Appledog wrote:This is with specific reference to something like Hunyuan Qigong or Feng's Silk Reeling Exercises. It has been mentioned in the past that at some point there is "not much left" to learn from the specific practice of these two because it is intended that they are absorbed by forms practice. I get that.
The question is, what do you do with non-informative practices?
For example, which posture is more useful; the fabled lo xi ao bu from Chen Xin's book (the one with the crane's beak behind the back) or standing in the actual yang (or chen) style version of brush knee? Many years ago Chen Quanzong, iirc, promoted this posture. He said it was even better than san ti shou. But this move doesn't appear in the form. You can even make an argument that most of Feng's hunyuan qigong movements appear somewhere in yilu. But this move, I don't see it. If you stand like Chen Quanzhong showed there is no way it can inform the application shown by Chen Zhonghua. I'm stumped.
Chen Fake demonstrated the form in two different ways, during forms practice and during application. If Hong Junsheng felt the need to change his form towards application does this suggest Chen Fake's normal forms practice does not inform the application practice? Does anyone else find this an impossible connundrum? Why can't we have nice things; A beautiful, circular, lively, round flowing form, which directly informs both health and martial arts? Do we really need 2 or 3 versions of the same form? Or worse, movements that don't really have anything parallel in the form?
I sort of understand, but I'm also a little puzzled by your quandary.
Let's start with your expectation of
"A beautiful, circular, lively, round flowing form, which directly informs both health and martial arts? Do we really need 2 or 3 versions of the same form? "
If you are talking about having a single form that teaches the entire martial art and is also a cure all, Taijiquan is definitely the exceptions rather than the rule. A Praying Mantis teacher, an uncle in my Wutan lineage knows nearly 100 Praying Mantis forms, IIRC. It is common to have 5 to 10 forms in a given system of martial arts and more is not unusual. Chen family records indicated that there were five forms in the First Road and two on the Second Road and one of those forms might have been divided up into three parts. There are still two forms with very different training objectives. In Yang and Wu taijiquan, it is not uncommon to find a system that teaches multiple frames, high, middle, low, square, round, or similar. This is not necessarily just doing the form in different stances. Each of these frames has a different purpose in training, and the individual moves and some sequences may be quite different. So, a single form that does it all perfectly would be quite unusual.
If your concern is that there are variations in forms within Chen Taijiquan, let me start by saying that there is more in common between forms than differences. Further, if one understands the reasons for the differences, the forms are just variations on a theme. And, to a great extent this is true between the so-called styles of Taijiquan. The forms, especially the earlier ones, are astoundingly similar compared to forms from styles in different martial arts, which can be totally unrelated.
As to the differences in Chen forms, there is not just one application to each movement. If Teacher A emphasizes Usage A and shows that in his form and Teacher B emphasizes Usage B and shows that in her form. A generation of two later, the students performing each of those forms would look very different at that point, but the differences would be superficial, Usage A Vs B, both legitimate.
Further, imagine if you called one lineage "small frame" and the other "large frame" based on, say, whether or not the toes were forward or turned out, respectively, making the actions look bigger or smaller. In a generation or two, these become self-fulfilling prophecies. Everything in small frame looks smaller and all movements in large frame looks bigger, but again, the real differences are superficial.
There can be some fundamental differences if rules are changed or violated. For example, if the rule for the hands is that the wrist does not cross the centerline, because the arm loses energy and is easily trapped. If a teacher's variation in the form violates this rule, there are consequences that make this a fundamental difference.
So, what do you do about Loxi Aobu? Unless you've made an oath never to change the form that you are being taught, maybe even then, in your personal practice, repeat the movement, once with Chen Fake's version with the left-hand fingers pinched at the shoulder level, followed by Chen Ziming's version with the left-hand fingers pinched by the hip, and his teacher's, Chen Xin's, version with the left-hand fingers pinched behind the back aligned with the mingmen. And for that matter you could add a repetition performed the Yang style way with the left hand open, palm down. The left hand is pretty superficial. What is of prime importance, in my estimation, is to learn in how to energize the right hand. The rest is icing on the cake.
If you don't want repetitions, try the different ways and do the one that is of most benefit to you. Or, rotate them.
As to fundamental, supplementary, or complementary trainings, I use them to "sharpen the sword", or "saw", depending on the source of your metaphor. If you find that an ancillary practice can be included in your form and improves it, and it helps your form and push hands performance, only practice it in the form, make sure you are mindful of its contribution to your form. On the other hand, for me, the Chen Jibengong, while also incorporated into the form, helps me improve my form and push hands when I practice it outside of the form by letting me focus on essential elements without distraction. But, that is me, what helps you?