(Tai Chi) Pushing Hands is not Fighting

[Appledog]

Hello! Originally I wanted to have a "cool post count" of 108, or something like that (something associated with Tai Chi) but that does not seem possible here. Therefore I am editing this post to point out that users here cannot delete their own posts. I do not understand why users have the ability to edit their posts but not to delete their posts.

[phil b]

Appledog, Who did you study with?

Didn't I mention three times in the last three days I studied at Eddie Wu's school? Who's your teacher, where do YOU teach? Why is any of this relevant? I could literally make up names and it wouldn't make any difference.

Where do you teach?

You're welcome to drop by, I'm in Taiwan, let me know when your coming. You won't be the first person I met off the internet. Sometimes you make good friends, sometimes you don't, it depends what you want out of it I guess.

You want to be taken seriously on here, stop trolling and answer some basic questions.

I prefer to be like windwalker. If you like it, or if you don't, I'm happy with where I am. How about you? Why should I take anything you have to say seriously? Why should anyone here trust anyone? Unless you've met in person and had a fight, anyone could be lying.

You say you are Chen guy but trained with Eddie Wu's school. I thought that was Wu style, but ok.

My teachers are on my profile but since you can't be arsed to check: Hung Gar - Jim Uglow Sifu, Xing yi quan - James McNeil Sifu and Paul Whitrod Sifu. I've also met other teachers and learned from them. I don't teach, but have previously in the UK. As for taking me seriously, I frankly couldn't care less one way or the other. I am not on here making rather grand claims to my understanding or ability. I'm not on here suggesting I'm the only one in the know.

I live in Taiwan too, so maybe I can come and be impressed sometime. Based on your faith in the classics I somehow doubt I will be, but I'm open to the possibility.

[Trick]

Not want to interfere in any feud, and not taking sides, and off the topic. It seem that a few of you board members live in Taiwan, I have had an (slightly loose) offer to go to and stay in Kaohsiung, is it a good place training wise and otherwise? Taiwan in general seem as a good place to live.

[Appledog]

Hello! Originally I wanted to have a "cool post count" of 108, or something like that (something associated with Tai Chi) but that does not seem possible here. Therefore I am editing this post to point out that users here cannot delete their own posts. I do not understand why users have the ability to edit their posts but not to delete their posts.

[windwalker]

Taiwan is a great place to live, nice people, good food, and very interesting places to see and visit.
For those interested in Chinese culture its a very cool "meaning good place",
having lived in both the mainland and here I call
Taiwan china lite.

But then how do you know you're really doing tai chi, and not something else?

I claim no great skill, outside of having a passion for the art.

I leave it up to others to decide. Those that I work with often have many yrs of taiji and like my approach and work.
Many I've worked with often tell me "my teacher taught taiji, but you know taiji" Many can quote the classics and have spent many yrs practicing taiji, I help them to see and feel it in a more real way...which they acknowledge and seem to respect. Again claiming no great skill, if they like the work cool, if not its also cool there are many teaching or working with taiji that they can find to suite their needs and idea of what it is.

Understand that others may have different view points and experiences. just sharing mine and reading others,
I would hope all can do so in a good way...When I work with people mostly Chinese I often discourage them from using words like "qi"
to describe things or attribute things to...

I've found that for most it tends to limit understanding and does not promote viewing things in a context that I feel is more productive to learning
until reaching a certain point. In my teachers group in China, it was discouraged forcing a thing in pursuit of it,
feeling that the understanding would come through practice. His way was to say this is that or this, and allow one to feel it directly. He wasn't into big explanations and felt that through practice a direct understanding along with ability would emerge.

This was how he learned. Its a way of learning that does not lend itself to everyone getting it...it was a way of weeding out those who could not get it for what ever reason.

When they asked if one understood something it was by doing...Having said this coming from a back ground of CMA, I dropped everything for some 10yrs in order to gain a small understanding of my teachers work and others like him...

Push hands is a great way to develop and train certain skill sets, for many taiji people I've met it becomes the defacto way the art works which to me
leaves many holes in their training and experience. It becomes a kind of sparring in itself complete with it's own rule set and unspoken understandings.

While I understand this its not really something I pursue in my own work.
I do respect others that do even if I do not agree with the approach or turning it into a competitive event.

[windwalker]

they don't want to do casual push hands they're living in another world from myself. I can't tell you what a joy it was to push hands with Henry Look and Wen Zee 25 years ago at the internationals.

mmm, I would say in my own experience its not really productive, and while it gives an indication of skill, its skill in push hands nothing more.
A mistake IMO for those that feel it is.

My own teacher on meeting people would invite them to try anything they like, they would in an honest way while still respecting his age.
Those that came for push hands, I always felt bad for them as he would ask some of the senior students to play with them. They were not nice
and would tend to bounce the person around...

In peace park TW, I met a guy a westerner who had asked to push and then went for single leg take down..while pushing...
He struggled unable to do it, I stopped and asked him what he was doing and what he thought he was doing. I then asked him to try it directly and showed him some ways it wouldn't work and why. He was a nice guy but still had the idea that a training tool was some type of sparring thing...

For me I'm not interested. Its a conclusion I've only recently come to after many yrs...of working with it...
My own teacher could do so some amazing things, my work, works with things that many tend to mock here, which is ok and understandable.

I'm pretty grounded and understand my own work.

IMO The masters of the past, were the MMA guys of their day and age.
They had the time and need to develop their craft to reach levels that may not be
possible to reach in this day and age for most people....which really is as its always been.

[charles]

Really? Chen Zhenglei said anyone who doesn't believe in "qi" isn't doing taijiquan. Given that Chen Xiao-Wang's own "five levels of kung fu" (see: http://www.shou-yi.org/taijiquan/5-leve ... -taijiquan) talks about qi extensively even in the first level though, I think your statement is probably in error. If CXW said that, can you provide a quote?

CXW told me that personally, along with the other people we were standing with. There was no misunderstanding and he is fluent in the English language. He was very clear about it. Feel free to ask him directly.

But I asked you why you think he wrote an article on the five levels of kungfu which mentions qi.

But, that isn't what you asked me. You stated that I was likely in error and asked for a quote of him saying that - presumably in video or in print.

He was very clear why he stated that. There are different ways to explain the phenomena that we observe in daily life. One particular explanation for why things are the way they are, why things work as they do, is provided by ancient thinking of the Chinese culture. That explanation involves "qi". There are other explanations, from different cultures, different eras, for why things are as they are and interact as they do, particularly with modern Western interpretations. The "qi" paradigm isn't the only way of understanding and interpreting the world around us and ourselves. CXW is a smart, well-educated man. He is aware that that is one of many possible ways to look at and understand the world and humans. Yes, he teaches using the traditional, Chinese framework, but he's also aware of it being only one way of understanding or describing life on Earth.

In his article he writes, "One may then achieve the stage of being able to use external movements to channel internal energy'. The first level kung fu thus begins with mastering the postures to gradually being able to detect and understand jin or force." This is pretty clear. If you are doing something else, how are you going to get past this first level of kungfu without learning how to channel the energy and understand jin?

I think the relevant question is how does ANYONE get past this first level of kungfu? By what specific practice does one achieve that? As the expression goes, "The map is not the territory". His 5 levels is a map. It doesn't tell you HOW to achieve those results anymore than the "Classics" do. The relevant question, the one he addressed in his statement, is whether or not one must coach what one does in terms of "qi". His answer was, "No". If you practice the right stuff, the right way, the right stuff will happen, regardless of what you call it or how you mentally conceptualize it.

You seem to be confusing a description of a thing with the thing itself. The description of the thing is not the thing.

Pick almost anything. Take the meaning of "double-heavy". Take the meaning of "peng". Take the "four ounces deflects 1000 lb" thing. Take the separation of Yin and Yang thing. Take the "release like an arrow from a bow" thing. And so on. What do these things mean? How does one implement them?

Those are just terms.

Those are terms that describe core aspects, core skills of the art. I asked you what the terms mean and how one implements what those terms describe. The terms are just terms, but what the terms are attempting to label are core skills, core abilities. If one doesn't know what physical skills are being referred to or how - by what sort of training practices, for example - one achieves those, then of what value is having read the Classics? It isn't "conversational". Nor are the Classics an explicit how-to manual. They are a map. They are not the territory.

Can you give me an example where someone disagrees on the definition of double heavy?

Do a search on this forum for the term and see what disagreement/confusion has been previously encountered. Start a separate thread on the meaning of "double-heavy" or "double-weighted" and see what you get. Ask 10 different Taijiquan practitioners and see what variation in answer you get. Ditto for any of the other terms I offered as simple examples. Start a discussion on "peng", what it is and how to achieve it, and you'll get 11 different answers from 10 people asked.

I'd be sincerely interested if you could come up with an example. I can't find any, and I have a very extensive collection of Tai Chi magazine.

I'm really trying to take you seriously, honest. But if the extent of your resources are the Yang family writings and Tai Chi Magazine, it's pretty hard to do that.

Do you have a copy of Jou Tsunghwa's book? If so, read what I previously suggested, what he has to say about "silk reeling". Then we'll discuss it.

None of those squabbles involve the basic principles of tai chi.

Yeah, they do.

You can take a CMC guy and a CXW guy and they do basically the same thing once you get into push hands.

Superficially, perhaps, but not in the details. Not at all in the details. It's the details that differentiate one style of Taijiquan from the others. It's the differeneces in how the core principles are interpreted and physically implemented that differentiate one style from the others.

And if they don't, they learn from each other.

In a perfect world, perhaps, but not often in this one.

I really think that if someone believes that another branch of the family "doesn't know shit" they are really selling themselves short.

Not so much. There are many teachers, some of whom claim lineage, who fall into that category.

I can't express how valuable it has been for me to look at a wide breadth of different tai chi styles.

What has that "look at a wide breadth of different tai chi styles" entailed? You've mentioned some study with Eddy Wu, I assume him, directly, rather than just his school. You stated some connection to Chen and Sun. What has that involved?

[vagabond]

Appledude - the stuff you're talking isn't good Kung Fu, it's bad epistemology. I suggest you drop the classics and pick up "eclipse of reason" by Max Horkheimer

[Appledog]

Hello! Originally I wanted to have a "cool post count" of 108, or something like that (something associated with Tai Chi) but that does not seem possible here. Therefore I am editing this post to point out that users here cannot delete their own posts. I do not understand why users have the ability to edit their posts but not to delete their posts.

[GrandUltimate]

In the distant future, the archives of RSF will be the new Tai Chi Classics

[GrahamB]

...and the 'extensive collection of Tai Chi Magazine' will become known as "the lost Tai Chi Classics".

"What were these strange documents the ancients talked about?" they will ask, through telepathically generated hologram avatars as their bodies sleep in deep space suspended animation, while travelling to their new home world.

[charles]

Granted. But what are these alternate ways? I would absolutely love to know a way of explaining this to western people.

Western science is used for some aspects. Modern physiology is used for some aspects. Modern sport science for some aspects. Recently Steve posted a video in this thread about "Power from the Front Line": viewtopic.php?f=6&t=25792&st=0&sk=t&sd=a. Mike Sigman has proposed explanations regarding connective tissues: read his blogs or contact him. Yang Jwingming has suggested an electro-mechanical basis in several of his books. And so on. It is not a new idea to interpret aspects of "internal" martial arts using non-qi approaches. It's out there.

There very well may be an alternate way of explaining it -- why not? But how useful would it be, since this entire thing is based on mind-intent? From a practical standpoint, if you're not training the internal energy based on the fact you are a human being, and not using the mind based on the fact you are a human being, what precisely are you doing? I would love to see this written up somewhere. As it stands, it's a nice idea but I have never seen a practical implementation. I think it would be very useful to get (understand) this practical implementation.

I've studied with several very skilled teachers who don't rely on any discussion of "qi". They have skills. Some of their students have skills.

You seem to be implying that what separates Taijiquan, or perhaps other "internal" arts, from the rest of human activity is that some special energy is used in conjunction with "mind-intent" that is not found in any other human activity and cannot be explained in any other way than to say it is "qi".

I don't know whether or not "qi" exists or not, and don't care: whether or not it exists is irrelevant. What matters is that one trains specific ways to develop specific abilities and that one achieve those specific abilities. If those abilities are the result of "qi", so be it. "Qi" for sake of "qi" is irrelevant. Mind-intent for the sake of mind-intent is irrelevant. You can sit in a chair and have all of the "mind-intent" you want. But until you use the physical body to accomplish a physical task, it's just mind-intent. To accomplish things in the physical world take more than just having the intent that it happen. Much of the art of Taijiquan is about how to make things happen in the physical world. That's not to deny the "energetic" aspects of things, but there is a specific physical component to it as well.

I think the relevant question is how does ANYONE get past this first level of kungfu? By what specific practice does one achieve that? As the expression goes, "The map is not the territory". His 5 levels is a map. It doesn't tell you HOW to achieve those results anymore than the "Classics" do. The relevant question, the one he addressed in his statement, is whether or not one must coach what one does in terms of "qi". His answer was, "No". If you practice the right stuff, the right way, the right stuff will happen, regardless of what you call it or how you mentally conceptualize it.

The article does in fact tell you how to do it, no? For the first level, he says "If one is persistent enough and practices seriously everyday, one can normally master the forms within half a year. The inner energy, qi, can gradually be induced to move within the trunk and limbs with refinements in one's movements."

No. No it doesn't. Not in any explicit way, beyond, "Just practice the form persistently". That's about as useful as saying, "If you want to go to the moon, get in a space shuttle and go there".

We are not left scratching our heads in vain at what he is saying.

Based upon what is written there, we should be scratching our heads.

I'm just asking for a clarification on which masters disagree over a definition of double heavy, because it's my contention that all of the top level people essentially agree with the basic principles of the art.

This is a public forum. I'm not going to state the names of specific "top level people" with whom I've had private discussions in which they disagree with other "top level people" on matters related to Taijiquan principles.

One that is already pretty common knowledge is the disagreements between Feng and CXW.

Do you have a copy of Jou Tsunghwa's book? If so, read what I previously suggested, what he has to say about "silk reeling". Then we'll discuss it.

yeah I have a signed copy. Jou tsung hwa.. jou tsung hwa...

The reason Jou became such a famous grandmaster of taiijquan is because he questioned everything he learned, and refused to conform to the status quo of taijiquan education during this era. After visiting and studying with a wide variety of teachers in China and Taiwan, Jou drew the conclusion that the art of taijiquan was becoming lost. Too much focus was put on the physical forms and too little focus on the founding principles of taijiquan, as elucidated in the Taiji Classics. This disconnect seemed to be the missing piece of the puzzle as to why so few modern day masters lacked the skills, stamina, health and martial abilities of the masters of old. At that moment of inspiration, he abandoned all teachers and took the Taiji Classics as his only teacher. He restructured everything that he had previously learned and practiced in taiji. He started all over again, focusing on what he believed to be the missing foundation of taijiquan. This was a lonely path with no support an little encouragement. Many scoffed at his decision. But Jou’s dedication led him to personal success and global fame for taking this step; for being the voice of taiji education that led people back to the deepest and most original of its principles. And as such, his growing abilities and deep thoughts garnered the attention of taiji masters and enthusiasts, who too, wanted “something more” than what was currently available to them in the tai chi community.

You asked for an example of "top level people" who disagree. I shouldn't have brought up Jou Tsunghwa since I really don't want to get into a discussion about him.

I see from the quote, the part I emphasized in bold, that you agree with him and it appears you are following that path. If I've understood that correctly, I wish you well on your journey. I honestly don't know where else to go with this discussion.

You get clued into certain things that normal students might never figure out. Nothing secret really just the parameters get pretty well defined. You hear certain things more often, and so they have a different emphasis I guess. When you hang around or learn from people who are merely good, you don't get the same emphasis because they don't really know, so you end up getting stuck at their level. To really get good you need to be clued into the big door pathway, and understand it. Once you get to a point, relatively early, you can technically figure it all out on your own. But having a teacher really helps, of course. Often when someone has poor instruction they get stuck on weird points. Like in how they talk or explain things, you can sort of sense it out when someone knows something or not, or they are bluffing, or just repeating what they read somewhere. I dunno, I guess I am just too used to "that way". One of the things I got clued into big time was that someone like me, esp. since I did not have a big name lineage, like learning directly from Yang Zhenduo or something, that I should be doubly thankful for the classics and manuals because they were like a spiritual teacher that I could learn from anytime. And that I should ponder and ponder over what was written there if I wanted to get good and maybe get into a lineage. The funny thing is, that's also what it says in the manuals. Famous masters have famous students.

If I never met my teachers I would say, being an inquisitive and open and willing kind of student, it would have taken me an extra ten years to figure out what I know now, but an extra ten on top of that to go pro/go public. There is a great deal to be said about the transmission of wude, of martial spirit. The correct flavor, the fire behind it. Giving that to someone is often more important than teaching them anything else.

[charles]

In the distant future, the archives of RSF will be the new Tai Chi Classics

...and the 'extensive collection of Tai Chi Magazine' will become known as "the lost Tai Chi Classics".

Cringe.

[vagabond]

I haven't and I won't. I'm not particularly interested in your perspective because I don't think you're capable of unencumbered thinking. What I'm pointing you toward is one writers engagement with the problem of the bizarre and misleading metaphysics that can spring from a perceived objectivity. Discursive false metanarrative, drinking the koolaid, etc.

[everything]

Appledude - the stuff you're talking isn't good Kung Fu, it's bad epistemology. I suggest you drop the classics and pick up "eclipse of reason" by Max Horkheimer

I don't mean to direct this at him again, but this is just such a good quote/response for MA boards' posts in general. "bad epistemology" would be a good band name or album name or something.