Appledog wrote:johnwang wrote:MaartenSFS wrote:How is that not talking down to others?
- Taiji is good. Shaolin is bad.
- "Internal" is good. External is bad.
- "Push" is good. "Punch" is bad.
- Be able to feel Qi is good, very good. Not be able to feel Qi is bad, very bad.
- ...
If you don't believe in Qi, nobody will care about your opinion. Why are you still hanging around here?
The problem is, I didn't say that -- you did.
It's not talking down to others if you make a factual statement. Sinking your weight and rooting and using whole body power are hallmarks of any basic Shaolin style. It's nothing special. If that is neigong then how is (tai chi) different?
Notably someone brought up the Tai Chi classics, and claimed it doesn't mention chi circulation ("it never refers to a mysterious energy that travels around meridians.. meridians at never mentioned.") In fact, many articles from the Tai Chi classics mention the movement of chi. In "Song of the Thirteen Postures" we read, "The ch'i circulates throughout the body without hindrance." In Yang's 10 important points, we read "The body has meridians like the ground has ditches and trenches." This shows what? What am I to think about what he said? Am I to think he is some great Tai Chi master or that he doesn't know what he is talking about? There is nothing wrong with someone who doesn't understand Tai Chi theory or who has misunderstood (or simply not read) the classics. But don't you think that person should refrain from claiming that this stuff is equivalent to "the force" from Star Wars?
It's not just the classics either. Chen Xin's works, Chen Zhao-Pei's works, it's all in there. Here are many more articles by famous masters many of which mention chi; http://www.taiji-bg.com/en/articles.htm. You can read them for yourself. What is it exactly that you or others have failed to understand such that I need to be accused of making a diversion and selling imaginary jedi chi to kids?
It sure is a problem though, why some people can't find it, why some people fall into the wrong path, why some people choose one way over another. If you don't even believe chi exists and never look for it, then of course you would never find anything. It would be quite different if someone came to me and said "I did the qigong, I did the forms, and I did the breathing, for 3, 4 or 5 years, and I just didn't get it so I gave up because I got frustrated," and then said, what am I missing?" Big difference.
Good lad Apple... thanks for confirming EXACTLY what I said... the classics do not mention meridians (chi circulates is not a mention of meridians) but the flow of yin and yang . And like i said youll find it elsewhere but that this can be atributed to lack of modern medical / scientific awareness.
See meridians are a relatively new thing, as far as I'm aware a mistranslation by a French cartographer?
The "vessels" he was translating could be considered a primitive perspective on the cardio vascular and/ or nervous system.
But fair feckin play... way to dodge that question... "isn't it obvious?" .... well no it isnt actually, and if your idea of nei jia depends upon magic-chi then the onus is on you, who is making the extraordinary claim that science disputes and doesn't recognise, to prove your case.
I can accept a "chi" model to aid transmission of concept, however if youre claiming there is a such thing as an invisible energy called chi and although extensive scientific research could never find it and if you believe it has an effect, well then it is exactly that a belief only, a religion.... and we cannot be expected to take it seriously, unless you can offer some kind of real proof?