Tai Chi and Self Defense

[7starmantis]

from the quote of mr hsu's book, i can see where he is alluding to this as internal and external components, and not suggesting blending the principles of two or more non-complimentary styles. no, i have not read it in full, and frankly have a long list of reading materials to get through before seriously thinking about this one. but, hey... thanks for the tip.

Again, be carefull of making up your mind on one piece of a quote. Kung Fu, Chinese Martial Arts, Wushu, whatever you might like to call it, all share common principles and goals. To seperate them is to take styles as complete which are truly only partially complete.

7sm

 

[arnisador]

The reason it is studied doesn't really have much to do with it but that reason can also be said of kung fu in the past. It does seem to attract those not interested in martial applications, but there are still those who practice it for its core fighting. It is commonly a second art but usually not practiced or developed to the level it should be to even understand the principles behind it. I completely disagree with your last statement, er...well...I think you are using the word "softer" inappropriately in this instance. Its "soft" aspects are very intertwined with true kung fu in its upper levels or higher skills....if not I would be concerned with the quality of kung fu being taught.

As I said, I go back and forth on this matter in my own mind. It seems somewhat different to me, yet obviouly comes from the same roots and has many similarities.

What other Kung Fu system places such an emphasis on slow practice in it sforms? I know there are some fast Tai Chi forms and slow Kung Fu forms (e.g., Sam Chien), but those seem the exceptions.

 

[East Winds]

7starmantis,

Thanks for the input. I didn't want this to degenerate into the "I know better than you" and "my system is better than yours" and I'm sure you have the same intention. I could not comment on mantis form or any of the other "external" or "hard" forms. And yes, I do consider there to be a difference. Mainly it is in the way they are trained with emphasis on different principles. My knowledge of the "external" only comes from my experiences with students who come to my classes from these other arts. (Karate, TKD, Lau Gar, Hung gar, Shaolin etc.).What they do have is condsiderable martial ability, but little concept of using internal energies. However it is much easier for these students to "transfer" to the internal than it is for someone who has never had martial training. And of course I accept that you need to use muscle strength to move arms and legs and other body parts. However what you do not need in Taijiquan is muscular strength to make the applicatiopn effective. An example of what I mean is the beautiful "White Crane" posture. It is quite simply correct body positioning to gain your opponents centre and by body turning and using "Split" energy you uproot your opponent. I have a slim 5' 5" lady who can regularly put a large guy on his backside. And no, he dosn't co-operate! I think therefore we will continue to disagree, but then that is no bad thing. So long as we can discuss these things in a civilised manner.
I have a very large collection of Taiji books (well over 100) of which 98% will never be opened again. The one book that has it all (and yet is one of the most difficult to comprehend) is "The Tai Chi Boxing Chronicles" by Kuo Lien-Ying, translated by Guttman. A wonderful explanation of why "internal" and "external" are different.

As always very best wishes and respect.

 

[East Winds]

Pete,

I think there is more than a grain of truth in what you post. I also think that some of the "Masters" who advertise teaching 15 or 16 different arts need to be looked at. The first question I would ask is "To what depth?"

There are several Yiliquan practitioner who subscribe to this board and therefore it is better if one of them came on and described their very effetive art.

For my own part I practice and teach only Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan, Yi-Chuan and Qigong. Although I have experience in Bagua, a very little Xing-Yi and Liu Ho Pa Fa. I have been practising Yang for 16 years now and have still only scratched the surface.

Very best wishes

 

[vincehardy3]

Pete,

I don’t understand what you are asking as it pertains to Yiliquan. We don’t study 15 to 16 different styles. Yiliquan is its own stand-alone system, but we also learn the three internal arts in order to strengthen our foundation. In order for a Liu Ho Pa Fa practitioner to truly understand their art they must study the three internal systems (Xingyi, Bagua, and Taichi), and it is the same for us. Traditionally, Bagua and Xingyi practitioners of long ago would exchange information—in other words they would learn each other’s systems. A lot of martial practitioners of the “internal” systems learn all three, but they will have one that they actually focus on. I train the three internals and they all affect my Yiliquan forms/techniques. A prime example of this is one of the most famous martial artists—Sun Lu Tang—he studied all three arts and developed his own systems of Bagua and Taichi. Like I stated, I really don’t understand your question. So, if I didn’t answer properly, please elaborate.


Vincent
(Yiliquan Association)

 

[pete]

vincent... i was asked by east winds if i practiced yiliquan, and answered that i had never heard the term yiliquan before, much less practiced it. thank you for the description of your art.

i find myself in agreement with much of what you say a few posts back regarding the 'internal arts' sharing fundamental principles, and what you've just described relating to exchanging ideas within complimentary arts while focusing on one is what i've been calling 'cross-referencing'. my point has been that one should avoid the seduction of blending in aspects of shaolin systems or 'external arts' to toughen-up tai chi, for example, overt muscular force and tension, direct 'blocking' rather than yielding and redirection, bob-and-weave tactics, isolated power, disconnection of upper from lower body, etc.

pete

 

[pete]

oh... and to the 'anonymous' negative rep-tosser, whoever you are: bad form. don't cast away a differing opinion as a personal attack or "rude" gesture. and most of all, let's try and keep it all public and above board... this way everybody wins. we are all adults here, right?

pete

 

[mantis]

okay
so it looks like Tai Chi people (pete? right) think that we do not think of tai chi as a complete system. or we think of it as a "soft" system (soft as in 'you're a sissy you need to toughen up)
well pete, tai chi is an awesome complete system that, like most of the proper CMA styles and arts, balances the soft/hard, internal/external!
but us, kung fu practitioners, love tai chi because it helps us balance our internal/external and soft/hard skills.
maybe it's not a good idea to mix tai chi with kung fu if you are a TC practitioner, but it's a good idea to do so if you're a KF practitioner!
hows that sound now mah meng?!

 

[vincehardy3]

I see that a distinction is being made between “kung-fu” and “Taijiquan”. The first word is literally translated as: Kung = Energy and Fu = Time. It just means a skill that is acquired over a period of time, and in the Asian mind every skill/trade/education/etc is considered kung-fu. The word Taijiquan is literally translated as “Grand Terminus Boxing”, and this is a skill that is developed over a long period of time. So, Taiji is kung-fu.

As far as the internal/external and hard/soft there really is no such thing, and I might get reamed for making this statement. As a practitioner progresses in their training they come to understand that all systems are hard and soft. What is the distinguishing factor between hard and soft as we have been taught? The distinguishing factor is Qigong training, and the level to how it is trained. The concepts of empty/full aren’t indigenous to Taiji only, but it can be applied to all systems of fighting. Taiji can be trained at various speeds with proper breathing as well as Hung Gar, Choy Lay Fut, Fut Ga, etc. Sifu Arthur Lee (Grandmaster of Fut Ga) resides in Hawaii and he teaches a Shaolin system called Fut Ga, and he utilizes a lot of what we title as “internal” concepts.

I agree that there are a lot of disadvantages to hard blocking vs. redirection. The act of redirecting a person’s flow of energy opens them up to some serious vulnerability. When a person’s punch is “hard blocked” they are able to counter immediately—it is about physics—I’m a theologian not a physicist. When a person’s punch is redirected they are off-balance and must re-adjust or wait to establish their footing before being able to counter. I would suggest trying this in a practice session in order to fully understand the concept. Plus, as a practitioner progresses they don’t block or deflect (redirect). The practitioner’s footwork gets them out of the path of the on-coming attack and positions them strategically in order to take full advantage of their opponent’s vulnerabilities.

Ok, let the reaming begin.


Vince

 

[East Winds]

Vincent/Pete,

Sorry, it was me who apparently muddied the waters a bit. Something Pete said in an earlier post made me think he practised Yiliquan. When he said he didn't and didn't really know what it was, I suggested it would be better if a Yiliquan practitioner explained what it was. The reference to "Masters" who claim to teach 15 or 16 forms had no reference to Yiliquan whatsoever. I am well aware of Yiliquans founder and have the highest regard for him.

Sorry for the confusion and hope that clears it up

Very best wishes

 

[7starmantis]

7starmantis,

Thanks for the input. I didn't want this to degenerate into the "I know better than you" and "my system is better than yours" and I'm sure you have the same intention. I could not comment on mantis form or any of the other "external" or "hard" forms. And yes, I do consider there to be a difference. Mainly it is in the way they are trained with emphasis on different principles. My knowledge of the "external" only comes from my experiences with students who come to my classes from these other arts. (Karate, TKD, Lau Gar, Hung gar, Shaolin etc.).What they do have is condsiderable martial ability, but little concept of using internal energies. However it is much easier for these students to "transfer" to the internal than it is for someone who has never had martial training.

I'm more interested in specifics as far as the differences in "the way they are trained and the emphasis on different principles". What differences are there in the way they are trained, what affect does that have and what are the differing principles?
It seems your belief is simply from your own opinion and observations of students who have chagned systems for some reason. That may be a flawed way to understand these so called external systems. I propose that these students you see have simply not attained the needed skill to understand the principles of their systems. I would agree that Karate and TKD would be very different in their principles but we are talking about kung fu - Chinese Martial Arts.

And of course I accept that you need to use muscle strength to move arms and legs and other body parts. However what you do not need in Taijiquan is muscular strength to make the applicatiopn effective. An example of what I mean is the beautiful "White Crane" posture. It is quite simply correct body positioning to gain your opponents centre and by body turning and using "Split" energy you uproot your opponent. I have a slim 5' 5" lady who can regularly put a large guy on his backside. And no, he dosn't co-operate! I think therefore we will continue to disagree, but then that is no bad thing. So long as we can discuss these things in a civilised manner.

Well, I agree and disagree. Muscular strength is often looked at as bad and detrimental. I agree that for beginners it is very much so. But as one begins to truly understand the principels they will see that muscles aren't a detriment if used correctly. For example, what turns your waist and allows for the "split" energy? I think we agree more than you think, I have several young small women in mantis who can regularly put guys like myself (6' 2" 210lbs) on our backs, heads, ears, etc. This is the skills I'm talking about, but they are not completely devoid of muscle. I'm simply taking what your saying a bit further and saying you must understand the connection and benefit of both force and no force. In order to punch someone even if allowing them to "run into" your fist (as we do alot in mantis) you must have filled your fist with some type of force. You can call it chi, pong, yi, whatever, but it must be there and it must be able to be manipulated to be used correctly. Hitting someone with a hand completely devoid of force or energy is goign to hurt yourself. Its just different levels of "force".
I completely agree that muscular force has no place in the technique as far as making it work, but I think you incorrectly assume that "external" or "hard" systems operate with opposing principles. They shouldn't if they are truly CMA, at least not at higher levels of skill.

I have a very large collection of Taiji books (well over 100) of which 98% will never be opened again. The one book that has it all (and yet is one of the most difficult to comprehend) is "The Tai Chi Boxing Chronicles" by Kuo Lien-Ying, translated by Guttman. A wonderful explanation of why "internal" and "external" are different.

As always very best wishes and respect.

You misunderstand my point, I'm not saying "internal" and "external" are not different, but simply that they must exist and work together in order to be complete or highly skilled.

What I'm still looking forward to is a layout of principles that are so different or opposing from "external" kung fu to "internal" kung fu. What fighting strategies are so different? It seems everyone claims the difference is there but are unable to define them.

my point has been that one should avoid the seduction of blending in aspects of shaolin systems or 'external arts' to toughen-up tai chi, for example, overt muscular force and tension, direct 'blocking' rather than yielding and redirection, bob-and-weave tactics, isolated power, disconnection of upper from lower body, etc.

pete

What defines these "shaolin systems"? I mean what are the systems we are talking about here? I think that if a student is using "overt muscular force and tension" or "direct blocking rather than yielding" they are performing their CMA incorrectly or inexperienced-ly. The incorrect notion that "shaolin" systems (which is really a farce in my opinion) or "external systmes" (which also is mis-titled) rely on overt muscular force or tension and direct blocking rather than yielding is what causes these misunderstandings. The biggest problem in CMA is the teaching of incomplete or partial knowledge as whole and complete systems.

My own opinions,
7sm

 

[vincehardy3]

East Winds,

There is no offense. I appreciate your questions, comments, and insights.

Vincent

 

[vincehardy3]

Oh yeah, I made an earlier comment concerning redirection of energy. I would like to follow-up by stating that redirection of energy can also be accomplished through hard blocks as well. The hard blocks can be utilized as strikes in order to position a person for secondary techniques. An example, a downward block against an on-coming punch will cause the opponent to lean forward and expose their face and chest area, which opens them up to a strike to those areas—this is especially nice when coupled with angular footwork to create an even more advantages opening—Xingyi’s Paoquan (fire/canon fist) is utilized in this manner.


Vince

 

[East Winds]

7starmantis.

Thanks for your continued input to this discusssion. I'll try and address some fo the points you have raised as best as I can. I cannot make comparisons with your system as I know very little about it, but if I tell you how we train and the methods and objectives of our training, then perhaps you can come back and make the comparison.

Yang Cheng-fu left us Yang stylists, 10 essences by which we should train our taijiquan. Basically if you violate any of these essences in your form, then your form is flawed. In essence 9 he stated "Use mind not force". Notice what he said!!!! not "Use mind and SOME force" or even "Use mind and a LITTLE bit of force". He was quite unequivocable on the point. "Use mind NOT force". Now I am willing for the sake of this discusssion to consider that perhaps you are right and Yang Cheng-fu got it wrong. However, my teacher is a 5th generation Yang lineage holder granted by Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zhen Duo (2nd and 3rd sons of Yang Cheng-fu). and he also in quite unequivocable. "The applications are executed in your mind. No punch or push is executed with tightness in the muscles. Tightness causes your movements to be more staggered, slower and to use more muscle power". But then again, perhaps he too got it wrong???

In Traditional Yang Family Taijiquan we train to develop and use Chi energy and its many Jing manifestations. We spend a lot of time developing the 4 basic Jings, Pung, Lu Ji and An and how to make them work in martial applications. Only then do we introduce the remaining 4 basic Jings. Unfortunatley some Taiji teachers never get past teaching the sequence of movements.

There are 5 levels of Taiji training. The first is the most basic and the one many teachers never get past. This deals with the physical movements of taijiquan. The path the body takes as it moves through the form. The sequence of movements in the form. The second level starts to deal with the generation of Chi energy. The body needs to be positioned correctly and the mind needs to be focused. Energy needs to travel to your hands and feet and therefore the energy gates need to be opened. (Incidentally a very good book on the subject is Bruce Kumar Frantzis "Opening the energy gates of your body"). This level also trains breathing. The third level trains the eight energies or Jings and teaches how they are used to effect an action. You also need to understand each energy and its path through the body. How to generate these energies and use them in the form. The fourth level concetrates on how you change from one energy to the other and in between changes how you maintain and feel the energy. The fifth and final level is the spiritual. At this level there is no form or shape, the energies just flow. These levels like the 10 essences are cumulative. You cannot move to the next level until you have mastered the previous.

It is these objectives which distinguish the "Interal" arts from the "External" arts. No one is asaying the "external" arts are bad and that you need to train the "Internal" arts to be a good martial artist. The goals are the same, it is the method of reaching these goals that is different.

Sorry for the long post, but again the above is a highly condensed version of the training programme of Traiditional Yang Family Taijiquan.

It will be interesting to discover how you train Chi energy and the 4 basic Jings in your form.

Very best wishes

 

[7starmantis]

7starmantis.

Thanks for your continued input to this discusssion. I'll try and address some fo the points you have raised as best as I can. I cannot make comparisons with your system as I know very little about it, but if I tell you how we train and the methods and objectives of our training, then perhaps you can come back and make the comparison.

That would be fine. I do have a question though. You are more than willing to say you do not know or understand enough about other systems to make comparisions or post about their principles or methods, yet you seem fine with posting strongly about the differences they have with your style of taiji. My first reaction is to wonder why you feel so strongly about there being differences if you do not know enough about other styles to even list the differences?

Yang Cheng-fu left us Yang stylists, 10 essences by which we should train our taijiquan. Basically if you violate any of these essences in your form, then your form is flawed. In essence 9 he stated "Use mind not force". Notice what he said!!!! not "Use mind and SOME force" or even "Use mind and a LITTLE bit of force". He was quite unequivocable on the point. "Use mind NOT force". Now I am willing for the sake of this discusssion to consider that perhaps you are right and Yang Cheng-fu got it wrong. However, my teacher is a 5th generation Yang lineage holder granted by Yang Zhen Ji and Yang Zhen Duo (2nd and 3rd sons of Yang Cheng-fu). and he also in quite unequivocable. "The applications are executed in your mind. No punch or push is executed with tightness in the muscles. Tightness causes your movements to be more staggered, slower and to use more muscle power". But then again, perhaps he too got it wrong???

No you seem to be missing my point. We are in agreement about not using force. In fact, I agree with his statements of "Use mind not force" however I think those statements are greatly misunderstood or at least misrepresented. Your applying that one statement to 100% of everything in TC. That quote is specific to the application of techniques. You agree with me that it takes muscular force to make your body and limbs move, yet also hold that 100% of your TC should contain absolutely no force....thats a contradiction. The force is simply at the right amount, right place, and right time. I completely believe tense muscular force is the greatest killer of good kung fu (this includes tai chi), besides ego, but force is used. To be completely devoid of force is to be unconscious. My point is simply that we cannot ignore the training of sensitivity because we trick our minds into thinking we are using no force whatsoever. I assume you train sensitivity in your TC, but what is sensitivity if there is no force?
However, this is not the real issue we are discussing. We are talking about the major differences between Tai Chi and Kung Fu. The statement we were discussing, "use mind not force" applies completely to kung fu as well. I still have yet to see you post anything about your tai chi trainin that contradicts true kung fu.

There are 5 levels of Taiji training. The first is the most basic and the one many teachers never get past. This deals with the physical movements of taijiquan. The path the body takes as it moves through the form. The sequence of movements in the form.

This is exactly what my first statement said. We agree then that all kung fu (including tai chi) must start at a physical or "external" level and move towards the "internal". That is exactly what I said, I think you just misunderstood my point. I understand your desire to make known the fact that many do not pass these levels, but dont assume that no one passes them or that those that you dont agree with do not pass those levels. Kung fu also begins quite "external" and teaches basic movements which lead to an internal approach where "force" is replaced by feel and sensitivity. I still see no differences between Tai Chi and Kung fu.

It is these objectives which distinguish the "Interal" arts from the "External" arts. No one is asaying the "external" arts are bad and that you need to train the "Internal" arts to be a good martial artist. The goals are the same, it is the method of reaching these goals that is different.

I dont see it. You still seem bent on making a distinction between "internal" and "external" arts. I think it may be more a dislike of the term "external" than really a contradiction between these systems. In my training I have come to see the boundaries of internal and external are really non-existant. You still have not shown any methods that contradict. In fact you have not really outlined any of your own methods, just the goals of your training. I agree that there are systmes out there that contradict these principles, Tia chi and Kung Fu are basically the same thing, only one chooses to place more focus on one principles while another chooses a different principles to focus on....both contain the same principles. The "soft" and "hard" is more easily described by those phrases such as:
"become like the branches and leaves in the trees and yet be strong and rooted like the roots on the tree". This gives a little better view into "soft" and "hard" rather than the ambiguous terms "Soft" and "Hard". In mantis we actually seperate the "hard" principles from the "soft". However these terms as well as the actual seperation lends itself to misunderstanding of the principles and thier usage. They exist together and work in harmony and while labeled and seperated for teaching purposes, one who gains the understanding of the system can begin to see that they are not so seperate or easily labeled.

Tai Chi without its "hard" principles of rooting and the like would be innefective. One without the other is incomplete, and while many teach this way and understand it only to this degree, it is still incomplete. Its like the old addage, "I only say what directs you to the truth". The statement "use mind not force" is meant to direct you to the understanding of no force, not to make you remove all force from your body. We live in a physical world governed by physics. We can't break these laws with spiritual or mental power. Gravity will treat you the same, thats why force has its place. I guess a deffinition of force would make things easier to understand, but thats a tough job for anyone to do.

Just my own opinions,
7sm

 

[pete]

... all kung fu (including tai chi) must start at a physical or "external" level and move towards the "internal".

disagree here... internals should be introduced from day-one of tai chi training to give the student the feeling for how to move and develop this skill. i do not believe that the form should be taught in its entirety, only to go back and say, 'thats nice, but you're doing it all wrong. now let's really do it'... i believe in providing the tools with less physical movements or postures, and simultaneously developing the internal qualities (or at least getting one to feel and understand.) this fosters 'self discovery' where a student learns to feel the internal qualities within one posture and can try to apply it to others as they learn and practice. this is how i was taught, and continue to learn. it is also how i teach.

philosphically, i see this more in keeping with taoist concepts of continuously and consistently simplifying by removing the non-essential.

pete

 

[East Winds]

7starmanstis,

I bow to your superior knowledge of taijiquan. Unfortunately your posts clearly show that you have no concept of the difference between the use of energy and the use of force. If there is no recognition of this difference then I'm afraid further discussion is sterile. I note you studiously avoid discussing the use of Chi and Jing in your art or how you train and use them. Developing and using energies is the fundamental difference between the "Internal" and "External" arts.

Thank you for your input

Very best wishes

 

[7starmantis]

disagree here... internals should be introduced from day-one of tai chi training to give the student the feeling for how to move and develop this skill. i do not believe that the form should be taught in its entirety, only to go back and say, 'thats nice, but you're doing it all wrong. now let's really do it'...

No no, your misunderstanding my point. I'm not saying dont introduce internal principles or techniques at the beginning, but as a student, one starts at a physical level and as they gain skill and get in better shape, they then start understanding and being able to perform the internal much better and effectively. However, there is a learning curve even in tai chi. A first time student wouldn't benefit much form a 45 minute in depth discussion of the difference between pong (pung) and Lu Ji. We must start at basics, the advanced and internal comes later as we progress. Thats the way it is, you dont learn the intricacies of internal conepts and principels as quick or the same way that you learn how to raise your hand and punch. The physical or "external" training of exactly how to move the hand comes first, with the understanding of internal concepts coming later.

I would still be interested to hear how you feel the fighting strategies are different between kung fu and tai chi.

7starmanstis,

I bow to your superior knowledge of taijiquan. Unfortunately your posts clearly show that you have no concept of the difference between the use of energy and the use of force. If there is no recognition of this difference then I'm afraid further discussion is sterile.

Whoa now, lets calm down a bit. If you can't have a discussion with someone who disagrees with you without getting upset or personal, maybe you should sit this one out. I mean no offense, I'm just discussing our differing understandings and beliefs of CMA training.

How exactly do my posts show I have no understanding of the difference between energy and force? Instead of simply writing me off, why not define those differences and help me understand better? I completely see "a" difference between them, whether its the same difference you see is unknown as you didn't describe the differences for me. We both recognize the difference, why not offer something to the discussion instead of claiming it "sterile"? I'm enjoying the discussion, I dont understand why your getting upset, I apologize if I'm offending you.

I note you studiously avoid discussing the use of Chi and Jing in your art or how you train and use them. Developing and using energies is the fundamental difference between the "Internal" and "External" arts.

Wait a second, you have avoided offering anything about how you train and simply post goals of your training, then turn and accuse me of "studiously avoiding" questions? C'mon, lets at least be honest in our debate. I have asked you twice why you feel there are so distinct differences between kung fu and tai chi and you have yet to even address those questions. This is the number one problem with CMA forums around the world, everyone is so blindly focused on their own system or way of training that they immediately make assumptions about others and then refuse to discuss based on some point of respect or other ambiguous claims. Everyone is convinced of their systems superiority or its being the only true system that they ignore other legitimate practitioners before giving them a chance. Please, lets have a serious and honest discussion, I would really enjoy reading about your training.

Developing and using energies is the main difference, yet you claim to not know enough about other systems to know their principles or fighting strategies. I would agree that the method of developing these "energies" is goin to be much different from style to style, but the end result is the same. How would you classify mantis kung fu, hard or soft? Internal or External? If you truly would not make the classification, why do you so adamantly claim what I do is so different from you? In fact, I study Yang tai chi, so many of my methods of training will be very close to yours.

We take sensitivity very serious and spend much time learning to feel and yield. We practice push hands (both stationary and stepping) as well as a version of chi sau which allows for free movement and techniques. We work on following drills from contact from all parts of the body, hands, arms, shoulders, back, legs, shins, etc. We even work it blindfolded. We allow throws, takedowns, chin na, etc. We start very slow and progress in skill and speed. We work breathing drills and sensitivity drills to loosen the body, cultivate "chi" and learn to move energy to where its needed in the body.

I'm not sure what else you are looking for about how I train, until you can offer some more specifics, I think thats about all I can list. My main point and question is: "Why do you think kung fu and tai chi are so different"? You are more than willing to offer that they are different, that their methods are different, their principels and fighting strategies are different, even their usage of "external" and "internal" concepts are different....yet you seem to avoid defining exactly how they are different. I think if you did that you would be surprised by how alike they actually are.

Looking forward to your postings.
7sm

 

[pete]

No no, your misunderstanding my point.

sorry, but i understand quite well.

I'm not saying dont introduce internal principles or techniques at the beginning, but as a student, one starts at a physical level and as they gain skill and get in better shape, they then start understanding and being able to perform the internal much better and effectively.

what does 'get in better shape' mean? and what does it have to do with developing internals?

see, this is where i understand your point precisely. sure there is a physical construct to learn, but again i disagree with your sequencing of starting on a physical level... that seems 'external' to me.

from day one, the student must begin to understand the internal qualities and how to use them in simple postures, in motion and stationary. learning a bunch of forms on the physical level is not tai chi, not even for a beginner.

However, there is a learning curve even in tai chi. A first time student wouldn't benefit much form a 45 minute in depth discussion of the difference between pong (pung) and Lu Ji. .

no, nobody would benefit from that discussion. its not about lectures and chinese words, its about sharing an experience, developing a feeling.

personally i refrain from chinese terminology as much as possible, since i do not speak the language and neither do my students. in fact, my teacher who is from shanghai has an excellent command of the english language and uses it rather than the chinese terms.

We must start at basics, the advanced and internal comes later as we progress

so how is it that i misunderstood your point? what are the 'basics' and how does the 'internals' come later? how can the internals be separated from the basics and still be tai chi? how much later, in your experience, do they come?

Thats the way it is, you dont learn the intricacies of internal conepts and principels as quick or the same way that you learn how to raise your hand and punch. The physical or "external" training of exactly how to move the hand comes first, with the understanding of internal concepts coming later.

again, i do not question your kung fu, nor do i question the internal components within your art. but, they are obviously different from tai chi. the methodology you describe is characteristic of training in 'external' or shaolin arts.

i believe the quote 'there are no secrets' is attributed to cheng man ching. i've heard the rest of the statement to be 'but, if there was one, it would be that the hands don't move'.

pete

 

[Bob Hubbard]

The way alot of this was explained to me, was that first you learn to move, then you learn to understand the movements, then you learn to move beyond. I'm summarizing it a bit here. I've also seen 2 schools of thought, 1 that you learn the external (ie movements) then as you progress you learn the internal (Qigong). The person I've spoken to in depth about this with seemed to hold the multi-step concept in low regard, and tries to teach both right from the start.