Just what the heck is Peng Jin anyway?

[johnwang]

However, push is necessary in your examples in order to "borrow" opponent's "force," correct? IOW, there is no borrowing without push.

Push is important in action/reaction; like in your examples. I believe your signature statement should include a qualifier to be more accurate.

You can borrow your opponent's force by push or pull. IMO, pull is better than push.

When you

- pull, your opponent can borrow your pulling force and push you. But you can step to the side and lead him into the emptiness.
- push, if your opponent's legs are free, he can borrow your pushing force, and lead you into the emptiness.

You can still control the situation after pulling. You can't control the situation after pushing. The only time that I use push is when I can get my opponent's leading leg and interrupt his mobility. If my opponent's legs are free, I'll never push.

[marvin8]

However, push is necessary in your examples in order to "borrow" opponent's "force," correct? IOW, there is no borrowing without push.

Push is important in action/reaction; like in your examples. I believe your signature statement should include a qualifier to be more accurate.

You can borrow your opponent's force by push or pull. IMO, pull is better than push.

When you

- pull, your opponent can borrow your pulling force and push you. But you can step to the side and lead him into the emptiness.
- push, if your opponent's legs are free, he can borrow your pushing force, and lead you into the emptiness.

You can still control the situation after pulling. You can't control the situation after pushing. The only time that I use push is when I can get my opponent's leading leg and interrupt his mobility. If my opponent's legs are free, I'll never push.

But in your examples, your instruction is to first push to setup/get a reaction from the opponent. You first push (out of 2), before you "get my opponent's leading leg and interrupt his mobility" and your "opponent's legs are free:"

Here is an example that A borrows B's yielding force.

1. A pushes, B yields.
2. A borrows B's yielding force and pushes again.


Here is an example that A borrows B's resisting force.

1. A pushes, B resists.
2. A borrows B's resisting force and change push into pull, B resists again.
3. A borrows B's resisting force and change pull back into push.


I'm still allergy to "push".

I thought "A" is allergy to "push?"

[johnwang]

But in your examples, your instruction is to first push to setup/get a reaction from the opponent. You first push (out of 2), before you "get my opponent's leading leg and interrupt his mobility" and your "opponent's legs are free:"

I may not make myself clear here. Push on the shoulder and pull the leading leg are done at the same time.

[marvin8]

But in your examples, your instruction is to first push to setup/get a reaction from the opponent. You first push (out of 2), before you "get my opponent's leading leg and interrupt his mobility" and your "opponent's legs are free:"

I may not make myself clear here. Push on the shoulder and pull the leading leg are done at the same time.

That is your last step. Before in steps 1 & 2, you instruct to "push" and "borrow B's resisting force." That is my understanding from your instructions and video; push to setup, then push to finish.

[johnwang]

It may be more clear if I modify my post as:

Here is an example that A borrows B's yielding force.

1. A pushes B's shoulder and pull B's leg, B yields and steps back.
2. A borrows B's yielding force and pushes B's shoulder again and uses leg to hook B's leg.

Here is an example that A borrows B's resisting force.

1. A pushes B's shoulder and pull B's leg, B resists and steps back.
2. A borrows B's resisting force and change push into pull, B resists again.
3. A borrows B's resisting force and change pull back into pushes B's shoulder and pulls B's leg.

[marvin8]

It may be more clear if I modify my post as:

Here is an example that A borrows B's yielding force.

1. A pushes B's shoulder and pull B's leg, B yields and steps back.
2. A borrows B's yielding force and pushes B's shoulder again and uses leg to hook B's leg.

Here is an example that A borrows B's resisting force.

1. A pushes B's shoulder and pull B's leg, B resists and steps back.
2. A borrows B's resisting force and change push into pull, B resists again.
3. A borrows B's resisting force and change pull back into pushes B's shoulder and pulls B's leg.

You are still illustrating the importance of push to setup/"borrow," which is contrary to your forum signature, I'm still allergy to "push". I take your signature as saying you never push. If you do then, IMO you should add a qualifier to your signature.

I thought "A" is allergy to "push?"

I thought I could get you to soften your stance on push. Since, I take your signature as tongue-in-cheek, superiority over IMA's use of push. The irony is you instruct and use push in your videos, therefore showing it is important.

Your "modified" examples contained a qualifier. But, your first examples that I responded to did not. That is what I meant by:

I believe your signature statement should include a qualifier to be more accurate.

[origami_itto]

In my opinion, Marvin8's long post on the subject is the overall most correct take on the concept.

The only exception I'd take with it is that this particular section (describing absorbing directly then rebounding into the opponent) sounds more like what Cheng Man Ching calls Ti Fang. Peng makes it, and all taiji possible, but it's decidedly different than roll back, which is another option for the "second phase" as he puts it. Ti Fang isn't Peng, but Peng is in Ti Fang, I mean to say.

Excerpt from Peng, the Elastic Power, http://taichi-philosophy.blogspot.com/2 ... power.html:

. . . But why it is so difficult to use peng? To understand this, one must divide the use of peng into two phases.

The first phase of peng

In the first phase one leads the force of the opponent into one owns center and one collects it like in a spring. Through this, one is also able to feel the direction and the amount of the attacking force.

Ma Yueliang:

Peng is a reaction to the amount of the force of the opponent. In Pushhands one finds peng not only in the hands and arms, but all parts of the body have peng-power, which touch the opponent. If one has peng-power, one reached: 'If a movement is fast, one answers fast. If a movement is slow, one answers slow.' If one masters this, the feeling-power (tingjin) is just peng.

. . . Thus, here peng is explained by the power of a spring. A similar picture was probably used, when the Tai Chi-masters changed the old Chinese character bing into the Tai Chi technical term peng. Originally bing stands for a quiver cover under pressure. The character of bing has the radical of hand (left) and the character with the pronunciation bing or peng (right):



This character is connected to:



The left character peng with the radical wood denotes an old war bow. The right character with the radical silk and the pronunciation bing denotes the pulling of a bow.

In the first phase of peng the incoming force is stored in one owns body like in a spring or in a drawn bow. The great difficulty in this phase of peng is, that the your body has to take the force of the opponent in an optimal way. Just the smallest mistake in timing or structure of the body will result in the technique collapsing.

The second phase of peng

In the second phase of peng one can release the stored power in different ways. If the power is send back into the opponent, one still calls this peng.

Ma Yueliang:

"If one was able to control the force of the opponent, one can use this opportunity against him and thus defeat him."
(Ma, Xu, p.9)

On the other hand one can also lead the stored energy with lü into the emptiness and thus destroy the center of the opponent. Ma Jiangbao explains it in this way:

"First I uses a small peng to feel the force of the opponent and then I lead him into the emptiness with a lü."

Ma Yueliang comments:

Peng-jin is full, but not full. It is empty, but not empty. Once full - once empty. The other does not know me, but I alone know the other. This explains, why peng is a hidden jin-power. Peng is also explained as the jin-power in the background. It is repeatedly said, that peng is like water. Water can carry a fallen leave as well as a big ship. In pushhands it doesn't matter if the attacking force is small or big. With peng you can master it. But peng is not only the carrying relationship that a boat has with water, but it is also a fine and subtle movement. When I receive the force of the other, I use my central equilibrium (zhongding) as a pivot, to change the direction of the incoming force upwards. In this way I let the other hang in the air and I can use a smaller force than the opponent: Even if he uses a thousand pounds, it is easy to let him float.
(Ma, Xu, p. 9)

The difficulty of peng in the second phase is to decide, what one wants to do with the force of the opponent. In the end one is dealing with a large force and even the smallest mistake allows the the full force to impact into your own body. Thus one should train the full peng only, when one has reached the level to deal with great force without using too much force oneself.

[Bao]

Ti Fang isn't Peng, but Peng is in Ti Fang, I mean to say.

Ti means to lift, uproot. Fang is release, let go. If you speak about techniques or movement as in the 8 basic jins, you don’t need peng to “ti”, you can use ji, zhou or kou as well. You can also uproot with a lü and let go with a peng. Or you can even use isolated arm movements. Doesn’t matter what. If you speak about pengjin as the quality that the tai chi practitioners try to develop as a part of their shenfa, then pengjin is in everything you do with your tai chi body, in ji, zhou, kou or even in an isolated arm movement.

[cloudz]

I'll chose the classics over any chen ma and wang every time.. they're reliable, unchanging and consistent.

The chin [intrinsic strength] is sung [relaxed], but not sung;
it is capable of great extension, but is not extended.

The chin is broken, but the I is not.

The chin is stored (having a surplus) by means of the curved.

The chin* is released by the back,
and the steps follow the changes of the body.

The mobilization of the chin is like refining steel a hundred times over.
There is nothing hard it cannot destroy.

Store up the chin like drawing a bow.

Mobilize the chin like drawing silk from a cocoon.

Release the chin like releasing the arrow.

To fa-chin [discharge energy],
sink,
relax completely,
and aim in one direction!

In the curve seek the straight,
store,
then release.

So peng on this thread has been song, ting and the jin/ neijin (of tcc) - according to sources that don't have the capacity to experientially embelish their descriptions as they go along. No one's going to tell me that the writers of the classics overlooked to call this store/ release jin "Peng". It's song that gives our jin it's inherent springiness within; the potential is only seen when it is activated from outside. Ting has to combine with a lot, so it doesn't surprise either that it gets infused into some descriptions of Peng.

I can't say I've heard much of store / release being seen as or being called Peng, I like Martins stuff, but I don't buy that. I just don't get the point of it at all. The store and release body mechanics can just as well release Ji as Peng..

[Bao]

I can't say I've heard much of store / release being seen as or being called Peng, I like Martins stuff, but I don't buy that. I just don't get the point of it at all. The store and release body mechanics can just as well release Ji as Peng..

Agree. I would rather say that peng (as one of the eight jins) and ji are expressions of release. Lü is an aspect of storing. Peng follows lü. Use them store and release jin.

[wayne hansen]

That is not a great translation of the classics cloudz
The part about refining steel is a little confusing

[rojcewiczj]

when hip and shoulder joints work together, people will say you are very strong and coordinated. Perhaps, if you are a Chinese person immersed within Chinese traditional martial arts culture, the word peng expresses the quality of strength you have obtained. Needless to say, I am not such a person and so the word "peng" has little use to me. Can we really say that the Chinese created a quality of the body which no one else obtains outside of that culture? I say no, and so I'm more interested in the objective process of developing and expressing power in the human body, than in the worship of exotic cultural artifacts

[Bao]

If someone is interested, I just published an article, or a pretty massive (2200+ words) post, on the ba jin, or on the eight energies. It’s my take on what the heck the meaning with the eight jins is. Sometimes it’s good to look at the broader picture, IMO.

https://taichithoughts.wordpress.com/20 ... chi-chuan/

[Appledog]

Hello, I'd like to maintain a 'cool post count' of 108 posts. This particular post has gone beyond that number and has therefore expired.

I'm sorry if you were looking for some old information but I'll do my best to answer you if you send me a DM with a question in it.

[Appledog]

Hello, I'd like to maintain a 'cool post count' of 108 posts. This particular post has gone beyond that number and has therefore expired.

I'm sorry if you were looking for some old information but I'll do my best to answer you if you send me a DM with a question in it.