Wudang Origin of Taijiquan

[Bob]

I would hope that Wong Yuen-ming adds something to this discussion - agreed that the history of taijiquan is more complex than originally thought:

http://www.martialstudies.com.hk/

Taijiquan: Heavenly Pattern Boxing
Issue 2 Winter 2010

viewtopic.php?p=383150

Heavenly Pattern Boxing

New information about the history of Taijiquan

Translated, summarised and edited by Dr Hermann Bohn, following the original by Wong Yuen-Ming: “Taijiquan: Heavenly Pattern Boxing”
The history of the origins of Taijiquan remains controversial and generates much debate, especially in its country of origin. One common motivation here is the protection of one’s own interests.

In order to introduce new aspects into this debate, Wong Yuen-Ming has studied a large number of little-known sources and has found, above all, evidence for links between the Daoist Zhang Sanfeng and martial arts that could have been the forerunners to modern Taijiquan, and for a very early use of the Taiji concept with regard to these martial arts.

Another interesting aspect is the relationship between the Taiji symbol and the stellar constellation of the Great Bear. Dr Hermann Bohn has translated and summarised the article in which Wong Yuen-Ming has published his results to date.

http://www.tqj.de/england/issue43.html

https://books.google.com/books?id=8ZG1t ... ng&f=false

viewtopic.php?f=3&t=7959

http://qigonginchina.com/daoist-origins-taiji-quan/

[yeniseri]

Despite the obfuscation of what we call taijiquan today, it is known that Taizhichangquan, Hongquan, and Paoquan form a solid foundation effect of CMA of the day. Each individual/family/clan integrates the Daoist, Buddhist and folklore (based on province or village) per their knowledge base and voila! An art is borm. Just look at the permutations of Chenjiagou taijiquan and see the evolution per Yang, Wu2, Wu3, Sun and even Li style (no relation to Li family who pioneered with Chen their synthesis.

Anyone seen recent references to Li family (of Chen era) and their offspring per Chen style? I saw a reference to them in a Wu article but somehow they dropped off the radar as in no feedback on their involvement then and now. Per said article, they have no recent involvement in taijiquan, whatsoever!

[Bao]

Wow - this thread is like taking a time machine back to 1995 - bravo!

Well... Different people learn different things at different times in their lives. The myths lives on and people likes believing in them. If this forum survives, you will probably get the time machine back to 1995 in 2095 as well.

[jonathan.bluestein]

Interesting theory. Good thinking. Might be true. Hope this would not be used for the false claims now wildly thrown about by the "authentic Wudang" people at Wudang Industries Inc.

[Silverone]

I'm enjoying the thoughtful comments from folks on the forum. This new information will keep me busy for a while yet.

My interest in the history of taijiquan comes from my master's (and good friend's) comments about being the 38th generational teacher of his style (which I accept unequivocally), passed on to him through the oral tradition. However, the scientist in me, asks "show me the evidence"? As I look for the "true" story of taijiquan, the more fascinating the tale becomes, and the more, the many versions of truth emerge.

I'm interested in how others reconcile/understand the many versions of myths of creation and influences on what we know as taijiquan, with the historian's (such as Henning's) critique of history?

I also like the idea of a "body wisdom", intuitively.

Cheers

[Bao]

I also like the idea of a "body wisdom", intuitively.

That's one of the most fascinating things with IMA, IMHO. Tingjin is an aspect of this, to let your body make the judgement for your actions. The decision comes instantly upon touch, much faster than your "thinking" or logical judgement.

[Yuen-Ming]

There is so much to say about the subject and, at the same time, every minute used to discuss it is wasted.

Most people just like to report things somebody told them, as is the case of the opening post, without any factual evidence or even a minimum of personal reasoning. Others go with written sources but then fail to realize that, if there is not a document stating a certain thing, that does not rule out the possibility that such a thing happened.

Then we go with those taking for granted been thought by a 38th generation, which means over a thousand years ...

At the end of the day, what counts is our own practice and what can we do with it.

YM

[Doc Stier]

There is so much to say about the subject and, at the same time, every minute used to discuss it is wasted.

Most people just like to report things somebody told them, as is the case of the opening post, without any factual evidence or even a minimum of personal reasoning. Others go with written sources but then fail to realize that, if there is not a document stating a certain thing, that does not rule out the possibility that such a thing happened.

Then we go with those taking for granted been thought by a 38th generation, which means over a thousand years ...

At the end of the day, what counts is our own practice and what can we do with it.

YM

Agreed. Yuen-Ming FTW!

All of the hypothetical conjecture offered from any source doesn't add one iota of real value to anyone's training regimen. When and where Tai-Chi Chuan originated is ultimately of far less importance than what it has come to at this point in time, and what each practitioner of any style personally achieves in the long-term training of it. Sadly nowadays, however, most practitioners are apparently willing to devote far more time to reading about it, to watching videos of other people performing it, and to engaging in endless arcane discussions about it, like this one, rather than to seriously training for productive, real-time skill development. Go figure!

[wiesiek]

Time of very common silver screen dependency, I suppose

[Thunderwave]

In the southern style, during several hundred years in different generations, Zhang Songxi, Wang Zhengnan, Huang Baijia, and Gan Fengchi etc, were very famous. But today this style is lost

The Southern style is still alive http://taiji37.com/taiji37form.htm

[Ron Panunto]

They claim that Taiji is only 80 years old, that's one I've never heard before.

[Bugang]

Thanks Jonathan for "Wudang Industries Inc." !

The German Writer Bertold Brecht wrote an Article (very roughly translated and cited from memory) entitled "Five Problems while writing the truth": suggesting
"And if you find a 'truth' always ask yourself: whom does it serve!"

They/we all got an agenda in one way or the other; Frank I think is from the Ma Version of the Wu Style, Henning seems to promote Chen, Docherty comes from Wu/Yang....and so on and so on. There are those that "know" the (official) Chenjagou Version (by what?) and there are those that "doubt" it (by what?).

Seems to be a dead end here...

Granting that you and I argue. If you beat me, and not I you, are you necessarily right and I wrong? Or if I beat you and not you me, am I necessarily right and you wrong? Or are we both partly right and partly wrong? Or are we both wholly right or wholly wrong? You and I cannot know this, and consequently the world will be in ignorance of the truth.

Who shall I employ as arbiter between us? If I employ some one who takes your view, he will side with you. How can such a one arbitrate between us? If I employ some one who takes my view, he will side with me. How can such a one arbitrate between us? And if I employ some one who either differs from or agrees with both of us, he will be equally unable to decide between us. Therefore, since you and I and another cannot decide, must we not wait for still others?
Zhuangzi

[Bugang]

...if I employ Brecht or Zhuangzi...

[yeniseri]

I was thinking out aloud

If Wudang was an origin, don't we think that like Chen, there would be more adherents, documented per the variations as in Chen shi taijiquan say from 1600 onward until the 1950's?

[Niall Keane]

Hmmm....

1950's: https://youtu.be/OcytCV5qq7Y

1937: https://youtu.be/akG8iMNWBfc

and then we have Li I Yu (1832-1892) and his "Plain Sayings on each posture" which corresponds very well to the above forms. (he's a different "Wu" style too)

So...

if the art is names after Yang Lu Chan impressing the court poet:

When Yang Lu-ch'an first taught in Yung Nien, his art was referred to as Mien Quan (Cotton Fist) or Hua Quan (Neutralising Fist). Whilst teaching at the Imperial Court, Yang met many challenges, some friendly some not. But he invariably won and in so convincingly using his soft techniques that he gained a great reputation.

Many who frequented the imperial households would come to view his matches. At one such gathering in which Yang had won against several reputable opponents, the scholar Ong Tong He was present. Inspired by the way Yang moved and executed his techniques, Ong felt that Yang's movements and techniques expressed the physical manifestation of the philosophy of Taiji. Ong wrote for him a matching verse:
“ Hands Holding Taiji shakes the whole world, a chest containing ultimate skill defeats a gathering of heroes. ”

Thereafter, his art was referred to as Taijiquan and the styles that sprang from his teaching and by association with him was called Taijiquan

and the Yang forms today again follow the general sequence and have the same postures as the Li i Yu song.... then....

what the hell is the Chen form? Today's Chen form?

if we accept that for nearly 150 years the Yang forms and their decedents have altered little.

If I taught a lad Tai Chi Chuan (Practical - Wudang) style form today and he passed it on cleanly, and my sons decided to mix in say a karate kata, could their decedents really, because of their surname, and without being disingenuous claim to be practicing the "original" style?

here we come to the double-speak.... true enough they would be practicing the "original" family style of "martial art" called Tai Chi Chuan, but they have modified and evolved or transmogrified the drills, who knows? Now the bitch about Tai Chi Chuan is that it suffers greatly from the "folk" gung fu tradition of a martial art being and consisting entirely of a few forms / dances. The truth is of course that TCC is an MMA of its day and incorporates many training drills and gung methods, BUT mostly what has been taught and is being taught is Tai Chi Boxercise and not Tai Chi Boxing and consists mostly of handform and a handful of the less demanding tuishou methods. I thin kthat's a fair assessment of the field of battle today? As such ... if we adopt the boxercise narrative that the Chen's themselves have when it comes to international students and teachers of their art... (who must wait years before weapons, tuishou etc. ) then we must consider that when these lads speak of "original" tai chi they must refer to an "original" form...

Given that Li Y Yu's writings present a clear sequence to the form and we have videos of the same basic sequence back to the early 20th century, I think its not unreasonable to assume we have the same form more or less all the way back to a lad who received the art via his uncle on of Lu Chan's first students. We must also consider that further offshoots from the Yangs - the other Wu's etc. also have the same basic form, and they wouldn't have been influenced by Li. Using Occam's Razor, we can be fairly certain that if Lu Chan had a form it would therefore be fairly similar to those of his decedents. I don't think that a large leap or unreasonable.

So either the Chen's changed their form and incorporated techniques with Buddhist names post Lu Chan's time or we have to conjure up a conspiracy of all the other families changing their forms to be closely similar to each other in sequence, name and expression long after they went their separate ways.

And yes the Song Shu-ming classics being almost identical to the Wu's classics and yet the publication times and places and the fact that the, at the time small and intimate, Yang & disciple Beijing community hadn't heard of him (he was an outsider), coupled with the lack of most of such classics from the Chen family suggests another origin.

The oral histories all suggest Chang San Feng. And with baishi oaths etc. and the closeness and required trust between master-disciple I find it far-fetched to believe in a massive conspiracy early-mid twentieth century in order to market TCC. Every Sifu would have to be complicit and all their already baishi'd students likewise.... and noone broke the silence since... come on ... that's tin-foil hat stuff!

As for Wudang.... it is said that CSF dwelt there for 10 years after learning daoist methods form Hou Long on Hua Shan. There on Wudang he formulated Nei Jia Chuan.... but subsequently moved to Bao Ji west of Xian, and resided in a cave above the Golden Pavillion Temple. My own Sifu - Dan Docherty has stated that when he visited there in 1995, a Mr Ma Jian who was caretaker there since the 1950's had told him that there was a martial tradition at the temple until the cultural revolution.

When speaking to Wudang Daoists myself, they told me that the mountain was basically a type of martial arts mecca, and that more than 300 styles are associated with the area. It was melting pot, a university, a place martial artists would retreat to to mix with and learn and develop with others, and not a prescribed style with a syllabus taught the temples. This seems more credible to me, and fits the oral tradition better. It also pulls nei jia away from Wudang and allows Xian to feature in the tale a bit more easily... and with Wang Zong and Wang Zong-yue... northern and southern schools etc... well.... its conjecture... but at least I'm not wearing a tin-foil hat!