asanas,qi-gong, tibetan rites for youth and longevity

[Iliketurtles]

In my opinion there are more convincing demonstrations. 

 

If it would help win over a skeptic there are some who are willing to help them get the evidence they need without charging them any money.

 

That's all I can say here on that matter.

[Giles]

Spoiler

10 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

That's all I can say here on that matter.

 

Why is that all that you can say here on that matter?

 

 

[Iliketurtles]

1 hour ago, Giles said:

  Hide contents

 

Why is that all that you can say here on that matter?

 

 

 

It's not a can of worms I care to open.

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

2 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

In my opinion there are more convincing demonstrations. 

 

If it would help win over a skeptic there are some who are willing to help them get the evidence they need without charging them any money.

 

That's all I can say here on that matter.

It’s a yes or no question though.

 

I know Sifu Jiang has students who can.

[Iliketurtles]

54 minutes ago, Pak_Satrio said:

It’s a yes or no question though.

 

I know Sifu Jiang has students who can.

 

One of his students posted a YouTube video of a siddhi.

 

He was offered an extremely large amount of money to replicate it under controlled conditions, in private with no cameras.

 

He refused.

 

Caveat emptor.

 

As to your question the burning of paper isn't going to convince a skeptic because they can and will claim chemicals were used.

 

There are other and more convincing demonstrations that can be done that can be better quantified and studied.

 

 

 

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

21 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

One of his students posted a YouTube video of a siddhi.

 

He was offered an extremely large amount of money to replicate it under controlled conditions, in private with no cameras.

 

He refused.

 

Caveat emptor.

 

As to your question the burning of paper isn't going to convince a skeptic because they can and will claim chemicals were used.

 

There are other and more convincing demonstrations that can be done that can be better quantified and studied.

 

 

 

I don’t care about convincing skeptics, I just want to know if any of his students can burn paper with their hands and fa qi. 
 

Yes or no?

[Shadow_self]

On 12/04/2022 at 3:44 PM, Iliketurtles said:

 

 

I agree that you need a teacher to help you.

 

I also agree that it can be dangerous if you are not diligent to the point of obsession. 

 

Fire demands respect, and if you play around you will be burned. 

 

It is possible to treat fire with respect, work with it every day and never be burned by it, but that requires constant diligence, and respect. 

 

Few people are serious enough to avoid being burned, because they want to explore and improve things, ergo they want to play with fire. 

 

John had many students, and those students took students of their own to keep the knowledge alive that's how it's worked since time immemorial. 

 

Also I and others have explored every other option that's been presented to us as best we can and not found a reasonable facsimile yet. 

 

As far as Kostas I would like to offer you my perspective. 

 

In the circle of people I associate with we have seen far more drama than you can imagine, certainly far more than has been made public here on this forum.

 

Jerry Springer aint got nuthin on us.

 

People who feel entitled to and demand we give them our time and energy, and if we don't they threaten us and do whatever they can whenever they can however they can.

 

Delusional people who think they can fly in the sky and shoot fireballs, yes they really said this.  

 

All kinds of narcissistic, and sociopathic behaviors. 

 

It is hard not to be jaded and continue to offer your hand in friendship to the general public when your fingers keep getting bitten. 

 

I am certain Kostas has seen far more crazy than those I associate with have, and is probably far more jaded as well.

 

It is clear when he wrote the books he was projecting and assumed there were other reasonable people like himself out there who would come together to study and seriously explore this practice.  

 

As time progressed he realized just how much crazy is on the internet, and how hard it is to find reasonable and down to earth people who want to pursue things like this. 

 

It seems to me he's closed his heart off, and given up on this dream of community with like minded people. 

 

I believe he is actively doing whatever he can now to dissuade people from pursuing mo pai as a result of his experiences. 

 

That's just my perspective on this situation, take it with a grain of salt.

 

I will be honest.The skepticism regards other practices is warranted. There are many frauds.

 

However...it is  unfortunately redundant to expect a teacher to demonstrate siddhi to someone they do not closely trust. And the reason for this is exactly as you stated...the crazies will come by the bucketload....along with other more nefarious people, intent on exploitation. It is almost always a lose/lose situation for the teacher and school

 

So that puts you all, actually everyone in fact, in an difficult to near impossible position. Finding a living teacher will require at least one (or both of the following) a leap of faith...or pure luck.

 

I had read countless stories of people wasting years and thousands...and resigned myself to the fact that this was going to be a requirement. A necessary sacrifice if you would.

 

What happened me was I found a lot of rubbish. Tonnes of it. 

 

After a while, I found some stuff I could verify as real, free of bias, imagination, lies, woo and so forth. This was important to me initially given my background

 

However, I will also say the following...Everyone is a skeptic until they feel strong Qi moving through them. Things go from "maybes" to paradigm shattering very quickly.

 

Some of the weirder things...I could not write about...it wouldn't be worth the hassle

 

But, effectively...you start to "smell" the nonsense. It carries a shared language. I personally am under no illusions of kicking down doors of closed off hidden schools here and now...Anyone I know that's been fully accepted as inner door students tells the following stories

• Years of practice, perhaps a bit that was somewhat helpful, mostly useless
• A lot of wasted time, and as much wasted money
• Usually has some degree of foundation ( though are often made do it all over again)
• Immeasurable sacrifices, personally and often professionally

Some also tell me that the landscape has changed, and now there is far more authentic material available than at any time before. I tend to share that sentiment...People have opened up doors that have remained shut for a very long time...some have gotten into serious trouble for this, others have been kicked out of lineages over it

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Shadow_self

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

5 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

However, I will also say the following...Everyone is a skeptic until they feel strong Qi moving through them. Things go from "maybes" to paradigm shattering very quickly.

 

That was me. What got me into all of this was actually reading The Magus of Java. I wanted to know if it was all real. 
 

That led me to search to what was accessible to me, the easiest and cheapest and fastest was Flying Phoenix. And that taught me how to feel qi, now I’m a believer. 
 

Then I searched for other people to learn from, I read Adventures in Qi Healing with Master Jiang, and watched videos of him emitting qi and lighting things on fire like Pak John. Obviously I can’t learn from him anymore, so I found students of his to learn from. And they can fa qi plus say they can light paper on fire too. I have no reason to doubt they can do it, but I want to know can Pak John’s students do it?

 

 

[Iliketurtles]

25 minutes ago, Pak_Satrio said:

I don’t care about convincing skeptics, I just want to know if any of his students can burn paper with their hands and fa qi. 
 

Yes or no?

 

A demonstration of lighting paper on fire will simply result in claims of chemicals being used.

 

A person who claims to be able to do this has the burden of proof placed upon them to demonstrate it.

 

Seeing as answering yes would put their king in check, it wouldn't be wise to make such a claim.

 

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play and this is such an instance.

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

8 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

A demonstration of lighting paper on fire will simply result in claims of chemicals being used.

 

A person who claims to be able to do this has the burden of proof placed upon them to demonstrate it.

 

Seeing as answering yes would put their king in check, it wouldn't be wise to make such a claim.

 

Sometimes the only winning move is not to play and this is such an instance.

 

Ok, forget about the fire then, I will assume that none of them can based on your non answer. Now can any of his students fa qi? At least that has practical real life usage that can help people.

 

Yes or no.
 

I’m not even trying to compare schools, I just want to know can anyone that Pak John taught do it? If they can’t, why should anyone learn from them.

[Shadow_self]

7 minutes ago, Pak_Satrio said:

That was me. What got me into all of this was actually reading The Magus of Java. I wanted to know if it was all real. 
 

That led me to search to what was accessible to me, the easiest and cheapest and fastest was Flying Phoenix. And that taught me how to feel qi, now I’m a believer. 
 

Then I searched for other people to learn from, I read Adventures in Qi Healing with Master Jiang, and watched videos of him emitting qi and lighting things on fire like Pak John. Obviously I can’t learn from him anymore, so I found students of his to learn from. And they can fa qi plus say they can light paper on fire too. I have no reason to doubt they can do it, but I want to know can Pak John’s students do it?

 

 

 

Depends on which of John's students you are talking about? There are definitely misconceptions from the Magus of Java. Jiang certainly had the skills he displayed. Robert Peng also has those skills, and a few others I know of. 

 

From my own perspective, "Qi emission", as I understand the term is a bit more complex than whats presented.

 

Different schools use different techniques, and have different perspectives on the best way to approach things. These things are never very cut and dry from what I have seen at least. 

 

I know of one teacher...he doesn't set things on fire, shock people or move metal filings. What he does do is put out a field and "calibrates" it to affect the others...to the point people ache in pain...and the bones can feel like they are being crushed.

 

If someone tells you to sit...and within a few minutes you feel intensely pressurized and in serious pain, or light shows start taking off internally with no instructions or expectations... how do you deny that experience? All without laying a hand on you

 

Whats supposedly happening is he's using his own field to instruct the fields of others...it all gets a bit weird and probably best not elaborated on too much. It gets weirder and weirder as far as I know, the deeper you get into it.

[Shadow_self]

27 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

A demonstration of lighting paper on fire will simply result in claims of chemicals being used.

 

This is very easily controlled for though...if we are being honest

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

3 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

This is very easily controlled for though...if we are being honest

I don’t even care about a test, I just want a simple yes or no answer. 

[Iliketurtles]

1 hour ago, Pak_Satrio said:

Ok, forget about the fire then, I will assume that none of them can based on your non answer. Now can any of his students fa qi? At least that has practical real life usage that can help people.

 

Yes or no.
 

I’m not even trying to compare schools, I just want to know can anyone that Pak John taught do it? If they can’t, why should anyone learn from them.

 

Don't assume.

 

The only reason someone should pursue mopai is because they cannot find a reasonable facsimile.

 

Edited April 13, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Iliketurtles]

1 hour ago, Shadow_self said:

 

This is very easily controlled for though...if we are being honest

 

The idea is to perform a demonstration which can convince skeptics.

 

John demonstrates lighting paper on fire and it's always an argument about chemicals being used.

 

Even with controls you won't convince a skeptic this way.

 

There are better options.

[Iliketurtles]

1 hour ago, Pak_Satrio said:

I don’t even care about a test, I just want a simple yes or no answer. 

 

Answering yes or no creates a problem.

 

 

[Shadow_self]

27 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

The idea is to perform a demonstration which can convince skeptics.

 

John demonstrates lighting paper on fire and it's always an argument about chemicals being used.

 

Even with controls you won't convince a skeptic this way.

 

There are better options.

 

Im pretty sure you could though...

 

Johns demonstration caused much controversy because it was on a video. There is a vast difference between seeing something on a video and seeing something in person...all notions of editing are immediately removed

 

With that in mind...a hypothetical..the skeptic can have you thoroughly wash you hands (several times)....wear no upper or lower clothing...supply their own paper and other material  (such as soap) and check to ensure you are not harbouring a chemical on your person or a device of some sort...they may also choose the location to exclude environmental variables and ensure you are alone in order to exclude external interference

 

Once this has been performed...the notion of chemical goes out the window...But you are most welcome to tell me how a skeptic might argue the point here after taking such measures

 

(Just as a caveat...I know part of the demonstration you guys do...involves grounding..I would immediately be skeptical of this, and far less inclined to believe any of it than what was outline above)

 

 

 

 

 

[Iliketurtles]

6 hours ago, Shadow_self said:

 

Im pretty sure you could though...

 

Johns demonstration caused much controversy because it was on a video. There is a vast difference between seeing something on a video and seeing something in person...all notions of editing are immediately removed

 

With that in mind...a hypothetical..the skeptic can have you thoroughly wash you hands (several times)....wear no upper or lower clothing...supply their own paper and other material  (such as soap) and check to ensure you are not harbouring a chemical on your person or a device of some sort...they may also choose the location to exclude environmental variables and ensure you are alone in order to exclude external interference

 

Once this has been performed...the notion of chemical goes out the window...But you are most welcome to tell me how a skeptic might argue the point here after taking such measures

 

(Just as a caveat...I know part of the demonstration you guys do...involves grounding..I would immediately be skeptical of this, and far less inclined to believe any of it than what was outline above)

 

 

 

 

 

 

We've had this exact conversation more times than I care to count. 

 

Personal testimony, oral and written doesn't make something true.

 

Video does allow for a "truer" recollection of events, without the biases and filters, and fallibility of human memory.  

 

It records what happened exactly as it happened and no one is required to take someone else's word for it. 

 

Even video combined with published studies however wouldn't sway peoples minds. 

 

It would always be because of the chemicals.  

 

There are far better demonstrations, which would be much more convincing to skeptics.

 

Assuming your end goal is to convince skeptics of the reality of this, then it's best to stick to demonstrations which might have a chance of doing so. 

 

Just my $0.02

Edited April 14, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Shadow_self]

58 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

We've had this exact conversation more times than I care to count. 

 

Personal testimony, oral and written doesn't make something true.

 

Video does allow for a "truer" recollection of events, without the biases and filters, and fallibility of human memory.  

 

It records what happened exactly as it happened and no one is required to take someone else's word for it. 

 

Even video combined with published studies however wouldn't sway peoples minds. 

 

It would always be because of the chemicals.  

 

There are far better demonstrations, which would be much more convincing to skeptics.

 

Assuming your end goal is to convince skeptics of the reality of this, then it's best to stick to demonstrations which might have a chance of doing so. 

 

Just my $0.02

 

Believe me,  I know its your 0.02...

 

If you want to get into an argument about cognitive biases and memory with a person who's job it is to literally design experiments of memory, executive functioning, attention, recall, perception and so forth we can do that. Id suggest not though...that's a road better not travelled 

 

I never mentioned testimony or studies.. So please don't create strawman arguments

 

You can either find a hole in the paradigm laid out, or we can agree that live presence in that situation under those conditions is more useful. You cannot edit that scenario to pull the wool over someones eyes...But I've got 101 ways to edit a video at the click of a button...

 

A video is only as useful as how "untouched" it is. You understand this I assume?

[Iliketurtles]

5 minutes ago, Shadow_self said:

 

Believe me,  I know its your 0.02...

 

If you want to get into an argument about cognitive biases and memory with a person who's job it is to literally design experiments of memory, executive functioning, attention, recall, perception and so forth we can do that. Id suggest not though...that's a road better not travelled 

 

I never mentioned testimony or studies.. So please don't create strawman arguments

 

You can either find a hole in the paradigm laid out, or we can agree that live presence in that situation under those conditions is more useful. You cannot edit that scenario to pull the wool over someones eyes...But I've got 101 ways to edit a video at the click of a button...

 

A video is only as useful as how "untouched" it is. You understand this I assume?

 

Ultimately all evidence can be faked.

 

Ultimately all personal testimony either oral or written can misrepresent the situation or be a complete falsehood.

 

We can only do the best we can do to document a situation.

 

Video allows for certain dimensions of evidence that oral and written testimony do not allow for.

 

Video captures what happens as a third party observer which is unbiased and the recollection that video provides to others does so without bias filters and the fallibility of human memory.

 

Obviously video can be faked and edited just as any other form of evidence can be.

 

Obviously personal testimony can be lies and deception.

 

Like I said we can only do the best we can do.

 

This is been rehashed and you've beaten this horse until the glue factory will not take it so please let's drop it and move on.

 

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[-ꦥꦏ꧀ ꦱꦠꦿꦶꦪꦺꦴ-]

Based on this thread I think we can safely assume that no western student of Pak John or Mo Pai has any worthwhile siddhi at all. I’m sure the Indonesian students do however. 

[Iliketurtles]

6 hours ago, Pak_Satrio said:

Based on this thread I think we can safely assume that no western student of Pak John or Mo Pai has any worthwhile siddhi at all. I’m sure the Indonesian students do however. 

 

As I explained earlier when you ask a question like can you do x?

 

If you admit to being able to do something that obligates you to prove it as the burden of proof will rest solely on you.

 

It does not make sense to do demonstrations for something which won't convince anyone and for which everyone will assume a fraud or a hoax is occurring.

 

What makes more sense in my opinion is to stick to demonstrations which are more convincing and might have the opportunity to convince a skeptic.

 

There are those who will be willing to do demonstrations for skeptics in private in hopes that it may be enough to convince them to seriously pursue the practice.

[Shadow_self]

10 hours ago, Iliketurtles said:

 

Ultimately all evidence can be faked.

 

Ultimately all personal testimony either oral or written can misrepresent the situation or be a complete falsehood.

 

We can only do the best we can do to document a situation.

 

Video allows for certain dimensions of evidence that oral and written testimony do not allow for.

 

Video captures what happens as a third party observer which is unbiased and the recollection that video provides to others does so without bias filters and the fallibility of human memory.

 

Obviously video can be faked and edited just as any other form of evidence can be.

 

Obviously personal testimony can be lies and deception.

 

Like I said we can only do the best we can do.

 

This is been rehashed and you've beaten this horse until the glue factory will not take it so please let's drop it and move on.

 

 

 

The only person mentioning anything about testimony is you....creating strawman arguments doesn't make you right...it makes you look foolish

 

I said direct observation and involvement...is superior to video...always has been and always will be

 

I will try this one last time...because I can see the nonsense starting to emerge from the abyss

 

If someone did a demonstration for you live in person...you may do all you can to rule out fraud...if you are competent enough (like the scenario I mentioned above) you should be able to exclude all confounding variables

 

If the best you have is someone on video....you cannot personally inspect said confounders...and have no idea whether it be true or false that they were controlled for...in other words your acceptance of said event is based on faith, unless you have direct experience of something yourself

[Iliketurtles]

Doing demonstrations is extremely time and money intensive.

 

There needs to be a clear payoff for doing a demonstration.

 

That payoff would be convincing a serious person to pursue the practice.

 

Short of in-person demonstrations, video of observational studies done with professionals present is as good as it gets.

 

Edited April 14, 2022 by Iliketurtles

[Shadow_self]

38 minutes ago, Iliketurtles said:

Doing demonstrations is extremely time and money intensive.

 

There needs to be a clear payoff for doing a demonstration.

 

That payoff would be convincing a serious person to pursue the practice.

 

Short of in-person demonstrations, video of observational studies done with professionals present is as good as it gets.

 

 

 

Well you got there eventually....thankfully. In person is better. Im glad we agree

 

However, a professional being present is absolutely meaningless....There are actual doctors and neuroscientists out there practicing all sorts of woo woo nonsense...and I know some of them by name, which you can google and see for yourself

 

You need a person who is able to apply meaningful controls and a robust experimental paradigm...a competent student with a BA will trump a professor with a bias towards the woo every time.

 

It is a matter of competence, not a matter of title...and the latter is, unfortunately, in no way a reflection of the former (much as we might like to think it is)