Is Chi energy real?My friend thinks this monk dude can set paper on fire with energy alone. I think that (it's combustible powder) and stories of monks extinguishing candles with a Chi energy punch a foot and a half away is fake news. What say you?
>>31832920I think I don't care what you say you believe ;)
>>31832920Chi is fake, the paper is coated in an extremely reactive liquid. Combusts from contact with the oils on human skin. Magicians use it all the time. The candle being blown out thing is more real, but it's not magic. He's just blowing the air at the candle. Anyone can do it. Go light a candle and flick your finger at the fire. Watch the fire flicker around. If you're capable of generating enough force, you can blow out the candle using the air from your fist.
>>31832920>What say you?would've been helpful if you posted the video you're talking about
Arc chi tec
>>31832920I know the vid you speak of. It's interesting. Since it's just a vid you don't know for sure. It may be a scam, it may be genuine. There's also a book mentioning this particular dude as well as other practices and how he supposedly got punished for showing off his powers.Qi gong and similar may have something to it, but most practices don't lend themselves to similar acts - it's mostly a regimen for health and development of spiritual, subtle bodies, with any other stuff coming as potential side effects, the same way various eastern spiritual traditions consider any supernatural phenomena or abilities an indicator of spiritual grwoth, but don't develop such such intentionally - and even warn aspirants against pursuing such as it may be detrimental to their practice.
>>31832920Who cares?Even if that was real, it is easily replicated with a lighter. And buying or even making a lighter from scratch is faster and easier and more versatile.This is like spending 30 years learning to fold staples by hand instead of with a stapler.
>>31835508faggot yogi story tier shitits almost as if using chi is cooler and more interesting than using a lighter and thats why they want to do itreminds me of that fag yogi story where a guy wants to walk on water to cross a body of water and the yogi is like "LE WHY DO THAT WHEN U CAN JUST USE A BOAT LOL GOTCHA IM WISE BRO XDDD"tldr: kys
Sure, air is real.
>>31835981It's one of the actual meanings of the character 氣(qi)
it's real but can it be controlled like OP pic or is a person more like a conduit
>>31832920Imagine if you could set a fart on fire with Chi, causing people to internally combust.
Post link to video
>>31835525>cooler and more interestingSo zero functionality, and a severe detriment toward spiritual advancement in the way it appears to inflate ego - both in the practicioner and in its advocates.
>>31832920Never seen those videos of the tibetan monks doing tummo breathing? Don't know if chi but that type of shit is real
>>31832920I don't know for sure but I once made fun of a guy who was giving a Chi Gong lessons and demonstrated how to control an agressive person with just two fingers. He was older than me and not very fit looking, slim but in a hippe kind of way. I didn't think he could take me. He asked me to try and I punched at him hard. He grabbed my fist with two fingers, gentle touch, almost nothing and I was totaly unable to move my arm or resist him. He said those are the nerves.
>>31836941So you are a shitty fighter and easily mesmerized by authority.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d-KX99T5r3A
>>31836893ugh, a old school spiritualist. kysnew school spirirtuality acknowledges that spiritual powers are just cool shit and being into them doesnt inherently inflate the ego, therye literally just cool powers to use sometimesi hate that old school spirituality shit, le never use any of the powers they are worthless! lmao how about no? they seem cool and just because im going to use them doesnt inherently mean that im gonna have an ego the size of a planet soon, theyre literally just cool as fuck, its not that deep
>>31837574>being overly attached and desirous of material results doesnt bind you to the materialThis is why New Agers are retarded and shunned.Nothing wrong with having powers.What wrong is desiring to have the powers, and thinking "they are cool".But keep on binding yourself.I'm sure having something cool will definitely be worth the continued suffering.
>>31837778did i say new age? i said new school. its my fault though its not really a term people usetheres nothing wrong with wanting powers or thinking they are cool. keep thinking you are yogananda with this pretentious shit
>>31832920Magic tricks like the one in the video your pic comes from are not hard to do. One way to do the "paper-bursts into flame because muh chi energy" trick is shown in the link below, there are others. People have been fooling other people with easily faked "wonders" since the dawna time. It is nothing new. Does this mean that there is no chi energy, or that every such demonstration is fake? No, of course not. But it does mean that you ought to be skeptical of proofs of extraordinary claims that look exactly like simple magic tricks, I think. If chi is real, there are important ind meaningful things that could demonstrate it, beyond silliness that duplicates the sort of tricks street magicians do.Anyway, link to one way to do the trick:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3rhGctGl2Q
>>31832920https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lPgcwNdeOKsyou tell me
>>31832920I personally think Dynamo Jack was legit.And Chi, or whatever it is, is real. You would know this if you ever did any sort of PK.
>>31837812Correct. There technically is nothing wrong with suffering in samsara. That is why you are allowed to do it.>pretentiousLol. In what way have I pretended anything? That I can correct your lack of exercise doesnt make me a marathon runner.That I can see how your desires trap you here doesnt mean I am not also working on my own chains.There is no pretense.There is only your bruised and defensive ego.Wonder where that came from?
>>31836893>true spirituality is not learning siddhisFaggot. That is a reason that buddhist and jains use to excuse themselves for not developing siddhis faster compared to Shaivites-tantra yogis.
>>31832920Chi is thermal energy and effortless use of said energy in movement as well as control over one's breath.Its not magical mumbo jumbo people claim Chi to be in comic books etc.
chi is aether, prana, orgone
>>31838324u talk like a fag n ur shits all retarded
>>31839543Buddhists are idiots and Jains are too focused on karma.You have clearly neverr gone and talked to a Naga Baba.Siddhis are merely conveniences to help keep your sadhana regular.
>>31839616Not aether. The Greek word you seek is Pneuma.
>>31839828It would be, if I thought chi was literal air...
>>31832920chi is when you rub your hands together when it's cold outside, how does it make you warm some how (chi)
>>31832920Chi real? Not in the mystical bullshit sense.Real in the proper body mechanics with breathing control producing superior athletic accomplishments? Absolutely.Chi starting fires? Fuck no.Chi putting out candles? Kind of.It's a martial arts parlor trick based around creating enough air turbulence to snuff out the flame. I've done it, not at a foot, but 6 inches or so.Most martial arts ki/chi demos are either bullshit amateur hour magician tricks or doing something hard over and over again until it's easy.
>>31839912This, but there is also more of the meditative aspect of Chi practice or breath meditation, you can do it simply by standing still with your eyes closed and breathing in and out nasally.
>>31839912>>31839941You dudes still can't feel your own chi?
I took a Qi gong lessons for a year or so and when I’d practice it in my room I could hear the fan in my window change speeds due to the changes in air pressure. It’s definitely a real way to harness energy and strengthen the body but I Don’t think it’s capable of doing anything more than moving air. A master who was actually trained in fighting could strike devastating blows and endure immense damage.
>>31841447Actually I recant that. There’s a video on YouTube of a master shocking people. A real monk could probably paralyze you by releasing a charge into the right nerves.
>>31841447Remote energy healing is a better example.
>>31841470Yeah qi feels like a magnet pulling and pushing I think the energy healing is legit too
>>31841482Try heating up a finger tip with your energy
>>31832920It's all fake. App magic is fake, don't bother looking into it, nobody ever had anything to gain by looking into it so don't bother.
>>31841542>appmagic.rocksLooks pretty gay.
Try giving someone a massage after charging up your hands. :)
>>31836893no siddhis = no enlightenmentIt is natural that you gain power, wisdom, pleasure and consciousness as you ascend spiritually. If you are not gaining them, then something is missing.
>>31837884Yes, the video debunks it.
>>31837778How dare you think they are cool!Destroy your ego!Destroy your self!Don't eat meat!Don't have desires!Shun your emotions!Meditate on emptiness until you are filled with emptiness!Even though one who meditates on God will be filled with God. You are in a nihilistic death cult. There's nothing wrong with power, wisdom, pleasure, wealth - as long as you can handle them. Some people can handle being a millionaire without it going to their head. Some people cannot, and will destroy themselves with it.
>>31843274lol you think I'm voidist? You make assumptions from ignorance and projected fear.>as long as you can handle themYou cant.No one can.There is no satisfying material desires and ego.
>>31843308Sivananda has said a yogi is the exact same in a palace or in poverty. Unaffected by it.
>>31832920Is atmokinesis considered a form of chi manipulation? Because I can do it.
>>31843320And he's correct. A yogi has no material desires. Their desire is transcendent, and fixed.Do you not understand the difference between>these siddhis came through my practice, but are not my desireand>I really want siddhis because they are cool
>>31843308>There is no satisfying material desires and ego.Imagine a person does selfless service in his career in order to provide for his family and earn a living. According to Bhagavad Ghita if he has the correct internal motivations, then he is earning wealth without ego. So a person in this situation is able to handle accumulating wealth.
>>31843338A yogi can practice siddhis for right reasons and for wrong reasons.
>>31832920Research this dude in pic related. All witness claim he be the real deal. The western guys who did the documentary on him were highly educated. They ended up being students and writing books about the whole deal
>>31843345>in order to provide for his family and earn a livingThat is not selfless. That is action based on ego-centrism. Why id the man not working to provide for any other family? Because THAT family is HIS. If it were not, there would be no question of "selfless service".>According to Bhagavad Ghita if he has the correct internal motivations, then he is earning wealth without ego. No, the Gita very clearly states you have a right to your work, but NOT to the results.>>31843361Those using for the wrong reason are doing so out of material desire.
>>31843379Depending on internal motivations, a person working to support their family can be performing selfless service. A man can work overtime to send his son to school. This can be for his own egotistic reasons, or it can be a selfless desire to make his son have a better life, without thinking about how this influences his relationship to his son. >Gita very clearly states you have a right to your work, but NOT to the results.But most people get paid when they work. And so if they do it with the correct internal motivations, they will naturally earn wealth while doing it without ego.
>>31843426>Depending on internal motivationsYes.And that internal motivation is shown to NOT be selfless when they are trying to gain siddhis "because they are cool".>a selfless desire to make his son have a better lifeThis could still be ego-centric, since they are only concerned with this "son" because they are related to their body.Why is this father not concerned with all the other sons he had in previous lives or will have in the next?>if they do it with the correct internal motivationsAnd we are back to the original thing:OP is not doing this with correct motivation.They want powers because they want to enjoy the results.
>>31843444>This could still be ego-centricIt depends on internal motivations. No doubt most people supporting their children have selfish egotistical reasons for it. A spiritual person might see no difference between their son and a total stranger. He loves them both equally. He sees everyone as souls belonging to God. That his son has been placed with him for him to care for, not for him to parasitize from. >And that internal motivation is shown to NOT be selfless when they are trying to gain siddhis "because they are cool"."Because it's cool" can be a valid reason depending on context. It can mean a desire to show off. But it can also mean a great excitement for spiritual development. A somewhat related example is that the Talmud has ruled that it is permissible to study magic for purposes of learning, even though there are clear prohibitions against occultism. For example a person could cast a harmless candle spell to get a free coffee - something pretty harmless, but this will prove something about the spiritual nature of the world to him, and so it is permissible for a learning experience. If he gets carried away with chasing egotistical desires, then it is generally advised against.
I will tell you how he does this, but most won't believe me. I met one of his students who paid $10k+ to be in his inner circle back in the early 2000's. 1st of all there used to be a video from south america (maybe brazil) of an appliance repairman who learned how to hold an electrical charge in his abdomen from touching capacitors in crt tv's. He could set matches on fire and other such tricks, but it burned his fingers, and he complained of burns to his feet if they weren't insulated. This video was a local news report, spoken in spanish.Essentially this guy is doing something similar. He had a bunch of vids up in the early 2000's doing this and other tricks. The guy I met said they teach a form of tao meditation, but only inner circle students learn the secret, which involves a box you plug in and hold handles or touch pads that are conductive. This "guru" teaches then to learn how to manipulate the current and hold a charge in your abdomen like it was a capacitor, and how to release it for these tricks. He tells the inner circle he no longer needs the gaget, which is a lie. Thats why my acquaintance left.
>>31843529>But it can also mean a great excitement for spiritual development.Go back and read the thread. You are way off base.
>faggot yogi story tier shit>its almost as if using chi is cooler and more interesting than using a lighter and thats why they want to do it>reminds me of that fag yogi story where a guy wants to walk on water to cross a body of water and the yogi is like "LE WHY DO THAT WHEN U CAN JUST USE A BOAT LOL GOTCHA IM WISE BRO XDDD">tldr: kysThis is what you are defending as egoless.
>>31843561>>31843555It all depends on internal motivations and context.Sorry you can't see that. To a pure person, everything is pure. >>31843561You should read Ecclesiastes.
>>31843561To a pure person everything is pure. To an impure person, they corrupt even what is pure.
>>31843587>It all depends on internal motivations and context.And you are failing to see it because you are now locked in argument mode.Your desire to win has blinded you as much as OP's desire to enjoy magic powers.You should read the Chandogya Upanishad.
>>31843625You are taking a dogmatic approach, saying that siddhis are always bad. I am saying it depends on internal motivations and context. That's all we're really arguing about - dogmatism versus nuance. Good deeds flow out of a pure heart, and bad deeds flow out of an impure heart.
>>31843636>saying that siddhis are always bad.Quote where I said that, liar.
>>31843625>you are now locked in argument mode.Even this can be interpreted as pure or impure depending on my internal motivations. It is an egotistical desire to win?Is it desire for intellectual stimulation?Is it a deep love for truth, that I cannot stand to see dogmatic statements where there is nuance?Is it my training in my profession, where I have been trained to argue over nuance and focus on details?
>>31843653>It is an egotistical desire to win?>Is it desire for intellectual stimulation?>I cannot stand> I have been trained to argueSo all your reasons are impure and based on identity and ego.You have had bad teachers.Now take a few moments to go back and realize you lied about what I said.I think you have resorted to lying because - as I said - you are locked in argument mode.
>>31843648If you didn't say it, then I guess we agree?That the ethics of siddhis depends on context and internal motivations.
>>31843662Except I never said any of those were my internal motivations. No siddhis = no enlightenment.
>>31843648>So zero functionality, and a severe detriment toward spiritual advancement in the way it appears to inflate ego - both in the practicioner and in its advocates.
>>31843669>I guess we agree?Glad you can see how wrong your argument was.>>31843681So what was your motivation to continue to argue with someone that you now realize was right?
>>31835525>Dedicating 30 years of your very finite life, to be a portable torch that takes forever to start up.
>>31843701You mistake a critique of the internal motivation.Remember when you said that was important?Glad you went back and actually read the thread, though.
>>31843704>Glad you can see how wrong your argument was.The ethics of siddhis depends on context and internal motivations.>>31843704I don't think you're correct, see >>>>31843701You took a dogmatic stance which I didn't agree with.
>>31843711Chi does wonders like healing
>>31843734You keep repeating my point.The only reason you want me to be wrong is because you are locked into argument mode.Which is why immediately after agreeing with me, when I said you did you had to try and say you no longer agreed with me.
>>31843712I have no idea what you're saying. But good deeds will flow out of a man with a pure heart. If he is learning or practicing siddhis, he will have pure motivations, because his heart is pure. A man with an impure heart will view siddhis always through an impure view, with impure motivations.
>>31843759I have no idea what stance you're even taking. Did you change your idea from your original dogmatic stance? Because we did not agree on that, and I still don't agree with it.
>>31843765>I have no idea what you're saying.That desiring to gain siddhis for the purpose of personal enjoyment and ego is an impure motive.You already agreed with me.>>31843775Then you are a great fool, because you already agreed with me.Why would you agree when you have no idea what stance I have?You are getting very twisted up in your mind.
>>31843790>>saying that siddhis are always bad.>Quote where I said that, liar.>>So zero functionality, and a severe detriment toward spiritual advancement in the way it appears to inflate ego - both in the practicioner and in its advocates.You walked back on your original dogmatic statement in order to agree with my more nuanced view.
>>31843790>Then you are a great fool, because you already agreed with me.Not being able to clearly state your views in seen as a sign of low intelligence in western culture, even though in eastern culture the blame might be put on the person who doesn't understand.
>>31843817If that's what you think, you are sorely mistaken.I asked why spend the time to learn siddhi if you just want to start a fire.The only response was they wanted to look cool.So there motive had the description you have quoted.Not once have I said siddhis are bad.>>31843837The view has been clearly stated repeatedly.You chose not to understand.Again - locked in argument mode.Even after you agreed with me.
>>31837139Those vids are just hard to watch kek ppl are so fucking dumb
>>31843842>Not once have I said siddhis are bad.>>So zero functionality, and a severe detriment toward spiritual advancement in the way it appears to inflate ego - both in the practicioner and in its advocates.You already admitted you were wrong.I have nothing more to say.
>>31844022No matter how many times you misunderstand, it does not mean you have a point.You never had anything to say in the first place.
>>31839847Literal air would actually be one correct translation of the word