Microcosmic Orbit Question

[HoffmanBot3k]

Greetings,
I am a new face here, and I am currently working on a question regarding the Microcosmic Orbit question. I am obsessed with one question that I task myself with, and here it is: When we do the microcosmic orbit meditation, is it true that our free will (we guide qi up and down the front of the body, to dan tien, and up the backbone to the crown point) guides the qi? If so, how does something intangible like free will lead another intangible? Or, is it true that we are deterministic systems with no free will, and qi itself initiates the microcosmic orbit due to the body taking part of internal practice. However, if you are a compatibilist (you see fee will and determinism as two parts of the puzzle like yin/yang theory),I still want to know how the Microcosmic Orbit works for you. Yes, I realize that speaking of the Tao is missing the Tao, yet I am willing to break that rule for my research. Your answers will be respected, not picked apart, and also they will be cherished. All I want to hear are perspectives. Thank you for any answers you might give me.

 

[Wing Woo Gar39]

Greetings,
I am a new face here, and I am currently working on a question regarding the Microcosmic Orbit question. I am obsessed with one question that I task myself with, and here it is: When we do the microcosmic orbit meditation, is it true that our free will (we guide qi up and down the front of the body, to dan tien, and up the backbone to the crown point) guides the qi? If so, how does something intangible like free will lead another intangible? Or, is it true that we are deterministic systems with no free will, and qi itself initiates the microcosmic orbit due to the body taking part of internal practice. However, if you are a compatibilist (you see fee will and determinism as two parts of the puzzle like yin/yang theory),I still want to know how the Microcosmic Orbit works for you. Yes, I realize that speaking of the Tao is missing the Tao, yet I am willing to break that rule for my research. Your answers will be respected, not picked apart, and also they will be cherished. All I want to hear are perspectives. Thank you for any answers you might give me.

Are you a student of Yang Jwing Ming? I recommend his teaching on the subject. Some of my training brothers are focused on this practice with him.

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

Are you a student of Yang Jwing Ming? I recommend his teaching on the subject. Some of my training brothers are focused on this practice with him.

First, thank so much for your response and adding to my understanding.
As to MIng, yes indeed. I read his books in the 90s, and later trained with one of his students on the topic of Yang style Tai Chi.
I view myself more of a student of Hoffman than MIng, but that's my personal choice.

 

[Appledog43]

I realize that speaking of the Tao is missing the Tao, yet I am willing to break that rule for my research.

Good, because you had that part wrong. Speaking about the tao is not missing the tao. The point of that idea is that something's name is not what it is. The entire idea can be expressed here:

Now, if you are willing to say "Okay, let's look at the bird and what it's doing," then we can certainly do so! The idea here with the Tao is that it's about being on the same page with regard to certain ideas. I wouldn't worry about it too much so long as you remain open and honest about it.

When we do the microcosmic orbit meditation, is it true that our free will (we guide qi up and down the front of the body, to dan tien, and up the backbone to the crown point) guides the qi? If so, how does something intangible like free will lead another intangible? Or, is it true that we are deterministic systems with no free will, and qi itself initiates the microcosmic orbit due to the body taking part of internal practice.

It's not a matter of free will in the sense that we do or do not have free will. This is what it means to be on the same page and not worry about the names of things. If you get stuck on the debate over free will, you will not be able to experience your qi. So from a practical perspective, it is entirely possible for you to use your "free will" to guide your qi. It's just not advisable because you don't know where to make it go and you will seriously hurt yourself.

This common warning is actually the key to the entire pinata. I'll explain why you will always end up hurting yourself if you force it. It is the answer to your next question, "How does one intangible leads another?" It's the same as you going to pick up a glass of water. I assume you have done something like that in the past. Now, the movement of your body creates a movement in your qi. You just don't notice it. So the training is to use normal natural movements to try and incite qi flow and then study it. This can take a long time. Then once you have experienced it you can quote unquote "cause it to flow" by your quote unquote "will", but you're not controlling it directly -- you're controlling it through the motion of your body. You cannot cause the mind to move qi directly. If you did it would cause injury to yourself because you don't know where it should go. It would be like a train off the rails. The engine is the mind and the rails are the body. Without both the train (qi) does not move in the proper way. And, the mind moves very fast. If such a train suddenly lurched, it could cause incredible damage to itself and whatever is in its way.

That is the purpose of qi gong and other related exercises. First you must dig the channel before the water can flow in it. Although a more accurate analogy might be waiting for the plants to grow. They always grow towards the sun. Water always flows downwards, like electricity always finds the shortest path. But put another way, you don't necessarily know what that path is. You think you know, but you really don't! Knowing such a thing is not possible. Only doing it is possible. So you have to allow it to happen. This is what the training is for, and it takes many years of hard work.

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

First, thank you very much for taking the time to participate in the question posed. As for Taoism's stricture I nodded to, I am thinking of the first piece of advice that states: "The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name" (1). So, to my narrow understanding, saying "this is the Tao" is like mistaking a rope for a snake.

You said, "certain ideas." Can you please clarify your meaning here? Which ideas?

Also, you have written: " If you get stuck on the debate over free will, you will not be able to experience your qi." Please know that you employ a non sequitur that doesn't logically follow from your premise. This is not a critique, just a request for deeper meaning. Also, this is not a debate. Instead, this is a request for data. So, when you say in an absolutist sense that "If you get stuck on the debate over free will, you will not be able to experience your qi," what you are demonstrating is a false cause. You are saying for the case of questioning (or being "stuck") there is an erasure of experiencing qi. How do you know this for a certainty? What texts give you this absolutist idea?

Last when you say "It's the same as you going to pick up a glass of water. I assume you have done something like that in the past. Now, the movement of your body creates a movement in your qi," what text are you referring to here? In other words, how do you know for a certainty that a "body creates a movement in qi"? Any texts you can point to that gave you this information would be helpful to me. In conclusion, my topic is just a prompt on free will and determinism regarding qi. My thanks for your words. I hope you found me neutral and acting out of a spirit of seeking deeper data sets.

Short Biblio:
1.) Legge, James. Tao Te Ching by Laozi.

 

[Wing Woo Gar39]

First, thank you very much for taking the time to participate in the question posed. As for Taoism's stricture I nodded to, I am thinking of the first piece of advice that states: "The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name" (1). So, to my narrow understanding, saying "this is the Tao" is like mistaking a rope for a snake.

You said, "certain ideas." Can you please clarify your meaning here? Which ideas?

Also, you have written: " If you get stuck on the debate over free will, you will not be able to experience your qi." Please know that you employ a non sequitur that doesn't logically follow from your premise. This is not a critique, just a request for deeper meaning. Also, this is not a debate. Instead, this is a request for data. So, when you say in an absolutist sense that "If you get stuck on the debate over free will, you will not be able to experience your qi," what you are demonstrating is a false cause. You are saying for the case of questioning (or being "stuck") there is an erasure of experiencing qi. How do you know this for a certainty? What texts give you this absolutist idea?

Last when you say "It's the same as you going to pick up a glass of water. I assume you have done something like that in the past. Now, the movement of your body creates a movement in your qi," what text are you referring to here? In other words, how do you know for a certainty that a "body creates a movement in qi"? Any texts you can point to that gave you this information would be helpful to me. In conclusion, my topic is just a prompt on free will and determinism regarding qi. My thanks for your words. I hope you found me neutral and acting out of a spirit of seeking deeper data sets.

Short Biblio:
1.) Legge, James. Tao Te Ching by Laozi.

You could get several answers here. If you require text as proof of process I would recommend the more recent works of Dr Yang on this topic. He just gave an in depth 3 week seminar on this specific subject last month at his house.

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

Thank you for your reply. Like I said previously, I did read his book The Root of Chinese Chi Gung and a couple of his Tai Chi books. Pointing to a text as the genesis of an idea is a good measure. It's honest and direct. It invites more conversation, although, one must remember not all texts are equal.

As for Yang Jwing-Ming, he is a well-known teacher. He seems to follow a dualistic path wherein there is a property we will call "qi," which during the microcosmic orbit, can be led around in circuitous fashion by the will of the practitioner. So, he seems to qualify as an advocate of free will in a dualist category. Do you fit in this category was well?

 

[Wing Woo Gar39]

Thank you for your reply. Like I said previously, I did read his book The Root of Chinese Chi Gung and a couple of his Tai Chi books. Pointing to a text as the genesis of an idea is a good measure. It's honest and direct. It invites more conversation, although, one must remember not all texts are equal.

As for Yang Jwing-Ming, he is a well-known teacher. He seems to follow a dualistic path wherein there is a property we will call "qi," which during the microcosmic orbit, can be led around in circuitous fashion by the will of the practitioner. So, he seems to qualify as an advocate of free will in a dualist category. Do you fit in this category was well?

An advocate of free will in a dualist category? Perhaps you could elaborate?

 

[windwalker099105]

When we do the microcosmic orbit meditation, is it true that our free will (we guide qi up and down the front of the body, to dan tien, and up the backbone to the crown point) guides the qi? If so, how does something intangible like free will lead another intangible? Or, is it true that we are deterministic systems with no free will, and qi itself initiates the microcosmic orbit due to the body taking part of internal practice. However, if you are a compatibilist (you see fee will and determinism as two parts of the puzzle like yin/yang theory),I still want to know how the Microcosmic Orbit works for you.

Depending on the practice one follows, qi is understood as something present in all living things. In TCM, it’s not defined directly, but rather through its manifestations. No one asks, “Do you have qi?” but rather, “Do you feel the qi?”

Think of it like gravity: scientists can measure its effects with incredible precision and describe it mathematically, but its ultimate nature is still not fully understood. Qi is similar in that it’s experienced and described through a consistent framework — in this case, Traditional Chinese Medicine and internal practices — but it isn’t “defined” in a simple way. It’s understood through its manifestations, not as an isolated object.

From my experience, qi is always there — the work is becoming aware of it. The microcosmic orbit you mention is already happening naturally. Practice doesn’t “make” it happen; it helps us become conscious of it so we can refine and improve it.

“Guiding qi with yi” isn’t about forcing movement. It’s more like developing awareness of what’s already happening, recognizing where there are blockages, restrictions, or imbalances, and allowing adjustment through that awareness.

In this sense, what might sound “intangible” is very tangible to those who’ve trained in traditions where these sensations and processes are observable. The microcosmic orbit is already working for everyone — not everyone is aware of it, nor needs to be, unless they have an interest in practices that require it or seek treatment through TCM.

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

You bet.
So, classic Cartesian dualism attempts to make the case for a soul (or soul-like substance) abiding in a physical body. So, when we explain that when we use our will to lead qi, we are dualists and advocates of free will (not determinism). I hope this helps.

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

Depending on the practice one follows, qi is understood as something present in all living things. In TCM, it’s not defined directly, but rather through its manifestations. No one asks, “Do you have qi?” but rather, “Do you feel the qi?”

Think of it like gravity: scientists can measure its effects with incredible precision and describe it mathematically, but its ultimate nature is still not fully understood. Qi is similar in that it’s experienced and described through a consistent framework — in this case, Traditional Chinese Medicine and internal practices — but it isn’t “defined” in a simple way. It’s understood through its manifestations, not as an isolated object.

From my experience, qi is always there — the work is becoming aware of it. The microcosmic orbit you mention is already happening naturally. Practice doesn’t “make” it happen; it helps us become conscious of it so we can refine and improve it.

“Guiding qi with yi” isn’t about forcing movement. It’s more like developing awareness of what’s already happening, recognizing where there are blockages, restrictions, or imbalances, and allowing adjustment through that awareness.

In this sense, what might sound “intangible” is very tangible to those who’ve trained in traditions where these sensations and processes are observable. The microcosmic orbit is already working for everyone — not everyone is aware of it, nor needs to be, unless they have an interest in practices that require it or seek treatment through TCM.

Thank you for your cogent reply. It sounds like you are making the case for determinism, which of course, is just fine. Question: Which scientists measured qi's effects? Where can I read this study?

And while I understand the folk wisdom regarding qi, I have to wonder (by virtue of your account) if it is more like recognizing rigpa via Dzogchen practice. Your account seems to tickle my nondualism library in my head.

In closing, and as you know most probably, Harvard has hooked up Buddhist Monks to machines and determined that they were indeed able to reach deep relaxed states in the alpha and theta wave range. It seems like a perfect case of free will if and only if we write off some brands of nondualism.

Enjoyed your response. Thank you again.

 

[windwalker099105]

Thank you for your cogent reply. It sounds like you are making the case for determinism, which of course, is just fine. Question: Which scientists measured qi's effects? Where can I read this study?

And while I understand the folk wisdom regarding qi, I have to wonder (by virtue of your account) if it is more like recognizing rigpa via Dzogchen practice. Your account seems to tickle my nondualism library in my head.

In closing, and as you know most probably, Harvard has hooked up Buddhist Monks to machines and determined that they were indeed able to reach deep relaxed states in the alpha and theta wave range. It seems like a perfect case of free will if and only if we write off some brands of nondualism.

Enjoyed your response. Thank you again.

Your post is interesting…


There are plenty of studies on “qi,” both supportive and skeptical, feel the real question for anyone reading is: what does this information actually do for them?

Does it prove or disprove what they already know — or want to believe?

For me, qi is a concept understood through the lens of CMA — that’s the framework I work in. There are many people in China and Taiwan trying to define it in Western scientific terms, not something I’m particularly interested in.

If you’re curious, you might enjoy this documentary: The Mystery of Chi.

I’ve also seen the studies on Tibetan monks drying sheets in freezing temperatures through their practice. It’s fascinating, one might ask: is that the purpose of their practice? A byproduct? A test or measure of depth? Like many things, until it’s studied, people tend to be skeptical — often assuming something is faked — until it’s examined more closely, or experienced directly. Interesting, no?

Personally, I wouldn’t describe my own experience of qi as an “awakening” like rigpa in Dzogchen. It’s more about acceptance, letting go, and expressing that through physical practice.

I’ve filmed demonstrations that most people probably couldn’t replicate without similar understanding — sharing them often just shifts attention to me or my training partners, away from your thread...

Small story:

When I was stationed near the DMZ in Korea, I asked a ROK soldier who spoke some English if I could try my limited Korean. I said, “You call this 물 (mul), we call it water… what does it mean to you?”
He dipped his hand in his cup and flicked water at my face.

We both laughed.

 

[Appledog43]

First, thank you very much for taking the time to participate in the question posed. As for Taoism's stricture I nodded to, I am thinking of the first piece of advice that states: "The Tao that can be trodden is not the enduring and unchanging Tao. The name that can be named is not the enduring and unchanging name" (1). So, to my narrow understanding, saying "this is the Tao" is like mistaking a rope for a snake.

Yes, and philosophical Taoism allows for that. There is a certain humility in yielding. You have to be able to say "Okay, I know that I can't do this, so then, since I can't do it, what should I do instead?" So, for the purposes of discussion we can call it the Tao. As long as we both understand what that really means.

This is not a critique, just a request for deeper meaning. Also, this is not a debate. Instead, this is a request for data. So, when you say in an absolutist sense that "If you get stuck on the debate over free will, you will not be able to experience your qi," what you are demonstrating is a false cause. You are saying for the case of questioning (or being "stuck") there is an erasure of experiencing qi. How do you know this for a certainty?

Because I'm a master of Qi.

Last when you say "It's the same as you going to pick up a glass of water. I assume you have done something like that in the past. Now, the movement of your body creates a movement in your qi," what text are you referring to here? In other words, how do you know for a certainty that a "body creates a movement in qi"? Any texts you can point to that gave you this information would be helpful to me. In conclusion, my topic is just a prompt on free will and determinism regarding qi. My thanks for your words. I hope you found me neutral and acting out of a spirit of seeking deeper data sets.

There are some good books out there, Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming's books spring to mind. I find them colorful and easy to read. They have large margins in them where I can draw and write down my thoughts. All in all one of the better series.

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

Your post is interesting…


There are plenty of studies on “qi,” both supportive and skeptical, feel the real question for anyone reading is: what does this information actually do for them?

Does it prove or disprove what they already know — or want to believe?

For me, qi is a concept understood through the lens of CMA — that’s the framework I work in. There are many people in China and Taiwan trying to define it in Western scientific terms, not something I’m particularly interested in.

If you’re curious, you might enjoy this documentary: The Mystery of Chi.

I’ve also seen the studies on Tibetan monks drying sheets in freezing temperatures through their practice. It’s fascinating, one might ask: is that the purpose of their practice? A byproduct? A test or measure of depth? Like many things, until it’s studied, people tend to be skeptical — often assuming something is faked — until it’s examined more closely, or experienced directly. Interesting, no?

Personally, I wouldn’t describe my own experience of qi as an “awakening” like rigpa in Dzogchen. It’s more about acceptance, letting go, and expressing that through physical practice.

I’ve filmed demonstrations that most people probably couldn’t replicate without similar understanding — sharing them often just shifts attention to me or my training partners, away from your thread...

Small story:

When I was stationed near the DMZ in Korea, I asked a ROK soldier who spoke some English if I could try my limited Korean. I said, “You call this 물 (mul), we call it water… what does it mean to you?”
He dipped his hand in his cup and flicked water at my face.

We both laughed.

Thank you very much for the nod to the documentary. I will put it on my list of "To View." As for CMA and its framework, I fully understand what you are saying. My own introduction to our subject matter started back in the early 90s with my original Tai Chi teacher. After practicing with him for half a year, I experienced an anomalous event that my friends who were majoring in psychology filed under the "vivid dreams" category. I understand their need as believers in scientific materialism to sweep the event under the "dream" department. As you know, scientific materialism has no room for things that cannot be weighed or measured. At its core, it's a good system for a blind man as he feels out objects in the universe to determine their shape and weight; however, as for what they truly are (what Kant calls the ding an sich--thing in itself) they have no idea. And so, they double down on the material explanation so as not to be embarrassed.

As for me, I view the Tibetan Monk experiment with great joy. Finally, here is an event that proves under experimental conditions that we humans are capable of astonishing deeds. While I have never dried even one sheet, I had my second anomalous experience under the aegis of Jackson Peterson's shortened kundalini program. The event lasted for a week and usually began at 2:30 a.m., lasting for 15-20 minutes. There's more, but I abhor chest beating. And so, as you can see, those experiences became the need to ask my questions to a sympathetic crowd of other experiencers who have gone beyond the Western materialist paradigm.

Also, I agree with your explanation that in order to experience other facets of our reality (bad word, but you know what I mean), there is a need for a dropping off from the cliffs of scientific materialism. I think (and this is just my experience) Federico Faggin's notion of "quantum fields are conscious" is an interesting proposition that seems to gel with my love of Donald Hoffman's "conscious agents" mathematical theorem. I have to also say that for me the ancient philosophy of Samkhya seems to fit like a puzzle piece with the gentlemen I just mentioned.

For my money (as the saying goes), I think the qi experience goes hand in hand in with the "quantum fields are conscious." There's no way as of it to empirically test such an idea, but you have to open the door first to go inside. P.S., I loved your "water" answer. I laughed as well.
(

)

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

Yes, and philosophical Taoism allows for that. There is a certain humility in yielding. You have to be able to say "Okay, I know that I can't do this, so then, since I can't do it, what should I do instead?" So, for the purposes of discussion we can call it the Tao. As long as we both understand what that really means.



Because I'm a master of Qi.



There are some good books out there, Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming's books spring to mind. I find them colorful and easy to read. They have large margins in them where I can draw and write down my thoughts. All in all one of the better series.

Greets, thank you for taking the time to respond.

I agree with you that Yang Jwing-Ming's books are great. He tends (in my opinion) to bank on the spiritual dualism side of the matter, but oddly, and due to my experiences, I might as well. Personally, I don't generally speak of Taoism as a concept due to the advice in the Tao Te Ching. But that doesn't apply to Samkhya

 

[Wing Woo Gar39]

You bet.
So, classic Cartesian dualism attempts to make the case for a soul (or soul-like substance) abiding in a physical body. So, when we explain that when we use our will to lead qi, we are dualists and advocates of free will (not determinism). I hope this helps.

Such definitions are interesting, but altogether irrelevant to my practice as I see it. I might wonder your purpose for asking about the practice, and your personal goals in your practice?

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

Such definitions are interesting, but altogether irrelevant to my practice as I see it. I might wonder your purpose for asking about the practice, and your personal goals in your practice?

I think those are good questions.

As a nondualist who has had anomalous experiences with chi kung and Kundalini, I am searching out the experiences of others. You know how it is. As a singular individual, it is good to check experiences with others and compare in order to see the larger picture. Like the Buddhist Udana (a portion of the Pali Canon) describes, we humans are like blind men patting down an elephant in order to describe it. One blind man says the elephant is like a snake, and another says, "No, no, it is like a pillar." If these fellows collaborated, they might have a better picture of the elephant.

Please feel free to ask more questions if you have them.

 

[Wing Woo Gar39]

I think those are good questions.

As a nondualist who has had anomalous experiences with chi kung and Kundalini, I am searching out the experiences of others. You know how it is. As a singular individual, it is good to check experiences with others and compare in order to see the larger picture. Like the Buddhist Udana (a portion of the Pali Canon) describes, we humans are like blind men patting down an elephant in order to describe it. One blind man says the elephant is like a snake, and another says, "No, no, it is like a pillar." If these fellows collaborated, they might have a better picture of the elephant.

Please feel free to ask more questions if you have them.

That makes perfect sense to me. I try to accept my training experiences at face value and “not try to grasp the fish too tightly”. My belief is that these experiences are not so necessarily spiritually oriented, as they are difficult to explain and thus often couched in mystical terms. It serves as an obstacle in many ways. Regardless of spiritual point of view, it is my belief that these experiences are available to all humans to one degree or another. Though they may, as of yet be inadequately explained or measured in any meaningful way. Maybe you know a better way to grasp a fish?

 

[windwalker099105]

As a nondualist who has had anomalous experiences with chi kung and Kundalini, I am searching out the experiences of others.

Interesting choice of words… By labeling yourself as such, you’ve already moved into the realm of separation. Is not the distinction itself a duality ?

No need to answer just something that caught my eye

In Buddhist teachings, the phrase "the wave returns to the ocean".
It feels separate from it.. not realizing it is part of the ocean and will return to it.

Agree with your point: to truly experience other facets of our existence (poor word choice, but you know what I mean), we often have to drop off the cliffs of scientific materialism.

You might find this quote from The Tao of Physics interesting:

“In physics, the approximate nature of all statements is quantified, and progress is made by improving the approximations in many successive steps. How, then, do the Eastern traditions deal with the problem of verbal communication? First of all, mystics are mainly interested in the experience of reality and not in the description of this experience.”

Why sometimes I ask for videos of others work, and show some of mine...often found it to be counterproductive, no longer do so....


A small story:

When I was stationed at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, I worked with someone from the Army Primary Standards Laboratory — the center for Army metrology and calibration work, which cooperates closely with NIST to maintain national standards.

One of the scientists there, an American Chinese gentleman, was curious about my work. He could feel what I was doing and described it as a magnetic or electrical sensation. We arranged to use their lab equipment to see if anything could measure it — but nothing they had could.

That was about 40 years ago. I’ve since stopped trying to “prove” what I know through direct experience, though I still find studies on these topics interesting. It’s strange how many people research things they can’t actually feel.

In my own work, I help students feel something we both call “Qi.” It gives them a reference point for their reactions. As their perception grows and they stop questioning what is happening, they can focus more on why and how.

 

[HoffmanBot3k]

Interesting choice of words… By labeling yourself as such, you’ve already moved into the realm of separation. Is not the distinction itself is a duality.

In Buddhist teachings, the phrase "the wave returns to the ocean".
It feels its spereat from it.. not realizing it is part of the ocean and will return to it.



You might find this quote from The Tao of Physics interesting:



A small story:

When I was stationed at Redstone Arsenal in Huntsville, Alabama, I worked with a scientist from the National Institute of Standards and Technology (NIST). He was curious about my work and could feel what I was doing, describing it as a magnetic or electrical sensation. We used their lab equipment to see if anything could measure it — but nothing they had could.

That was about 20 years ago. I stopped trying to “prove” what I know through direct experience, though I still find studies on these topics interesting. It’s strange how many people research things they can’t actually feel.

In my own work, I help students feel something we both call “Qi.” It gives them a reference point for their reactions. As their perception grows and they stop questioning what is happening, they can focus more on why and how.

Right, the emptiness of words. I see what you mean. You dare not utter a noun for fear of missing the meaning. However, as the Diamond Sutra relays (and as neuroscience has demonstrated): “All living beings are to be led to Nirvāṇa. Yet after beings have been liberated, truly no being has been liberated. Why? Because no bodhisattva who is a real bodhisattva entertains the perception of a self, a person, a being, or a life-span (Section 3). So, where is the Self that has labeled itself? This is one serious question. I spoke of neuroscience's findings on "I." Here we go via paraphrase: Back in the 90s, neuroscience began piecing together the discovery that our Narrator ("I") is a projection of the Default Mode Network, which is an evolved network that allowed Homo sapiens to see icons on the horizon and remember their whereabouts (food, water, shelter). So, where is the "I" that labels itself? Interesting, yes? Last, you might recall the Buddhist concept of causality. In other words, dependent origination. In such a view, the Self (DMN) is not the ultimate agent of causation.

Question: You said "you" stopped trying to prove XYZ. Are you nodding to the DMN, or some dualistic ghost in the machine?
Question: How do you know qi is not teaching you? There is no agent of causation according to the Buddhism you nod to.
Question: How can fictional Narrators feel anything? Have you ever read the "Heart Sutra?"

"No feelings, perceptions, impulses, consciousness" (Kwan Um version).

I am sorry if this DMN has soured or rankled your DMN. Be well.