Quote:
Carsten Möllering wrote:
Why?
As far as I see it, Daoist texts about qi are more specific about what qi is? And they fit much more to what I understand to be Dan's view of ki? ("Managing your body systems to think "lead ki" in certain described manners produces real results in a health system of moving your bodies energy and in a martial system to produce power.")
Where do you "anchor" this wide, open view of qi in the tradition or historical heritage of the knowledge of ki?
Where does it come from?
Even when referred to as something like energy, isn't it allways connected to certain "bodily/physical" aspects?
I'm still thinking about a conversation I had recently: Talking to two german teachers of Ki-Aikido they clearly stated that what is called "qi" in qi gong, tai chi, ... is something different than what is called "Ki" in Ki-Aikido. Not a different aspect or view of the same thing. But a different thing.
|
+1
And to address the last item
Talking to two german teachers of Ki-Aikido they clearly stated that what is called "qi" in qi gong, tai chi, ... is something different than what is called "Ki" in Ki-Aikido. Not a different aspect or view of the same thing. But a different thing.
Yes, the first one works...the other doesn't.
Which is why we had the ki wars in the first place. From what I heard, read and felt, the ki aikido people couldn't produce much. Well, they still can't against people who know what they're doing and how to train it. People are making up stuff as they go along, and if you are a Japanese teacher in a Western setting , you can make up quite a lot of stuff in the right rooms.
Get them all on a mat. Just do it...all will be known, and that right quick.
They NEVER....EVER will.
Dan