Bagua Quan Foundation book published

[paulalexander]

Hi,

Just wanted to let everyone know that "Bagua Quan Foundation" written by Mr.He Jing-han
and translated by David Alexander
has just been published by Singing Dragon books

It explains the basis behind the Bagua Quan system
it is a great book for anyone interested in Chinese martial arts, medicine, bodywork, culture and philosophy!

thanks
Paul

[Chris McKinley]

Paul,

Do you know whether or not the book provides a martial apologetic for the differences in postural/structural teachings between the Baguaquan method and orthodoxy?

[shmirsh]

Chris, orthodoxy as expressed in which dogma?

[shawnsegler]

GLEH!!!


I want now!!!!


Smirsh...I assume othodoxy as they would be expressed in the teachings of the ba gua.

[paulalexander]

Hi Chris

"Paul,
Do you know whether or not the book provides a martial apologetic for the differences in postural/structural teachings between the Baguaquan method and orthodoxy?"

Sorry, I am not sure what you mean exactly, could you explain?
thanks
Paul

[Chris McKinley]

Paul,

There is a distinct difference in the postural/structural teachings between the Baguaquan branch and nearly every other branch of Baguazhang out there with regard to ming men and how it is configured to provide a structural platform for everything else. The practitioners of the Baguaquan branch seem consistently sincere about their particular take on it, so I am wondering if the book might touch on the historical point at which that branch diverged from the more general belief about it, and what reasonings/discoveries might have been involved in it. Till now, most of the discussion of the topic remains quite nebulous, non-specific and at the very least, not definitive in providing such explanation. I thought perhaps the book might provide a more scholarly and somewhat more "official" explanation for the divergence.

[paulalexander]

Hi Chris

I think I understand your question

In my opinion the book does not focus so much on the history of Bagua Quan/Bagua Zhang
but instead reveals a clear view of the system of Bagua Quan
passed from Dong Hai Chuan to Yin Fu
to Gong Bao Tien and Gong Bao Shan
to Gong Bao Zhai
to Mr.He

Personally I don't think that this Bagua Quan system was developed by Yin Fu
or has diverged at any point from another system
I think that other branches may have diverged from a much larger system

I also think that whoever created this system was at a very high level of traditional chinese martial arts, medicine, philosophy and culture

thanks
Paul

[Chris McKinley]

Paul,

Thank you for the response.

RE: "Personally I think that other branches may have diverged from a much larger system and not that this Bagua Quan system was developed by Yin Fu or diverged at any point from another". Obviously there at least was a divergence at some point since the structural difference is so distinct and fundamental. However, the likelihood that all other branches of Baguazhang somehow diverged from this one rather than the other way around is not particularly strong. To begin with, all other branches are unified in their use of the name Baguazhang rather than Baguaquan, including the Yin Fu branch from which Baguaquan claims to arise. Other branches enjoy equal lineage clarity to this one. All other branches, including the Yin Fu branch, advocate the same postural/structural approach universally and consistently, yet all of them differ from the particular branch of Baguaquan in the exact same way. Further, there is a lack of a specific body of evidence which points to the Baguaquan branch as necessarily predating all others with which it differs, again including the Yin Fu branch, and, in fact, significant evidence which pinpoints its origin as a sub-branch of Yin Fu's branch of Baguazhang.

I wasn't aware that proponents of the Baguaquan branch held the notion that their branch predated all others, a condition which would be necessary if their postural/structural claims are accurate. The weight of the known evidence overwhelmingly does not support such a notion, so the onus of providing rather extraordinary evidence for the claim rests on the representatives of Baguaquan. Still, we don't know without the possibility of doubt, so perhaps at this point it might be useful to continue the discussion with that particular matter yet unresolved. Regardless of which way the divergence occurred, we do know that it did occur, at some point, and in some direction. With the difference that resulted being so fundamental, I would have hoped that perhaps the new book might have at least mentioned it in passing.

Are you aware of any other works which do make mention of it from a historical perspective?

[paulalexander]

Hi Chris,

Obviously there at least was a divergence at some point since the structural difference is so distinct and fundamental.
- I understand your view, but after studying Bagua Quan Paochui, I don't think so

However, the likelihood that all other branches of Baguazhang somehow diverged from this one rather than the other way around is not particularly strong.
- I think it is very strong. From what we know of Dong Hai Chuans life, he spent a long time with Yin Fu compared to others. Also, I don't think we can assume that he taught people who wanted anonyminity.

all other branches are unified in their use of the name Baguazhang rather than Baguaquan, including the Yin Fu branch from which Baguaquan claims to arise.
- To clarify here, Mr.He or myself did not claim that this system arose from Yin Fu. Yin Fu held it for a while and then passed it on - in many different ways to many different people, all in different circumstances - as have all generations.

Other branches enjoy equal lineage clarity to this one.
- Very true

All other branches, including the Yin Fu branch, advocate the same postural/structural approach universally and consistently, yet all of them differ from the particular branch of Baguaquan in the exact same way. Further, there is a lack of a specific body of evidence which points to the Baguaquan branch as necessarily predating all others with which it differs, again including the Yin Fu branch, and, in fact, significant evidence which pinpoints its origin as a sub-branch of Yin Fu's branch of Baguazhang.
- I am sorry but I do not know enough to talk about other Bagua martial arts. I would not want to judge by looking or reading, I would need to practice them for a long time to understand them. All I can say is that the "Bagua Quan system" is huge. It is explained in depth in Mr.He's new book - I think you would enjoy the read!

I wasn't aware that proponents of the Baguaquan branch held the notion that their branch predated all others, a condition which would be necessary if their postural/structural claims are accurate.
- I hope there is no misunderstanding! It is merely my opinion that I am voicing.

The weight of the known evidence overwhelmingly does not support such a notion, so the onus of providing rather extraordinary evidence for the claim rests on the representatives of Baguaquan. Still, we don't know without the possibility of doubt, so perhaps at this point it might be useful to continue the discussion with that particular matter yet unresolved. Regardless of which way the divergence occurred, we do know that it did occur, at some point, and in some direction. With the difference that resulted being so fundamental, I would have hoped that perhaps the new book might have at least mentioned it in passing.
- I agree, there is very little evidence other than the system itself - if you study some of the system you would see how big the roots are in terms of Chinese martial arts, culture, philosophy and medicine.

Are you aware of any other works which do make mention of it from a historical perspective?
- I am not.

thanks for the thread Chris - most interesting discussion!

[paulalexander]

Thanks Tom!
Nice "Net Fu" skills...

[everything]

At the age of 15, he started studying Yang style TaijiQuan but after six or seven years came to a standstill and stopped improving.

I wonder what his personal metric was to consider himself at a plateau with taijiquan at such a young age. Except for in women's gymnastics, people don't generally peak at athletics or movement arts at or before age 22, even those training hours a day for six or seven years. Burn out perhaps, yes.

[everything]

ah cool. many students tired of wading through watered down hippie taichee in search of good stuff seem to gravitate to bagua, though it doesn't sound like that was the case with He. looking forward to checking out the book.

[paulalexander]

Mr.He wrote that he found that Baguaquan practice lead him to a better understanding of Taijiquan

check out the article
http://www.baguaquan.co.uk/TaijiQuan/Ba ... fault.aspx

most interesting subject!

[everything]

thanks a lot for that link. really interesting article and more what I would expect - that his baguaquan study would make him see his taijiquan differently.

i really like his circle and helix analogy. i would humbly add that in taijiquan, the helix that transforms yin/yang occurs inside one's own body. it is not absent and it is not just about the circumference, just as bagua is not just about creating the helix between two or more people but also has the circumference, though to simplify things this way is very helpful and interesting. perhaps his note about ren and du is getting at this but i can't tell at my present level of qigong.

i also wonder what this wujiquan is. thanks again paul.

[Chris McKinley]

Thanks again, Paul. Disagreements aside, I can't imagine not picking up this book for myself. Mr. He has always been an informative and respectful poster on this forum, and I would probably purchase his book on that basis alone even if I weren't familiar with Bagua.