A 'synthesis' of internal arts?

[C.J.W.]

Shaolin has nothing to offer the internal
Ba tuan chin is so irrelevant to the internal arts I only teach to those who can't get the basics

Shaolin Temple offers a board syllabus, and their neigung training is very effective.

Ba Tuan Chin is funny. I know someone in China who has killed his opponent in the ring with his first and one punch in his fist match. After that, he never gets into the ring anymore. He is the most powerful guy I have ever known. A friend of mine who is a reputable national kungfu magazine journalist, traval across China has once mentioned to me that this guy's gungli is terribly strong. Several years back, a provincial national sanda team seeked his help on training, he trained them with Ba Tuan Chin. The whole team laughed and left. I guess his Ba Tuan Chin is different. He is too honest, and abosolutely has no business mind.

Baduanjin can be an effective exercise for developing martial power, but if it's done in the garden-variety fashion, then I'd also say it's nothing more than glorified yoga.

I know a Qigong guy who can teach beginners with zero experience in martial arts how to break bricks and boards, and acquire a basic level of iron shirt skill in 3 months using nothing but his version of Baduanjin with no external conditioning involved.

[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.

[Trick]

To seek guidance and approval from your teachers and seniors would have been a good gesture

[Trick]

Hi all,
This question leads from a previous one that I asked on another thread: is it possible to encapsulate 'internal' systems into a roughly common syllabus/common theory, with the intention of creating a clear focus for faster martial development; i.e. are there core elements that unite all of these disciplines that could be taught in a refined way using modern teaching methodology? I studied yi chuan for a few years, and often heard of Wang's ideas of the unification/simplification of internal arts...I just wondered who had any thoughts on the notion.

I newer heard about "Wang's ideas of the unification/simplification of internal arts" . Was his idea to unify and simplify? I got the impression his idea was to focus and stay with the core of it of which he believed many had strayed away from, so it would seem if one know this core one would understand there is no reason to deliberately create a synthesis or a new "internal" Chinese martial art........Note I write deliberately.......If ones art after many years of practice takes on a special personal flavor and ones contemporaries notice and acknowledge that then that flavor might receive a new name

[HotSoup]

...
Its just that, in my limited opinion, there seems to be more overlap than difference between many arts (including those that are not normally defined as internal), and that maybe there is a way of teasing out those commonalities. After that the methods could be used to develop martial capacity or for general health benefits...that may almost sound like reinventing the wheel to some of you but such a methodology shouldn't be seen as a threat to traditional systems, more of a way of helping to teach.
...

Well, could you elaborate how exactly this would help teaching? By definition, what's common among different IMA styles is _already_ present in each of them. Why extract anything? Just to posit pluralities and have yet another version of the same thing?

[Bao]

The notion of "unify" or putting the styles together is a bit ... hmm... peculiar... There are a whole lot similar principles and the CIMA arts have all developed through the same source, so if you understand the source, you can have them all at the same time. Then it's not a matter of combining, but more develop your own basic body methods so you have the potential to develop them all. If you can have the essences of each three styles depends on yourself and on your limitations, not on the styles. It depends on either how well you can adapt them into your own shenfa/boy method, if your body method is too restricted or not. If you believe that you should never raise your shoulders in tai chi, you can't merge bagua and tai chi together. If you believe that power should be generated only through whole body rotation, you can combine bagua and Tai Chi, but not Tai Chi and XY. But if you don't believe in these restrictions and if your shenfa is flexible enough, you can combine many things together. LHBF for example is not really a combination of the different arts, but its flexible body method allows for very different types of body use. Its Shenfa is less restricted than how Tai Chi or Xingyi are usually taught. But also, there are different sub styles, especially in XY and BG, that have developed very differently from the commonly known standards, in so different directions that they are much harder to combine. Sometimes you must develop a very different shenfa to be able to combine them and usually also you need to drop something you've already been taught.

I newer heard about "Wang's ideas of the unification/simplification of internal arts" . Was his idea to unify and simplify?

He didn't, he kept the styles clearly separated and taught them separately. In his own free style form practice he put things together from the different styles, but this is a different than trying to "unify".

....

[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.

[willie]

The arts developed in relative isolation, now that we have the internet and world travel things are different, maybe there doesn't need to be 5 or 6 or more 'internal' styles.

not to allow people to become complacent with dead-end schools for decades the way it has been for-literally-ever now.

Appledog, Having the internet should be a good thing, but is it?
I remember when I first ran into real Chen, It didn't seem to adhere to what I Thought was commonly thought as tai chi. Now as I see it, the world is wrong.
If the entire tai chi community is mostly wrong, then there is a big problem, no one will except what's right. Too much damage has been done.

I used to have friends that came over a did push hands with me. Now that I learned the high power stuff, They don't come around no more. why?
One friend is from CMC linage, He hates Chen, hates fajin, He kept telling me how noneffective it was, Until he finally came over...Now that he has
seen the truth, he hates it even more. So instead of just humbling himself, he would rather continue searching for alternatives.

So what's was the source of tension? His teacher...His teacher (right under Robert Smith) was also wrong. So how do you fix that?
Ya can't!

As far as dead end schools. It will always be like that. There's no money there. Where's there's money, there is the appearance of success.
MMA captured and controls the entire market. Martial Tai chi is a thing of the past, except for just a few.

So back the topic. There is no short cuts...

[suckinlhbf]

the world is wrong

The wrongs outnumber the rights, and now they are the real deal. Sometimes, the wrongs may not be wrong. It may be the level they are at.

NO SHORT CUTS. Internet helps the wrongs (and/or the not so wrongs) become the real deal.

[willie]

the world is wrong

The wrongs outnumber the rights, and now they are the real deal. Sometimes, the wrongs may not be wrong. It may be the level they are at.

NO SHORT CUTS. Internet helps the wrongs (and/or the not so wrongs) become the real deal.

Well, I was wrong too. I had to go through an incredible amount of reprogramming and retraining, but I'm glad that I got through it. That's why I say the type of things that I say even though I know that it would be upsetting to some others. I was upset as well.

[Yeung]

With my limited understanding of English I have to look up the meaning of syntheses in the free dictionary:

syn·the·sis (sĭn′thĭ-sĭs)
n. pl. syn·the·ses (-sēz′)
1.
a. The combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole.
b. The complex whole so formed.
2. Chemistry Formation of a compound from simpler compounds or elements.
3. Philosophy
a. Reasoning from the general to the particular; logical deduction.
b. The combination of thesis and antithesis in the Hegelian dialectical process whereby a new and higher level of truth is produced.

[Steve James]

With my limited understanding of English I have to look up the meaning of syntheses in the free dictionary:

syn·the·sis (sĭn′thĭ-sĭs)
n. pl. syn·the·ses (-sēz′)
1.
a. The combining of separate elements or substances to form a coherent whole.
b. The complex whole so formed.
2. Chemistry Formation of a compound from simpler compounds or elements.
3. Philosophy
a. Reasoning from the general to the particular; logical deduction.
b. The combination of thesis and antithesis in the Hegelian dialectical process whereby a new and higher level of truth is produced.

In both cases, a synthesis is already the combination of theses (or ideas, etc), and is not any of its constituents. So, combining tcc and bagua might end up with bagua-taichi; but, bagua-taichi is neither bagua nor taichi.

There's nothing wrong with combining them. However, imo, the op isn't looking for a synthesis, but to find what is universal in all internal arts, and to just use that.

[windwalker]

Some thoughts come to mind.

And in fact, having an opinion based on years of practice, even of low-tech exercises (and what I am doing is definitively not low tech, just saying) is better than having precious little experience other than sharing your opinion. Once you understand what is going on under the hood there are many less distinctions to be made, and the realization is made that it is more important to practice something at 40% efficiency than chew the fat over how to get to 90%.

Your write well and clear, having said this you've not demonstrated any thing that would lead one to conclude that you can do what you write about...I mention this only as an observation. Not a request or demand.

An example of someone else who felt his work was quite different and bills himself as a "taiji" exponent.

Peter Ralston: I did it for two reasons. One was to complete something for me. I was no longer going to be involved with the competitive aspect of martial arts and I wanted recognition.

The other fundamental reason that I did it is that I'm quite radically different in the world of martial arts; I ask people to do "uncommon" things, to take on apparently unrelated inquiries, and I demand a very deep level of understanding. I want people to listen to me, to open up to what I'm saying.

Winning this World tournament was done so that I could say: "I did it.

"What I'm teaching you is functional. It works."

Now they'll consider it. People listen to me now who wouldn't have before, although I'm saying the same thing."

http://chenghsin.com/founder-peterralst ... w1978.html

In the end I think the main problem with just adopting a certain style is that then be presumptuous for me to teach it because I might not be aware of how *they* do things. Again, the cultural right to teach. I'm looking to make changes and that is impossible for certain people, because they are locked into a certain way of doing things. It's very bruce lee. Is it.... He and another person who comes to mind Peter Ralston demoed their ideas in a very public way to show their work and be accepted by the community they moved in.

What I am going for here is a sort of "OpenTaiji 2.0".

Why call it taiji.

[everything]

Sun Lutang said

I received instruction from Hao, practicing daily for several years, and came to somewhat understand the general principles within the art. I also deeply pondered upon my own experiences from my previous training, and then the three arts of Xingyi Boxing, Bagua Boxing, and Taiji Boxing merged to become a single essence. This single essence is yet separated into the three distinct systems. The postures of the three systems are different, but their principles are the same.

He studied with the top people. Nevertheless notice he says "somewhat understand".

[everything]

A little more.

The methods of these three boxing systems begin with the principle of oneness, divide from there into the three distinct branches, then end up united again in the principle of oneness. Each of the three systems has its own way of oneness: Xingyi Boxing’s sincerity is a pure oneness, Bagua Boxing’s infinity of techniques is a returning to oneness, and Taiji Boxing’s embracing of original nature is a maintaining of oneness. It was said by men long ago [Laozi – Daodejing, chapter 39 / Zhuangzi, chapter 12]: “The sky obtains oneness by being clear. The ground obtains oneness by being firm. Man obtains oneness by being smart.” / “Obtaining the One, all things are accomplished.” The principle of the three systems is always to begin in emptiness and to end in emptiness. Therefore the way the teachers of the three boxing arts practiced can be equivalent to the three schools of Confucianism, Daoism, and Buddhism – with their special theories of sincerity, undifferentiation, and non-identity – merging to become one.
I deeply fear that all the effort those teachers put into perfecting these things will be wasted with the passing of time. Thus I transmit it to share with those who will appreciate it. However, I am ashamed of my own learning, how shallow, ignorant, and illiterate I am, and that I cannot give full expression to their wonderful ideas. It would be good if their methods can be further elaborated upon, and so I hope my comrades will make more information available as it comes to light.
– written by Sun Fuquan of Wan County, Hebei, 1923

Translations from https://brennantranslation.wordpress.com/

I bolded the sad part