Doc Stier wrote:Jason: you read my mind, man. Impressive and very cool.
I have gone 90 days without solid food, several days without water, but can only hold my breath for a few minutes. Clearly, the most crucial of these three is breathing.
Thus, the intimate connection between breathing and chi cultivation is unmistakable. Several highly skilled teachers have all said that control of one's breath is necessary to control one's body, one's mind, and one's emotions.
As such, believing this to be true in observing their mastery of the breath, I have included Indian Raja Yoga pranayama and Chinese Tao-Yin breathwork in my daily training regimen for more than half a century to date. It's all good!
origami_itto wrote:I don't hesitate to write this but I struggle to find an entry point. The topic seems as vaporous as the steam rising from cooking rice, which is the description of a common character for Qi.
origami_itto wrote:Or something
Appledog wrote:origami_itto wrote:I don't hesitate to write this but I struggle to find an entry point. The topic seems as vaporous as the steam rising from cooking rice, which is the description of a common character for Qi.
Yeah I've heard that too. There's 2 main things I heard. One is the logical analysis of the analogy, much like you described; the steam, the rice, the effort, the breath, water, and so forth. Then there is an analogy of water and fire, where the fire is above the water and then the fire is under the water and this eventually heats the water and causes steam buildup. Previously I suspected this was purely an analogy however the description of filling up with peng and the description of "the cooking fire" which is, based on what I have read in books, one of the appelations -- possibly preceded by stress in the mingmen area. But that would again point to a practice, by which the analogy can be experienced and understood. Ex. if I told you an apple is "like a sphere", but you had never seen or touched an apple, you may doubt the application of that analogy. But if you were to actually feel or see the apple you would realize that the analogy is much closer to the reality of it than otherwise. I think analogies like the steam and the rice have some truth to them, which is a little closer to the reality of it that is usually suspected.
The problem is when we lose sight of our practice and over-engage in speculation as a replacement for discussing the practice itself. Or doing so from a position of not really understanding why the analogy was made in the first place. Eventually someone says something that breaks the analogy -- ex. "We've eliminated the double weighted and energy can flow, the negative connects to the positive." This is meaningless. It doesn't connect with the feelings we get from practical experience. It isn't something we can use as shared cultural experience.
ex. "qi is the information or energy that is carried or expressed by, for lack of a better term, the ten thousand things, that sustains the things and interacts with the world around them. [...] Or something"
?
Why don't you want to talk about the feelings that arise during practice? I look up to people like you who have been practicing for decades. It scares me when I present something like this and there is no answer. I want to believe.
[edit] Here I will give you a direct example of my concern from the what is Chi video. Mr. Nishad says that all of the Chinese practices were perception based--based on the actual perceptions of the people who studied the arts. Great, same page, thats what I said above, I think you said you agreed with what he said in the video. So then he continues, qi is the primary function within the system -- again, same thing was said in the other thread. So far, we are all on the same page. But then he says there is a certain level where you open your mind beyond the physical constraints of the body. This is an analogy break. The cross domain sensations that Mr. Nishad explains cannot lead to verifiable experiences outside of the physical domain of the body. You cannot "feel chi in the space around you" -- at least, if you can, it is not a result of the practice of physical sensation.
Being as charitable as possible let me pose the problem this way. When that kind of 'analogy break' occurs, even if the thing being discussed is real, there is no way to approach or understand it from within the art. If Mr. Nishad is right, then just doing tai chi can't really get you to that level. There must be some other concept, some other practice, which is informing it. Maybe this is why Tai Chi is said to be so hard to learn. Maybe I am just stuck in a western scientific mindset and I cannot accept certain things I should have. I'm too stubborn.
origami_itto wrote:Appledog wrote:origami_itto wrote:I don't hesitate to write this but I struggle to find an entry point. The topic seems as vaporous as the steam rising from cooking rice, which is the description of a common character for Qi.
Yeah I've heard that too. There's 2 main things I heard. One is the logical analysis of the analogy, much like you described; the steam, the rice, the effort, the breath, water, and so forth. Then there is an analogy of water and fire, where the fire is above the water and then the fire is under the water and this eventually heats the water and causes steam buildup. Previously I suspected this was purely an analogy however the description of filling up with peng and the description of "the cooking fire" which is, based on what I have read in books, one of the appelations -- possibly preceded by stress in the mingmen area. But that would again point to a practice, by which the analogy can be experienced and understood. Ex. if I told you an apple is "like a sphere", but you had never seen or touched an apple, you may doubt the application of that analogy. But if you were to actually feel or see the apple you would realize that the analogy is much closer to the reality of it than otherwise. I think analogies like the steam and the rice have some truth to them, which is a little closer to the reality of it that is usually suspected.
In meditation the fire under water is also related to the unification of the pre-natal and post-natal breath in the dantien. After Completion in the I Ching.The problem is when we lose sight of our practice and over-engage in speculation as a replacement for discussing the practice itself. Or doing so from a position of not really understanding why the analogy was made in the first place. Eventually someone says something that breaks the analogy -- ex. "We've eliminated the double weighted and energy can flow, the negative connects to the positive." This is meaningless. It doesn't connect with the feelings we get from practical experience. It isn't something we can use as shared cultural experience.
ex. "qi is the information or energy that is carried or expressed by, for lack of a better term, the ten thousand things, that sustains the things and interacts with the world around them. [...] Or something"
?
There is a difference between "I don't understand what you are saying" and "What you are saying is wrong"
It's not always apparent to the one saying it. Refer to Chapter 42 of the Tao Te Ching.
I think a greater problem is when we try to police the mental activity of others by limiting them to our own understanding instead of expanding our understanding to meet them. I can throw out analogies all day long, but really just takes one to land.Why don't you want to talk about the feelings that arise during practice? I look up to people like you who have been practicing for decades. It scares me when I present something like this and there is no answer. I want to believe.
That's not what I'm talking about right now. I'm talking about what Qi is from a broad perspective. What is this thing that the Chinese say is everywhere?
Sensations and perceptions and individual and independent phenomenon are relevant, but this is where I feel we get confused. We see something that is Qi and think "Okay this is QI, this is everywhere" then when someone says "this is Qi" we can't accept that, because it is different.
The qi of the fire is different than the qi of the water, and together they produce the qi of the steam.
Sometimes Qi is like touching your tongue to a battery. Sometimes it's like a solid wind. Sometimes it's a steel cord. Sometimes it's a firehose. Sometimes it's a tiny pearl. Sometimes it's the entire universe.
None of that is meaningful or useful beyond a certain limited scope without understanding more of what this concept is and realizing that we work with different manifestations of it and we aren't feeling the Qi so much as we are feeling what it's doing.[edit] Here I will give you a direct example of my concern from the what is Chi video. Mr. Nishad says that all of the Chinese practices were perception based--based on the actual perceptions of the people who studied the arts. Great, same page, thats what I said above, I think you said you agreed with what he said in the video. So then he continues, qi is the primary function within the system -- again, same thing was said in the other thread. So far, we are all on the same page. But then he says there is a certain level where you open your mind beyond the physical constraints of the body. This is an analogy break. The cross domain sensations that Mr. Nishad explains cannot lead to verifiable experiences outside of the physical domain of the body. You cannot "feel chi in the space around you" -- at least, if you can, it is not a result of the practice of physical sensation.
Being as charitable as possible let me pose the problem this way. When that kind of 'analogy break' occurs, even if the thing being discussed is real, there is no way to approach or understand it from within the art. If Mr. Nishad is right, then just doing tai chi can't really get you to that level. There must be some other concept, some other practice, which is informing it. Maybe this is why Tai Chi is said to be so hard to learn. Maybe I am just stuck in a western scientific mindset and I cannot accept certain things I should have. I'm too stubborn.
I really need to get back to work but this may be helpful?
The nature of water is to seep into the earth and dissipate, the nature of fire is to rise to heaven and dissipate.
A human saw this and saw the Qi of fire and water and brought fire into alignment over water to create the qi steam. Instead of letting them take their natural course, they reversed Yin and Yang and were able to synergize a new energy. By combining their natural energy and information we create a third and we can push a freight train with it.
This is Qi, this is seeing the Qi of the thing and seeing how it affects the things around it. This enables you to manipulate it and then to manipulate them.
So we start inside the body, what can we see in the body, how can we manipulate it? Not just one thing. Many things. How do they work together? What is the pipeline? Not just one thing.
That sorted, how does that body fit into the world? What can we reach out and touch? How can we touch it? We can't grasp a flame, but we can blow it out, we can divide and feed it. It's all Qi.
In some ways it's like color. Some of us are colorblind, some super-seers. Some have no pallate, some are super-tasters. You can expand your natural ability, but I think there is ultimately a ceiling on what you can achieve based on nothing more than genetics and not damaging yourself.
I think that is the real danger in talking too much about it. Can you imagine if you were the only one in the world that could see your favorite color? How much could you talk about that without getting crucified?
origami_itto wrote:
Whatever avenues might have been traveled along the way, all the energy we use in our everyday lives, whether it be for electricity, for food, for powering our cars, whatever, started off in the deep interior of the sun hundreds of thousands of years ago. Indeed, the energy that comes from petroleum – which is basically chemical energy stored within long-dead living forms – and from coal deposits has been stored here on Earth for much longer than that, although it, too, originally came from the sun.
Appledog wrote:Yeah I've heard that too. There's 2 main things I heard. One is the logical analysis of the analogy, much like you described; the steam, the rice, the effort, the breath, water, and so forth. Then there is an analogy of water and fire, where the fire is above the water and then the fire is under the water and this eventually heats the water and causes steam buildup. Previously I suspected this was purely an analogy however the description of filling up with peng and the description of "the cooking fire" which is, based on what I have read in books, one of the appelations -- possibly preceded by stress in the mingmen area. But that would again point to a practice, by which the analogy can be experienced and understood. Ex. if I told you an apple is "like a sphere", but you had never seen or touched an apple, you may doubt the application of that analogy. But if you were to actually feel or see the apple you would realize that the analogy is much closer to the reality of it than otherwise. I think analogies like the steam and the rice have some truth to them, which is a little closer to the reality of it that is usually suspected.
tangible information
charles wrote:As everything pointed out, you are "contemplating the nature of the universe". It is a noble thing to contemplate and is something that humans have been contemplating since at least recorded history.
And you might say this has nothing to do with Taijiquan or anything inside your body, but I say it does, please prove me wrong.
Cultivation is another matter, but I think that understanding what we're cultivating can help move us down the path.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: wayne hansen and 16 guests