chi=?

Wai Jia: The Kung Fu Forum Kung Fu Forum
1

The discussion on the horse bench thread got me thinking about this. I’ll try to be pretty specific in topic to avoid the type of riot that comes up whenever people start talking about whether there is such a thing as chi or not. Keep in mind that I will have to refer to my experiences, so if yours are different, just point out the differences, don’t feel a need to attack.

OK. In chi sau(sticky hands), one develops sensitivity of the forearms and learns what different motions of the partner’s body feel like from contact with their forearms. Nothing magical here, just learning to be aware of the feelings in the hands and arms.

Push hands, similar thing, except more whole body.

Chi kung, practice a while, and the feeling throughout your body(depending on the chi kung exercise) becomes focused, so that you become aware of the sensations throughout your body, much the same way that you pay attention to your finger when you get a splinter.

Certain chi kung exercises do this in a way that focuses on developing specific alignments from one part of the body to the next.

All of these things are perfectly in fitting with modern science. The point could even be made that such sensitivities are always there, and you are just paying attention to them at that moment, but that’s another discussion.

Anyway, without discussing meridians, or more in depth looks at traditional chinese medicine, is there anything to be viewed as exceptional or mystical about the results of these practices?

I don’t think there is. I think part of the difficulty in discussing chi and traditional chinese medicine is that it gets shrouded in less researched details. Sensitivity is not a controversial thing, so that’s not the problem many have with chi theories.

Is it possible that the traditional eastern doctor does know that hitting this point/eating this way/living this way will damage you, and that by hitting certain points it can be offset, but he doesn’t really know why, and says “Your blood is stagnant” because that is what he was taught?

OK, I failed to be specific or brief, but respond how you like. Just remember, those of you who say chi is bull and attack the traditional guys are being way too yang, and so are the traditional guys who flame back. I’m just warning you. For the sake of your meridians, let’s keep this civil.

2

Great post!

I would suggest that it could be taken one step further than Chi sau (feeling opponant) and Chi gong (feeling oneself) to the universal, feeling oneself in existence.

We are all a part of creation, its still unforling (the big bang). I beliefe, just like people and your body are always there, just that sensations are more apreciated when specifically focused on, looked for, that one can realise their connection to it all – the benefits are great.

Think of MA before Chi sau, your body before Chi-gong, then life before awakening to the reality that reality is what your mind will believe. I for one think life is ones owm personal movie, you die when its over.

3

So do you think that traditional chinese medicine is based on a series of well documented phenomenon(points, meridians) whose uses are well understood(chi stagnation, etc), or well documented phenomenon that have been denoted anecdotal explanation? Meaning, does the traditional chinese doctor who knows how to counter abuse to point A by manipulation of points B and C, have any real idea the biological processes he/she is causing/countering?

4

GDA, all that extra yang energy is just rotting your orbs even faster.

C’mon, man, go with the flow.:wink:

5

With a due respect I think you are demining the capabilites of qigong. While it is true the meaning and understanding of qigong depends on the time spent training, you have to realize that many masters have taken qigong to levels that mortal people have a hard time dealing with, my teacher included. the medical branch of qigong is used to heal or rebalance patients qi flow , while obsrtucted by disease or by various blockages you cannot assume that qigong is used only for understanding oneself.

I have a hard time trying to use your anaolgy by comparring a listening excersise as chi sao to qigong can you please explain further

6

To be honest, I really don’t know.

I know this though, my hung gar teacher healed my broken ribs 2 years ago, gave me some poweder form of Dit dat jow, I had to cook it in a pan with some alcohol, apply and rap. It was hot. I think that helped curculation, ect.

My internal teacher now is helping with my bad knee. I told him I wanted to drop weight to help and this is what he said: “You can cut costs, but there is only so much you can cut; better to make more money.” He has isolated the muscles I need to build and taught me how.

It’s just knowledge of the human body, he’s 60, been training since he’s 5 – he’s the highest level I have ever personal experienced.

As for chi, I used to think it sounded, well, sound. I’m a big, hippy, Taoist, even if I was born in Newark, NJ. It sounded feasable, a life force, energy. You see it everywhere, what makes waves, wind. What moves the wind? What makes our finger nails grow?

But all my training in other arts – Isshin-ryu, hun gar, wing chun and S. Mantis – I never felt it. Never. And I practiced every day.

Coming on 10 months with my master now, I am well aware of my chi, and that around me. It grows more every day, soemtimes its wierd, too much and I feel a bit hyper, almost manic – it scares my girl sometimes, but I just have to go outside soemtimes and walk, get things flowing, incorporate some chi gong into my walking.

I can understand those that dis it. I consider myself a man of science, an evolutionist, a fan of space and pysics, but the chi to me is as real as the jet stream. You might not be able to see it, but pay attention, its there.

7

“many masters have taken qigong to levels that mortal people have a hard time dealing with”

as opposed to how easily immortal people tend to grasp the concept?

8

KC, right on.

I agree with you KC and I also think that chi is non-mystical sensitivity. I think that it’s a greater awareness of a lot of real and tangible things, those being— a better sense of balance of both you and your opponent, a great sense of timing, and an advanced appreciation of applying force where an opponent is vulnerable. There is also alot of conditioning so that you are in better shape and you are used to impact.

The “danger” in chi gung and chi gung training is where people see these real attributes and think that they are supernatural in origin and then they tend to make exaggerated claims about what “chi” can do. They do this because fantasy and sci fi are fun. Reality is boring, but, you gotta keep it real for real results.

The B

9

i hope no one saw the post i just erased.

10

nevermind.

it still applys in a differant context. i am a complete and utter moron.

"Sensitivity is not a controversial thing, so that’s not the problem many have with chi theories. "

i think most people’s problem is still what you are sensitivying. :smiley:

i don’t think people can argue that you are listening in these exercises, but they can and will argue about what you hear if they have never heard it themselves.

11

OK, I guess I didn’t make my point very clear. I’ll try again.

ED,
I did not mean to demean qigong, I’m a big fan of qigong. However, your teachers are still “us mortals”, and what good does it do the study of qigong to never question what is given us? I am not making an assertion one way or the other, so I don’t feel that should be demeaning. Also, aren’t listening exercises a very simple form of qigong? Perhaps not the best example for me to have used, we can limit this discussion to qigong in its purest sense. My point was that it had quantifiable benefits, but the explanation had not yet been thouroughly studied under the western scientific model, and I think a lot of good could be done if it were, and I think that its possible that the old explanations might not all hold, but that’s just a theory.

Evolutionfist,
I have experienced chi. See my answer to ED. I’m saying, yeah, a lot of the stuff works, but does it work because of the explanation put forward in the traditional model, or are the biological processes working differently than at first thought by the chi kung masters?

12

For the record, I have never sensitivyified.

13

I just do the exercises my master has shown me, they worked right away. He said the initial feelings I had were simply my veins and channels opening up, flowing better then I was used to. With time, the sensation changed, and now I am learning things almost on my own. Wierd and hard to explain, but I just feel when its flowing well and when its not.

My experience: standing in San Ti definitely works, but is painful as hell.

Repeating the opning of Taiji’s form is the one I do the most, the up and down, the wave arms. I find it has a lot of martial apllications, the various shape/form of the waving arms, and it gets things flowing – easy too, done properly one’s heart rate does not even race.

14

Sticking/Pushing Hands

What you initially said was acceptable up to a point. However the classics do say that that there is a level known as I know my partner, but my partner does not know me. Here you stick to your partners intent and know what there are going to do before they do it. This is a level which a few Tai Chi Masters (and other internalists) have reached. Tell me does science explain this too. Does science explain Ling Kong Jin? Or Zhen Dong Jin?

15

“I have experienced chi. See my answer to ED. I’m saying, yeah, a lot of the stuff works, but does it work because of the explanation put forward in the traditional model, or are the biological processes working differently than at first thought by the chi kung masters”

Could it be a case where we have no models that really show what’s going on?

Even if the biological processes where mapped out would it make it any more understandable to the average person?

It seems like for the people who have never experienced it are looking for an outside conformation of the process regardless of weather they can feel it or not.

For those who know this as an inner reality the current model while not expressed in western terms produces results if followed.

16

I know you wanted TCM out of this thread but…In TCM qi and the physical body aren’t seperate, nothing is. This is the hard part to really get in the west it sounds easy to grasp but most don’t fully get it. For instance I hear alot of people give “phisiological explenations” of why they sense the things they do. In reality this is part of qi. The body and qi work together and anything that effects one effects the other. Take weight training, a bicep curl we all know pretty much how it affects the muscle but there is another aspect. By bringing blood to the muscle it also brings qi. In TCM there is a saying that where the blood goes the qi follows. So all exercise could be considered qigong in some way cause you can’t effect the body without effecting the qi. That’s just the way it is

P.S. People have done lots of testing on qi, probally just as much testing as they have done for western methods. Some people just like to try to mystify qi more than is true.

17

repulsive monkey,
Agreed that there are deeper levels. Admittedly, the examples were just simple examples showing that on the face of it, there does not appear to be mysticism. However, science, in and of itself, is made up of a lot of theories that have held up under quite a bit of scrutiny. Nothing precludes chi kung theory from becoming a part of accepted scientific theory, except the scrutiny under the scientific model. Knowing the phenomenon intimately does not mean that one understands its causes. I’m just of the opinion that chi kung could become much more advanced with the aid of scientific understanding. Not sure if that makes any sense, but I’ll go with it.

bamboo leaf,
Who has experienced it and who has not isn’t really where I’m coming from. Its causes are what I’m discussing. I did not think traditional chinese medicine had faith as the core principle, but I am not an expert, by any means. What I’m saying is: if we could establish its causes, and there were inaccuracies in the original model, would we not then be improving it? The current model might produce results, but wouldn’t understanding/revealing the model in greater detail be preferrable? Perhaps it would only immediately be understandable to the expert practitioner/scientist, but, like most technology, it would trickle down to the rest.

I’m not concerned with proving the process to those who know nothing about it, that’s as pointless as giving a detailed explanation of macroeconomics to a layman who’s not interested. I think there’s some biological details that the eastern doctors noticed that have largely escaped the attention of western scientists, just as the west made some medical advances that the east had not considered. However, I see no reason to think of the two as apples and oranges.

OK, I’m done babbling for the moment.

18

Shaolin dynasty,
Interesting stuff. Actually, I didn’t mean for TCM to be kept out of it, its sort of central to the theme.

Most of the testing I’ve heard of was not all that extensive, though that was several years back, I’m sure there’s been more. Unfortunately, I don’t see the motivation to put a lot of money behind it right now. Maybe someday.

However, until the chi is actually found, its still theory, and the trick is finding it. However, if you could come up with a set of effects chi has on a biological structure, then you could map how it moves by observing those effects, THEN you could be waiting for it and possibly observe it in some way. Until that is done, it really isn’t fair to expect people to believe in it even though you don’t try to look for it actively in a less subjective way.

“I hear alot of people give “phisiological explenations” of why they sense the things they do. In reality this is part of qi.”

That’s the point. If, in reality it is ki, and ki and the physical are inseparable, then the physiological explanations are possibly fingerprints of ki. As inseparable parts of a whole, looking at ki and discounting the physiological explanations is only a partial view of ki, unless they aren’t inseparable all the time.

My brain hurts.

19

I think it will take time, and there would have to be some way of correlating experiences with measurable results. Some of this work I believe has already been done. A lot of it is on going.

As to the org. model.

from what I have read, they arrived at this though some very different ideas of how the body works then the western ones.

I think the problem or difficulty that enters into these discussions is trying to bring both into sync with a dominant view of how things work. The western module.

I think there is a movement to do this but as I said I feel it will be awhile. and as some one said what would be the point.

the profit motive dosn’t quite seem to be there yet!!!

20

This thread is counterproductive to your internal training. It should be locked for the safety and security of those who have posted thus far.