qi/was tai chi

[Guest guest]

, sherrilgol@a... wrote:

> Thanks for bringing this up. I have practiced Wu style tai chi

since 1974

> and teach now around Miami. I think it is a profound advantage over

my TCM

> classmates who had no tai chi or qi gung experience, only WM

backgrounds.

 

 

I don't think anyone can argue that the practice of tai ji makes one

more refined and sensitive and clear. and that as much as immersion

as possible in chinese cultural practices only strengthens ones

abilites to practice medicine. However, I have a question in my mind,

given the multifaceted use of the term qi in chinese culture. Are qi

gong masters talking about the same thing as acupuncturists when using

the term qi? and are either talking about the same thing as

herbalists? Since qi is not a discrete monolithic entity, I wonder if

it is careless on my part to draw too many equations between various

disciplines when it is possible that the term qi was being used very

differently by each.

 

[Guest guest]

 

 

> Are qi

> gong masters talking about the same thing as acupuncturists when

using

> the term qi? and are either talking about the same thing as

> herbalists? Since qi is not a discrete monolithic entity, I wonder

if

> it is careless on my part to draw too many equations between various

> disciplines when it is possible that the term qi was being used very

> differently by each.

 

There is certainly carelessness in the field

on the subject of qi4, but I don't see that

the drawing of equations between various

disciplines, which may well have specialized

senses in which the term is employed, is a

particularly significant example of such carelessness.

The fact that a Ba Gua boxer might think of qi4

in a different sense than a Japanese acupuncturist

(just to cite one possible example of differences

in understanding of this one Chinese word) does

not negate the far more essential fact that

all disciplines that speak of qi4 are thereby

bound together by an integral and comprehensive

sense of what qi4 is.

 

This holds, I believe, not only for medicine

and martial arts but for calligraphy, poetry,

painting, music, dance, astronomy, astrology,

and all the other traditional arts and sciences

of ancient China that used the notion of qi4

as a descriptor of natural systems.

 

The fabric of traditional Chinese culture

is woven from the thread of qi4. Everywhere

you find it expressed, it tends to mean its whole

meaning. One of the ways that Chinese accomplishes

its characteristic heroic terseness is through

the long-term aggregation of rich harmonies

of meaning that takes place around a single

word or phrase. The job of careful students is

to come to terms with this wholeness. This

is one of the key aspects of gong1 fu3

that has been relied upon for centuries

to fashion the minds of medical practitioners

into the flexible and responsive instruments

that they need to be in order to administer

the various methods and substances that

constitute Chinese medicine.

 

What I find far more careless is the

attitude reflected in current standards

of instruction and examination on the

subject of qi4.

 

 

Ken