Talk:Qigong

qigong and reiki

I don't know much about qigong or reiki, but they sound very similar. I would like to see each article mention the other and briefly compare the two. Bhami (talk) 07:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

We can't compare them in the article, that would be original research on our part. We can report if someone else compares them in an independent mainstream reliable source. On a talk page it is safe to say that qigong is a much bigger subject, with a lot more variety. Qigong is Chinese, reiki, while a Japanese word, pretty much only exists in the west, reiki relies on channeling spirits and making magical squiggles in the air, while qigong is a person breathing in various patterns for various reasons. There are other differences, but that is a good start. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 23:16, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

the exercises

There's nothing about what the movements or breathing are. The pictures show what look like tai chi moves, and the only description of the breathing is "the inverse breath of inhaling to the back of the thoracic cavity rather than diaphragmatic breathing", which means nothing to the layman. (What's an inverse breath? What's the thoractic cavity?) A simple description or example is needed, and also how qigong is different from tai chi and yoga. (The talk archive says a bit about tai chi in the "Types of Chi-Gong" section.) Sluggoster (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:22, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Re: the movements, there are so many variations. Some movements are fairly common but others would be individual to one of the 100s or 1000s of styles in existence. Re: reverse breathing, it could be described but descriptions vary a lot and I doubt anybody would really understand even from the best of descriptions. --Simon D M (talk) 12:20, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, Wikipedia is not a how-to manual. We should be more general. There's no way we could describe the hundreds of different variants from style to style, or even the likely dozens of variants within styles. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 19:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs an Overhaul

I'm an acupuncturist and certified Qigong instructor. I unfortunately don't have time to rewrite this article for at least 6 months, but I need to point out some important inaccuracies. The section titled "the Rise of Qigong" is completely wrong regarding the origins of Qigong. The primary work cited is a book on a single, fairly new form of Qigong (Falun Gong). But Qigong predates Chinese medicine, kung fu, tai chi, and all other systematized arts based on Qi. Qigong is, in essence, more "raw" than these other arts -- it is essentially the practice of perceiving, cultivating, and manipulating Qi for spiritual, martial, or health purposes. According to Daniel Reid, in "Harnessing the Power of the Universe: A Complete Guide to the Principles and Practice of Chi-Gung," the earliest forms of Qigong are probably about 10,000 years old, and were the domain of tribal shamans. (Qigong of this era took a form similar to dance.)

Regarding the sections discussing the PRC government's role in the process of promoting and organizing Qigong, this needs to be put into proper context. Much of the history of Qigong has been fairly secretive, with master-disciple lineages similar to the kung fu tradition. Until recently, the government had no particular role in Qigong aside from threatening its practitioners. Even now, it seems the government's involvement is a concession to Qigong's great number of adherents, with the clear ulterior motive of suppressing mass organization. However, there is probably some earnest interest in proving its merit as a health supporting practice.

In the Uses paragraph, it is misleading to say Qigong employs a particular style of breathing, or even that "Taoist qigong employs..." As with kung fu, there are innumerable styles of Qigong, and certainly no unified theory or practice. As for making any claims of "Taoist Qigong," most Qigong masters probably consider themselves Daoists (more or less), and many would say their Qigong is based on Daoist principles. There is no single "Taoist Qigong."

I don't mean to hurt any feelings, but this article was written with a poor and incomplete survey of sources.

Anahata9 (talk) 06:25, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

What you see is what I call a "bulletin board" article; a compendium of at least 4 or 5 years of drive by editing, with almost every editor promoting their own school. If you can improve it, please feel free whenever you have time (I don't have much either) and especially if you have the sources. --Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 01:28, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

You fail as an qigong instructor without knowing what really is qigong. As the original article said, qigong in its modern form with different schools and types only appeared in post-mao china. There might be mentions of "qi", "neigong", "neijin" in Traditional Chinese Martial arts but they are not "qigong" as you know it today.

Just because the concept of "qi" existed for a long doesn't mean that it's qi gong. If there aren't any accurate sources saying hw those earlier forms became the "qigong" you know today, then it isn't qigong. The concept of qi is not qi gong. It's like saying Judaism is a Abrahamitic Monotheistic religion, Islam is a Abrahamictic Monotheistic religion. Therefore, Islam existed the moment Judaism began and Islam is Judaism. That is just plain ignorance.

Have you even wondered why the term "qi gong", just like "wu shu" didn't even exist in Chinese texts in pre-communist china? "Wu shu" is a watered down,exhibition oriented sport derivated from chinese martial arts. Wushu is not kungfu. Just like how the concept of qi is not qigong. Go look at the history of Chinese Martial Arts, there are no sects, schools, clans or families practicing or teaching qigong. There is totally no mention of qi gong. The controlling of "qi" like what qigong teaches now has seen little mention in traditional chinese martial arts. And by the way, "nei gong" is not "qi gong" and has little to do with the controlling of "qi". Don't get influenced by wuxia novels and by poorly researched books. 60.52.103.141 (talk) 18:30, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

"Health" as an analogy

I wonder how much of Western confusion results from a very literal interpretation. To make an analogy, consider the Western concept of health.

Everyone knows that a person can have good health or be in poor health. We may even say that a person can be stricken or afflicted with bad health, or lost his health due to unhealthy activity. We have buildings that say "National Institutes of Health". Yet there is no physician who can dissect the health out of a cadaver (reasonably enough) or even a healthy person. No one can say how much health weighs or what color it is. Two doctors can look at a patient and disagree about whether he is healthy or not. By far most of the times we see the word printed on the side of a box of sugared cereal extract or a jug of fortified juice-flavored high fructose corn syrup it means nothing about whether a person will get sick or not. In fact lots of people talk about health but only a subset of them are actually helpful. I hope that people who are fluent with both cultures will consider whether something similar applies to qigong, or if it is a fundamentally different phenomenon than this. Wnt (talk) 22:18, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

The interpretation of linguistic constructs is addressed somewhat at http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Traditional_Chinese_medicine where Manfred Porkert is quoted as saying:

Chinese medicine, like many other Chinese sciences, defines data on the basis of the inductive and synthetic mode of cognition. Inductivity corresponds to a logical link between two effective positions existing at the same time in different places in space. (Conversely, causality is the logical link between two effective positions given at different times at the same place in space.) In other words, effects based on on positions that are separate in space yet simultaneous in time are mutually inductive and thus are called inductive effects. In Western science prior to the development of electrodynamics and nuclear physics (which are founded essentially on inductivity), the inductive nexus was limited to subordinate uses in protosciences such as astrology. Now Western man, as a consequence of two thousand years of intellectual tradition, persists in the habit of making causal connections first and inductive links, if at all, only as an afterthought. This habit must still be considered the biggest obstacle to an adequate appreciation of Chinese science in general and Chinese medicine in particular. Given such different cognitive bases, many of the apparent similarities between traditional Chinese and European science which attract the attention of positivists turn out to be spurious.

Inductive logic is faulty compared to Causal logic because of the Base Rate Fallacy and other related cognitive biases. Because of this, choosing inductivity before causality is just plain irrational. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.83.223 (talk) 01:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

--Bradeos Graphon Βραδέως Γράφων (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe User:Wnt is seeking to discuss how health is treated as quantifiable in western medicine and whether or not a similar concept of health is applied in qigong theory. My understanding is that it is not, but I'm just trying to focus the topic, not provide an opinion on it. This quote seems ot be about something different. I believe Porkert is discussing the nature of causality and logic in Chinese medicine. In a sense, he is showing that TCM doesn't conform to the scientific method and relies on different standards for verifiability of claims (primarily induction rather than deduction). This is not linguistic: it is a cognitive paradigm. --Shaggorama (talk) 16:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. Let's put it this way. If someone holds his hand against you, there are several scientific things that emanate from his hand - warmth, sweat, germs, dead skin cells. There are several unscientific or fraudulent things that could be said to emanate from it - "aura", "life force", "healing energy", as these terms would be defined by most Americans (i.e. as simple physical forces that could be detected by Kirlian photography, rather than as descriptions of a possible or desired net effect). And then there are intangible things: comfort, help, curiosity, friendship, love, concern. I am worried that some of the perceived difference in perspective may be the result of confusing the intangible with the unscientific, but only if I were intimately familiar with both cultural perspectives would I be able to know for sure. Wnt (talk) 17:15, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

Just to clean up your lingo a little, let's use "empirical" and ob"objective" instead of scientific. I think that the difference in perspective, first off, is not just perceived; it rests in the differences inherent between the two paradigms and the incommensurability that results. The main confusion is that in china, the "intangible" is treated as empirical. The literature on chinese medical examination and treatment by acupuncture, for instance, goes back hundreds of years and has been evolving since. The problem is that in the west, we only treat something as measurable if it can be quantified by a machine (our version of objectivity), so although Qi is treated as empriical in China, it isn't in the West because it can only be examined subjectively by practitioners (although some folks claim to have "field reading" type devices that are suitable for TCM). Moreover, the emotional "intangible" notions you described are intimately tied into "tangible" chinese concepts, such as accupoints and qi. Basically, in the west there is a distinction between signs (objective) and symptoms (subjective), whereas in the east they are the same. --Shaggorama (talk) 06:19, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

I practice Qi Gong. There is nothing intangible about the things I feel inside my body when I do it. Or even when I'm 'not' doing it. 90.205.92.84 (talk) 01:02, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

link to a qigong site with more tham 100 different persons report on thier results from qigong training

I think it could be of interest to read about people who have practised qigong for some time. Here is a site where more than 100 people have related thier stories with name and photo. The site also relates to research and projects observed by medical doctors with significant result.

European Zhineng Qigong Center ArneNordgren (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2008 (UTC)ArneNordgren

Balance science view and eastern beliefs

Hello all. There are some views that qigong is pseudoscientific. Some of those come from pretty well meaning Chinese people and literature. But I do feel that this article should represent more about what is meaningfully symbolic to certian cultures concerning qigong. Phdarts (talk) 14:34, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

oh c'mon

Seriously people, this article drives me sick. It is so biased it pains me to see it's wikipedia content. It manipulates content in a way of making more relevant arguments made by believes of supernatural stuff. This is an encyclopedia, and not a self-help book. Even the definition of the article doesn't have sources. This is a pretty controversial article, yes - write about it in an unbiased way, talking about different groups' opinions and views. Repetitive but necessary: this is an encyclopedia.

200.158.99.250 (talk) 03:11, 15 October 2008 (UTC)