm any more opinionated than the qi believers here. Within my own family there is Catholicism, Anglicanism and a little Judaism. Among my friends there have been Catholics (including trainee priests), Evangelical Protestants, Orthodox Jews, Sikhs and Muslims. Politically I have explored Confucianism, Communism, Anarchist Communism, Liberation Theology and Christian Socialism. The central message has always been the same - we should put the needs of the greater good before our own selfish (and sensual) interests. If we have to fight, it should only be in the pursuit of righteousness and justice, never in anger or vengeance, and never for selfish or egotistical gain or for personal power. Only the Religious Daoist message has differed - the idea that morality is purely relative and that it is OK to be pragmatic rather than trying to be a good person. The idea that it is OK to rule over peasants by making them think that they are not being ruled over. Additionally, one is encouraged to become increasingly absorbed into their own sensual being, rather than denying or controlling the self. So my message doesn't go down well in Tai Chi circles - it was never going to. I don't expect to turn people right around, but I know I have helped a few people realise that qigong is not compatible with their existing religious beliefs and this is a good thing. At least no one here will be able to say that they were not warned, if things turn bad for them, or if qigong claims them as casualties - if they end up wishing they had never become involved in it, like these people: http://www.dangerofchi.org/mystory.htm http://www.chinaforjesus.com/resources/qigong/index.htm Wars are fought over land and power when people stop observing their religion - religion is just the scapegoat. I am observing the central message of numerous religious doctrines - see my first answer. Qi is not compatible with Christianity. I condemn the methodology not individuals. People here frequently attack me directly. This may be true on MAP generally, but not on the IMA and Tai Chi forums and probably not on the Kung Fu forum either. So how do you explain the number of Muslim, Christian, Jewish and Sikh scientists in the world? From the Judaic perspective (which influences Christianity, Islam and consequently Sikhism too) the existence of God is not an acceptable question. God is the totality of everything, so one can only ask questions about what that means. Do you see how one's definition of God is paramount here? To ask whether one believes in God is to ask "do you believe in everything? do you believe in the whole of existence perceived as a single entity?" As stated, there are many religious scientists - the head of the human genome project is a Christian. Some scientists have actually sought support for their atheistic viewpoint in science only to conclude from their studies that the existence of God is by far the more credible view. Far from hiding behind science, I embrace it. Science has not disproved the existence of God any more than it has disproved the existence of the universe. I would argue that while agnosticism might be a logical perspective for a non-religious scientist, the jump to atheism is not actually scientifically driven, but emotionally driven - the scientist wants to disprove God but can't and refuses to maintain an open mind on the subject. God comes first. Animals come first. I'm against many things that scientists create. I think it is a mistake to divorce science from religious and moral limitations. As a committed vegan I do not ingest animal derived substances and make great efforts to buy nothing that is tested on animals. I would not let one mouse die to save my life if I was given the choice, but sadly there are a number of medicines and chemicals that have already been tested, about which I can do nothing. I do whatever I can, including changing medication and refusing flu jabs even though I am advised to take them and by supporting Animal Aid You are not evil but the practices are evil and yes you should stop. No because they do not take on disciples - they take on apprentices. Apprentices do not have to bow or kowtow and they do not have to honour their boss's ancestors. On this very thread you made a distinction between so-called "internal" and "external" styles and this is a false dichotomy. You also stated that your "external" training did not focus on whole body connectedness which obviously relegates it to being inferior, as holistic movement is the purpose of any style. Elitism is inherent within the IMA dichotomy - it divides martial arts into a few chosen styles that use skillful force and the rest that allegedly use clumsy, isolated muscle force. There is room for narcissism and fetishisation in many disciplines - that's true. Finally, I do respect you, but not what you do. That doesn't surprise me - this simply makes you a typical case.
Of a healthy human being. Somehow I find it more satisfying than praying. Maybe God made me wrong? Also, don't you find it a bit ironic that your definition of God is "the universe conceived as a single entity," yet you scoff at people who say qi is "all the various energies of the human body"?
Not at all, the universe exists and your mysterious qi energies don't. Why are they mysterious? Because they allegedly flow through imaginary channels. Your qi is not just oxygen or calories or hormones because we know how the systems that regulate those work and they don't include the imaginary ren-du channel. Accept it - qi is incompatible with anatomical science. God is not.
Yes, the ren-du is an imaginary construct in the same way that a hole in the ground is. A hole in the ground is defined by the dirt around it, but does not exist independently. The ren-du circuit is defined by the nerves, blood vessels and organs that function along its lines, yet when dissecting a person there's nothing there to see. You point out that there are minor differences amongst the acupuncture charts of China, India and Japan, but fail to realize that they are charts of what might be described as the body's currents. You can make a map depicting sea currents too. Yet where are the sea currents? When you scoop a piece of them up, all you get is water. A "current" can't be found under a microscope because it's a concept, not a physical object. Considering the meridians aren't physical structures one can see by dissection, but concepts like sea charts or weather patterns, it's pretty amazing how incredibly close the meridian charts of these three countries are. You'd have us believe they remain almost the same across thousands of years and thousands of miles, in different cultures and different languages, yet they are just totally imaginary with no basis in the realities of the human body? I doubt you can find sea charts of the same ocean that are more similar between any given two eras of Japan and China, nor a map of the same area, for that matter.
