“I certainly don’t accept that introductory sacrifice must invariably sacrifice important details – they certainly shouldn’t.”

should of course read “I certainly don’t accept that introductory TEXTS must invariably sacrifice important details – they certainly shouldn’t.”

sorry ’bout that

You said:
“You wouldn’t expect to learn martial arts from a book, would you? And you recognize that most introductory texts sacrifice important details for the sake of clarity, don’t you? So why should you expect this topic to be any easier?”

I think it is indeed possible to learn a great deal from a well written and illustrated martial arts book. I certainly don’t accept that introductory sacrifice must invariably sacrifice important details – they certainly shouldn’t. Omission of important details is not the same thing as clarity. When I teach, my students know that many of the rules they start with are not absolutely always going to be hard fast rules – they know that a degree of flexibility and judgement can come in, once basic skills have been learned, but I explain thoroughly the importance of teaching your body to abide by the rules to retrain it and gain full control over it. I give students enough respect to let them know what we are doing and why, how things might change later and why it is important to do things the way I ask right now. I do not consider this approach beyond the scope of a book.

Anyway, nice talking to you – at least some of it was
Take care,
Joanna

If you want to discuss Spirit with respect to mainstream religion, instead of, or in addition to its definition in relation to Chinese “internal alchemy”, so be it–but kindly stop changing the premises upon which conclusions would be set.

Models have explanatory and predictive value. Predictive value is not the same property as truth. In this respect, the “truth content” of a model is not important, only the accuracy and precision of its product are important.

I am telling you that jing-qi-shen is a model. You do not seem to understand what I am saying, and yet you keep arguing about it. This is a waste of your time and mine. This point is key to understanding everything I have recently written here, so there is no use in continually changing the subject, asserting your tangential beliefs, or trying to move on prematurely.

When I say that Qigong, Reiki, and Pranayama are all concerned with unseen forces–done–that is to dismiss their similarities. Magnetism is an unseen force, radio waves are invisible, and that does not mean a radio is basically the same thing as a magnet. (Again, this is a statement within a context, so do not try to apply it universally; that would be irrational and illogical.)

You wouldn’t expect to learn martial arts from a book, would you? And you recognize that most introductory texts sacrifice important details for the sake of clarity, don’t you? So why should you expect this topic to be any easier?

Complaining about the structure of my prior comments is in extremely poor taste. I am not your qigong teacher. I am not being paid for this discussion. And you, not I, are forcing a complex presentation of the complex issues involved. I am only replying to you.

I will not participate in any more meta-conversation. If you have a specific point or question (that you have not already raised), go ahead. Otherwise, if you want a broad survey of the topic, read a book.

Many CMA practitioners seem to prefer the idea that the onus is on the student to learn, however reticent, enigmatic, evasive, whimsical or inconsistent the teacher is. The student will be expected to hang around and copy the teacher and deduce rather than having things clearly explained. The student will be made to feel a fool if he or she does not understand something in such a climate.

This situation is exacerbated by the unfortunate mystical associations with so much of this material: one is seriously expected to intuit data rather than be taught it. Sadly, the outcome of this approach is that a great many practitioners, students and teachers alike, become very haughty in their attitude to others, taking on the air of “huh – I had to work this out for myself so so should you”. The only thing they ever seem to manage to cultivate in their bid for self-cultivation is their ego. But far worse than that is the fact that there are as many interpretations of the material as their are interpreters. Inconsistency is utterly rampant – this is one reason that so many people cannot even agree on what qi is, never mind what it is possible to do with it. It’s funny how we don’t have such problems with algebra.

You yourself appear to take an unorthodox stance inasmuch as you say you don’t accept the idea that so-called “energetic” practices “sublimate matter into spirit.” You used the term “Actually, I do not think that is the case.” in reference to that concept. You then stated immediately afterwards that “MORE PRECISELY, they are (initially) repurposing energy and spirit that would otherwise be governing the transmutation of matter.” So is the (orthodox?) interpretation of “sublimating matter into spirit” INCORRECT or merely not as precise as your definition, inferring that it isn’t wrong, just not as right as you? Your use of the term “initially” in brackets compounds this lack of clarity as it suggests that the situation changes over time, perhaps in such a way that although matter is not initially sublimated into spirit, it does become so at some later time. Is this what you are saying? If it is, I think I can be forgiven for not deducing your meaning accurately from your post as it was not stated clearly. To be frank it came across to me that you are hedging your bets, rather like someone saying “oh, the Emperor’s new clothes were a beautiful lavish green velvet with red and gold trim, though some seemed to pick up on the vibrant blueness of the attire, whilst others found them to be decidedly yellow in tint. Of course, only a fool would not recognise what colour they were and to ask at all is simply a bad question”.

Some clear answers would be genuinely appreciated, Chris.

Thanks a lot,
Joanna

You said:
“For the third time: I defined Spirit within the context of my own comments only. So whether that definition is in accord with other religious traditions is really irrelevant. You asked for a clarification and I supplied it. All definitions are axiomatic within their own context.”

How useful is it I wonder to only be prepared to discuss concepts with others in such a hermetically sealed manner? I think this is known as having everything on one’s own terms, but no matter. Actually you’ve evaded many of my questions. Your statement “All definitions are axiomatic within their own context” is rather like my saying that that which fails to deliver is never merely in the eye of the beholder. The point of an axiom is that you must agree on it in order to have a dialogue of the kind you sem to want – one that does not question whether the claims you and all the other “internalists” make are actually true in a real sense. Talking of axioms, I do not accept at all your statement “When we use models, it is because they are useful. Utility may be a form of truth, or not, but it doesn’t matter whether they are true in any other respect. That is beside the point–as is belief.” I happen to believe, as you no doubt know, that there is such a thing as truth and fact and yes these things matter a great deal. The world is not just our little intellectual playground – it existed before we arrived here and to a very major extent we are bound to play by its rules. My leg is a leg and will function as a leg however much I try to will it to become something else. Just as I do have legs, I do not have dantians or chakras or meridians or whatever else people wish to invent in order to try to understand how bodies work. On this we’re unlikely to agree, I suspect, but I’d have to point out that there is a great deal of evidence for the existence of legs and precious little for the existence of dantians. You are correct that soccer and tennis are not identical, but they do still use physical bodies which work much the same for both.

Now follow this dialogue:
You said “Qigong, Reiki, and Pranayama are not equivalents.” Previously you’d said “I see no reason to presume that ki, qi and prana are all the same thing. Reiki, Qigong and Pranayama are clearly different, in their methods, goals, audiences and results.”

To which I asked you to explain what you thought the differences were to which you replied “It would be easier to start with their similarities. They are all concerned with unseen forces. Done.”

Now sorry to point this out, but you haven’t explained the differences so the matter is not done. You’ve merely done a u-turn and seem now to be saying that really they are very much the same, after all.

As for “You misread my comment.
“…Based on the literature, it might seem as if these practices (or at least some of them) subliminate sublimate matter into spirit. Actually, I do not think that is the case…”

No – I didn’t misread your comment. I pointed out that you stated that you thought that such practices, rather than sublimating matter into spirit, “repurposed energy and spirit that would otherwise be governing the transmutation of matter” … oh I’ll just quote what I said in post 37 and be done: “You seem to be saying that practices such as qigong (and perhaps Reiki, ki cultivation and pranayama – correct me if you’re not including those things) direct or rather “repurpose” (redirect?) “energy” into spirit (which you define as the non-material and non-energetic component of “reality” – this is actually no small or insignificant claim, but I’ll stay on topic…) and that both energy and spirit are ordinarily concerned with governing transmutation of matter into other forms of matter, but that they can be redirected to convert matter into spirit. Is this what you are saying?”

So – what do you see as the purpose of “repurposing” energy and spirit? What are they “repurposed” to do? You referred to “the jing – qi – shen progression” which might seem to imply that you think that it is possible to create spirit. If you do not think this is the case, could you explain what you think does happen?

Rather than taking such a pompous attitude, why not just explain what you mean? You take part in dialogues with other people on forums and blogs about this stuff, yet you seem to find the process tiring and you can’t be bothered with such lowly things as clear explanations. I know I’m not the only one who is struggling to understand what you are saying.

Firstly allow me to point out that your tone has taken a change for the worst – you are now employing an arrogant and rather smug attitude accompanied by use of esoteric jargon, which I see as a little overly defensive and quite in keeping with the demeanour so often generated by esoteric so-called “self development” methods.

That aside, it is highly problematic for you to claim that your definition of spirit is axiomatic – this presupposes we (and perhaps everyone else) agree/s on the relevant axiom and we evidently do not. Further, I’m sure many people – be they Catholic, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish or whatever might well also disagree with your definition of spirit.

Your assessment of my attitude is not required at this time.

For the third time: I defined Spirit within the context of my own comments only. So whether that definition is in accord with other religious traditions is really irrelevant. You asked for a clarification and I supplied it. All definitions are axiomatic within their own context.

If you want to widen the scope of inquiry, that’s fine. Bill Bodri has written books on the common elements of various world religions, and their relationship to neidan. I’m sure he’ll be happy to sell you a copy or two, just please don’t ask me to retype their contents here for your pleasure.

The evidence I required was not for your definition of spirit but for your claim that that spirit and energy could be employed for the transmutation of matter into spirit. Definitions aside, that is a big claim and such claims certainly require some kind of evidence if they are to be accepted. For the record, yes, of course I have come across the theory of jing and qi and shen and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it – and as I see it, I have no reason to do so.

You misread my comment.

“…Based on the literature, it might seem as if these practices (or at least some of them) subliminate sublimate matter into spirit. Actually, I do not think that is the case…”

Whatever claims I make here are not to be accepted. They are to be independently investigated.

There is no indisputable proof that the IEEE exists, only hearsay, but if you choose to believe in it, then I recommend you read IEEE 1016, learn to appreciate the difference between a decomposition and a design view, and how the “proof” or “disproof” for one affects the other.

When we use models, it is because they are useful. Utility may be a form of truth, or not, but it doesn’t matter whether they are true in any other respect. That is beside the point–as is belief.

I know you said before that “Qigong, Reiki, and Pranayama are not equivalents.” but I asked you to explain in what ways you see them as being different. Is that too much to ask? I’m asking because I genuinely want to know your thoughts.

It would be easier to start with their similarities. They are all concerned with unseen forces. Done.

If you read a modern history of Qigong, you’ll find that “Qigong” itself sprung into existence only a few decades ago, born of a need for categorization, arguably as a means to exert social control. Prior to that, there were dozens or hundreds of distinct practices; and yes, they had some overlap, but it was not considered terribly significant. (Soccer players and tennis players both run around their fields of play, does that make them similar sports?) Point being, it is hard enough to discuss Qigong alone in a categorical way (unless one knows nothing about it).

Differences would include the relative importance placed on posture, mudra, mantra, active control of the breath and other circulations versus observation, solo versus paired practice, moving versus still methods, et cetera.

Furthermore, if your practice is geared towards healing others (for example), your attention will obviously be shaped by that desire, as will your results. For this last point I will not provide evidence, but from your own experience with wushu taolu you should know it to be true. Results of practice are not governed solely by the outward appearance of the method.

That aside, it is highly problematic for you to claim that your definition of spirit is axiomatic – this presupposes we (and perhaps everyone else) agree/s on the relevant axiom and we evidently do not. Further, I’m sure many people – be they Catholic, Muslim, Sikh, Jewish or whatever might well also disagree with your definition of spirit.

The evidence I required was not for your definition of spirit but for your claim that that spirit and energy could be employed for the transmutation of matter into spirit. Definitions aside, that is a big claim and such claims certainly require some kind of evidence if they are to be accepted. For the record, yes, of course I have come across the theory of jing and qi and shen and all that stuff, but I don’t believe it – and as I see it, I have no reason to do so. I have no more reason to believe that stuff than a Chinese person learning Western Boxing has reason to believe in Jesus just because it is culturally normal (at least historically) for his Western boxing coach. I’m sure you would not expect this Chinese student of Western boxing to automatically convert to Christianity. You see, without evidence, statements pertaining to jing and qi and shen are highly problematic, particularly when your audience does not believe in qi and may well not believe in spirit either. Alternatively, your audience might not agree with your definition of what spirit is or whether or how it can be used.

I know you said before that “Qigong, Reiki, and Pranayama are not equivalents.” but I asked you to explain in what ways you see them as being different. Is that too much to ask? I’m asking because I genuinely want to know your thoughts.

Respectfully, I will not supply proof for what is axiomatic.

Now, you may already be familiar with the popular conceptions or descriptions of the jing-qi-shen progression, from your study of Chinese martial gongfu. (If not, please look it up as a prerequisite for any further discussion.) What I was trying to say above, is that such descriptions of esoterica are confusing enough in their original cultural context (and especially when repeated and distorted by those without a practical understanding); change the context and you only add additional confusion, e.g. if people start looking for proof in the form of particles (or materials or stasis in general) when they should be looking for effects (or relationships).

(Technically, these silly folks won’t even look for particles, but wait for someone else to do the work, and assert that in the meantime “there is no proof…”, all to satisfy their immature emotional needs.)

I said before that Qigong, Reiki, and Pranayama are not equivalents. I can’t really say what you might find in a medical textbook.