Judes thoughts.

Quote:

I think the argument on chi is pretty silly.




I dont think it is silly. Chi is defined in one sense as energy. In other ways people have took the meaning of chi to wards silly. The definition should be made clear.

Quote:



does or doesn't exist doesn't matter.





The term/ definition of chi as energy exists.

Quote:


It's symantics really.





I disagree. Its definition.

Quote:



When I do my techniques and incorporate the "Ki" aspects of them they work better, period. So, why does it matter if you call it Ki, Qi,Chi, proper body mehcanics/physiology/kenisiology, etc?






I think that physical exercise is required. I think in the experiments I have looked at require some form of physical
preperation as in the building up of brown fat before the
mind could be used. How the monks used their mind I havent even touched on. Yet.

Quote:


If you get the desired results, I don't see the point of arguing the terminology of common experiences. One person sees magic, one person sees tricks, one person sees good form in technique, and one sees internal connections of energy to the universe at large; they're all right if they get the results they were aiming for.





I think there is difference. The tricksters should be recognised. If there is a way meditaion can work it should be explored.

Internal energy connection to the universe isnt such a flowery dream as portrayed. If chi is a term for energy then so is the universe full of energy. Proven by science.





Just MHO. Had to chime in because it seems like this argument is perpetually started and restarted and renamed. I don't see the point in continuing arguments so heatedly about what I see as a fight over what the correct name of these functions are.




I think it is wide open to argument. If people wish to practice what I deem it as tricks then fine. That should be brought out and recognised as such.
That doesnt detract from the fact that correct meditation might be a good thing if it can be learned.

Jude