eshan wrote:If you think it´s fair to say his explanations are bogus jibberish, by this rule the same could be said of most of CIMA.
Just off the top of my head: five elements theory, heavenly orbits, bone marrow cleansing, meridian stretching, dan tian rotation, YiJing, FengShui, etc.
I do not see how these things are less esoteric than Mark´s principles.
And yet they usually get a free pass.
Generally, I agree. An awful lot of what is said in CIMA is "jibberish". It's "jibberish" in the sense that it is a specific perspective, a specific explanation, a specific belief of what is being done or happening. As many talk about it, there is a disconnect between what is actually done or happening and the belief of what is happening. In many cases, it appears to be wishful thinking substituted for reality. Humans live a large portion of their lives that way. In many aspects of life that isn't necessarily a bad thing, believing something that has no basis in reality. If people want to describe their practice as cleansing their bone marrow, stretching their meridians, rotating their dan tian... so be it. If a belief in those things produces a desirable result, all the better.
This puzzles me, maybe I´m wrong but I get feeling there is some kind of bias toward Mark.
Perhaps, the point is that there are already enough "accepted" buzz-words in the study of internal arts that one needn't create new equally intangible ones to explain what one is or is not doing. There's already plenty of jargon to describe what is or is not going on.
What's needed, if people are to "get it", is simple, easy-as-possible, accessible language. In my opinion, generally, the less language the better. One needs only sufficient language to communicate how one should be practicing. Complex theorietical/academic explanations don't, in my experience, lead to practitioners with better physical skills and abilities.
To put it more succinctly, as Bao said, "The problem is the gap between what is practically done and what is said."
rant over.