KongFuGongFu wrote:I really enjoyed this podcast and found it insightful, though I disagree that the taiji method is lost, or that if it was, we would need to come together somehow and find it again. It just sounds like another instance of worshipping the past. Granted, the ancestors were skilled, but so were plenty of their descendants... if the real thing was in the past, lineage would be futile and evolution would be impossible.
Thanks for the comment and your kind words.
I think I said if we are not careful we will lose the skills of taijiquan. I agree that there are pockets of good quality taijiquan that still exist, and I agree that the art can and needs to evolve. What I am saying is that the infighting and tribalism within practitioners, branches, and styles is not going to help preserve our art. My experience has been that mutual respect and an open mind can even enhance and support our own training even if that source is from another style. I am not suggesting that we should merge styles or even branches, just that we can learn from each other.
Thanks for pointing out that this was not clear.
KongFuGongFu wrote:It's also interesting that this idea is mentioned, if I remember correctly, alongside the idea that putting a personal spin on the art is a mistake, or some people received an incomplete transmission. If that's so, what are we to make of Chen Zhonghua's, let alone Hong Junsheng's, own idiosyncrasies, or the origin story of PM?
I don’t know what you picked up on. I think it's important put sufficient time and effort in to become proficient in an art, in what your teacher is teaching, before trying to change it. Personality, knowledge, body characteristics and such are always going to enter into training, so a student’s art will always have his or her own fingerprint and be somewhat different that the teacher’s, but hopefully those differences are only superficial until proficiency is attained. After you are proficient in and art it is yours. Do what you want with it. However, I do not remember discussing this subject in the interview.
KongFuGongFu wrote:No disrespect to PM. I just think this art should evolve, and it's only natural that it would eventually branch off into slightly different directions or flavors. We can accept that these different "Taijiquan" arts do the "Taiji" part differently. Chen Zhonghua's conception of Taiji is very interesting and thought provoking, and maybe it could have application in a different line, but if that line is well-defined, it probably won't yield the same result if other concepts or methods are being used.
Chen Fake, Hong Junsheng, Chen Zhonghua, and I all agreed that the art should evolve, with the caveats I listed above and maybe a few others, so there is no disrespect taken. What did I say that would indicate otherwise?
Of course, I would maintain that these teachers primarily modified the teaching method of the art, not the core of the art itself, though that has been done in the past.
My view is from a biomechanical and neuromuscular perspective, my observation is that the Practical Method has the biomechanics and the neuromuscular firing sequences right. So, I think there’s something every taiji practitioner, regardless or instructor, branch, or style could learn that would improve their own art, of course, at the appropriate time.