Knorxl wrote:It's called Buqi, and the site is http://www.buqi.net. Sounds are part of the healing techniques and are meant to give a direction to the energy movement.
Do you know if this chinese systems uses Taiji Pole vessel ?
If yes, does this system enables to dissolve the winds into one of the gates of Taiji Pole ?
khomus wrote:Can you talk a bit more about the sounds? E.g., are they tied to a
scale, do you play them on an instrument, sing them, in a succession,
make a melody, whatever? Sadly, the site you pointed me to seemed to
be a great big add for workshops. Don't get me wrong, they should do
all the workshops they can manage. It's just not all that likely
that I'll get to one.
(sent via Mail2Forum)
selfonlypath wrote:From what you've shared, the system you practice does not provide specific energy work on the *central channel* aka *sushumna* aka *taiji pole* aka *middle pillar* aka *no name channel* which is the only non-dual esoteric channel to enable self-realization process.
Like most Qigong variant, this system only deals with clearing dualistics channels or nadis or vessels that of course need to be stable before dissolving the winds (energy currents) into the non dual channel otherwise one can go through severe bio-mental-spiritual self-damage.
It is still an open question if khoomei is a more powerful sound clearing technique as opposed to classical yoga of sound or healing mantras... I think the answer is yes but never met so far a master of this very subject.
Knorxl wrote:I probably wasn't clear enough, then; I'm not that good at explaining something I do without involving the intellectual brain! Please accept my apologies.
Knorxl wrote:The opening of the central channel and the circulation of qi is essential to the Buqi system, combined with the elimination of binqi.
Everything I do while singing (or practicing taiji, qigong, as well as bodywork) involves the activation of the dantian prior to anything else, and of course the opening of the central channel. Without this, there would be limited results, indeed.
Knorxl wrote:There are many paths leading to the same place, don't you think?
selfonlypath wrote:[...]If you agree, let us go back to the purpose of this forum which is about overtone singing. Since your system includes central channel clearing plus you have studied under Nikolay Oorzhak, i would be interested in your personal experience and advices of using khoomei to clear the central channel.
throatsinger wrote:knorxl wrote:"Not everything is explained in detail, though, particularly concerning the technical aspects; the reason for this is that the teacher is worried than people might think they can 'get it right', so to speak, just with reading a book, and he finds this risky. If you don't learn how to do things properly, you may end up either not getting any result, or worse, you can end up doing things in ways which can be detrimental to your physical or mental health."
Sometimes, with certain things (and throat-singing can be one of them) this is certainly the case. However, I suspect that such warnings of risk are often exaggerated, at least for a sensible and moderate person, and are sometimes motivated by financial and "mystique" motivations. I am not accusing this teacher of any such thing, but note that I feel that it is quite common. In addition, toeing the line of tradition can interfere with one developing one's own intuition and sensitivity, which is often more relevant and useful than any teachings.
throatsinger wrote:knorxl wrote:"I wouldn't dare say that I 'have studied' under Nikolay, having just followed one workshop with him a couple of weeks ago - although I really hope I can follow many more workshops with him in the future."
I lived and worked closely with Nikolai for several months, but that was years ago. It seems that his practice and teachings have changed quite a bit.
throatsinger wrote:knorxl wrote:"Obviously his way of using khoomei is very effective..."
For you, what makes this so obvious? I'm not arguing otherwise, just interested in knowing.
throatsinger wrote:knorxl wrote:"As I'm writing this, I realise that it's probably not so much the techniques used which matter, but the power developed by the person using them. Hence my theoretical question: 'What would have been the result of the same number of healing sessions with another person treating me, using the same techniques?'"
I submit that in this work, the most important things are intent, belief, attitudes, thoughts, and feelings (on the part of all participants), combined with the setting, and the skill (abilities, regardless of techniques) of the healer. High expectations can be very powerful.
throatsinger wrote:Also, even when getting results, there are short-term and long-term results. Short term improvements, while valuable, are much more common. This often escapes notice.
throatsinger wrote:selfonlypath wrote:From what you've shared, the system you practice does not provide specific energy work on the *central channel* aka *sushumna* aka *taiji pole* aka *middle pillar* aka *no name channel* which is the only non-dual esoteric channel to enable self-realization process.
Yow! You are claiming that this is factual and true?!?! How can you do that? Sorry, whenever anyone claims that their way (or that of their teacher) is the ONLY way, I must ask how you know. Are you familiar and knowledgable in every possible method, technique, etc., which would be required if your claim is valid?
throatsinger wrote:selfonlypath wrote:It is still an open question if khoomei is a more powerful sound clearing technique as opposed to classical yoga of sound or healing mantras... I think the answer is yes but never met so far a master of this very subject.
I think the answer is no.
throatsinger wrote:I'm not sure exactly how you define "sound clearing technique." Please explain. And anyway, would one method, khoomei or classical yoga or ? be intrinsically and always superior for all people with all situations and contexts?
throatsinger wrote:selfonlypath wrote:Yes, I agree and what you just wrote is one step towards the dissolution of ego.
Is this truly desirable? I used to think so, when I was more easily convinced by my previous teachers. Now, I'd no more wish to lose my ego than my foot! We have an ego for a good reason, and I suggest that we need to expand its range and abilities rather than to dissolve or "kill" it. Perhaps we need to define "ego," or at least attempt to do so?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest