connecting to my "Qi" I have no idea what they mean
Me neither.
Some teachers just speak jibberish so to confuse and make sure that their students won't learn anything. Sad but true. I've met several teachers like this.
connecting to my "Qi" I have no idea what they mean
Peacedog wrote:While a basic fah jing discharge is certainly possible to generate using purely conventional mechanical definitions, the elemental, and other refined forms, require leveraging various meditative aspects.
I've known three separate practitioners, all of from different lineages, who could generate various elemental fah jing discharges: water/freezing, fire/burning, etc. Mark is the only one who could explain how to generate and develop that ability.
Also keep in mind that when watching his videos, you are only seeing pieces of the whole system.
Peacedog wrote:Fire element burns when you get hit with it and it has a penetrating quality.
Water element freezes the body and an impact associated with it. Imagine getting hit by a really large water balloon. Soft but jarring.
Air and earth are easy to confuse with more conventional technique, except that air has a floating/unbalancing effect and earth has a heaviness that is crushing.
I even met a practitioner that had a wood element fah jing. If you can imagine rapping your knuckle against a hardwood log, it has an effect something like that. And hurt like a lot.
As for reasons to do this, different effects on physiological response plus severely mindf#$ing your opponent.
Void element has an electric and shocking effect. That seems to be the rarest of the bunch. It also seems to have some rather long lasting psychological effects on someone unaccustomed to it.
Peacedog wrote:As someone who has actually trained with Mark, his terminology is consistent with his system and needed to understand how to employ the system.
By combining a fair amount of meditative technology with Chinese martial arts he has a way to teach fah jing to a complete novice in as little as three days.
If anyone else on this board can do that, then I'll support whatever language you use to provide your instruction.
eshan wrote:Agreed.
Plus, what´s the criticism here? The use of a different terminology? What does it have to do with the quality of the teaching?
As I see it, many other IMA systems and teacher could pay attention to how well articulated and structured Mark´s program is.
Bao wrote:eshan wrote:Agreed.
Plus, what´s the criticism here? The use of a different terminology? What does it have to do with the quality of the teaching?
As I see it, many other IMA systems and teacher could pay attention to how well articulated and structured Mark´s program is.
It's a very detailed articulation. Well articulated would be simple and to the point. And also about explaining what happens instead of confusing with bogus jibberish.
The problem is not the use of a different or a detailed terminology. The problem is the gap between what is practically done and what is said.
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.
This puzzles me, maybe I´m wrong but I get feeling there is some kind of bias toward Mark.
charles wrote: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.
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.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 54 guests