Starjumper Posted June 18, 2019 (edited) I did the MCO once, and it was like a big patch of heat, bigger than a foot, that slowly went around the circle, took about an hour. Inside this big sphere of hotness, I could feel that a lot of energy was flowing within it. It felt quite nice. Then for a couple of days after that I felt weaker and I realized that doin' the MCO via mental jerking off is like throwing energy down the toilet and is fundamentalist bullshit. At least for those on the path of real nei kung, the Taoist path of the wizard. At this point I'll say that anyone who thinks they feel a lot of energy by doin' the MCO all the time actually is clueless as to what a"lot of energy" can possibly mean. So ya: Mental jerking off, check. Feels nice, check. Feel weaker later, check. Same as the physical way, check. Bunch of jerk offs! I hope ya'll don't feel to insulted if I call 98% of you a bunch of loooosers Edited June 18, 2019 by Starjumper 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonkrankenhaus Posted June 18, 2019 7 hours ago, freeform said: The Qi of Feng Shui is different to the Qi of Taiji which is different to the Qi of Qigong which is different to the Qi of Chinese Medicine etc etc... Have you ever studied any of those things you mention? No. Obviously not. Qi is just movement in a polarity. It isn't a physical thing or substance at all. Not in any way. -VonKrankenhaus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeform Posted June 18, 2019 1 hour ago, vonkrankenhaus said: Qi is just movement in a polarity. It isn't a physical thing or substance at all. I see stagnation has set in and the autopilot is taking over... Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonkrankenhaus Posted June 18, 2019 10 minutes ago, GSmaster said: after proven wrong 999 times. Nobody here proved Qi is any specific thing or substance in any way. Neither has anyone else, ever. That would be like telling us that "convection" is a physical object and not a process, or that "literacy" is something you can measure by the pound. Qi is just movement. No movement = no Qi. All you've proved is that you have never studied this subject matter at all. -VonKrankenhaus 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeform Posted June 18, 2019 38 minutes ago, vonkrankenhaus said: That would be like telling us that "convection" is a physical object and not a process But you haven’t addressed the fact that it’s a process that has characteristics of a substance in certain conditions... People get very flummoxed by paradox but that’s the nature of Daoist arts - constant paradox. We’re told that the Dao cannot be spoken about but then presented with 81 chapters on Dao... We’re told not to be drawn into ‘bookish bedevilment’ but then presented with countless classics and commentaries... We’re told that we must take no action, but then heavily trained using difficult and strenuous activity... So it’s a surprise to me that the paradox of Qi being purely a process and a substance at the same time is so unbelievable to some... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonkrankenhaus Posted June 18, 2019 58 minutes ago, freeform said: But you haven’t addressed the fact that it’s a process that has characteristics of a substance in certain conditions That's in response to my statement: That would be like telling us that "convection" is a physical object and not a process And you are trying to say that "convection" is a substance "in certain conditions". Did you attend school as a kid? That's a middle school subject you are getting wrong. -VonKrankenhaus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonkrankenhaus Posted June 18, 2019 1 hour ago, GSmaster said: I work with qi everyday, I can see it and grasp it, move it around, and form objects. Please show us a picture of an physical object you made out of "Qi" as the building material. Should be easy if Qi is a physical thing or substance. Show us. Grasp some "Qi" and show us the physical substance "Qi" in your hand in a picture. -VonKrankenhaus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeform Posted June 18, 2019 7 minutes ago, vonkrankenhaus said: And you are trying to say that "convection" is a substance "in certain conditions". Im not talking about convection - I’m talking about Qi. 7 minutes ago, vonkrankenhaus said: Did you attend school as a kid? That's a middle school subject you are getting wrong. Your conduct suggests that you never actually left middle school. At least now I know who not to engage in conversation again 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonkrankenhaus Posted June 18, 2019 4 minutes ago, freeform said: Your conduct suggests that you never actually left middle school I do agree that this discussion with you guys is a lot like one that could be seen if one had never left middle school. OK. Convection is a kind of Qi, a kind of movement between the poles of a polarity. I say electricity is another one, another kind of Qi. In one kind, it is heat that is moving. In the other it is electrons moving. Qi is the movement, not the varying substances that may be moved. Show us how convection is "sometimes" a physical substance. -VonKrankenhaus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonkrankenhaus Posted June 18, 2019 1 hour ago, GSmaster said: They can turn human into a pile of ashes by finger flick. No. That is not power. Humans are doing that to themselves, every day, all over the place. A master is someone who can help humans for real. Not just tell them fantasy stories about what other people could do if they were Masters. -VonKrankenhaus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pegasus1992 Posted June 19, 2019 On 6/17/2019 at 12:29 PM, GSmaster said: No. They only work with jing in few traditions because it is the most dense qi which is easiest to feel. Jing is an energy of 2nd chakra and below. Most traditions work with high level energies that have nothing in common with human body, sex, polarities and other kind of bs you have studied your whole life. Those energies are the reason my third eye opened, and I can see stuff that you cant. I have developed real siddhi abilities from a practice, and you only have theories articulated by some ppl in some universities. We are open to every view there is, but where are results of your ultimate truth or practice? Beyond I know the right, my teacher name sung jin woo, lineage is 500 year old, e.t.c This On 6/17/2019 at 6:53 PM, vonkrankenhaus said: Why make such pronouncements about things you've obviously never studied? Why bring such incorrect junk to a group that discuss Taoism? Jing is not "energy" or Qi. In terms of a body, it is the various polarities inherent in both the inherited and acquired Substance of the body. -VonKrankenhaus Please stop appealing to study....Taosim is basically inherited and somewhat plagirized ideas from older traditions...anyone who has studied anyone of them will not only understand the concepts, but probably understand them better Your argument is both a logical fallacy and ridiculous.... On 6/18/2019 at 10:56 AM, freeform said: It may not seem this way, but answering the question "what is qi?" has already lead you into a trap. The trap was actually set by Aristotle... But without getting into history, consider the assertion that "grass is green"... seems obvious - but what if you're colour blind? What if the colour of the light shining on the grass is orange? What if "you" aren't human - but perhaps a snake or a dog or a cricket... So, in reality, all we can say about grass is that "grass appears 'green' to the human eye under specific light conditions"... Perhaps it's Von's engineering/scientific background that has him reaching for an "is" for Qi... Actually, he's quite right in some contexts... Qi isn't some magical substance or 'force'... But similarly, Qi is not just the interplay of polarities... Qi is a word that is used. It means different things under different circumstances and within different contexts. The Qi of Feng Shui is different to the Qi of Taiji which is different to the Qi of Qigong which is different to the Qi of Chinese Medicine etc etc... Qi is not a descriptive term - but an operational term. As in it's a term that is useful to use to describe certain processes. The term Qi isn't true, as much as it's useful. The most 'accurate' explanation of Qi that I have is "Qi is transformative information in action"... not particularly useful, but 'true'... But there is not reason to try to get a 'truer' picture of these arts... The mental model of Daoist arts is already perfect... there's no point in translating things into more 'scientific' forms - this isn't science in the same way - it's not looking for truth, but utility. So in terms of contexts... at certain stages of Neigong, when the Qi is sufficiently dense, it behaves just like a substance. IS it a substance - no - it's still 'change-information', but to all intents and purposes it is also a substance (just as light is also particles)... If you've ever experienced the movement of Yin Qi or Yang Qi in your body - or had it transmitted, there is no question about its substance-like properties. In fact in Alchemical thinking, everything has an underlying 'substance'... or an aspect that appears as if it's a substance... Including the mind and consciousness. I highly doubt there's anything scientific going on there, just take a look at the logical fallacies, appeals to authority, and deliberate tunnel vision.....no scientist I know displays those tendencies Also elaborate on "information" if you would, I'm curious to hear your take if possible Also related to alchemical thinking, yes, I am of the mindset that everything has an underlying substance, all of the texts are very clear about this On 6/18/2019 at 12:32 PM, freeform said: Yes - kind of. Although I'd call it density. It behaves as a substance - not IS a substance. Being precise here matters. But you're right that it has substance like qualities... Yin Qi has magnetic qualities (but isn't magnetism) and Yang Qi has electric qualities (but isn't electricity). Sounds to me like Vonkrankenhaus hasn't come across any real practitioners of Qi emission - but this stuff exists and is no big deal once you get into certain circles. Also lots and lots of fraudsters too. I've been saying that for 10 odd pages now, and it's funny to try debunking JC or SOTG when you havent even experienced anything close to what they are capable of...comical really 19 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said: Have you ever studied any of those things you mention? No. Obviously not. Qi is just movement in a polarity. It isn't a physical thing or substance at all. Not in any way. -VonKrankenhaus We've already addressed this above, so unless I need to repeat myself, your argument is invalid 18 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said: Nobody here proved Qi is any specific thing or substance in any way. Neither has anyone else, ever. That would be like telling us that "convection" is a physical object and not a process, or that "literacy" is something you can measure by the pound. Qi is just movement. No movement = no Qi. All you've proved is that you have never studied this subject matter at all. -VonKrankenhaus 17 hours ago, freeform said: But you haven’t addressed the fact that it’s a process that has characteristics of a substance in certain conditions... People get very flummoxed by paradox but that’s the nature of Daoist arts - constant paradox. We’re told that the Dao cannot be spoken about but then presented with 81 chapters on Dao... We’re told not to be drawn into ‘bookish bedevilment’ but then presented with countless classics and commentaries... We’re told that we must take no action, but then heavily trained using difficult and strenuous activity... So it’s a surprise to me that the paradox of Qi being purely a process and a substance at the same time is so unbelievable to some... And he wont, because he cannot. That would require dropping his belief system. 13 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said: No. That is not power. Humans are doing that to themselves, every day, all over the place. A master is someone who can help humans for real. Not just tell them fantasy stories about what other people could do if they were Masters. -VonKrankenhaus Like John Chang you mean, all those healings etc...yes sounds about right... 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starjumper Posted June 19, 2019 On 6/18/2019 at 9:12 AM, Starjumper said: I hope ya'll don't feel to insulted if I call 98% of you a bunch of loooosers OOps, I'm so bad ... and I was thinking ... the percentage is way off. The ones of interest are the 'retainers', and there is a pic of a typical one here: https://www.thedaobums.com/topic/48590-when-your-balls-are-on-fire/?do=findComment&comment=879448 You see, they stop jerking off ... physically, and they don't have girlfriends. So they get and extreme ejaculation/bliss tendency. Then they play with their energy via the MCO (a cheap trick by the way) to get this feeling of orgasm to manifest without squirting. In a lot of ways it's the same thing, they really aren't meditating, they practice tension, they're jerking off, either physically or mentally and the result is an orgasm. So hey, I don't have any thing against jerking off. I say, may the jerking off commence! More power to them ... particularly if they think they'll get m'ore than a pissant's worth of power out of it. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonkrankenhaus Posted June 19, 2019 7 hours ago, pegasus1992 said: Like John Chang you mean, all those healings etc... I've seen no proof that he ever actually healed anything in anyone. What I've seen is the movie of a street performer some guys made to try to sell to the BBC knowing that the audience would have no background in the subject matter being twisted to make any distinction of truth. And I see people who never studied anything with anyone would rather believe they are seeing a guy ignite paper with his mystical power than realize this is a simple chemical trick detailed in a very popular book from 1962. I know some people can't "go back" on such idiocy, because that would reveal them to be and have been,,, idiots. So I'm not surprised that such people would even try to rewrite traditions and whole systems of knowledge they never studied in their attempt to not look like an idiot. But really, that only makes the whole thing look more idiotic. -VonKrankenhaus 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starjumper Posted June 19, 2019 5 minutes ago, vonkrankenhaus said: And I see people who never studied anything with anyone would rather believe they are seeing a guy ignite paper with his mystical power than realize this is a simple chemical trick detailed in a very popular book from 1962. That video of Jian Feng igniting some straw looks very convincing. Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted June 19, 2019 10 minutes ago, Starjumper said: the MCO (a cheap trick by the way) maybe the fluffy funny pesssudo way taught by some 'mastas', not the real way the real way that requires some flux to do it, and causes a great shining grapefruit sized ball of qi up the spine, Spoiler whereupon it momentarily sits yet poised to continue its descent, which why hex44 is baihui waterfalls down the front with key resonant features before momentarily settling into the dark pool at the bottom... stirrin a bathtub with a straw vs stirrin it with a shovel 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pegasus1992 Posted June 20, 2019 3 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said: I've seen no proof that he ever actually healed anything in anyone. What I've seen is the movie of a street performer some guys made to try to sell to the BBC knowing that the audience would have no background in the subject matter being twisted to make any distinction of truth. And I see people who never studied anything with anyone would rather believe they are seeing a guy ignite paper with his mystical power than realize this is a simple chemical trick detailed in a very popular book from 1962. I know some people can't "go back" on such idiocy, because that would reveal them to be and have been,,, idiots. So I'm not surprised that such people would even try to rewrite traditions and whole systems of knowledge they never studied in their attempt to not look like an idiot. But really, that only makes the whole thing look more idiotic. -VonKrankenhaus Actually no, let me be VERY SPECIFIC HERE What you have seen is a man who claims to be healing people, which is supported by testimony from all the patients that seen him. What you choose to interpret it as has no basis and no foundation...the fact that you choose to ignore people who have both been treated by and trained by John Chang is due to your inherent inability to comprehend things which you do not understand nor have experienced So ill give you a challenge You find me a person who has paid to see john chang perform as a "street magician" and made any attempt to test that theory. I'll find you both past students and people who have been treated by him, and can attest to his abilities. We will see who can find what I can find a few alone on this website........as for you however..... try not to engage me unless you can do so, because I'm fed up of replying to nonsense only to be met by it time and time again And to your claim you can demonstrate "things" and are hoping to do so, be my guest, Im ready and willing to do all the testing and to ensure they anonymity you so claim to want. And that's a genuine offer Also, id go find new teachers.....it appears you've spent a vast portion of your life knocking on the door to something you've never been given access....a terrible waste. Oh well, Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonkrankenhaus Posted June 20, 2019 53 minutes ago, pegasus1992 said: people who have both been treated by and trained by John Chang I have seen no proof that any such people or treatments or trainings actually exist. I did see the BBC doc video, but that just showmanship and contains obvious tricks to fool people, like the carbon disulfide fire trick and low-watt LED lamp, etc - all debunked to roof online for years and years.. -VonKrankenhaus Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pegasus1992 Posted June 20, 2019 @mjjbecker Let me quote him, when he was asked who he was to speak on Mopai "Someone who went to Indonesia, visited John Chang, ate at his table, observed him treating people and felt his qi. Someone who was at his home when he spoke with the keris, and watched them move. Someone who was tested in his home and also when he visited Athens. Someone who watched him push a chopstick through a table and summon a spirit. Someone who was briefly a student of the school and who respects that the school is closed and wishes to be left in peace." @DentyDao Too long to discuss..google Sean Denty, hes met Chang, alone with other masters @someone else Has met and been tested by John Chang in Athens @tongkosong Student of Mopai @Neikung Student of Mopai Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pegasus1992 Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 1 hour ago, vonkrankenhaus said: I have seen no proof that any such people or treatments or trainings actually exist. I did see the BBC doc video, but that just showmanship and contains obvious tricks to fool people, like the carbon disulfide fire trick and low-watt LED lamp, etc - all debunked to roof online for years and years.. -VonKrankenhaus There's 5 people on this site alone I could tag off the top of my head, and im a newbie on here You are wrong.....DEAL WITH IT Edited June 20, 2019 by pegasus1992 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonkrankenhaus Posted June 20, 2019 18 minutes ago, pegasus1992 said: You are wrong.....DEAL WITH IT No, I'm not "wrong" at all. I am not aware of these being real and do not know anyone who was supposedly healed of anything. Maybe they're real quotes, but that wouldn't be proof of anything anywhere. It's just something a guy said. A guy said he did some things. Wouldn't mean anything in court, for example. But if they saw the stuff in the movie, they saw faking and showbiz too, because that's all there is in the video. Wouldn't matter if seeing the fire stunt in the video in person or on video - it's the same gag, and people either fall for it or not. Do you have any actual proof of anything and not just someone's hearsay? I read some silly debates with some of the people you posted. Not convincing of much except of what I have already written. -VonKrankenhaus 2 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
joeblast Posted June 20, 2019 Having been in the presence of and did some measure of work with perhaps a half dozen who had actual demonstrable energetic potential, I'll say that yeah, when someone's got something, it is noticeable. They were all from different walks and lineages, all had their own unique qualities and flavours, areas of JQS that were primarily "focused" upon, and of course, overall amplitude. (and of course, not all 'utilized the same measure of amplitude-focus' in our interactions as well.) None of it was anything physical, but indeed unequivocally felt. Well, unless physical you want to talk about the shen level lighthouse in my head sotg transmission blast for an entire weekend straight. That certainly had physical ramifications because I wasnt going to be doing anything else that weekend I dont really know why you two are still going at this after 10 pages. To see, To bleed, Cannot be taught In turn, you're making us... oh, I cant listen to that and then drive into the office, especially not in the rain 1 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starjumper Posted June 20, 2019 Quote I have seen no proof ... That's like some child who has never seen a car saying there is no proof cars exist, forget all the roads and stuff. When the mind is blind the eyes are useless. Does anyone here have the slightest clue as to how fucking stupid, infantile, anal, it is to even mention the word PROVE on an internet forum? Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
pegasus1992 Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 10 hours ago, vonkrankenhaus said: No, I'm not "wrong" at all. I am not aware of these being real and do not know anyone who was supposedly healed of anything. Maybe they're real quotes, but that wouldn't be proof of anything anywhere. It's just something a guy said. Earlier you werent aware of "anyone" now you aren't aware of anyone of those being real people, despite these people all having cross references to back up who they are...moving the goalposts, false accusations, appeals to authority...its literally pathetic at this stage. Give it a break They aren't all liars, its that simple, Ive been saying it since the start and ill continue to, you're about neck deep in your own BS now You 've spent 50 years of your life on a practice, which you could have achieved more in 1 year of ANY DECENT SYSTEM...yet here you are berating practitioners who have clearly experienced more than you. Comical at best, but sad nonetheless There is countless testimony on here relating to the man in question......you have nothing You are wasting my time and everyone else's because you cannot accept what John Chang can do, and you cannot accept what SOTG can do.... So the problem is not JC, nor SOTG, nor Kostas, Jim, mjjbecker, nor anyone who's experienced anything from their interactions with these people...The problem is you Please refrain from further engagement with me unless you can provide any evidence relating to the men in question to prove your claim....Find me any tests done on either, or find me testimony from those who have been in their presence and debunked them...otherwise you've got nothing 2 hours ago, Starjumper said: That's like some child who has never seen a car saying there is no proof cars exist, forget all the roads and stuff. When the mind is blind the eyes are useless. Does anyone here have the slightest clue as to how fucking stupid, infantile, anal, it is to even mention the word PROVE on an internet forum? I couldn't have put it better....in any event im done engaging after that last post...he has his instructions, and im no longer playing into logical fallacy bingo with him 2 hours ago, joeblast said: Having been in the presence of and did some measure of work with perhaps a half dozen who had actual demonstrable energetic potential, I'll say that yeah, when someone's got something, it is noticeable. They were all from different walks and lineages, all had their own unique qualities and flavours, areas of JQS that were primarily "focused" upon, and of course, overall amplitude. (and of course, not all 'utilized the same measure of amplitude-focus' in our interactions as well.) None of it was anything physical, but indeed unequivocally felt. Well, unless physical you want to talk about the shen level lighthouse in my head sotg transmission blast for an entire weekend straight. That certainly had physical ramifications because I wasnt going to be doing anything else that weekend I dont really know why you two are still going at this after 10 pages. To see, To bleed, Cannot be taught In turn, you're making us... oh, I cant listen to that and then drive into the office, especially not in the rain But did you study daoism for 50 years? Edited June 20, 2019 by pegasus1992 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Starjumper Posted June 20, 2019 (edited) 2 hours ago, pegasus1992 said: I couldn't have put it better....in any event im done engaging after that last post...he has his instructions, and im no longer playing into logical fallacy bingo with him Ya, that's what everybody says. I think you all should probably stop picking on the poor feller, he probably has better workouts, and is in better health and strength condition than some here are. 2 hours ago, pegasus1992 said: But did you study daoism for 50 years? No, I was playing the game called, "I don't know I'm a shaman in spite of my experiences" Except, starting thirty years ago, I accidentally became the student of a most powerful Taoist Nei Kung master ... and the rest is history. Edited June 20, 2019 by Starjumper Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
vonkrankenhaus Posted June 20, 2019 5 hours ago, pegasus1992 said: you cannot accept what John Chang can do, and you cannot accept what SOTG can do.... I made no statements about SOTG here at all. Show me one if you think I did. I fully accept what "John Chang" did - he did a stunt with carbon disulfide and phosphorus that many others also do. He demonstrated a low-watt LED lamp. And he and some filmmakers fooled a lot of ignorant people while being seen through and ignored by people who know better. And there isn't even the slightest shred of evidence that the fire stunt wasn't just the common chemical trick. None whatsoever. Anywhere. -VonKrankenhaus 3 Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
