windwalker wrote:How would someone make the distinctions that some of the teachers made in the demos concerning fascia , qi, spirit....
over whats considered ordinary force, as most people know it ?
origami_itto wrote:
Is this model the basis of your work? How would you describe it?
I would say he's just using different jin
windwalker wrote:origami_itto wrote:
Is this model the basis of your work? How would you describe it?
I would say he's just using different jin
model ?
yi, qi, shen describes what is thought to be used and developed with each having its own unique properties typically combined in usage ,
according to ones level in ability.
windwalker wrote:How would someone make the distinctions that some of the teachers made in the demos concerning fascia , qi, spirit....
over whats considered ordinary force, as most people know it ?
Bao wrote:windwalker wrote:How would someone make the distinctions that some of the teachers made in the demos concerning fascia , qi, spirit....
over whats considered ordinary force, as most people know it ?
To make that distinction, I would shut off the sound and examine what they do, how they do things. Their explanations are not important. Just because they call themselves "master" it doesn't mean that they can explain what they do or that they even want other people to understand what they do.
windwalker wrote:Bao wrote:windwalker wrote:How would someone make the distinctions that some of the teachers made in the demos concerning fascia , qi, spirit....
over whats considered ordinary force, as most people know it ?
To make that distinction, I would shut off the sound and examine what they do, how they do things. Their explanations are not important. Just because they call themselves "master" it doesn't mean that they can explain what they do or that they even want other people to understand what they do.
maybe wasn't to clear
How would "you" make the distinctions that some of the teachers made in the demos concerning fascia , qi, spirit....
over whats considered ordinary force, as most people know it ?
video is best, considering the teachers are judged through the video not their "writing"
windwalker wrote:Find it quite interesting as even in China, among the many local practitioners, there seems to be a schism between the old and young generations
the younger ones looking to verify or explain the terminology or practices using what some might call a western science out look.
example recent threadTo make that distinction, I would shut off the sound and examine what they do, how they do things. Their explanations are not important. Just because they call themselves "master" it doesn't mean that they can explain what they do or that they even want other people to understand what they do.
For me what they say makes prefect sense although each teacher used their own viewpoints to explain what they do, found the overall theme the same, consistent
skill levels varied.
Would expect for those either not having the same skill sets or experience's, might place more importance over what they say over what they do...
for others what they "do" might carry more weight then what is said,,,
For those having both skill and experience probably what they say doesn't matter so much, what they do, they might find it interesting, as I do in looking at different demos, ie approaches that some use to illustrate a point...
One can try to duplicate what was shown in order to understand how, explaining it according to their understanding / viewpoint
Or take what ever they found interesting in the presentations to make their own demos more clear or interesting....
Bao wrote:
"I" would not "make any distinctions that some of the teachers made in the demos" using their own verbiage as "fascia , qi, spirit"
I would call it skill based on neijia principles, or principles and methods found in the so called internal arts.
so called ok what should they be called
I see the same type of skill as I would call a skilled archer or a rope dancer, or maybe a professional violinist "skilled". Anyone can try to shoot with a bow and arrow and anyone can make sound with a violin and fiddle bow. But "anyone" wouldn't do it with skill. You need to train certain muscles and your neurological system in a certain way to become a good rope dancer or to play the violin good. Try use "ordinary force", or clumsy effort using muscle contractions, to play the violin or to copy the actions of an archer and see how well you do. The difference is skill.
Anyone can uproot, unbalance or push away people. But not with the same effortlessness and precision as someone who has practiced these skills on a daily basis, preferably hours per day, for 10, 15, 20 years or longer.
When people say "I use Qi", I always feel provoked, not because the person would be lying, it might be the teachers own way to understand the reality of what he does, but because I feel it diminishes or minimizes the time and effort the old teachers had to put in to reach that effortlessness, precision and ability to use just a little bit of strength or movement to effortlessly control another human body. And it doesn't help any student to make them believe that there's a secret ingredient that could suddenly help them to accomplish what the teacher does.
Practice, practice and practice, a lot of time and effort spent to understand body mechanics, building a foundation and a certain shenfa, building skill and overall "gongfu", that is what separates people with skill and other people using "ordinary force". Skilled teachers use their muscles, balance, structure and nervous system differently than an untrained person. They also know other, skilled ways, to "play", "aim" and "shoot" another person's body.
Sure, you could also say that an archer must understand mind and intent. And that a rope dancer and a violinist use their qi more efficiently than "common people" using "common strength". It's all valid. But it's the long, long road, many years with a lot of time and effort spent and a lot of repetition that builds up their mind and qi skills.
He also said: “Always keep your qi round, which is actually a kind of resultant force, and seek your own resultant force to be zero. The body is balanced in all directions, there is no collision, obstacle, or involvement, and it is flexible in all aspects.
windwalker wrote:He also said: “Always keep your qi round, which is actually a kind of resultant force, and seek your own resultant force to be zero. The body is balanced in all directions, there is no collision, obstacle, or involvement, and it is flexible in all aspects.
Do you feel provoked ?
He was an old teacher quite famous, explaining it through his understanding of physics and traditional concepts...
The examples provided of "qi" usage is not the same... Kind of surprised that you would feel so..as mentioned experiences and skill sets...different
Bao wrote:Let's keep the discussion in the thread where it belongs.
an example used in another thread illustrating a point,?
not able to use it to do so
I don't find Huang's or Yap's explanations "more Chinese". I find them modern marketing and branding. "That teacher use Fascia, I use Qi and manipulate the Spiritual body."
In the old days it was training and repetition that made the difference. If the "students" at the camp take anything those teachers in the camp say and try to use it in your own training and think it would make any immediate difference or improvement, they will just be cheating themselves. Because to develop and be able to do the same things, they would still need 10, 20 or 30 years of practice. What you later decide to call it wouldn't matter.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 37 guests