vonkrankenhaus

How is "force" not movement? Qi is just movement. Life is movement, but many things not alive are also moving. Not by any intrinsic movement or energy, but by external movement or energies. -VonKrankenhaus

No movement = no Qi. No movement = no energy. And what western people call "potential energy" is not energy, but just "possible" energy. -VonKrankenhaus

Does anyone here recognize this diagram? What does it show about Qi? It explains Qi and how Qi happens. Have you studied this? -VonKrankenhaus

Any substance. The same as what any energy is moving - any substance. For example: In electricity it is electrons moving between poles. In thermodynamics, it is heat moving between poles. -VonKrankenhaus

Since you've never actually studied or developed this, why not tell us why you think so. Tell us how this is not so, how qi is not movement, and how movement is not happening between the poles of polarities. -VonKrankenhaus

Here is a statement about the futility of looking for Qi as a physical substance: ""China has, in recent decades, spent an inordinate amount of resources on experiments to determine the existence and nature of Qi. China is easing up on this research for lack of concrete breakthroughs. But the quest to define Qi continues, with there being no breakthroughs that we know of. Whether someone in China or anywhere has the Holy Grail hidden from view I cannot say" This appeared in: Xing-Tai Li and Jia Zhao (2012). An Approach to the Nature of Qi in TCM–Qi and Bioenergy, Recent Advances in Theories and Practice of Chinese Medicine, Prof. Haixue Kuang Qi is "energy", and energy is not any specific physical substance either. So unknowing people looking for Qi as a "substance" they can make balls out of - this is like someone trying to say that all "energy" is just one substance, like lightning or hot water, which would be both incorrect and a bit ridiculous. -VonKrankenhaus

Yes, you can bullshit yourself and others all day. It's a nice thought exercise, but all you developing is just that - a thought. This is what people teach to beginners. It teaches them to "think about" qi. It is not real qi development. Of course, scientists have examined many "qi balls" over decades and find no substance there. Real Qi is moving (movement) in the real polarities functioning in the body and is not a substance. Best research right now is looking at movement and potentials, not looking for a fictional "substance". -VonKrankenhaus

That is like saying there is no consensus that "energy" exists. This is not true. That is very well studied. What there is no evidence or consensus about is thinking that Qi is a substance of any kind. There is no evidence anywhere that there is an unknown substance involved in energy. Because there is no such substance. Qi is not a substance or a physical thing. It is just movement between the poles of any polarity, which is what "energy" is, to everyone, including scientists. In thermodynamics it is heat moving from Hot to Cold in various fluids. In electricity is electrons moving between + and - electrical poles. This is why Qi can be and is many kinds of energy or movement of various things. In Chinese language this is the case. I invented the definition several years ago: "Qi is any movement between the poles of any polarity in any spectrum of matter or energy" Qi is just the movement, caused by YinYang or "polarity". Qi is no specific physical "substance". If you study traditional way, you know this. FOOLS are looking for special substance called Qi, and they will never find it. -VonKrankenhaus

Excellent way to describe yourself. -VonKrankenhaus

Actually, there is massive evidence about Qi in Western science. It is called things like "Electricity" and "Thermodynamics", and so on. Qi is just the movement between the poles of any polarity. And there is much evidence of how bodily polarities work in terms of both the above-mentioned aspect of science, and also in other regards - piezo-electric, magnetic, quantum communications, and so on. My uncle is involve with such research at Harvard University, also working on this in conjunction with delegation from Shaolin temple. If you would just study with real people, you will see what real people are doing in the real world. Right now you seem just "wanking off". -VonKrankenhaus

Yes, but that's just now. In truth, everyone can improve. Having a good teacher is a way to start, and apply much study and steady training. Then you become humane and things become possible for you, unlike now. -VonKrankenhaus

It's not me. It's whomever has eyes. Nobody has proved that humans can light newspapers on fire by pointing at them or waving their hands like we see in "Chang" video. Nobody. That means Zero evidence is know for that. Just assertions and claims, but no real evidence whatsoever. Zero sightings of it. many many sightings of chemical trick version looking EXACTLY the same. But MANY people have done and proven this is possible the trick way using carbon disulfide and phosphorus. It is detailed in the 1962 book "Modern Chemical Magic". It is seen on street corners worldwide. Tourists see it every year all over the place. -VonKrankenhaus

Such as? Please detail my fog of illusions, fixed concepts, and false ideas in this post so we can consider them. Show incorrect things I wrote here. -VonKrankenhaus

Thing is, you cannot tell. Not just about me, but anyone. You thought a common street performer doing a common trick lit newspaper on fire with his "Chi". -VonKrankenhaus

Nope. Study these for real some time and find out. -VonKrankenhaus

Manly P. Hall wasn't in any way skilled or even trained. He was given a bunch of money to buy some books, then write stuff about them. "Yet for all his mental discipline, Hall was in terrible physical shape, with great folds of sagging flesh around his middle (Sahagun describes him as "avocado shaped"). According to Sahagun, Hall, when asked what he would wish for if he were given one wish, said that he would like to be placed in a swimming pool full of chocolate pudding so that he could eat his way out. Nor did his vast knowledge help his personal relationships. Hall was married twice, the first ending with his wife's suicide; the second, almost 20 years later, was to a woman who was emotionally abusive and was classified by the FBI as a certifiable nuisance. Both marriages were childless. Sahagun doesn't believe Hall's second marriage was ever consummated, and there were rumors that he might have been gay. Whatever the case, this was a man who lived primarily in the world of books and ideas" Not seeming very advanced at all, and what we would expect from someone with no real training or knowledge. In fact, quite ordinary. -VonKrankenhaus

Nope. I see that people who never studied a given thing generally know very little or nothing about it. That why people who do welding on nuclear power plants must study and are tested on what they know. I am commenting on things I did study for many years. Yes, I did study in a known lineage. A famous one. But anything real would do, any real school with real teachers who trained fully. You don't have that. Neither of you studied either of these to really know. So people could just look Wikipedia instead of this junk argument from nothing and believing con men as accomplished. -VonKrankenhaus

Tell us which ones you studied and with whom. Otherwise, without studying these, you wouldn't really know. Other guy said he studied "Taoism" from the 28th Buddhist patriarch 1500 yrs ago, which was childish. What exact "eastern and western disciplines" did you study and with whom? If nothing - then that is what your opinion actually contains. -VonKrankenhaus

You never studied anything with anyone - so how would you know? -VonKrankenhaus

But the best bet is that isn't unskilled, untrained, and completely unknowledgeable people doing that. And that's who is posting about it here. Rather, it will likely be the people who know what they are seeing who actually know what they are seeing. And not so much those that do not. -VonKrankenhaus

That's easy to do if you haven't ever really studied any of them. Good luck with that "one path". -VonKrankenhaus

You can see whatever you imagine you are seeing. But that, by your own statements, isn't based on any real understanding or facts. If you never studied anywhere with anyone - you cannot really discern. -VonKrankenhaus

Not even old enough to know Bodhidharma wasn't a Taoist. It fine to have opinions. But yours are not informed or educated opinions. Like the claim that Bodhidharma was your "Taoist teacher", or any of the "Chang" junk. -VonKrankenhaus

A guy you never actually ever met and have never actually talked to or even seen in person? This is a guy who does obvious street performer tricks, which have been described online for a long time. And where and who with did you study any Qigong or Neigong to know how to discern or have opinion about any "energetic mechanisms underlying neigong"? If you never studied this, why are you writing about it? -VonKrankenhaus

He died over 1500 yrs ago, so you did not study with him in any way, obviously. "Little contemporary biographical information on Bodhidharma is extant, and subsequent accounts became layered with legend and unreliable details" Plus, HE WASN'T A TAOIST. That is Buddhism and Shaolin, and I studied in a very famous lineage from those. So you are not knowing enough to have any real informed opinion about any of this. -VonKrankenhaus