Forum Replies Created
-
Posts
-
RE: these questions, I offer the folowing, as mere opinions:
——-
** Is there consensus in the qigong community as to whether (a) Kidney Yang is distinct from Ming Men and (b) Kidney Jing is distinct from Kidney Yin?
——-Everything in the phenomenal world can be divided into yin & yang aspects. In the sense of the kidney(s), the kidney meridian (which is just the energy flow that is ending up as the physical kidneys) has yin/yang aspects, and so does the aggregate of kidney energy – so the “structure” has yin/yang aspects, and so does the “action” of the kidneys.
“Kidney yang” is the yang aspect of this structure and also its action.
The ming men is a different “thing”, and not a physical part of the kidneys, nor is the ming men the yin or yang aspects of the energy flow of the kidney meridian.
Kidney jing is something like the “essence” (hormones, hormonal action, hormonal potential) of the kidney/adrenals.
——-
** If they are distinct, what is the nature of Kidney Yin and Yang? Is it correct to view them as substances, like Jing, Blood and Qi?
——-No. The yin/yang associated with the kidneys are aspects of the structure and energy of the kidneys. Neither yin nor yang can exist alone. The two tendencies or aspects of “kidney” yin/yang are the tendencies or aspects expanding/contracting AS the kidneys and/or the energy flow of the kidneys as seen within the overall bodily/environmental energy flow.
We could say that the “nature” of kidney yin/yang is “water energy” or “water nature” within the 5 phases.
——-
** Is there a text where this is all explained with crystal clarity?!
——-Yes. It is called the human body, one of the best ever written, and is, hopefully, “free”!
In terms of the world of reading ideas and concepts, these are, as has been pointed out, often “contradictory”.
Follow the basis of the I Ching, the structure & movement of the universe, the way differentiation and contraction occur, and the basics should be comprehensible.
-VonKrankenhaus
It’s informative to imagine that one is a leader over others and concoct a list of ideal traits one would like in a group of one’s subjects.
Would you, as leader, want these subjects to be stronger and smarter than you?
Would you leave their growth and development to themselves?
After all, why do we suppose there is a large “self-help” section in bookstores and libraries? Is it that we maybe have some problems built into what we are all doing?
What is it that all of us have been involved in building, in this “society”, and for whom?
