# Pa Kua Rules



## Jotaro Joestar (Apr 3, 2003)

This question is for everyone who practices Pa Kua/Ba Gua

How many rules are there in the Pa Kua that you practice and/or taught.

We have something like 64, but they are not all enforced.


----------



## Jotaro Joestar (Apr 3, 2003)

This question is for everyone who practices Pa Kua/Ba Gua

How many rules are there in the Pa Kua that you practice and/or taught.

We have something like 64, but they are not all enforced.


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 4, 2003)

Rules?


----------



## Jotaro Joestar (Apr 4, 2003)

Example of Rules are...

Form like a dragon
Expression of a monkey
Sit Like a tiger

and 
Positions of your neck, chin, hips, shoulders, etc.


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 5, 2003)

And you have 64 of them?


----------



## chufeng (Apr 5, 2003)

I'm sorry...I refuse to do PaKua with the expression of a monkey...unless it's at that one point when walking the circle when one would express jing if one were to take one more step. 

chufeng


----------



## East Winds (Apr 6, 2003)

And presumably you don't bother with the 10 principles of Taiji either !!!!!!

Regards

"When asked about breathing in Tai Chi my Master replied "Yes keep doing it"


----------



## East Winds (Apr 6, 2003)

Jotaro Joestar,

Yes, despite what the Yili guys are saying, "the rules" are vital to the study of Bagua. Clearly they have never heard of the last "rule"  ...."The true principles of Bagua are all inside"

"Fire on the top and water on the bottom, the water is heavy and the fire is light"    Clearly Chufeng thinks the bottom has another purpose in Bagua:rofl: 

Jotaro, keep paying attention to the principles. It is only by doing this that you will discover the REAL essence and art of Bagua.

"When asked about bresathing in Tai Chi my Master replied, "Yes keep doing it"

Best wishes


----------



## dav (Apr 6, 2003)

say jotaro where do you practice at???????????????????


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 6, 2003)

Regettably, I have studied Bagua for only a few decades and I was never taught 64 rules.  There are a number of "rules", yes...but not 64 of them.  I wonder if he is referring to postures?

East Winds - perhaps you could enlighten us and list the 64 rules?


----------



## arnisador (Apr 6, 2003)

See also the discussion here:
http://www.martialtalk.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=7148


----------



## Jotaro Joestar (Apr 6, 2003)

Rules 1-8 govern the posture

Rules 9-12 relate to the forces in Pa Kua (kuen chan shen li, chie chen siang sen)

Rules 13-16 deal with movement and the ever-changing body postures, foot postures

Rules 17-64 deal with more stepping rules, postures, breathing, chi placement, etc.

Unfortunately, I do not have permission to give the list of rules out.  But I hope that this gives you a better understanding of what "rules" that I am asking about.


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by East Winds _
> *And presumably you don't bother with the 10 principles of Taiji either !!!!!!
> 
> Regards
> ...



Depends on which 10 principles you are talking about...  I have always had the "10 commandments" of Taiji firmly in mind - 

1. Raise Spirit to the Top of the Head: The neck is straight (but not stiff) and the spirit (awareness) is brought to the crown.

2. Yi and Qi Move Together: When the mind moves, the Qi goes with it.  Where the mind is directed, Qi follows instantly.

3. Swallow the Chest and Raise the Back: Let the chest relax inward, allow the shoulders to drop naturally and sink the Qi to Dan Tien.

4. Breathe from Dan Tien: Always use reverse breathing.

5. Lower the Shoulders and Bend the Arms: Never arch the chest or straighten the elbows.

6. Relax the Waist, Knees and Hips: Never stiffen the legs or waist.  Loosen them so they move easily.

7. From Coccyx to Crown, You Must Stand Straight: But not stiff.

8. Inside and Outside Must Be Balanced: You cannot relax if your mind is tense.  Likewise, you cannot be calm if your body is tense or strained.

9. Movement is Continuous: Do not break up the movements of the body.

10. All Movement is Circular: Even when it appears straight.

Is that what you are talking about?

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## mikkel2 (Apr 7, 2003)

Two questions:

What is the relationship between yi and qi?

What is reverse breathing?


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 7, 2003)

Alright...I've just never heard of putting them all down as "rules."  

"Yi" refers to one's will, imagination, idea, etc.  The yi directs the chi.  Basically, where the mind (yi) goes, the chi goes.

Reverse breathing is a type of breathing favored by the Daoists and involves contraction of the abdomen on inhalation followed by expansion of the abdomen (actually the whole lower body, including the sides and lower back) and "pressing" down into it on exhalation.  This is opposite of what humans normally do and that's why it is called "reverse" breathing.


----------



## East Winds (Apr 7, 2003)

Yiliquan1

If you study Yang Taiji (as you claim to do), then there are only ten principles or essences, and these were formulated by Yang Cheng-fu himself.

1. Raise the spirit by lifting the head
2. Sinking Shoulders and elbows
3. loosen the chest and round the back

These three essences concern the upper body

4. Loosen the waist/rotate the body
5. Understand the substantial and insubstantial

These two essences concern the lower body

6. Co-ordinating the upper and lower body
7. Linking without breaks
8. Unite internal intent and outside body
9.  Use Mind not force
10. Seek stillness in motion and motion instillness.

The first five essences are the physical requirements of the body and happen in sequence. You cannot be doing essence two unless you have essence one in place and essence three cannot happen until essence two is in place and so on.

It is the same with esences 6 - 10. These can only happen when the first five essences are in place. When these are in place essence 6 can happen. 6 brings out 7. Once you have 7 you can create 8. 8 brings out 9 and finally 10.

These are not just some hotch potch sayings cobbled together that happen in any order. They are the real foundations of Taiji structure and form. If you fail to understand even THAT basic fact, you are not doing Taiji and it is no surprise therefore that you believe "real" Taiji no longer exists.

It is exactly the same with the principles (rules) of Bagua and Xingyi. Throw away the "rules" and you throw away the art, or you never really had it in the first place. (like not bothering with walking the circle)!!!!

Best wishes

When asked about breathing in Tai Chi, my Master replied "Yes keep doing it"


----------



## Quick Sand (Apr 7, 2003)

Yilisifu,

What you call reverse breathing sounds like what we do when breathing in music. It's really important to breath "from the abdomen" because your breath support controls everything else when singing or playing a wind instrument of any kind. I just thought I'd mention that an easy way to teach it to students is to have they lay down on their backs on the floor. We naturally breath from our stomachs when lying down instead of from the chest which we tend to do when standing. 

You probably already knew that but I thought I'd mention it. I've also had teachers put books on my stomach when lying on the floor because then you can really see the expansion on breathing in. It looks silly when people walk in on a class and have no idea what your students are doing on the floor with books on their stomachs though.  

I've done so much of this that I tend to breath from my my lower abdomen most of the time now. 
:asian:


----------



## chufeng (Apr 7, 2003)

East Winds,

My comment was tongue in cheek...

Regarding animal shapes...it is less mimicking the movement of the animal as much as trying to capture the spirit of the animal in any given posture...

Sorry if I offended anyone.

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Taiji fan (Apr 7, 2003)

re the 10 essences......it is surprisingly easy to intellectualise the essences and also surprisingly easy to violate them in taiji practice.  no. 5. Understand the substantial and insubstantial for example ..... it is quite common to see double weighteness in beginners and also even in much more experienced pratitioners to not fully understand the consequences of lining up the body in relation to the weight.

6. Co-ordinating the upper and lower body
7. Linking without breaks

these two go right out of the window as soon as the practitioner goes into any 'ball holding' throughout the form just realised that could be misconstrued....I ahve heard many teachers break the form into bits with two main elements, this rediculous idea of holding the ball in transitionary moves and bringing the stepping foot close in and then swinging it back out in a semi circle or just as bad, pausing with the toe on the ground in a transition step.....all big no no's.

Foundations of any arts are very important and the lack of attention to the 'rules' etc is why we have so much rubbish around pretending to be taiji and other CMA's.  It doesn't matter if an art is new or old, it needs a solid foundation.


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by East Winds _
> *Yiliquan1
> 
> If you study Yang Taiji (as you claim to do), then there are only ten principles or essences, and these were formulated by Yang Cheng-fu himself.
> ...



Sounds pretty much like everything I was taught...  Slightly different wording, perhaps, but the content remains the same.



> *These are not just some hotch potch sayings cobbled together that happen in any order. They are the real foundations of Taiji structure and form. If you fail to understand even THAT basic fact, you are not doing Taiji and it is no surprise therefore that you believe "real" Taiji no longer exists.*



Perhaps I have failed to communicate my ideas completely...  It isn't so much that I believe that "real" Taiji no longer exists, but rather I believe that 99% of the people out there that study Taiji would be hard pressed to do anything with it.  They spend all their time practicing forms and push hands, and precious little time smacking the hell out of each other with what they are learning.  I believe in the validity of forms practice as well as the use of push hands and other variant exercises to develop sensitivity, but the folks that never, ever mix it up to see whether they can apply what they have learned are just practicing slow motion aerobics...



> *It is exactly the same with the principles (rules) of Bagua and Xingyi. Throw away the "rules" and you throw away the art, or you never really had it in the first place. (like not bothering with walking the circle)!!!!*



I agree with you entirely.  I think it is just that we don't term them "rules," and simply make all of the "rules" conditions of correct practice...  The "rules" are internalized from the get go, and so are understood as the movement is done...  I am having a hard time explaining this fully - suffice it to say that we _are_ following the rules, we just don't term them that way.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## East Winds (Apr 7, 2003)

Chufeng,

I would never take offence at anything you say. I enjoy our occasional verbal jousts I respect your opinions even although I might not always agree with them.

Yiliquan 1

Yes, I think a lot of people are not doing "real" taiji and I think a lot of it is due to mis-understanding and half understood principles, as well as poor teaching. (Dare I say also the result of "sanitised" Taiji i.e. 24 step!!!!) I do not mean to cause offence and please do not take it that way.

Yang Cheng-fu's "essences" are pivotal to the study of "real" taiji. The point about the essences is that they need to be worked on in sequence. Until you are doing the first one, you cannot possibly be doing the second one and until you are doing the second one you cannot possibly be doing the third one and so on up to numnber ten. That is if you have enough time in your lifetime to reach number ten.  They are accumulative. When (perhaps I should say if) you reach number 10, then you are doing "real" taiji. 

I enjoy jousting with you Yiliquan guys. It is like testing your opponent in push hands. The occassional hard push just to make sure they are still paying attention and the occassional  "giving" just to make sure they are not over extending.

Very best wishes


When asked about breathing in Tai Chi, my Master replied, "Yes, keep doing it"


----------



## Jotaro Joestar (Apr 7, 2003)

san antonio


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 7, 2003)

Quick Sand -
   Yes, but what's crucial is that the abdomen contract on inhalation and expand on exhalation.

   Most singers tend to use deep abdominal breathing, but it is still "normal" breathing with the abdomen expanding on inhalation and contracting on exhalation.


----------



## dav (Apr 7, 2003)

where in san antonio? who is your teacher?


----------



## Jotaro Joestar (Apr 8, 2003)

Shaolin-Do

Sifu Ryan Howard


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 8, 2003)

So you study Shaolin-do _*and*_ Bagua?


----------



## Jotaro Joestar (Apr 8, 2003)

Bagua is taught in Shaolin-Do


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 8, 2003)

And I think we return to the crux of why folks have trouble with Shaolin-Do...

The arts of Xingyi, Taiji and Bagua are extremely complex.  I have been working on them (and a very small number of forms in comparison to SD's curriculum) for over 16 years, and I still have quite a way to go...

So how is it you are practicing Bagua within Shaolin-Do?  What is the nature of your training?  You spoke of 64 rules, but what, specifically do you do to train your Bagua?

Just curious.  I could care less whether you were doing Shaolin-Do's Bagua or Shotokan Bagua...  I'm just curious how you identify it as being apart from the rest of the 500+ forms you have in your style.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## zen_hydra (Apr 8, 2003)

Yiliquan1,

Shaolin-Do is a school.  The art taught is Shaolin kung fu in its many  forms.  Bagua, Xingyi, Taiji, Black Tiger, White Crane, Mantis, etc are all comprised of different exercises, teachings, meditations, and forms that make them styles unto themselves.  We are not taught a mish-mash of random techniques, but we are exposed to many different styles.   There is a great deal of (for example) Bagua material, and one could spend their life dedicated to developing their skills in this style.  At Shaolin-Do you learn a basis in various external kung fu forms to lay down the ground work.  This begins to prepare you mentally and physically for what comes later.  When one becomes a disciple (at 1st black), then they are finally done with the prep. work and can begin learning the more demanding styles (including the internal styles).  Shaolin-Do offers some curriculum outside it's normal teaching structure in the form of seminars.  This allows students to be exposed to seldom taught forms, and higher level material (such as Bagua) that may be many years down the road for them otherwise.   I hope this answers some of your questions.  As always, I am happy to shed some light on peoples misunderstandings.


----------



## dav (Apr 8, 2003)

jotaro i do some bagua and tai-chi in s.a. tx if you would like to know more just about bagua maybe i can help you just pm me


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by zen_hydra _
> *Yiliquan1,
> 
> Shaolin-Do is a school.  The art taught is Shaolin kung fu in its many  forms.  Bagua, Xingyi, Taiji, Black Tiger, White Crane, Mantis, etc.*



The main problem with that, though, is that Bagua and Taiji are both Taoist arts, not Buddhist, and Shaolin was a Buddhist temple...  Xingyi was primarily (according to the Yueh Fei legend) the art of soldiers, not monks and priests.  Whatever.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## SRyuFighter (Apr 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *The main problem with that, though, is that Bagua and Taiji are both Taoist arts, not Buddhist, and Shaolin was a Buddhist temple...  Xingyi was primarily (according to the Yueh Fei legend) the art of soldiers, not monks and priests.  Whatever.
> 
> Gambarimasu.
> :asian: :tank: :asian: *



Hoho slam! That is a fair question that deserves a fair answer Zen?????


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 8, 2003)

> _Originally posted by SRyuFighter _
> *Hoho slam! That is a fair question that deserves a fair answer Zen????? *



Not a slam, just one way of looking at the issue...

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## zen_hydra (Apr 9, 2003)

...and both (Taiji and Xingyi) are arts that at one time or another where taught at the Fukien temple.  If you look at the history, the Shaolin temples where often a refuge for ex-soldiers and criminals looking for a santuary.  A great many of the Shaolin kung fu arts originated from former soldiers, but where adopted and sometimes refined by the monks.  Fair enough answer for you???


----------



## zen_hydra (Apr 9, 2003)

...also I believe it was the Shaolin temple at Wudong mountain that adopted Taiji as one of it's primary styles.  They taught Taiji (an internal style) to their students as one of the first styles they would learn.  The Taoist component of these martial arts was not a conflicting factor.  The Chinese have always been a people of many beliefs and neither Taoism nor Buddhism really negate each other.  In fact, the Taoist principles behind these martial arts work in harmony with Ch'an Buddhism.  As always I am happy to be of service.


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 9, 2003)

I'm not trying to start anything, but....

   There is absolutely no evidence anywhere that Xingyi was ever taught at the Fukien Temple, or Taiji either.  Taiji has it's roots in Shao-lin as do numerous systems, but the finished product (Taijiquan) was never a part of the Shao-lin regimen.

   Xingyi wasn't hardly known at all until the mid 18th century and Taiji was not commonly practiced until close to that time; it was largely restricted to the Chen Village and a few other practicioners.

   While it is possible that some renegades lived within the confines of the temple and may have practiced these arts, it's a very long step to state it as fact.

   The written histories of Xingyi and Taiji (and their oral histories as handed down by the oldest practicioners of current times) make no mention of their arts being taught at the Shao-lin Temple, either in Hunan or Fukien.


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 9, 2003)

As a note of correction, there has never been a Shao-lin Temple on Wudong Mountain, which is regarded (also) as the birthplace of various internal Daoist arts as well as Daoist sanctuaries.  

   No temple of any kind ever called itself Shao-lin and taught Taiji to it's students.

   Who has been providing you with this historical material?


----------



## SRyuFighter (Apr 9, 2003)

Okay so Taoism and Chan Buddhism are similar. Why would that mean that a Taoist Martial Art was taught at a Chan Buddhist Temple. Again if I sound stupid then just tell me so because I know absolutely nothing about CMA.


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by SRyuFighter _
> *Okay so Taoism and Chan Buddhism are similar. Why would that mean that a Taoist Martial Art was taught at a Chan Buddhist Temple. Again if I sound stupid then just tell me so because I know absolutely nothing about CMA. *



I think that is the point that is being made.  The link between Shaolin and Wudang arts is tenuous at best...  The fact that some Shaolin exponents and some Wudang exponents may have, at one time or another, known each other and exchanged information, fails to support claims that either art was taught at either establishment.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## zen_hydra (Apr 10, 2003)

Yilisifu,

There is unfortunately very little historical evidence about a great many thing pertaining to the Shaolin temples.  The documents that have been found are often confusing and seemingly contradictory.  I think that it is likely beyond the grasp of most of us lay-historians to be able to sort out all of the facts from the misconceptions.  Regardless, whether you feel it is true or not, there are a great many people around the world (including China) that believe that Taiji, Xingyi, and Bagua where taught to, and by some of the Shaolin monks.  I hope that we can just agree to disagree on this.  The truth is, that there are a great many things about many martial arts schools (Chinese or otherwise) that are hard to substantiate.  Especially regarding the reliability of histories going back several generations.


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 10, 2003)

Actually, there is a great deal of substantiated history regarding the Shao-lin Monastery.  Much of it has been uncovered in recent years.

  I understand that you want to remain faithful to what you have been taught and that's admirable, but I must say that I've not met anyone, particularly inside China, who believes that Xingyi and Bagua were ever a part of the training regimen of Shao-lin.

   If I'm not mistaken, Bagua was not developed until shortly before or sometime after the destruction of the Shao-lin Monastery.


----------



## zen_hydra (Apr 11, 2003)

Yilisifu,
As I pointed out in my previous post, the historical records are far from complete, and several different sources give contradictory information.  I would also point out that Shaolin-Do is far from the only Shaolin arts school to teach these internal arts.  I would go so far as to say that most schools teaching Shaolin arts also teach internal forms (at least that has been my observation).  I am not sure where you are trying to go with this.  You have not provided anything more than your opinion, and that is fine, but really that is all it is.  I am sure that you believe that you are more knowledgeable than most people on these topics, but you really only come across as a troll.  In fact many of the threads that I have seen you on end up in a flame war.  I think that perhaps you are lacking in proper respect for others.  You (and several of your supposed students) spend a great deal of time spreading negativity on these forums.  I think that it is clear to most that anyone as close minded and disrespectful as that should probably refrain from participating in these discussions.  I for one, am not impressed by someone that asserts his opinion as gospel.  I find it very amusing that someone, who just made up their own style, has been questioning the legitimacy of any martial art, let alone one that is as well rooted in the past as the one I practice.  I have tried to keep this a polite discussion.  I have proposed that we agree to disagree, but you have been unwilling.


----------



## Erkki (Apr 11, 2003)

Zen,

I'm sorry, I don't see where YiliSifu insulted you.  He merely disagreed with your point of view, using the historical evidence that he knows about, which you say is not accurate due to your having sources that know better.  I'm sure no one will disagree if you could cite your sources and/or give us a synopsis of what really went on at the Shaolin Temple (specifically pointing out where the history books got it wrong).
In any case, just because someone disagreed with you does not justify your rude response, which included a personal attack.  No one attacked your character so I'm curious as to why to responded the way you did.

As far as Yili people coming across as being negative, I can see where a lot of people would think that.  We are very passionate about martial arts and our views are often different from the mainstream.  That doesn't make us bad people, does it?
Also, please keep in mind that we ARE discussing topics through a website, therefore it is very difficult to convey the true meaning of what we say.  There is A LOT of misinterpretation and we all need to chill out and try to communicate, rather than bicker.


----------



## zen_hydra (Apr 11, 2003)

Erkki,

Are you literate in the English language?  If so, perhaps you should actually read my post before going off half-cocked.  I told Yilisifu that his opinions are not historical fact, and that he should not speak as if they were, and here you come like a rabid hamster, claiming that I am starting a personal war on this guy.  I can't respect someone (Yilisifu) who feels the need to "debunk" other peoples martial arts with what amounts to unsubstantiated o-p-i-n-i-o-n.   If he, and you were anything more than trolls then you all would be doing a lot less bashing, and lot more citing of sources.  

by Erkki
" As far as Yili people coming across as being negative, I can see where a lot of people would think that. We are very passionate about martial arts and our views are often different from the mainstream. That doesn't make us bad people, does it?" 

You are trying to justify your negativity by calling it enthusiasm?  There is no logic in that.  I am passionate about the martial arts, but I don't go around claiming that your school is wrong, and foolish, and that your art is crap.  If I did, how would that make me look?  How would that make my school look?  The negativity, and downright hostility that you Yili people have shown on these boards is all the proof that anyone needs to see that your school does not teach proper respect.  All this is compounded by the fact that the founder of your style (Yilisifu) is trolling right along with the rest of you.  

Don't take my word for it people, look up some of the threads these "passionate" martial artists have posted on, and they will damn themselves as trolls.


----------



## chufeng (Apr 11, 2003)

> Erkki,
> Are you literate in the English language?





> and here you come like a rabid hamster


I see no evidence in Erkki's post of this alleged behavior.


> If he, and you were anything more than trolls


You deny posting pesonal insults...but the above two statements would indicate otherwise.


> I for one, am not impressed by someone that asserts his opinion as gospel.


Like you did?
For instance:


> also I believe it was the Shaolin temple at Wudong mountain that adopted Taiji as one of it's primary styles. They taught Taiji (an internal style) to their students as one of the first styles they would learn.



You stated:


> The negativity, and downright hostility that you Yili people have shown on these boards



In response to Errki's 





> There is A LOT of misinterpretation and we all need to chill out and try to communicate, rather than bicker.



I don't want to see this thread go down in flames...so, I suggest everyone step back for a moment and think before posting. I find  much of this thread ironic...

IMHO
:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Erkki (Apr 11, 2003)

> _Originally posted by zen_hydra _
> *Erkki,
> 
> Are you literate in the English language?  If so, perhaps you should actually read my post before going off half-cocked.*



Apparently not.  Could you please explain what you mean by half-cocked and how you came to your assessment that I went off that way?  I felt I was being rather polite.  I apologize if it didn't come across that way.



> *I told Yilisifu that his opinions are not historical fact, and that he should not speak as if they were*



Yes, you did tell him that.  But you offered no evidence to back it up, other than that you claim to have spoken to people in the know.  Until you can produce historical evidence yourself then you should follow your own advice and not speak as if your opinions are historical fact.



> *and here you come like a rabid hamster, claiming that I am starting a personal war on this guy.*



I made that 'claim' based on the insults you flung towards Yilisifu, which you are now flinging at me.  I don't recall likening you to a small mammal, so why do you insult me in that way?

I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest with you.  I was merely trying to head off a flame war that you have now started in full effect.  Again, I apologize if my comments are insulting to you.  They are not meant to be.  Please, read the last part of my initial response to you.  It is too easy to misconstrue what someone's intent is over the internet and because of that opportunities to learn from each other are lost.


----------



## ECYili (Apr 11, 2003)

Actually, from what I see on the forum, the yili guys seem to be fairly respected by most.  And are more then willing to give the respect back to those who deserve it.

Just becaue someone doesn't take history at face value and decides to research it to come up with the real answers and then decides to share it with others, even if what is said contradicts popular theory doesn't make them an opinionated troll.

Please lets keep everything civil.  Calm discussions will yield better results.


----------



## zen_hydra (Apr 11, 2003)

Erkki,

...All too true.  I guess I did misconstrue your intent.  If I have spoken falsely of anyone, I humbly apologize (I concede that the hamster remark might have been a bit insulting).  I will readily admit that everything I have stated on this thread so far is my opinion, based on my readings, observations, and experiences.  As far as I am concerted, my part of any argument here is finished.  I will happily post citations of historical texts to back up my claims when I get the opportunity, and I encourage Yilisifu to do the same.  However, please don't make the assumption that the burden of proof lies solely upon my shoulders.  It was after all the Yili folks that challenged the validity of the teaching of Taoist arts at a Ch'an Buddhist temple (two ideologies that are not mutually exclusive.  

My biggest frustration on this thread (like many others) is that the original topic was trolled away by the likes of Yiliquan1 (and company).  Twisted, if you will, far off topic. 

Regardless of what historical record can prove, the fact is, that the internal Chinese arts play a very integral role in the advanced teachings of the Shaolin-Do System.  It is really pointless to argue at what point they became integrated into the teachings.  Would it make the school less viable if at some point the exiled Shaolin monks saw the value of learning the Taoist arts?  Grandmaster Su Kong Tai Djin was reportedly a martial arts genius, is it unbelievable that he incorporated these internal arts into his own teachings?  He lived at the right time to have learned all of them (Xinyi, Bagua, and Taiji)?  

Here are a few quick citations from sources unconnected to Shaolin-Do:

"Yu Feis martial arts came from the Shaolin tradition and thus credit Da Mo as the original Xinyi ancestor" Master Liang Shou-Yu & Dr. Yang Jwing-Ming, Hsing Yi Chuan - Theory & Applications (1990).

"Master Su Yu-Chang suggests that Yu Fei combined the aspects of the Shaolin and Baji Chuan styles to create Xinyi" Website of Master Su Yu-Chang of the Pachi Tanglang International Martial Arts Association, Venezuelan branch, see www.catalogoweb.com/pachi/hsingi_e.htm. 

"Bagua Zhang is an ancient internal martial art generally characterized by a preference for open-hand fighting, circular movements, and evasive footwork. Its foundation is built upon the yin and yang circle. Its complexity is to control your opponent while doing circles around them. Not knowing which angle and direction the person is coming in. The founder Dong Hai Chuan, who gave birth to Bagua, is the father on paper but nobody really knows who started the art. It has been passed down from Master to student and is here in the Shaolin Temple School. The art took off when Grandmaster Dong Hai Chuan competed and not just one but made a change in the Martial Art world. The idea not of linear fighting and forms was a big change to the world."  Gin Yee Baguazhang, see http://www.shaolinlomita.com/bagua.htm

...More to follow.


----------



## chufeng (Apr 11, 2003)

Zen_hydra,

Thank you for keeping a level head.

I have several points to make...

#1) YiLiSifu has NOT been involved in flame wars on this WebSite.

#2) YiLiQuan1 has been involved in flame wars...but usually to point out inaccuracies in someone's post...he is usually more than willing to admit being wrong when he has been shown to be wrong. (That said, he does have HIS opinion...and he is entitled to it...and unless he brings shame on our school, I will not attempt to quiet him...this is America, after all.)

#3) I have been in ONE flame war...I apologized...

#4) I post to correct, when necessary...I post to answer questions...I post to offer a different perspective...

#5) No one has all of the answers...even the ones with the most experience in a particular art may be mistaken on points related to history (since Chinese history has been rewritten many times).

#6) To state that us YiLi folks are always BASHING others is patently WRONG...and, although you probably did not want to come across as insulting, you did...that is why I asked everyone here to think before they post...I've been guilty of "reacting" to a post, without stopping long enough to think about it before responding...I usually eat foot, on those occasions.

Good training to you sir...
:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Erkki (Apr 11, 2003)

Thanks for the follow up post Zen.

And thanks for citing your resources.  It really helps to see where you're coming from, which can lead to a much more profitable discussion.


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 11, 2003)

I must say that I am rather surprised that I would come across in the way it seems that I was taken.  I was careful to point out that I understand zen hydra's wish to remain true to his system, and in regards to Wudong and Shao-lin, I started with, "If I'm not mistaken...."

    That said, I certainly concede that a good number of schools which teach Shao-lin in one form or another often offer training in the so-called "internal" systems such as Xingyi, Taiji, or Bagua as well.

   I have never claimed to be the ultimate authority on anything, but martial arts history is one of my few passions...

   There is a legend that states that Yao Fei founded Xingyi.  However, numerous other martial arts schools name him as their founder as well (i.e., eagle claw).  Naming certain "favorite" and highly-regarded Chinese historical figures as founders (of various systems) was felt to lend the system some measure of credibility and was not an uncommon practice.  However, even Robert Smith acknowledges that there is no solid evidence to support this claim.
   I don't believe that anyone is certain where Yao-Fei's martial training was derived.

   Legend states that one Chi Lungfeng chanced upon a Daoist hermit somewhere in the Chung-nan Mountain between 1637 and 1661.  He was the first known practicioner of Xingyi and claimed to have learned the art from the mysterious hermit.

   I must say that using enigmatic hermits who live in remote mountain ranges has also been a favorite source for many Chinese schools of martial arts...rather than admit that "I made this style up all by myself," they attribute it to some unknown hermit...

   Taiji traditionally credits it's formation to Chang Sanfeng, but recent research in the PRC has shown this claim to be inconclusive as almost no evidence has been found regarding this person.  There were many arts similar to Taiji which were developed during his lifetime.
   The original form of Taiji (now known as the Chen style) was founded by Wang Tsungyueh who subsequently taught Chen Wangting (who had been an officer in the Ming Army under the command of the legendary Chi Jiguang who trained his commanders and troops in various martial techniques which he gathered from various sources).
    Chen returned home to Chen Village (Chen Jiakou) in 1644 when the Ming Dynasty collapsed and the Ching Dynasty was established.  It was then that he began to train under Wang.  The art was not very well-developed until the late 1600's.

     Like Xingyi and Taiji, Bagua traces it's lineage back to a mysterious hermit who Dong Haichuan claimed was his teacher (during the early Ching Dynasty).  
     Recent research in the PRC indicates that Dong studied at the Shao-lin Temple in Honan and was very fond of their palm strikes.  He later departed the temple and found a group of Daoists whose main form of chigong was done whilst walking around the rim of a large circle.  Putting the two together and using his genius, he created the new art himself.  But again, rather than admit to that, he gave credit to an unknown sage who existance has never been proven.

     The Honan and Fukien Shao-lin Temples were destroyed during the reign of Emperor Kang-Xi, sometime in the late 1600's (Kang-Xi was the first Ching Emperor and that dynasty was established in 1644).

     Now, the point I am trying to make is that it is very highly unlikely that Xingyi, Taiji, or Bagua ever became a standard part of the training regimen at either temple.  I believe this because the two temples were destroyed and most of the monks butchered shortly after these styles became established. 

    Taiji remained a closely-guarded secret in Chen Village until it was taken into Beijing and outside of the Chen clan by Yang Luchan.  This occured in the early 1800's which would be long after the destruction of the Shao-lin Temples.

    Bagua was taught only in and around Beijing for many years which again would mean that the remote Temples would probably not have been exposed to it at all.  

   Xingyi's problem is even greater.  The founder's best students were Tsao Chiwu and Ma Xuehli.  Tsao became a commander of the imperial Ching forces stationed in Shansi Province and under the direction of Emperor Kang-Xi (who was responsible for the destruction of the Shao-lin Temples).  It is more than a little unlikely that anyone from Shao-lin would  even want to talk to him.
     Ma Xuehli died at a young age although he taught a few students.

    Now, if these arts are taught within Shao-lin Do, that's fine.  I have no problem with that and I have never indicated otherwise.  I simply felt that you might have some errors in your histories and wished to point them out to you.  If you find this abrasive, I'm sorry.  I certainly don't mean to come across in that fashion.


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 11, 2003)

> *Originally posted by zen_hydra
> 
> My biggest frustration on this thread (like many others) is that the original topic was trolled away by the likes of Yiliquan1 (and company). Twisted, if you will, far off topic.*



Whatever.  

I commented on the spurious connection alleged to Shaolin by nearly every CMA tradition.  Everyone, in China and abroad, wants to jump on the Shaolin bandwagon to somehow further legitimize their art's lineage.

I'd say that at _least_ half of the folks claiming Shaolin ancestry are full of crap.  The other half are probably only half right...

To call me a troll is nuts.  If I wanted to act like a troll, I would have called into question all sorts of things about your art.  As it is, I know precious little about Shaolin-Do other than what is common public knowledge, and none of that is favorable.  I admitted that much, and invited you to substantiate your comments so I could better understand your perspective.

Some folks just seem to have some kind of problem backing up what they say...  I'm really getting tired of having to defend myself for asking simple questions of people who make public comments that fly in the face of commonly held beliefs.  Personally, I don't believe Shaolin is the hotbed of martial arts training that so many others do.  Pacifist Buddhist monks don't go around smacking the hell out of each other and passers by.  Nor do pacifist Buddhist monks tend to look outside their religious traditions to study the traditions of other religions that advocate smacking the hell out of people.

Whatever.  Think what you want.  Keep your opinions and ideas to yourself and continue to be offended by requests for clarification.  That way nobody will benefit from anybody else's information and we can all remain blissfully ignorant in our own little caves...

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## zen_hydra (Apr 11, 2003)

Yilisifu,

Thank you.  That was a much more articulate series of points that you made.  That is much more in line with the kind of discussion that I hoped to have here on these forums.  

I have no source to cite at the moment, but my studies show various rebuilding and subsequent destructions of the Shaolin Temples from about 1800 thru the early 20th century.


----------



## chufeng (Apr 11, 2003)

Zen-hydra,

Not that YiLiSifu gives a darn about such things...but, you never apologized for calling him a troll...

Quite frankly, I don't care what you think of me...but you called MY teacher a troll with no reason, no evidence, and then insulted my school to boot...

I do not advocate BASHING other systems...I do think that there is a lot of trash being taught...and when someone makes grandiose claims with little to support it...I will pipe in...and I would expect any teacher to do the same...but...

...as MY teacher made no comment against your school and only questioned the particular history you posted about Shaolin, I do think you owe him an apology...

and since you admit the following:



> I have no source to cite at the moment



...my previous comments still stand.

Good training to you...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## zen_hydra (Apr 11, 2003)

chufeng,

....so close..... Your previous post came off so close to being civil that I thought that you might actually be trying to be considerate to others.  Why, oh, why, did you feel the need to start up with this again??????

zen_hydra states 
"If I have spoken falsely of anyone, I humbly apologize,"  that is as close as it is going to get.  

chufeng states 
"...my previous comments still stand."  

Which comments are those? 

I have stated already that I am no longer participating in any hostilities

zen_hydra states
"As far as I am concerted, my part of any argument here is finished."

If you feel the need to continue stirring up trouble you can do so all by yourself.


----------



## arnisador (Apr 12, 2003)

Everyone, please, keep the discussion polite, respectful, and on-topic.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## Jotaro Joestar (Apr 12, 2003)

Actually, I started the thread wanting to know how many people knew of the 64 rules to Pa Kua and how many practiced them on a regular basis.  (At least the schools that had a similar 64-rule history).  

I had no intention of this thread to turn out just like every other thread turns out when people find out that there is another damn Shaolin-Do student.  

I personally find it insulting that a person cannot state there school here on this forum without being harassed about their history.  If I wanted to discuss such items then the topic of the thread would not be "PA KUA RULES," and would be "I study the highly flamed art known as Shaolin-Do, please let us argue as much as we can and never get anywhere!"  

I expect people to have respect for themselves, their art, and martial arts in general.  But obviously that is not going to happen here.  I had heard that Martialtalk.com was not prone to same flaming that most of the other martial arts message boards where full of, but there are always people who have to make others feel unwelcome.



I felt that it was an attack when Yiliquan1 stated...

 "And I think we return to the crux of why folks have trouble with Shaolin-Do...
The arts of Xingyi, Taiji and Bagua are extremely complex. I have been working on them (and a very small number of forms in comparison to SD's curriculum) for over 16 years, and I still have quite a way to go...
So how is it you are practicing Bagua within Shaolin-Do? What is the nature of your training? You spoke of 64 rules, but what, specifically do you do to train your Bagua?
Just curious. I could care less whether you were doing Shaolin-Do's Bagua or Shotokan Bagua... I'm just curious how you identify it as being apart from the rest of the 500+ forms you have in your style."


I personally do not care if you have had trouble with my art and I am glad that you have spent 16+ years with the forms that you have studied.  No one will argue that a person can spend a lifetime on mastering one or a few forms.  

If you had read any of the posts by the Shaolin-Do students in the Shaolin-Do? thread you would have learned that there are not 500+ forms taught out in the curriculum.  The fact that you intentionally ignore that is insulting.  Our Grandmaster may be a martial arts genius the kind that no one has ever seen before in this generation.  It does not matter to you.   You and several others seem to have you minds made up that he cannot possibly be what he claims to be, so what does it matter to you.  

I intentionally had refrained from posting, because I knew where this thread was leading with such a response.  I have no intentions of arguing with you.  You can believe what you want to, and I can believe what I want to.  Let us just leave it at that.  Perhaps some day we can have a civil discussion about Pa Kau Rules.

If you have nothing to say about Pa Kua Rules then do not comment on this thread.  Start a new thread please.  

I just would like to be able to ask questions and post comments without harassment.  I would not do the same to you.  Please have respect for yourselves, your school, and your teacher.


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Jotaro Joestar _
> *I personally find it insulting that a person cannot state there school here on this forum without being harassed about their history.*



I didn't harass you or any other SD student about your style's history...  What I did ask was how, with such a large curriculum, did the Three Classics get specifically sorted out.  If a person is studying a much larger degree of external or combination forms, and the actual percentage of internal forms is considerably smaller, I was wondering how the training compensated for the disparity.



> *I expect people to have respect for themselves, their art, and martial arts in general.  But obviously that is not going to happen here. *



Only if you persist in your attitude toward answering questions that those of us who know very little about your art pose.  If you remain abrasive and resistant to answering questions because your sensitivity and defensiveness preclude you from simply providing information, then no, there will be little in the way of civility.



> *I had heard that Martialtalk.com was not prone to same flaming that most of the other martial arts message boards where full of, but there are always people who have to make others feel unwelcome.*



Oh, you haven't been flamed yet, believe me...



> *I felt that it was an attack when Yiliquan1 stated...
> 
> "And I think we return to the crux of why folks have trouble with Shaolin-Do...
> The arts of Xingyi, Taiji and Bagua are extremely complex. I have been working on them (and a very small number of forms in comparison to SD's curriculum) for over 16 years, and I still have quite a way to go...
> ...



Sorry you felt that way.  You took what I wrote in completely the wrong context.  I attribute that to your defensive nature regarding critiques of your art.  It is understandable that you would be that way, what with the treatment SD gets on the internet, but it doesn't justify your or others' oversensitive replies to questions.



> *I personally do not care if you have had trouble with my art and I am glad that you have spent 16+ years with the forms that you have studied.  No one will argue that a person can spend a lifetime on mastering one or a few forms. *



Never said a single, solitary, negative thing about Shaolin-Do.  Would you like me to so you can tell the difference?



> *If you had read any of the posts by the Shaolin-Do students in the Shaolin-Do? thread you would have learned that there are not 500+ forms taught out in the curriculum.  The fact that you intentionally ignore that is insulting.*



My one and only encounter with Shaolin-Do was a visit I made to the Soards' school in Colorado Springs back in '91.  And on a board above the main training floor was a list of all the forms taught...  I didn't count them, but there had to be at least 100+.  I understand what has been said by SD students on MT before - not all of the forms are mandatory, and at advanced levels students are allowed to specialize.  Fine.  But all of those forms _are_ included in your curriculum, mandatory or not, based on what was displayed in that school.  If I'm wrong, please tell me in what way.



> *Our Grandmaster may be a martial arts genius the kind that no one has ever seen before in this generation.  It does not matter to you.   You and several others seem to have you minds made up that he cannot possibly be what he claims to be, so what does it matter to you.*



I think the key is that it _doesn't_ matter to me.  Not one whit.  If he is the genius he is proposed to be, fine.  I really don't care.  I think it is more an issue of those who believe him to be a genius having a problem with those that don't care...



> []BI just would like to be able to ask questions and post comments without harassment.  I would not do the same to you.  Please have respect for yourselves, your school, and your teacher. [/B]



First, if you equate posting without questions (and without tough questions at that) being asked, I guess you would be hard pressed to find an internet forum where you wouldn't be "harassed."  I don't remember harassing you, or any of the Yili folks for that matter.  We posted questions and contradicting information, that is all.  It has been the tone of the SD folks' posts that sounds very much to me like people who are already set in their worldview and are implying that those who don't believe similarly are incorrect from the outset...

Secondly, our comments have been just as equally "harassed" in reply.  So saying you wouldn't do the same is incorrect, since you already have.  Good for you.  Keep it up.  It keeps us all honest.

Lastly, having respect for myself, my school or my teacher doesn't really enter into this.  I am my own man, and I can speak for myself.  If I were speaking in such a manner as to bring discredit to my school, then you are generalizing my comments as representing something other than my own opinion.  You have yours, and I'm not assuming that all SD folks are of like minds necessarily.  So don't admonish me to behave in any particular manner.  We are not in Asia, we are not bound by extracultural mores.  We are all able to voice our singular, individual opinions, and if folks don't like that, they will either pipe up or learn to live with it.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 12, 2003)

The reason I spoke on the matter is because I felt that the history was off kilter.  I am a teacher and have studied both Bagua and a form of Shao-lin for a very, very long time and I know that there is a lot of misinformation out there.  Some people have been misinformed by others while some have simply made errors in their own research.  I do what I can to help get things sorted out.  This may cause tempers to flare, but my interest is in getting to the truth of the matter.

   In the case of the Shao-lin Temple(s), I know of no evidence to indicate that they were rebuilt following their destruction during the reign of Kang-Xi, the first Ching emperor.  This is not to say that they weren't rebuilt; but in my years of research, I have found no indication of it.
   In fact, the destruction (during the Ching Dynasty) left only five surviving monks (who has been present during the battle; others would have been away from the temple at the time) who became known as the Five Former Ancestors.  These monks went to different parts of China in an effort to teach the populace and ultimately overthrow the Ching government.
   Their actions were in vain.  Although they helped found numerous underground societies, none were ever successful in overthrowing the government.  The Boxer Rebellion of 1900 put an end to the Ching Dynasty and the rest is pretty well known insofar as history goes.
   If these five survivors split up (as the traditional history states), they would not have been around to rebuild the temples or re-open them to teach a new generation.  The results of their teaching (the public) led to the development of numerous styles with which we are very familiar today; Mok-Ga, Fut-Ga, Lau-Ga, Choy Li Fut, Hung-Ga, and so on.

   The "Bagua Rules" question still has me confused as I've never heard of 64 seperate rules although I have studied Bagua (lineage from Chang Chaodong) for several decades.  Some schools teach 64 postures or even 64 "forms", but I've not heard of 64 rules.

   I don't believe that this can be taken as harassment in any way and I don't feel that Yiliquan 1's reply was harassing, either.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Apr 12, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *The main problem with that, though, is that Bagua and Taiji are both Taoist arts, not Buddhist, and Shaolin was a Buddhist temple...  Xingyi was primarily (according to the Yueh Fei legend) the art of soldiers, not monks and priests.  Whatever.
> 
> Gambarimasu.
> :asian: :tank: :asian: *



Not to mention White Crane was invented by a woman named Fan Qiang Liang.


----------



## chufeng (Apr 12, 2003)

> "If I have spoken falsely of anyone, I humbly apologize,"



A generic apology for a specific insult...whatever 

If that's the best you can do, that's the best you can do.



> Why, oh, why, did you feel the need to start up with this again?



I am not trying to "start-up" anything...I simply pointed out that you owe YiLiSifu an apology...you responded as above...so I guess that's the end of it...



> Your previous post came off so close to being civil



Interesting observation...I'd like you to point out where I've been uncivil in this thread...
oh, you mean the part where I posted excerpts from your posts?
As I said in my "civil" post...sometimes we (I include myself in that "we") eat foot.

Good evening

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## chufeng (Apr 12, 2003)

Jotoro Joester,



> Actually, I started the thread wanting to know how many people knew of the 64 rules to Pa Kua and how many practiced them on a regular basis.



I didn't post (other than my first tongue in cheek comment) on your thread BECAUSE I had nothing to add...no answers for you, sorry...

Then, I saw MY teacher being insulted by someone and I spoke up.

Sorry for the intrusion...

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 12, 2003)

> *Originally posted by Jotaro Joestar
> 
> This question is for everyone who practices Pa Kua/Ba Gua
> 
> ...



Perhaps listing the 64 rules could help to clarify whether people are practicing according to them  It may be that many people are doing just that, but referring to the rules you speak of in different terms.

Why does your school not enforce all of them?



> * Originally posted by Zen-Hydra
> 
> Shaolin-Do is a school. The art taught is Shaolin kung fu in its many forms. Bagua, Xingyi, Taiji, Black Tiger, White Crane, Mantis, etc are all comprised of different exercises, teachings, meditations, and forms that make them styles unto themselves.*



So how many styles are you taught?  Are you taught the entire style?  Please educate those of us who are ignorant of what is taught in Shaolin-Do



> *We are not taught a mish-mash of random techniques, but we are exposed to many different styles.*



Now you say you are exposed to many different styles.  What does that mean?  Are you learning the entire style as you imply in the first quote fragment above, or are you simply familiarized with them?



> *There is a great deal of (for example) Bagua material, and one could spend their life dedicated to developing their skills in this style.*



If there is that much material, why learn the other aspects of the art?  Do they all come together, coalescing into one comprehensive art later on down the line?  Or is the study of the Three Classics an optional thing, thereby indicating that there is a main Shaolin-Do art that is taught and learned through the more advanced levels...?  What if someone doesn't specialize in the Three Classics?  What art are they studying then?



> *At Shaolin-Do you learn a basis in various external kung fu forms to lay down the ground work. This begins to prepare you mentally and physically for what comes later. When one becomes a disciple (at 1st black), then they are finally done with the prep. work and can begin learning the more demanding styles (including the internal styles).*



What do you mean by more demanding styles?  How many styles are offered in a Shaolin-Do school?



> *Shaolin-Do offers some curriculum outside it's normal teaching structure in the form of seminars. This allows students to be exposed to seldom taught forms, and higher level material (such as Bagua) that may be many years down the road for them otherwise.*



So, do I understand you correctly by reading that higher level material is being taught to junior students before they are ready for it normally?  Im confused by this...



As far as your problems with me go, after reviewing all of my posts, Im not apologizing for a thing.  I stand my ground, since my posts were not inflammatory at all.  I first pointed out that it seemed inconsistent that the commonly held understanding was that SD had 500+ forms (often substantiated by SD or former SD students here).  You replied.  I pointed out that the Three Classics were not Shaolin in origin.  You replied that the arts had been taught at the Fukien Shaolin temple.  Then you digressed and began talking about the Shaolin temple at Wudang, which was refuted by my teacher who pointed out there never was a Shaolin temple at Wudangshan.  You countered with the caveat that Chinese history, and specifically Chinese martial arts history, is a less than well-documented thing, and you simply wanted to agree to disagree.  Then, when we did not comply with your wishes, you got testy and started accusing us of trying to force our gospel on you, when up to that point we had only been responding with the information we had.  Sorry that you felt we had to either agree with you or agree to disagree.  Personally, given that my teacher has been playing with this stuff longer than either you or I have been alive, I tend to gravitate toward his version of the truth.  Given that in my own research on the spurious lineage connections to Shaolin that so many schools seem to lay claim to I have found little to support those claims, I find that a simple historical timeline, the likes of which my teacher has supplied, speak more loudly than hidden teachers, secret training, and lost lineages rediscovered

Perhaps you could tell us how long you have been training, and in what arts.  That may help us to appreciate your insight to things.  Your profile is rather empty, so it is difficult to gain an understanding of the origin of your perspective.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## arnisador (Apr 13, 2003)

Thread also titled "Pa Kua Rules" merged in from the Tai Chi forum.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------



## tshadowchaser (Apr 13, 2003)

Folks I have been watching some of the verble fenceing going on in this thread and am not about to take anyones side but I would like to see a few things clarified.
  To make sure everyone know what RULES  you are talking about  please state what they are.  As has been said befor others may practice them but not know them as "rules".  This has been asked for befor so I'm  only asking what others have aked for.
 Lets not worry about the heritage of a system in this thread lets just define what the thread was about then disscuss the diffrences and/or simularities with what others are taught as far as the "rules" are?


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 13, 2003)

Yes!  A while back, I asked about them and wondered if perhaps there had been some confusion with 64 POSTURES rather than "rules."  That question still begs an answer.  I'm not trying to argue; I just don't understand what is meant by "rules" since, after several decades of Bagua practice, I am not familiar with "64 rules."


----------



## RyuShiKan (Apr 13, 2003)

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> *Yes!  A while back, I asked about them and wondered if perhaps there had been some confusion with 64 POSTURES rather than "rules."  That question still begs an answer.  I'm not trying to argue; I just don't understand what is meant by "rules" since, after several decades of Bagua practice, I am not familiar with "64 rules." *




The 64 steps in Bagua are related to the I-Ching which uses 64 pictograms (?).
(These pictograms are supposedly based on the 64 ways a tortise shell cracks when heated.)
At least that is what I was told by Hung Yi Sheng, former Head of Taiwan national Martial Arts Assoc. 
I have never heard them called "rules" since they are more like postures/techniques.
I would suggest the person(s) calling them grulesh hasnft been properly introduced to what they really are.


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 14, 2003)

That's what I suspected he meant.....postures, not "rules."


----------



## East Winds (Apr 15, 2003)

Yilisifu,

Don't think it has anything at all to do with postures!

Which school of Baguazhang do you follow?

Regards

"When asked about breathing in Tai Chi, my Master replied "Yes, keep doing it"


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 15, 2003)

The Bagua I teach comes from Chang Chaodong (who taught Wang Shujin and my teacher).  Chang studied primarily under Cheng Tinghua, but was highly skilled in Xingyi before he took up Bagua.


----------



## RyuShiKan (Apr 15, 2003)

Earlier I said pictograms but they are actually hexagrams. 

Seen here:



http://users.lmi.net/~tlc/iching/


----------



## East Winds (Apr 17, 2003)

Yilisifu,

Thanks for the reply. I wasn't questioning your lineage, merely asking which "school" your Bagua belonged to, i.e. Pre Heaven or Post Heaven Bagua. I was trying to determine whether your bagua incorporated the 8 mother palms, the 24 Heavenly Gates or the 64 tactics? I suspect that it was the latter that the original poster was refering to as "rules". However as my main discipline is not Bagua, I would bow to your surperior knowledge.

Best wishes

"When asked about breathing in Tai Chi my Master replied "Yes, keep doing it"


----------



## chufeng (Apr 17, 2003)

The eight mother palms is what I learned...

Of course, there is much more to this than "palm shape"

It sounds like someone "codified" the principles and renamed them "rules."
I've got no problem with that...and I think this thread demonstrates the need for an understanding that terminology may be different and also underscores the need for a "langauge dictionary" within this WebSite...

Good training sir,

:asian:
chufeng


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 17, 2003)

I agree....


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 17, 2003)

I think Sun Lu Tang's deliberate confusion is still in evidence...

24...  64...  both multiples of 8.  Again with the mystic permutations of the magical number 8 from 8 Trigrams Palm.

Whatever.

As far as "rules," I posted the ones I learned from Yilisifu regarding Taijiquan practice.  Seems they were the same things being discussed by others, just worded differently.  I suspect the same occurrence with our Bagua.  Same product, different marketing.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## zen_hydra (Apr 19, 2003)

OK, I found my Pakua notes.  So, I will list some of the rules that we were taught.  Let me know by what name you may have learned them.  These are a few with shorter descriptions so I don't have to do too much typing, and they are in no particular order.  

Suen Siang:  Let the neckbone become naturally straight.  In practice do not rise or bend your head.  Do not tilt your head from side to side.

Thie Ting:  Let the lower part of your chin press inward, while your head remains erect.

Shou Kang:  Let your lower bowel muscles press or be sucked inward, never relaxing them.

Lung Sing: Form like a dragon-One of the characteristics of Pakua is the endless walk.  Which is wave-like and circular.  In the midst of being relaxwd and natural comes the elements of sturdiness.

Hou  Shiang:  Expression of a monkey-The second characteristic of Pakua is the vision, or stare.  In practice whenever you change your step or rotate your body and change your hand position, both of your eyes should always stare at your hands.  This is the so-called "hands and eyes follow each other" vision that is anindication of your inner spirit.  It must have spirit just like a monkey who is staring at an object when he tries to grab it.  

Tang Ni: When your legs step forward, do not raise them too high.  Do it like you are dragging them in the mud.

Chie Ping:  In stepping, your feet must remain level or flat.

Chang Ao:  Your palms must also be hollow.


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 19, 2003)

Like I've said before, we do the same thing but refer to it in different ways...

Though, the only "monkey face" I make is when Chufeng hits me...



Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## RyuShiKan (Apr 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Yiliquan1 _
> *Though, the only "monkey face" I make is when Chufeng hits me...
> 
> 
> *



Actually that's not true...........you do a good "monkey face" after you do a shot of Tequila and suck on the lemon!


----------



## Tigertron (Apr 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by yilisifu _
> ...... The Boxer Rebellion of 1900 put an end to the Ching Dynasty and the rest is pretty well known insofar as history goes.....



I don't know about all the other stuff posted in this thread. But the Boxer Rebellion did NOT put an end to the Ching Dynasty.  They were crushed by a coalition forces of western colonial  power, ie the Americans, the British, the French, the Russians and a few others.  The remnants were rounded up by the Ching court and have their heads sliced off at the "Chop-Chop square".  The Ching Dynasty was overthrown by the revolution started by Dr. Sun Yet Shen (sp).


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 19, 2003)

> _Originally posted by RyuShiKan _
> *Actually that's not true...........you do a good "monkey face" after you do a shot of Tequila and suck on the lemon!  *



You seem to have some moral compulsion to bring up that night repeatedly, don't you...?  I have done my best to forget what little of it I remember...

Remember this?  "Hey.  Hey.  Hey.  Do I look drunk?"

:rofl:

Can't wait for a redux when I visit.  Looking at July - August.  A friend is getting married, so there is a double purpose for coming over.

Gambarimasu.
:asian: :tank: :asian:


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 19, 2003)

It only occured ONCE????


----------



## Matt Stone (Apr 19, 2003)

What occurred only once?  Me getting nearly blind from tequila, or making the monkey face after the first shot?  After the first one, the rest are easy...

That was a BAD night.  Lots of fun, but the day after SUCKED in a major way.


----------



## yilisifu (Apr 19, 2003)

I mean did you get torques on tequila only ONCE?

And I thought you were hardcore......


----------



## arnisador (Sep 11, 2003)

Thread moved.

-Arnisador
-MT Admin-


----------

