robert wrote:Steve James wrote:Ya know, I wonder what if anything the old Yang masters had to say about chansi jin in Yang style. Otoh, I'd say that spirals are the result of rotation and translation --and I think that the "13" whatevers comprise that.
Number 9 from YCF's
Ten Important PointsMove with continuity. As to the external schools, their chin (jin) is the Latter Heaven brute chin (jin). Therefore it is finite. There are connections and breaks. During the breaks the old force is exhausted and the new force has not yet been born. At these moments it is very easy for others to take advantage. T'ai Chi Ch'uan uses I and not li. From beginning to end it is continuous and not broken. It is circular and again resumes. It revolves and has no limits. The original Classics say it is "like a great river rolling on unceasingly." and that the circulation of the chin (jin) is "drawing silk from a cocoon " They all talk about being connected together.From
http://www.scheele.org/lee/classics.html
Well, I was curious about two things: one, whether Yang tcc used the terminology "chansi jin." Hopefully, we aren't arguing whether Yang tcc "has" chansi jin or utilizes spiral energy. (I'd say that it has to). But, there isn't a specific "shi" (posture, position, disposition, energy, or "jin") called chan si. As I said, it's not a matter of whether it exists. The point was made in terms of Dan's citation of Feng: i.e., that chansi jin was the central jin, and that --as Dan and Appledog expressed (iinm)-- that peng jin and the other jins were implicit in chansi.
The other issue was the context of this thread: i.e., what is "excessive" movement in tcc, and if it exists, could there be its opposite? Personally, I'd say that excessive and deficient are a question of whether action supports intent. Is a punch in the nose too little or too much? How much does my hand, leg, body need to move to accomplish my goal?
But, I was really interested because, for example, Sun stylists seem to emphasize the energy of "open close" --again, not to deny the presence or lack of anything. I'm just suggesting that different styles (of tcc) have emphasized what they've called different "jin." Sure, one can say that they're all emphasizing "neijin," but then --imo-- people think they know what everyone else is doing because they call it the same thing. Maybe true, but I think that what makes the different styles different are their particular emphases. They lead to different applications even though the theory is consistent.