Could someone please explain what Qi gong is ?
Greetings..
Qi = energy .. Gong = work.. simply, it is energy work.. less simply, there are numerous systems that rely on various disciplines to cultivate and manipulate the energies that animate the otherwise inert mass of elements and compounds we call a body.. Some QiGong systems have profound results, others will only pick your pockets.. it is a difficult task to find the real QiGong teachers, and more difficult to overcome social programming in order to really benefit from the lessons..
Good luck, and Be Well..
It’s been described to me as a energy gathering meditation. It’s not a matial art.
At my school we usually translate qigong as movement of energy. and as stated above it comes in many forms.
Like Taichi Bob Says…qigong…energywork..no need to elaborate!
With respect to Firestorm’s comment though it is not a martial art, there are systems that have martial applications; such as in the case of the Hard Qigong Systems.
I also agree that it is difficult to locate a teacher that is a reliable source. 
Good luck
The concept of Qi
In my opinion, Qi can be considered as life energy. There are the one and only congenital Qi and acquired Qi. The one and only congenital Qi is also called original Qi, it is the manifestation of the Dao when it runs from Wuji to Taiji. It is an absolute existence without an opposite side, so we call it ‘one and only’. It is the ultimate source of all lives. The one and only congenital comes before God, and since it is an absolute existence, it is impossible to explore it by external technology. The acquired Qi come from food, water, atmosphere, heaven, sun, moon and stars, it can be divided into Yin Qi and Yang Qi, the feeling of Yin Qi is cool, and the feeling of yang Qi is warm. The one and only congenital Qi and acquired Qi are both vital for ones life, and only when you experience them, you will really know them.
soft or hard, both
can qigong be hard, soft or both?
what is gigong? sure, energy work, but normal breathing energy - or making energy work for you?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kl9D6kK1JKw&search=kung
probably sean this or something similar before
Chi Kung is an unbrella term for energetic development. This energetic development can be seen and practice soft or hard, martial, medical, and spiritual. Depending on your goals and intent chi gung can develop that “energy”. But please use common sense and let your own experience be your own proof.
It can be hard or soft, and in some cases both, but not at the same time.
It is used to generate and store internal energy, that elusive substance that western science still can’t find, but for which the chinese seem to have found plenty of evidence.
soft styles are relaxed and have slow rhythmic breathing where one concentrates on feeling the flow of energy in the body.
hard styles tend to use body tension and a powerful breathing technique where the air is forced out slowly making a “hissing” sound.
An example of a qigong that uses both is the Hua Tuo 5 animal qigong. there are three sets in it, the first is active and aerobic, the second is a hard chi set, and the third a soft chi set.
In truth hard and soft are relative to the context within which they are measured. A phenomenon is hard in relation to a phenomenon that is softer, but soft in relation to a phenomenon which is harder.
All things (phenomena) occur within a context and it is the context that determines a phenomenon’s Yin or Yang qualities! Hard/Soft, Yin/Yang describes a relationship between two or more phenomena. It is this relationship that defines the quality of the phenomena. As an example, our sun may be considered Yang to all other objects within our solar system; however it is Yin in relation to brighter stars. So while light is frequently considered a Yang quality, it may also be considered a Yin quality when considered within a different context. However, the quality “brighter” is always Yang to the quality “dimmer”, as “dimmer” is always Yin to the quality “brighter”. So while qualities (brighter/dimmer, hotter/cooler, etc.) may be designated Yin or Yang in an absolute sense, phenomena are not, they are Yin or Yang according to a specific context!
Therefore, all phenomena are both hard and soft, both Yin and Yang, at the same time! How the phenomena are considered is determined by the context within which it is related. It is context which varies, not the Yin/Yang qualities of a phenomena!
interesting…
the relativity of martial arts.
of course the same is true of all opposites, large-small, dark-light, sharp-dull.
all things fall somewhere within a spectrum of possibility, and without something else to compare there can be no description.
That was interesting!! I didnt post the message twice!! that was weird:eek: !!
Qi…
I found the following quotes interesting but I think there are some conceptual problems with certian wording.
This is quite problematic already. If Qi equals life energy, then the following statement would be equally true:
There are One and only congenital life energy and acquired life energy.
The one and only congenital Qi is also called original Qi, it is the manifestation of the Dao when it runs from Wuji to Taiji.
This should also be true according to the above statement:
The one and only congenital life energy is also called original life energy, it is the manifestation of the Dao when it runs from Wuji to Taiji.
so obviously, this One and only congenital life energy (can this energy be E=M*Csquare?) is not Dao but rather a function of Dao as qualified by the statement. Would this not mean that it is not independent of Dao thus it can not be “absolute existance” (see following statement) especially when it come “into” Taiji? Also is Dao equals Wuji? If so, is it not relative to Taiji? In that case, it would appear that Dao is not absolute existance either. So…
It is an absolute existence without an opposite side, so we call it ‘one and only’. It is the ultimate source of all lives.
This is pretty much montheistic contention. Nothing wrong with that per se but…
The one and only congenital comes before God, and since it is an absolute existence, it is impossible to explore it by external technology.
If the One and Only congenital (good thing that you leave out life energy here) comes before God, then there should be a dimension of time to begin with. It also implies God is not beyond the dimension of time and “He” is a dependent of this OOC; thus, this OOC-God entity is quantifierable and measurable by external technology. This is in no way consistent with the montheistic view. So again there is no absolute existance exist in this statement. Further, even if we except absolute existance (one and only congenital life energy) exist, there is no way that we can “work” on “IT” for “IT” DOES NOT depend on us to work “with” IT. So given all these, this Life Energy work (Qigong) as an exercise is pretty pointless is it not?
The acquired Qi come from food, water, atmosphere, heaven, sun, moon and stars, it can be divided into Yin Qi and Yang Qi, the feeling of Yin Qi is cool, and the feeling of yang Qi is warm. The one and only congenital Qi and acquired Qi are both vital for ones life, and only when you experience them, you will really know them.
Given what was discussed above, is this relevent? What’s the meaning of one’s life in the context of “absolute exsitance”. What does life mean? BTW, congenital , while an interesting choice of word, implies defects and such inheritly uncorrectable flaws. It sounds almost like the concept of “original sin”.
Just some thoughts and I am not objecting the ideas that were put forth by Gongfu but there are some flaws to the statements though.
Mantis108
Hi Mantis108,
I may be putting words into Gongfu’s mouth here, but….
I am thinking the problem is more with the manner in which Gongfu is expressing himself. He seems to have the general idea, but has communicated in a rather awkward manner.
Congenital means present at birth and/or acquired during fetal development and does not necessarily imply a defect. I understand the confusion, the word is most commonly encountered when we refer to a “congenital defect”, but the two words are not inextricably entwined! Any quality, good or bad, present at birth may be considered congential!
The gist of this theory is that there are two forms of chi found within a human. One is congenital; it occurs as a consequence of being alive and is acquired as one develops within the womb. It may have some genetic component, but also probably involves the quality of fetal development as a consequence of proper maternal nutrition and the over all health and well being of the mother. Congenital chi, according to this theory, is the inherent vitality a person is born with. It is a fixed quantity and varies somewhat from individual to individual. You cannot replenish it, but you may store it and ration out its use.
The second type of chi directly affecting human health or vitality is acquired through air, food and the overall living conditions affecting ones health such as exercise, environmental stressors, injuries and illness. Some consider moonlight, sunlight and magnetic fields as contributing as well.
So, we are born with congenital chi. It is a fixed amount that cannot be added too, but may be expended and/or preserved, when it is exhausted we die. Environmental chi maybe be increased and preserved through proper diet, living environment and various exercises (physical, breathing and mental). Wholesome food, clean air and water, proper exercise without overdoing it, breathing exercises and mental exercises would all assist in increasing this environmentally acquired chi.
Ones over all chi health is affected by the combination and quality of these two aspects of chi within the human body and the impediments to their free flow.
I think Tao as being equivalent to a monotheistic view would depend upon how one chooses to define monotheism. It seems that monotheism assumes a deity with a defined personality; Tao would not fall under this rubric. Since it is beyond definition it cannot have a defined personality, therefore it would be beyond, above, supporting or perhaps suffuse a defined Deity.
Our definitions of “GOD” are a projection of our mind “onto” GOD/TAO! This is by natural consequence a limited definition since GOD/TAO, in an absolute sense, is beyond our limited ability to comprehend. The Hebrews, Christians and Moslems define GOD with a specific defined personality. This implies limitation. Limitation does not belong to GOD/TAO, but to our own ability to conceive and communicate that which is inconceivable and incommunicable. As such, the terms we use to describe the phenomena we call GOD or Tao are limited by language and our ability to use that language to express inexpressible phenomena.
So OOC coming before GOD may actually represent the personality we project onto OOC for our own benefit and not describe the actual condition or relationship of GOD to OOC.
Think of it this way, to my wife I am a husband, to my child I am a Father, to the people at work I am either an employee or a supervisor, each circumstance displays a different aspect of my personality or being, but none of these is a complete or comprehensive reflection of my total personality or being. The limitations each experiences are a consequence of the context in which I am experienced by the specific individuals and also by their ability to perceive, that is their own ability to perceive clearly without projecting their own personality conditions onto me, a circumstance which is impossible to achieve! Therefore, I am perceived incompletely by all, but more accurately by some than others. My personality as experienced by others (and myself) is an artificial construct created by the qualities I display to others and their own interpretation of those qualities as they interact with their own personal qualities. The definition of my personality is never an accurate representation of it!
Therefore, when attempting to discuss the qualities of GOD/TAO we will by natural consequence be bound by our own personal limitations, the personal limitations of others and our abiliity to communicate effectively!
The reference to “life” I am sure refers to physical life as opposed to absolute existence. Absolute existence would then be whatever existence we may experience that transcends the limitations of time, space and our physical bodies!
Greetings..
While i agree that Yin/Yang characteristics are relative to the local situation, i also tend to believe there is fundamental division in the grand scheme of things.. that there is a sort of cosmic standard, good for general guidance but subject to local perceptions of situational relationships.. As the Taiji symbol suggests, within Yin and Yang there is always an element of, or potential for, its opposite..
Mantis108: Your point is well taken and a great subject for philosophical ponderings, but.. Life is like sailing, we depart on a ship and, for the duration of the journey, we work from the provisions we brought along.. we can ponder the destinations, the weather, the other ships we see, but.. it is our lot to sail our own ship.. after such ponderings we could conceive a prediction of pointless effort in our original plan, then resign ourselves to doom and defeat.. or, we can live each moment as fully and completely as our provisions permit.. people are much too quick to predict their own futures, casting their fate without the notion of spontaneous change or the intervention of unforseen potential..
With QiGong, it is similar.. we don’t know all there is to know.. our minds can’t conceive the limitlessness and potential of our own existences, so.. in the confines of our mental ponderings we find doubt and question our own journey.. when, in fact, here we are.. present in the physical realm, and working with the tools we have.. QiGong is a tool, and like any tool it is dependent on the skill of the user.. I once bought a nice set of wood-carving tools, and after a few weeks of half-hearted effort determined i couldn’t carve any recognizable shape from wood, blamed the tools and set them aside.. later, i read up on techniques, went to a local class for wood working and found that the tools worked quite well with a little knowledge and training.. (note: i still can’t carve that well, but i respect the tools’ potential).. we can contrive if/then scenarios, determine directions based on our limited conceptual capabilities, and.. miss the spontaneous potential that fills each experience..
In my own curious ways i tend to believe that the rich history of QiGong is not futile in its application as a tool for enhancing this physical existence.. I am given this existence to express the nature of my spirit in a temporary physical situation.. it is the only game in town, we’re in it for the duration, whatever that may be.. i can’t discount this current experience in favor of some eternal prediction, i ponder the possibilities of eternity.. but, embrace the now fully, completely and with gusto.. i feel the energies flowing through me, animating me, shaping me.. i feel the effects of QiGong on those energies and i am satisfied that there is benefit to my immediate situation.. beyond that, there is only potential and ponderings of the potential.. while i am inclined to indulge in philosophical musings, i do not let those musings contradict what i “know”..
Be well
PS: Yeah, i know, it confuses me, too…
Chi/ Qi = breath/air but is used to describe the life force in all living things.
Hsien Tien Chi or ancestral Chi is the Mandarin term for the only type of Chi/Qi that cna’t be replenished. There are 8 types od Chi/ Qi
http://www.wingchunkwoon.com/accu.asp#five
PR
Hi Scott,
I have the same impression about his expressing himself. That’s why I think it would help if a clarification is furnished perferably from him but I appreciate yours and others’ interjecting as well.
Congenital means present at birth and/or acquired during fetal development and does not necessarily imply a defect. I understand the confusion, the word is most commonly encountered when we refer to a “congenital defect”, but the two words are not inextricably entwined! Any quality, good or bad, present at birth may be considered congential!
I understand and tend to agree with the meaning of congenital here. However, my point goes a little further than that. By accepting the word congenital we may be IMHO accepting a “soul”, “Atmen” or whatever label in an energy form; thus quantifierable and perrishable since energy and matter conversion in theory is possible. This render the energy form not fit in the pre-requiste of absolute exsitance by default IMHO. This is the point that I would like to have clarification on before going any futher. Furthermore, how can we demonstrate the connection between the absolute existance and relative existance? Is there a point to do so. If not, why the wild goose chase? Don’t get me wrong, I am all for finding the meaning of absolute existance and would love to experience it. But I am not crazy about fantasizing hollow theories.
The gist of this theory is that there are two forms of chi found within a human. One is congenital; it occurs as a consequence of being alive and is acquired as one develops within the womb. It may have some genetic component, but also probably involves the quality of fetal development as a consequence of proper maternal nutrition and the over all health and well being of the mother. Congenital chi, according to this theory, is the inherent vitality a person is born with. It is a fixed quantity and varies somewhat from individual to individual. You cannot replenish it, but you may store it and ration out its use.
Thank you for the eloquant explanation on this particular theory and I understand it. My question would then be that where is the mathematical framework? I find that today many talk about Qi and such things but they can’t provide much learned explanation other than vivid and imaginative description of a possible experience. This is the work the we should pay attention too IMHO. Mathematics might just be the most “universal” language/expression out there.
The second type of chi directly affecting human health or vitality is acquired through air, food and the overall living conditions affecting ones health such as exercise, environmental stressors, injuries and illness. Some consider moonlight, sunlight and magnetic fields as contributing as well.
I believe Huangdi Neijing (Internal Classic of Yellow Empire) which is the mother of all Chinese medical text has expounded quite throughly on this theory as well. In a nutshell, you have clearly explained it.
So, we are born with congenital chi. It is a fixed amount that cannot be added too, but may be expended and/or preserved, when it is exhausted we die. Environmental chi maybe be increased and preserved through proper diet, living environment and various exercises (physical, breathing and mental). Wholesome food, clean air and water, proper exercise without overdoing it, breathing exercises and mental exercises would all assist in increasing this environmentally acquired chi.
Ones over all chi health is affected by the combination and quality of these two aspects of chi within the human body and the impediments to their free flow.
So this is it? This is Qigong? Or is there more to it? Is there a difference between Qigong, Neigong and meditation? Is this why we do Qigong?
These are the questions that I think we need to ponder thoroughly.
I think Tao as being equivalent to a monotheistic view would depend upon how one chooses to define monotheism. It seems that monotheism assumes a deity with a defined personality; Tao would not fall under this rubric. Since it is beyond definition it cannot have a defined personality, therefore it would be beyond, above, supporting or perhaps suffuse a defined Deity.
I agreed.
Our definitions of “GOD” are a projection of our mind “onto” GOD/TAO! This is by natural consequence a limited definition since GOD/TAO, in an absolute sense, is beyond our limited ability to comprehend. The Hebrews, Christians and Moslems define GOD with a specific defined personality. This implies limitation. Limitation does not belong to GOD/TAO, but to our own ability to conceive and communicate that which is inconceivable and incommunicable. As such, the terms we use to describe the phenomena we call GOD or Tao are limited by language and our ability to use that language to express inexpressible phenomena.
All the more the reason we need to understand the difference between Qigong, Neigong and meditation. We can’t use a hammer to fasten a bolt can we? We need to use the right tool to do the right job. So…
So OOC coming before GOD may actually represent the personality we project onto OOC for our own benefit and not describe the actual condition or relationship of GOD to OOC.
Think of it this way, to my wife I am a husband, to my child I am a Father, to the people at work I am either an employee or a supervisor, each circumstance displays a different aspect of my personality or being, but none of these is a complete or comprehensive reflection of my total personality or being. The limitations each experiences are a consequence of the context in which I am experienced by the specific individuals and also by their ability to perceive, that is their own ability to perceive clearly without projecting their own personality conditions onto me, a circumstance which is impossible to achieve! Therefore, I am perceived incompletely by all, but more accurately by some than others. My personality as experienced by others (and myself) is an artificial construct created by the qualities I display to others and their own interpretation of those qualities as they interact with their own personal qualities. The definition of my personality is never an accurate representation of it!
I understand and it is more or less your tasting an orange example. Still we have to know if the process of tasting is a “proper” one. Tasting is pretty much a specific act is it not? So to experience God/Dao shouldn’t we first learn the proper way to how? If the method of verification is wrong, we will always receive the wrong result.
Therefore, when attempting to discuss the qualities of GOD/TAO we will by natural consequence be bound by our own personal limitations, the personal limitations of others and our abiliity to communicate effectively!
Exactly but it’s not entirely impossible right? There are ways if not a way to do it properly that’s what I am getting at. But first we must get through and do away with the pseudo-discipline.
The reference to “life” I am sure refers to physical life as opposed to absolute existence. Absolute existence would then be whatever existence we may experience that transcends the limitations of time, space and our physical bodies!
Very well put, my friend. 
Warm regards
Mantis108
Hi mantis108,
I don’t think that by accepting congenital Chi we must automatically infer an atman or soul. If Chi is a physical substance (something which really hasn’t been established IMO) it is not necessarily related to the atman or soul. It could merely be an energy that is available for use similar to how electricity is available for use. How one uses it is not dependent upon ones maturity, but only on practice and/or ones inherent ability or talent.
When it comes to discussing Chi the subject is very complicated for a number of reasons.
For one, we are talking about something that we understand in a different context than those who first conceived of and developed the concepts. Our historical, cultural and scientific understanding of the world is much different now than in the past so our context for describing the physical world and its cause and effect relationships are no where near the same. It seems to be in the nature of man to attribute special wisdom to the ancients, but we must remember that some of these “wisest” of men who conceived/discovered Chi and devised techniques for developing and utilizing it were the same ones who ingested mercury pills in order to attain everlasting life. So we shouldn’t ascribe wisdom to the ancients that exceeds common sense or reason. If they misunderstand the qualities of a substance in which negative effects are somewhat apparent, what kind of mistakes could be made concerning something much more ethereal? For many, the effects of Chi exist because they want them to exist.
It is very possible that the concept of Chi was used to identify effects in the world not clearly understood in terms of physical cause and effect relationships. Sort of like, “If we don’t know what it is or what causes it, we will attribute it to Chi!” In classical Chinese thought, Chi permeates, animates or motivates everything. So in this sense it does appear to have some deific qualities, from a pantheistic perspective.
In the martial arts realm it is possible Chi is merely a description of poorly understood physics. My greater experience with Chi is with Aikido rather than Tai Chi. It has been over 25 years since I have trained in Tai Chi; however from my experience in both arts the abilities attributed to the power of Chi are merely an understanding and effective application of body mechanics and momentum. IMHO the effects attributed to Chi within the martial arts are nothing more than the application these principles in the presence of others who don’t understand them. It is similar to an illusionist performing card tricks. If you don’t understand the principles of slight of hand the illusions are a marvelous show, but once you understand the secrets they lose the mystery.
When a skilled practitioner displays the effects of Chi the demonstration occurs within a specific context. Within that context the skills appear supra-normal. If the context is changed the abilities are less effective or don’t work at all. Once the secret is understood it is relatively easy to undermine even the most skilled practitioner.
Hi mantis108 continued…
The subject of absolute existence and relative existence is not really directly related to Chi IMO. Some knowledge of the Absolute may be gained through the teachings of others, but to make the knowledge our own we must have direct understanding/experience of it.
The question remains, which path or teaching is the one with the least embellishment or superfluous teaching? The thing to remember is that “ALL” knowledge, even scientific knowledge, occurs within a specific context. Error occurs when we assert a “specific” (relative) context is the absolute context. Since all experience is colored by the individual’s personal perspective according to a specific context an “absolute” description of the ABSOLUTE is unlikely to occur. You know what an orange tastes like and I know what an orange tastes like, but our experience of it is different. We each bring our own interpretation to the experience according to our personalities, prior experiences, inclinations, etc.
Since variable descriptions of the absolute occur our purpose should be to discern the underlying common themes behind the various descriptions and teachings regarding Absolute existence. Each description (religion or philosophical belief) represents a perspective that has occurred according to a historical and cultural context. It is the variables: personality, culture, context, intellectual ability, ability to communicate accurately, etc. that are present within the original reporter of the information, each teacher and each student that creates apparent variation to the description of absolute experience. But similarities also occur and it is the commonalities that provide us with the hints we seek when we wish to determine what is universal.
Let us take the example of artists within an art class. Each is told to draw a picture of the same boat at the harbor. Each artist will draw a similar, but different boat according to their ability, but also according to what they actually perceive and according to their preferred artistic style. While each artist will possibly see the same things they will interpret their importance within their picture differently. One might feel the color of the sail is important while another may consider the sea gulls more important. One might consider the clouds in the sky important while another minimizes their prominence focusing more on the activity taking place on the deck. Some artists may be realists, some abstract artists, and some may be impressionists, therefore some drawings will look similar to one and other while others will bear no resemblance to the actual boat or the other illustrations. The identical event will be interpreted differently according to the individual variables each artist brings to the event. Each colors the experience according to their own world view and artistic ability!
One may ask, “Which illustration represents the actual event?” The answer is, “They all do!!” This is because there is NO “absolute” event. An event is a gestalt open to many interpretations, each as valid and true as another within the context of each experiencer’s perspective.
If this occurs with a simple drawing how much more variation is possible when describing the ABSOLUTE?
Mathematics deals with the realm of the physical world and not the world of direct experience. A dream, thought, taste, smell, etc. cannot be described mathematically, yet they exist. While the physical processes transmitting experience to our brain may be mathematically described, the “actual experience” cannot be replicated using mathematics. So while mathematics “describes” what occurs, it is not what “actually” occurs! The description is not the thing!
If Chi is a physical substance, and not merely a catch word to describe the unknown cause and effect relationships of nature, then when a measuring apparatus is devised that is able to measure it precisely it will be possible to describe it mathematically.
The tasting of an orange is merely a metaphor describing the knowledge gained from direct experience. Direct experience is the best way to gain comprehensive knowledge of a phenomena. I can repeat someone else’s description of the taste of an orange, but the knowledge I speak is not mine, it is my expression of what I believe someone else means concerning what they wrote or taught regarding their own experience or perhaps the experience of another, which further dilutes the original experience. So the example of tasting of an orange should not be confused with the specific knowledge desired, but to the manner in which the knowledge is comprehensively gained. It is not a technique for “describing” knowledge or understanding knowledge. It is the manner in which the knowledge or understanding is gained. There are limited ways of gaining knowledge: testimony of others and direct experience. Direct experience is always a more accurate/comprehensive manner of gaining knowledge. It is also a more difficult path to follow.
It isn’t the method of verification that is at question, but the manner in which one interprets and communicates the direct experience of others or their own direct experience. An orange tastes like an orange and no one can convince me otherwise because I have tasted many of them. The verification of its taste is in the tasting of it! The reason variations in description occurs I have already mentioned above.
A pseudo-discipline is merely a discipline one does not prefer. I may view a specific method as a waste of time, while another finds fulfillment within it. If the discipline fulfills a specific goal or purpose then it is a success, if it does not then it is inadequate. It isn’t so much a proper discipline/method that is required, but the desire and effort one brings to achieving their purpose. Desire and effort will lead the individual to constantly search and investigate for themselves the adequacy of the method they follow. By challenging the limits and efficiency of a method the individual creates their own method as they go along. A method/discipline is merely a tool used to gain knowledge. When the knowledge is gained the method/discipline is no longer necessary. Some methods are efficacious for learning specific things, but limit further development. Therefore, it is important to recognize when a method becomes a hindrance for continued growth and must be modified or discarded. A method that is adequate today may become inadequate tomorrow when it no longer fulfills the purpose. That does not mean the time was wasted. All experiences are a rung on the ladder leading to the goal. These experiences, beneficial and detrimental add to our overall understanding and provide a perspective that is unique to each individual creating yet another perspective describing the “Absolute” from yet another angle.
Perhaps variation is one of the purposes of the Absolute. Therefore, no method is entirely wrong or entirely correct as well! Variations in description of the “absolute” add quality to life. Since no description may accurately describe the indescribable, in the end, an “absolute” behind the various descriptions of the Absolute would be the variations of its description!