"Scientific investigation

There have been a number of studies of qi, especially in the sense used
by traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture.

These studies have often been problematic, and are hard to compare to
each other, as they lack a common nomenclature.

Some studies claim to have been able to measure qi, or the effects of
manipulating qi, such as through acupuncture, but the proposed existence
of qi has been rejected by the scientific community.

A United States National Institutes of Health consensus statement on
acupuncture in 1997 noted that concepts such as qi "are difficult to
reconcile with contemporary biomedical information"

In 2007 the MD Anderson Cancer Center at the University of Texas
published an article covering the concepts by which qi is believed to
work and research into possible benefits for cancer patients.

A review of clinical trials investigating the use of internal qigong for
pain management found no convincing evidence that it was effective."



--- In [email protected], Anthony Wu <wuasg@...> wrote:
>
> JMJM,
>
> Excuse me for butting in after some pause.
>
> I agree with you that 'chi' is not an illusion. The routes of chi
flowing in the human body can be tracked by modern science, using
electro-resistance method. Chi can also be felt by long practicing. It
cannot 'take care of itself'.
>
> On the other hand, I find it hard to agree with your statement that
'mind' is the false self, while 'heart', including feelings, sensations
and awareness, is the true self. Feelings etc are part of the emotions,
which are sometimes harmful. They are not scientifically associated with
the heart. The misunderstanding dates back to Kumarajiwa more than a
thousand years ago. When he translated 'citta', he found no better word
in Chinese than the the character 'xin', for heart. In much later dates,
the English language took 'mind' to represent 'citta'. So don't be
mistaken, both 'heart' (except for the physical organ) and 'mind' are
the same. I wonder how year teacher say in reference to the word 'mind'.
>
> Anthony

Reply via email to