# Origins of Tai Chi



## bgrant (Apr 3, 2007)

I sort of asked this question before, but I'd appreciate more insight. Is Tai Chi originally a short form developed into a long form so that teachers could make more money? Is it originally a Daoist martial art that is watered down with superficial movements? Finally, is push hands originally a part of Tai Chi? 

Thanks


----------



## oxy (Apr 3, 2007)

I think the answers for those questions are pretty much very similar for many other martial arts.

All martial arts come from something before it. A pattern is noticed. A philosophy is produced from it. Then comes the application of that philosophical framework which continually adds more to the original set.

I don't think it's possible to pinpoint an exact time and place. Things have the habit to change unperceivably(?) over time such that it's hard to tell where one thing ends and another begins, even though you can think there is one because the the thing at negative infinity is so much different from the thing at positive infinity.

Do people add things just to make more money? Why not? But I also think that adding things which has the side effect of extending something longer (thus more money) happens a lot more than simple maliciousness. Take the rule of thumb known as "Hanlon's Razor": it's better to assume something is done out of stupidity (read "without conscious decision") rather than maliciousness. It doesn't necessarily imply something is crap because of it. During my time of teaching, I often had to invent new ways of teaching just to make the student understand what I want from them. Sure it prolongs their learning time (and thus more money for the school).

Of course, then you get the mistake that people make that believe that the methods they were taught with are somehow "master's secrets" and start deriding other people because they weren't taught with those exact same methods. If they think about it, it's more because they themselves were too stupid to grasp what others could without it (but that's another rant). But because there are some people like this who does not perceive how easy it is (if you learn something properly) to adapt pre-existing principles to create new ways of teaching and thus believe it is somehow "important" that complexity is increasingly added to martial arts. Taiji is not immune from that, I don't think.

Watering down happens for a variety of reasons. Watering down, one must remember, is NOT the same as "dumbing down". For example, I think I read of YiQuan that the founder done away with the grandiose "knowledge" of qi and such in favour of better ways of explaining things. That is, watering down can sometimes be comparable to "refining".

Everything that changes goes through similar processes. It begins to grow; then can become tangled; then it gets trimmed; and it grows again. In nature, that's called evolution. In gardening, that's known as "mowing the lawn".

Watering down Taiji with superficial movements is highly dependent on the teacher and their style. Personally, (through monkeying around), I find it very easy to use principles I learnt to transform "superficial movements" into something useful that I can (perceivably) trick someone into believing it's some sort of secret if I can be bothered to do it. Telling the truth is much easier than to keep lies going unless you're in a conflict/war zone.

Taiji push hands is originally part of Taiji, since it is qualifed with "Taiji" at the front. But is push-hands a totally Taiji invention? It's more likely it was adapted from the human instinct of wrestling in close range combat. When that instinct branched off, you got shuai jiao or judo or whatever. Of course, you have more recent martial arts co-opting Taiji like push hands into their training.

Basically, to answer your questions in short: 1) yes and no 2) yes and no 3) yes and no.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 4, 2007)

First this is a very complicated issue and I absolutely dare anyone to give you a definitive answer to the true origin of Taiji. There are a lot of people in China researching this and multiple Taiji family members with their own origin stories and many do not agree. 

But it can depend on what you want to call Taiji.

The Chen family says they invented it and if you are talking about the Taiji we all do today it could be argued that this is true. But this is not to say that something was not existent before that was used to create Chen style Taiji.

However the historical root is a Taoist named Chang San-Feng. If you ask a Taoist this is true if you ask the Chen family this is a myth. Did Chang San-Feng exist, I tend to believe he did. Did he invent the Taiji we all do today I tend to believe he didn&#8217;t. Did he have something to do with it? I tend to believe he did. I tend to agree with some of the Chinese historians (not all) that are trying to figure this out. Chang San-Feng likely came up with something similar to the 13 postures, but there were more than 13. This was later combined with something called Taiji qigong add a dash of Shaolin and BANG you have Chen style Taiji which is the original Taiji. HOWEVER there are now some Zhaobao people disputing this or at least that Zhaobao comes from Chen, which for all intensive purposes it does.



bgrant said:


> Is Tai Chi originally a short form developed into a long form so that teachers could make more money?



Likely no.

Taiji, if you are speaking the Chen family was actually longer. Laojia Yilu was originally 108 forms and I believe now it is about 80. Actually the complete reverse of what you are asking is true. Many of the forms where shortened to gain more students and make more money. But this is actually more of a modern, post cultural revolution thing. 



bgrant said:


> Is it originally a Taoist martial art that is watered down with superficial movements?



Maybe yes and likely no. Was it originally Taoist, maybe yes. Was it taken and watered down? Likely no. 

I would not want to be the one telling anyone form the Chen family that there art is a watered down form of a Taoist art. That could result in a very painful answer. 



bgrant said:


> Finally, is push hands originally a part of Tai Chi?




Good question, likely yes.

Almost ALL Chinese styles have 2 person forms that are similar to push hands so it is likely that it is something that was originally found in taiji.

Now if you want to ask about the Jian forms, straight sword forms, then no those appear to have been added later. 

Also taiji is a very generic term there are multiple styles of taiji and the following is just the names of the style recognized by the PRC; Chen, Zhaobao, Yang, Wu, Hao, Sun. And now it is possible that He style will soon be recognized as well. But there are many other family styles of taiji.

One final thing;

Taiji is from a time when it was necessary to use martial arts to save your life. What was originally taught by many was very effective for that and not watered down because to do so would get you killed.


----------



## dmax999 (Apr 4, 2007)

Kung Fu Tai Chi magazine pointed out a possible example of where Chen style came from.  If you agree that was the original Tai Chi style you can trace all others from that point.  I had started a thread here about that.

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43218

Unfourtantly I haven't seen the Shaolin form Taizu Chang Quan that they claim that the Chen form came from.  They backed up their arguments better then anyone else before had, at least as far as I know.


----------



## bgrant (Apr 4, 2007)

Thanks for your replies. I sometimes feel that my teacher  lying to me.  should not be having these doubts.  It's probably best to move on.


----------



## oxy (Apr 4, 2007)

bgrant said:


> Thanks for your replies. I sometimes feel that my teacher  lying to me.  should not be having these doubts.  It's probably best to move on.



It's not about not having doubts. Doubting is good. Doubting is what freed us from killing each other for believing in slightly different things (mostly).

Doubting is only bad if you skip from doubt straight into action.

Doubting should, for maximum effect, lead to questioning/asking around.

There are some Taiji "teachers" out there who don't have a clue and probably have added stuff in, for a variety of reasons.

On my side, I do an internal martial art as well. I see many videos of my style where the person has obviously forgotten many of the postures and added stuff in to keep the flow going rather than finding out what they forgot.

So it's always good to be on your toes about things (but not into obsessiveness).

Look before you consider about thinking of leaping.


----------



## Xue Sheng (Apr 5, 2007)

dmax999 said:


> Kung Fu Tai Chi magazine pointed out a possible example of where Chen style came from. If you agree that was the original Tai Chi style you can trace all others from that point. I had started a thread here about that.
> 
> http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43218
> 
> Unfourtantly I haven't seen the Shaolin form Taizu Chang Quan that they claim that the Chen form came from. They backed up their arguments better then anyone else before had, at least as far as I know.


 
Thanks, I knew I put this somewhere before but I could not remember where

http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?t=43218/#5

Slight addition however, Taiji does not come from Shaolin, but there has been some speculation that says it may have influenced Chen taiji, particularly in pao chui, which I believe was also brought up in your original post.


----------



## marlon (Jun 13, 2007)

does anyone know what yang luchan or bnis son died of?  And at what age?

respectfully,
Marlon


----------



## NanFeiShen (Jun 14, 2007)

My 2 cents worth:
Firstly as agreed, the origins are shrouded in mystery, and lost in antiquity.
The reason being, very few written texts, and the secrecy surrounding each schools/families training methods. These were closely guarded secrets, that could mean the difference between life or death in a fight, so the techniques of each style were jealously kept.
Prior to the use of the name Taijiquan, it was only ever referred to as Chang Quan or Long Boxing, Taiji is relatively new.
So researching is difficult, is what the Long Boxing referred to in texts, the Taiji we know of today?, or does the Long Boxing refer to another style?, or from a different part of China?, very difficult to always tell the difference in the old texts. On top of that we have the "hard" system forms of Chang Quan as well to sift through.
One line of thought , is that the two were seperated by name, Taiji Chang Quan verses Chang Quan, to differentiate the "internal" origins and theory brought in by the Daoist influences, over the "external" of the original Chang Quan.
Another line is:


> The principle of Taijiquan is based on Wang Tsungyueh's Taijiquan Treatise using the idea of Taiji in Yi Ching , and the requirements for boxing. It stresses the application of the interaction of two opposites, Yin and Yang, to the strategy of fighting so as to achieve the utmost advantage over your opponent. However, this treatise provides a concise description without details to methodology.


http://www.scanews.com/caf/2002/06/06272002.html
I always find it interesting , that the treatise gives all the theory, but no art, and that the art was and is still referred to as Chang Quan.
So, it is possible that a form of Chang Quan was being practiced in the Chen Village, and that form was influenced by Wang Tsungyueh, who was refuted to have passed through the Chen village, and passed his theories on Boxing over to the villagers, redefining the form they were practicing.


----------

