Appledog wrote:There is a big difference between someone who is following this road and someone who butts against it with statements such as, "I don't believe in Chi". To me, people like that are not even doing Tai Chi in the first place, no matter what anyone else says. Actually a lot of name-brand masters have said exactly the same thing.
Chen Xiaowang has stated that one doesn't have to believe in "qi" to develop good skills in Taijiquan. Is he not doing Tai Chi?
I'm just pointing out, for the sake of discussion, that the way people seem to think tai chi works is diametrically opposite from what is written down in the yang family manuals.
The Yang family manuals are very difficult to understand and interpret. Consequently, there are many translations and many interpretations, some of which are diametrically opposite one another. If one uses those as the standard by which to compare people's understanding, it's somewhat of a moving target: who's interpretation/translation are you going to use and how can that be subjective proof of anything?
From personal experience it seems that the reason I get personally attacked for it is that people have felt betrayed, lied to, etc. by the whole "magic kung fu mythology" and view anyone "believing in it" as a fool, or an idiot, and treat them as such.
From your statement, it seems people have verbally attacked you because of what you practice or chose to believe the practice involves.
But just because you believe tai chi should be one way does not make it so.
So, here's the dilemma. If 10 people all say that Taijiquan should be a specific way, and state that it is something different than the others, are they all wrong? Is one right and the others wrong? Are they are right? Who's to determine which is right and which is wrong, and by what criteria?
You need something more credible. Like, for example, your name on the yang family lineage chart, or a book like Chen's.
Do I understand correctly that you are arguing that, based on your interpretation of the Yang family writings, that Taijiquan is a specific way and, although you don't have the skills of those who wrote that material, the fact that they wrote it and you've interpreted their writings a particular way is proof that that your interpretation is how it is or should be?
So I decided to throw in with the big-name family teacher crowd and not the small-time park practitioner crowd.
I'm not sure what that means. You chose to study with a big name to gain credibility? You choose to quote the writings of big name people?
My approach to push hands is more like in the following two videos than not. Call me a fan and nothing more.
I'm not sure what that means. Is there a "legitimate" approach to push hands that is NOT like the videos? What do you mean that you are a "fan and nothing more"?
It really has nothing to do with who I studied with. I've mentioned before I spent some time in Eddie Wu's school. However I would say 90% of my time was practicing with old people in the park.
I'm trying to get some insight into what sort of training you've done and with what background. That is, how you know what you know and the basis for knowing it. I'm getting the impression that you've studied a little with known teachers, done a lot of reading/interpreting and practiced with people in the park. I'm getting the impression that you are doing exactly what you are criticizing others for doing: filling in the gaps in ones training/understanding as one sees fit. Am I mistaken?
From where did you learn Chen Taijiquan? I thought that you practiced and taught Chen. Am I mistaken?
I'm just trying to understand the basis of your statements.