Stigweard

LOL I think you are giving too much of a shit about me saying "don't give a shit." And my borrowing of contemporary vernacular could obviously have been chosen with greater skill and care I believe my gardening wife may have the answer on this one She loves her garden and the plants therein. She is gentle and kind with each and every plant. But if they don't perform their function or their season is over then, without passion or attachment, she tears them up by the roots and they become compost. Though she is kind to them and treats each one with equal amounts of motherly care, she has no emotional attachment to them. And beyond this, I truly believe that Laozi is urging our awareness to become more universally minded, to be more like Dao. Dao nourishes all life with maternal-like care, and yet impersonally and dispassionately Dao is the cause of life's impermanence.

inner worlds aware of the sleeping dream awake breathing the new dawn

My wife is 14 years older then me and, on the eve of our 10th wedding anniversary, I can honestly say she has been the best thing that's ever happened for me (my Dad keeps telling me so at least). Good or bad, just like in any relationship, it all comes down to energy harmonics. Can they both inject suitable energy into the relationship that enhances them both? Or is one or both sponging energy and sucking each other dry? For me I needed someone with intellectual maturity, an interest in esoterica and a passion to grow that matched mine (oh and a drop dead gorgeous body certainly didn't hurt ). And it was certainly prevalent in some Celtic communities for older women to teach the younger men how to treat the ladies right in the bedroom

The right advice ^

Because that is how OUR perception of "their" spiritual being interprets them. Someone with a completely different world view would arrange their energy to appear totally different. A native American, for example, might arrange the energy to appear as an eagle, a fox, and a salmon.

Thanks Andy, I think I might even try and make the Gold Coast workshop.

I enjoy your interaction every time you come here. As I said before, your well crafted questions and how you handle responses is a wonderful example to us all. The path of Tao has oft-times in the past been referred to as Dao-De; it is the fusion of self-nature, De, and universal nature, Dao. If Dao is the trunk of the tree then De is the branch. In terms of practices that have helped me personally in experiencing progress in the fusion of Dao-De, then I most certainly have to say Taijiquan.

Hiya BT, Just a couple of points on semantics, they may seem moot points, but they do help to clarify understanding. To think that "manifestations flow from the Tao" is perhaps not quite correct because it creates the mental division between Tao and things. The myriad things are Tao and Tao is the myriad things. In Taoist parlance, all things by nature are ever-changing and the way in which they change is referred to as Tao. They take form because of the universal nature of Tao, and transform because of the universal nature of Tao. With this in our awareness then being attached to a transitory form is delusional, thus impartiality, dispassion and, yes, non-attachment are essential virtues if one is to remain in harmony with Tao. In terms of "karma", from my training and study, Taoists have what can be coined The Law of Universal Energy Response, which basically states that our life experience is a perfect match of our internal energy vibration. Thus the energy formation of our minds will attract a matching external manifestation; if we contain negative thoughts and beliefs then we will have negative experiences. We have to keep in mind here though that we don't just have individual "karma", because families, communities, and nations, also being entities in their own rights, will also have "karmic effects". In terms of rebirth, I have always found contemplating compost to be a revealing guide.

Hi Athanor, I was about to write a detailed response to your questions, but as I read through the excellent responses here I realized that everything has already been said. Fortunately or unfortunately, the only real way for you to find satisfaction with an answer is for you to experience the truth of it directly. Which means a lifelong devotion to practice. But let me add this... Most people, and I mean 99.9% of people, when they are in their first 3-5 years of practicing qigong, taiji etc are doing it wrong. Now I don't mean wrong from a technical point of view, they may be performing the movements to precise accuracy, but they are still doing it wrong. Let me explain... Imagine climbing a mountain, what are you focusing on mainly? The top of the mountain right? You are focusing on the next handhold, where to place your feet ... but always, always your mind is on reaching the summit. But what about when you reach the summit? What are you focusing on then? You are looking outwards right? Absorbing the scenery, taking it all in. But what would happen if you looked down and saw someone else trying to make it to the summit? Would you try and lend a hand? Would you throw down a rope to help them up? You see, most, if not all, qigong forms are the rope thrown down to us by masters who have already reached the summit. Their perspective is different from ours. So why people are doing it wrong is a matter of perspective and intent. It is the difference between the integral awareness and beingness of an achieved one and the partial, narrow view of the one still struggling on the cliff face. Taijiquan is very much like this. I tell my students that the Taijiquan form is not Taiji. In Zen terms, it is the proverbial finger pointing at the moon. It is merely the 'guidebook' that is pointing our way to to the essence that is Taiji but the form is not Taiji. I see people practicing perfectly in terms of postural alignment, but they are still not embodying Taiji. The form was created by someone who WAS Taiji, and they gave us these practices so that we may also arrive there. But we will never be there until our intent and our perspective IS Taiji, just as we will never truly know Qigong until we ARE Qigong. How to get there? Practice ... Trust the personal power of your own life that you are drawing to you the most perfect practice for you. If it turns out to be not the best, then trust that you needed to learn that lesson and rejoice that you now know better. Never let your questions and doubts get in the way of what will ultimately answer those questions, which is practice. Keep your practice going until your questions disappear and you BECOME the answer.

I understand you my friend, I just don't agree with you. You believe that: * Chi has not been scientifically proven * Chi can only be proven through direct external instrumentation * Measuring the effects of chi through double-blind tests is not scientific proof You also believe that I think Mr Clyman is a fake and that I want him to prove his chi abilities. How am I doing so far? Am I understanding you?

Nice link ... Thank you very much for that

You see the problem here is that you use a VERY BIG brush when you say make statements that imply 'all scientists'. That assertion is fundamentally incorrect, and I point you toward the Qigong Institute again. Or aren't the researchers there 'scientists'? Aren't their scientific methods valid? To the contrary, they are most definitely scientists and they do embrace the reality of Qi. And it is these scientists who are pioneering the way into creating an ever-increasing body of statistical data to bring more and more credibility to the reality of Qi and the human ability to manipulate it. Just because they are not the predominate main-stream that does not invalidate them and their scientific research. So again, your statements that imply all scientists don't accept Qi is quite simply wrong. Now to stay on topic. Mr Clyman may certainly be the real deal, I just think his 'message' would be more effective if he produced demonstrations that weren't so easily discredited. Maybe you should talk with him about the test I have suggested.

Don't get me wrong now friend, I am not "against" Mr Clyman in any way. I am just saying that a little impartial objectivity goes a long way. You are most welcome to think and believe any way you choose.

Interesting term that: "superpowers". Is the ability to reduce cancer growth a superpower? Is the ability to intentionally increase or decrease bacteria growth in petri dishes a superpower? Is the ability to cure paralysis a superpower? These double blind studies have proven that, when a well-trained qigong practitioner enters into the qigong state of mind, these effects are possible defying conventional models of bio-medicine. You have to accept that the process of scientific study is just that ... a process. It is a process of accumulated data and research, of proving and disproving theorums, of honing and rehoning our understanding of a subject. The benefits and effects of qigong have been scientifically proven ... that is now a stand alone fact. And the research continues to find a way to measure qi in quantifiable ways. Can we be so arrogant as to say that Qi will "never" be detected and measured with external instruments? Scientific history proves that such bigoted stances are destined for embarrassment. And back to Mr Clyman, I don't know the laws in the US, but here in Australia it is an offense against the law to produce marketing material that "claims" benefits to people's health without being able to substantiate those claims up with independent scientific verification. Now by Mr Clyman broadcasting his services with these videos he is most certainly making a claim of "superpowers", and so, from the point of view of the law, the moral and legal imperative is on him to accompany these claims with the relevant proofs of validity.

Sorry my friend there most definitely are "scientifically proven" qi gong masters. The link I gave you should satisfy your queries in that regard. Specifically, read this paper: An Analytic Review of Studies on Measuring Effects of External Qi in China The bottom line is that, whilst measuring Qi directly is difficult, there is a growing body of research that can confidently measure its effects. In referencing this paper, Mr Clyman makes claim that his abilities fall under category 5) detectors using the human body, that is, a human biological response to the external Qi he is emitting. If Mr Clyman wants to establish some credibility for himself, maybe he should engage in the same studies that have been highlighted, because none of the vids posted are in any way shape or form verifiable proof that he is the "real deal". And truthfully, if Mr Clyman could produce his effects on people under the strict double-blind protocol I have briefly outlined, then scientists would have no option but to take notice. I find it interesting that the individuals who are trying to "make a name for themselves" hide behind their delusional trump-card of "science cant prove it so I wont do these experiments", whilst the real workers quietly participate in scientific studies, like those at the Qigong Institute.

Ahh ... so nice of you to try and make it personal True it is that the "substance" of Qi has not been measured directly with confidence, however, the effects of Qi have been well researched and documented within the environs of double-blind research. Here is a sample of some of the excellent work that has been done: Qigong Institute I believe Ya Mu would also be able to add to this list. OK now to Mr Clyman. A double-blind protocol to test his abilities would be incredibly easy. Simply gather a random sample of test subjects who have no contact with or knowledge of Mr Clyman or any of his students. One by one have them sit in a room blindfolded and then randomly (i.e. flip a coin to determine if an attempt is made on this subject) Mr Clyman does his thing until at least 20 attempts have been made. The results are measured and documented. @Kameel Sure, it isn't breaking news that such things happen. Which is why such experiments are best undertaken by independent, unbiased organizations.

I love these discussions... "Yes he can!" "No he can't!" Here is the bottom line... If the demonstrator is unwilling or unable to reproduce his "abilities" in a double-blind scientific environment then, at least for me, the response, at best, is, "That's interesting". Period. Enough of the conjecture and hoohah. And sorry, just saying, "I felt it so it must be real" is not scientific proof. It is frightening how easy it is for people to fool themselves into believing a lie (I used to be a pro magician so it was my business to know). Typically people want so bad to believe that they suppress the cold, hard, facts staring them in the face. Now I ain't saying, "It's not true". I am just saying we can't invest our belief in unverified demonstrations.

Tarot or I Ching What is better?? Neither is better than the other, it just depends on what one personally attunes to the best. My wife loves the Tarot because that is the "language" she knows being a professional astrologer. My best results are with the I Ching because it "speaks" to me and it is the area in which I am most passionate about. They both point to reunification and reintegration of the spirit, they just use a different syntax in the process.

Everything you fight for strengthens you, everything you fight against weakens you.

Word