Quote:
Graham Christian wrote:
O.K. Thanks again. I get the idea.
Well, your talking 'points' and talking 'cones' I assume the point is the point of the cone. Then you are talking 'allowing energy through to the ground.'
I have an understanding on points and the practice of using one point and of moving one point to any point you choose. I can thus do that for as you put it decoupling. All very interesting but I find in the end not too necessary myself for it can all be done from centre. Ie: With enough practice of centre the 'decoupling' happens naturally.
As far as it being needed on parts of the feet in order to allow energy to 'ground' I don't find it necessary. You can have feet flat and do so, you can sit seiza and do so, you can sit on a chair and do so.
So for me it sounds too complex.
|
Graham, thanks for your comments and insights. In fact, if you've read some of my basic comments that include grounding not being necessary; because we already are grounded. The fact that we're here and don't fry into vapor is proof that the ground connection is intrinsic. And I agree, the decoupling model is too complex. It did help me arrive at a destination, but I can see the model is no longer needed. I'm also happy to chuck it out, as it simplifies the model even more. Cheers....