Xingyiquan of the Chinese army reviewed

[GrahamB]

GrahamB: I will answe from two different points of view, both or none of whom may be germane to this discussion.

Thanks, good answers.

There is a general answer, which is what I meant previously, which is very simple: it's hard to teach martial arts to recruits. Whatever you teach them is generally a dumbed-down version of the martial art it's based on. It cannot have the nuances and body methods which take too long to program for someone who needs to be trained in the next 2 to 8 months (or whatever). Most recruits are physically stronger than the general population and therefore it makes sense to teach them more athletical methods. In modern warfare, other stuff is much more a priority for the soldiers, including firearms and such, but also, and mainly, to move as a unit, to obey commands, etc... This has been so since the 19th century or so (and in some cases, it has been so since the legions which did defeat warriors that were probably individually better than them), and it was already true in China. And the Chinese KNEW it, just read Qi Ji Guan's books where he says that "Boxing" is generally useless to soldiers, except perhaps as a form of exercise or a method to teach self-confidence, and that weapons are primary but they must be "reduced" to the simpler components because those are the ones soldiers will use on the battlefield.

I'd agree with you (and General Qi) based on modern martial arts being taught to soldier.... BUT in the case of XinYi/XingYi we have to flip it around:

It all depends what you think of in your head as "martial arts"...historically XinYi was originally military methods (from Ji Long Feng) being taught to civilians, not the other way around. So the whole thing requires a 180 degree shift in perspective. I guess that after all its centuries of modification for barehand, it still contains some of its military essence, so I guess if you were going to teach anything back to solders form the (modern) martial arts world, then it would be a pretty good candidate, except obviously firearms have changed everything.

In todays martial arts communities we all know what "battle tested" and "taught to SEALs and Marines under rigorous conditions" means: a watered down, simplifed, EASY TO TEACH method, which may very well be useful for the soldiers, but is hardly the primary method they are learning, or their priority. I will admit there may be exceptions, but most soldiers nowadays spend a really small part of their total training hours in hand to hand combat. And it's mostly been that way for a long time. I would hazard that whatever spear techniques were taught to soldiers during the 17th century in China were probably simplified, easy, watered down methods that could be drilled in great groups (remember the Seven Samurais).

I think this assumes that "martial arts" is "hand to hand combat". Ji Long Feng and his fellow soldiers were full time - they would have devoted a lot of their time to training. Enough to make something very subtle (i.e. effective) I'd imagine.

There is another, more complex reason to be made here, which is that China did not have a warrior class, like Japan, and that in fact, the soldierly profession was generally not very appreciated, a "tainted" pursuit as a rule. Unlike the samurais, who made fighting the center of their world, Chinese never viewed warfare through the same prism of personal honor and accomplishment. The martial arts in China have been civilian affairs for a very long time, as can be readily seen by most of the old stories about hermits, peasants, poor people who became great fighters, caravan guards and such. These people expected to survive to old age, and they trained in a completely different way, which I think is the main reason that the Bujittsu and the Chines styles are different. Ellis Amdur summarizes it best when he says: Japanese styles taught you to fight , and to win, regardless of what happened to your body after you reach the age of 50 or 60 (at which time no one expected you to continue to fight or have more kids, you've done your bit), whereas Chinese styles taught you to fight and SURVIVE, but never at the expense of what it did to your body, you were after all, expected to survive to old age, and not to be stupid and go and die in some dirty battlefield.

Agreed - in civilian life, you need to practice something that also is good for your long term health, since you're not about to go into battle tomorrow.

This is to say that I think 1) no manual on combatives for the army can actually be any sort of martial arts, just a simplified method (ie. Huang's book is not Xingyi, just some basic training drills adapted from Xingyi), and 2) I seriously doubt that any Chinese martial art was based on a military training method (ie. if Xingyi is based on spear it's because Ji Long Feng was one heck of a good spearmaster, not because he went to the army and learned spear there).

Well, I think it's true to say that his spear work was learned in the army. He never claimed to have learned it from a martial arts master of some kind, and he was actually using his spear to kill the enemy in battle. Battle-tested, as the old saying goes.

[Josealb]

I was talking about Ji Long Feng who was a soldier in the Ming army.

Sorry, i didnt realize you practiced Ji longfengs art. You're one lucky guy.

however many, many practitioners and teachers consider these two names interchangeable.

Really? who? I've always wanted to practice quality Xinyi...i guess ive always had it without knowing.

Seriously, who?

[GrahamB]

I just typed "Ji long feng" into Google. First hit:

http://www.chiflow.com/hsing_i_overview.htm

Want me to keep going?

But anyway, there seems to be no disagreement that everybody who practices XingYiQuan today is in a lineage descended from Ji Long Feng. We're talking a huge span of history here, with many, many changes, sure, but there's an unbroken teacher/student link. If he hadn't decided to teach anybody then there would be no "XingYiQuan". It all depends how you look at it.

I wrote about this once:

http://wusource.org/content/are-xinyi-a ... erent-arts

[Josealb]

Gotcha. Gerald Sharp.

So...Li Luoneng...practiced what Ji Long Feng practiced? Of course not, how silly of me. Li trained in Dai, and then made some changes according to his personal experience. But somehow he never forgot how all of it was related to the all mighty spear in the battlefield. He was a very smart farmer, that one.

Sorry, theres just so many holes in there...not worth the time. Have fun writing assumptions on your blog. Im out.

[GrahamB]

You fear my mind-sword!

Anyway, shouldn't you be off looking at my YouTube videos again? I put something special up there just for you...

[JoseFreitas]

Well, I think it's true to say that his spear work was learned in the army. He never claimed to have learned it from a martial arts master of some kind, and he was actually using his spear to kill the enemy in battle. Battle-tested, as the old saying goes.

I think we're talking of different things.

Yes, he may have "learned" the spear as a soldier, but what he practiced was not the spear he learned, rather the product of his own talent and exploration. Would he have taught the same thing to soldiers? Probably not, if he was forced to come up with some six week training program to be taught to 1000 soldiers simultaneously. Not to mention the fact that 90% of all the spear methods I know ie. Xingyi and Jing Wu) would absolutely NOT work in a battlefield (there would be no room, I think). What I'm saying is, one thing is the product on an individual's investigation, the other what he would have to teach as a simplified method. I think most (perhaps all) curricula to be taught to soldiers HAVE to eb dumbed down versions of something else. This is not to say that a talented individual might not expand upon it and develop it.

Have you ever learned at military training manuals (for close combat methods)? It would be a far stretch of the mind to call what is taught there a "martial art". But it might serve as something to expand on, investigate the way of moving, generating power, etc...

Also, let's not forget that Xingyi is based on spear, but it took Ji Long Feng's finding of a secret manual by Yue Fei or secret teacher or whatever to transform it into something else, more advanced. Or so the story goes!

[GrahamB]

I think we're talking of different things.

Yes, he may have "learned" the spear as a soldier, but what he practiced was not the spear he learned, rather the product of his own talent and exploration.

Well, I think you're speculating wildly there... how do you know that? Sticking to the facts - he went into the army. Got taught how to use a spear - got very good at it in actual battles (blood sweat and tears, etc...) , then when the war was over decided to adapt his hard won spear methods to empty hand because the carrying of weapons was now banned by the new rulers, the Ching.

I don't see how you can decide that his military training didn't make up the substantive part of his art. I'd say it was his art, and his experience. Martial arts cannot be invented out of nothing.

Would he have taught the same thing to soldiers? Probably not, if he was forced to come up with some six week training program to be taught to 1000 soldiers simultaneously. Not to mention the fact that 90% of all the spear methods I know ie. Xingyi and Jing Wu) would absolutely NOT work in a battlefield (there would be no room, I think).

Well, all the XingYi methods I know are designed to work as if you are standing in a line of soldiers carrying spears (ie. on a battlefield). They make no big motions to the side that would injure fellow comrades. It's all quite linear and forwards directed, which is important if there are a group of you. I just put up a barehand Bear Eagle clip - see my profile to get to my videos page - and you'll see it would all work if there were two (or more) of us doing that link side-by-side with a sword or a spear.

I don't know what you personally know or have been taught, but I see YouTube videos of people doing "XingYi" that looks like modern WuShu - big wide flailing of the spear, twirling it over head, the whole Wu Shu works, so it's impossible to say with so many influences into the modern day arts. But even if you look at the 5 Elements, they are all linear, don't attack to the sides, where you comrades are. Contrast that to, say, Shaolin, where the forms go all over the place, because they don't have the same training concepts.

Equally, I agree you can't develop amazing amounts of depth if you've just got 6 weeks to train somebody, however XingYi 'forms' are pretty simple to begin with (in terms of gross movements), and 'work' as repetitive drills quite nicely. Much of the depth comes from adding to the simple movements, and also what's been built up over the generations - that gives it a real richness.

What I'm saying is, one thing is the product on an individual's investigation, the other what he would have to teach as a simplified method. I think most (perhaps all) curricula to be taught to soldiers HAVE to eb dumbed down versions of something else. This is not to say that a talented individual might not expand upon it and develop it.

Have you ever learned at military training manuals (for close combat methods)? It would be a far stretch of the mind to call what is taught there a "martial art". But it might serve as something to expand on, investigate the way of moving, generating power, etc...

Also, let's not forget that Xingyi is based on spear, but it took Ji Long Feng's finding of a secret manual by Yue Fei or secret teacher or whatever to transform it into something else, more advanced. Or so the story goes!

Well, I'd take the "secret manual" with a pinch of salt! If the story is there to indicate that he was taught something extra by somebody else then yes, that would make sense - he could well have popped that into the mix too. I'm not saying that what we have today as "xingyiquan" is exclusively Ji's art with nothing added and nothing taken away - obviously lots of individuals and ideas have contributed to it. Only the hard of thinking around here seem to think that's what I'm saying.

To draw a comparison, it's like Christianity - I think that we all know now that it draws heavily on ancient Egyption and Pagan religion in many of its symbols and rituals, yet some fundamentalist modern day Christians deny that completely. "Amen" in the Lord's Prayer, for example - what's that doing there? Christmas day being Jesus' birthday, is also the birthday of lots of other Pagan man-gods - how strange? But anyway, the original essence is still there, while the outer form may have changed a lot (we're talking a MASSIVE timespan here!), with a bit of digging, you can bring it to the surface relatively easily.

[Scott P. Phillips]

I'm going to dive back in here, great debate by the way.
Andy asked me what I mean by "theater", no one ever asked me that great question, so I spent half of Saturday writing a narrative description of theater in village life in 1500. Thanks, I'll post is soon.
To spear or not to spear, that is the question? Xingyi developed with the spear and open hand together. Neither one came first.

We all seem to agree that the Lineages are suspect, that many of them were made up in the 20th Century or end of the 19th. But on the other hand, there is reason to believe in the reality of lineages. For one, in depth classical learning tends to be in lines from student to teacher. But even knowing that, I think scholars are in the habit of under-crediting lineages. Why? because Chinese culture literally worshiped loyalty and fidelity--in the form of god-demon-heroes. Lineages are really important. (Whenever I've walked into a park in Mainland China and started practicing, someone has always come up to me and started trying to figure out how we are related, by lineage! They always try to make me perform too.)
But putting the accuracy of lineages aside for the moment. Have we considered the broader framework? I would argue that martial arts knowledge is like a funnel pouring down from many sources into one exceptional teacher, and after that, the funnel inverts and the teaching spreads, then a generation or two later the funnel reverts again, and so on down through time. Sometimes a "style" is drawing on one source, sometimes on many. Sometimes the "style" is spreading, sometimes it is narrowing. I tend to agree with Jose, we have been going through an extra-ordinary narrowing period in some "styles." And at the same time we see a major dispersion and dissolution in other styles like Yang Tai Chi, for instance.
Which brings me to another point. The funnel metaphor is operative in a broader range of learning than just martial arts. So as I've been saying ad nausium theater, religion, etc... were all part of the same central subject. The historians of the twentieth century had political and social reasons for ignoring this and so they concentrated their search for origins in just one type of funnel. It is quite possible that there is a parallel xingyi hidden away in a theater family, or used in a secret Daoist ritual--for instance.
But this imaginary xingyi style might have been diverging for a long time and have a different name.
As for the Li Luoneng debate, what type of army was that? We are making a lot of assumptions no? Was it a magical army? One that used talimanic armor for instance? Or chanted spells at the enemy? Or was it a loose mercenary situation, for which the government was paying people to hunt and fight the 40,000 pirates on the southern coast? I'd say if you were using your spear on a fast small boat to attack a bunch of pirates (with a lady captain no less!) that spear-thingy would be flying all over the place!
I've written about all these things on my blog...by the way.

I practice Liuhe Xinyi. I think it is the older of the two styles. I've heard people use the expression "gentrified" to describe the difference between old chen style tai chi and the more "gentrified" yang and wu. In that case they pretty clearly took out the pantomime training, and made nearly all the techniques invisible or hidden, but I suspect the "purifying" process had been going on at the village level for some time before that. With xingyi we may have a similar process. Sun Lutang obliquely said that Five Element Xingyi was "Daoist." I think what he meant was that in Daoist ritual, lower, wilder deities are invoked and then promoted to higher ranking positions as representatives of one of the five elements. In Liuhe xinyi we invoke predatory animal spirits. At this point it is all taught as "yi" or intent, but it's still pretty wild. It's not at all hard to see how this came out of shamanism. In the shamanic version you would develop a relationship with your power animal, and invoke their spirit when fighting. These animal spirits are lower gods, who would be embodied in Daoist ritual and then transformed internally into one of the five elements.

This by the way lines up perfectly with my other theory that the difference between internal and external martial arts is that: Internal was what you learned to stop yourself from falling into trance-possession under extreme circumstances. External was what you learned so that your body would survive the trauma of being possessed by a deity. See my video African Bagua part 2.

Thank you all for the warm spirits too!!! I like it here.

[mrtoes]

Welcome and respect for coming along to defend your position in a civilised manner. I'm not sure I'm always on the same track as you with martial arts but hey life would be boring if we all agreed all the time! I'm not convinced personally that present day hsing i is as directly descended from battlefield techniques and training as people think (may have started there but plenty of time to be changed along the way) but to be honest I don't really have a strong view on the matter either way. I'm in the middle of reading a book at the moment that claims that most kung fu, including hsing i, was descended from the empty hand forms at the Shaolin monastery and which in effect provided another route to enlightenment (Dave Chesser reviewed it a while back). Even if it's true, I don't think that detracts from their value in any way.

Anyway, welcome and hope you stick around.

Matthew.

[nianfong]

Scott your understanding of daoism is intrinsically flowed. daoism is not shamanistic and there is no animal totem worship. the daoism refers to the yin-yang/bagua, heaven-man-earth, 5-element concepts.

[Pandrews1982]

Scott,

interesting post. I'm interested in shamanism and I believe also that xing yi was probably from a shamanic/animistic root. We have some practices in our line which might be said to have shamanic aspects still intact. We also practice something which you might think to be a theatrical art - a non-martial method of understanding intention and how it can be driven by the spirit and lead the movement of the body it is intrinsically linked to our xing yi practice after a while of training. I would say it is definately a nei gong method in a broad sense of the term but it could be said to have shamanic elements to the practice too.

I'm not so sure about the theory of internal being to stop yourself falling into trance possession and external to survive such possesions that's a big leap of reasoning.

As for xing yi methods being used in group format/military format I have no porblem with that. We practice weapons quite regularly and the methods seem to match a military setting well and it what I've been taught too. On the subject of "civilian" yes its true the army was looked down upon pretty much from sometime at least the late Tang and onwards the civilized occupations such as the civil service, accountants, polititians, etc. and the more gentile aspects of society were promoted but prior to then and still preserved in some areas for many years afterwards was the confucian ideal of a man of virtue being both a scholar and military adept, a leader had to be wise and strong. Yue Fei was thought to have been a conservative confucian and he shunned the civil service in order to take on a military post, starting from a low position and rising through merit. But that's beside the point there were still those who would serve in the army despite its poor standing in the eyes of the populace for many reasons throughout chinese history.

Also on the subject of caravan guards. I don't know a lot about this subject but I do know that bandits in China weren't a few guys roaming around looking for loot, they were paramilitary type groups, large numbers, sometimes hundreds or thousands who would control regions, extort taxes, plunder supply trains, take what they wanted. As already stated there were thousands of pirates off the coast, the same awaited the caravans in the interior too. So would the caravan guard have wandered along alone with his hands in his pockets with no weapon, seems unlikely. If I were leading a caravan of expensive goods through bandit territory where a few hundred guys on horseback with bows and lances and swords might drop on me I'd probably want a good hundred or so well armed, well trained guys along to help out when the shit hit the fan. Xing Yi and Bajiquan, both internal styles, both relatively famous for caravan guards and bodyguards, both intrinsically linked to spear methods and weaponry co-incidence? Some baji schools include "hand cannon" as a weapon, literally a paper and lacquer cannon held in the hands and fired at the opponents, that's a pretty hardcore weapon to be taking to a duel don't you think? Maybe I'm wrong about caravan guards and weapons though I'll read up on it at some point.

See I don't buy the "had to stop carrying weapons" thing that much eithe. Maybe not spears which were a primary military weapon, and maybe not jian either, a prestige weapon. But bows, machetes, staffs etc. all multi-purpose weaponry used for hunting, clearing scrub, climbing hills etc. Plus China is a big place and no dynasty has had full control over all areas and all weapons all the time. I'm sure it might have been more difficult for an ex-ming soldier to openly carry, practice or teach military based weapon methods but I doubt it was impossible. So for Ji Long Feng to drop his spear methods to go emptyhand seems a bit silly, especially if he was wandering around dangerous countryside where he might need to protect himself from bandits or wild animals.

Anyway I'm pretty sure that xing yi would still have many practical weapons methods being employed regularly by professionals right up until the turn of the 20th century and I could guess that a good deal of those professionals who were caravan escorts were familiar with military type group fighting and tactics using weapons or else why would they get employment as caravan guards if all they could do was fight emptyhand one on one?

[Scott P. Phillips]

Hi Nianfong,
If you have a book you would like to recommend I'll read it. I've got about 100 books about Daoism on my book shelf and I've read probably another 100. That in addition to practice of course. I didn't use the word worship in reference to Daoism. I used the word worship to describe sacrifice made to deities. Daoism is, or is not, shamanic depending on how you define it, and it's impossible to put in a box --so that's a loosing game. Are you claiming that there was no group of people in China practicing any form of animal or symbolic animal or deified animal spirit, trans-medium communication? Cause I think I can find you some examples.

[Doc Stier]

Animism and spirit worship were characteristic of the primitive religion of archaic China, and were the cultural foundation from which Taoism developed. At the time, shamans and priests were the major religious specialists, possessing the ability to communicate with spirits, to appeal to them to dispel evil, to explain the turns of fate, and to transmit the instructions of spirits. In Yin and Shang times, the ideogram for 'shaman' as inscribed on divinatory implements bore a strong resemblance to the character for 'spirit'.

In those times, shamans resorted to a series of songs and dances (e.g. perhaps martial songs and form sets), spells and talismans to communicate with (and to combat with) spirits. 'Invocators' (1) were another type of religious professional, responsible for conducting rituals of offerings and prayers to spirits. Finally, divinatory specialists conducted divinations in order to predict fortune and misfortune. Shamans, priests and divines were important figures in society, enjoying relatively high status. Belief in shamans was especially prevalent during the Yin dynasty. During the Spring and Autumn period (770 - 476 BC), which witnessed the rise of rationalism, the status of shamans gradually declined, although shamanism remained deeply rooted in society. Especially in the Chu State, primitive shamanism did not disappear and continued to flourish among the common people.



Many aspects of ancient shamanism were inherited by Taoism. The Master of Incense (2) in Taoist temples holds the title of Shrine Priest (3), a title inherited from the ancient religion. Ancient people believed that illness resulted from the victim being possessed by evil demons, and that one needed to resort to the shamans' Magical Skills (4) for talismans, incantations, and exorcism to dispel illness. Talismanic Water (5), Exorcism (6), and Demon-Expelling Implements (7), referred to in later Taoist scriptures reflect the influence of the ancient shamanistic religion. Early Taoist movements, such as the Five Pecks of Rice (8) and the Supreme Peace Traditions (9), show an even stronger shamanistic coloration. The Five Pecks of Rice disciples were called 'the Rice Witches' (10) by some, and Buddhists disparaged the sect by calling it the 'Demonic Skills of the Three Zhangs' (11). The practices of killing and expelling demons with the aid of charms and incantations, invoking spirits, holding Ritual Offerings (12), and presenting written memorials to spirits with the aid of a medium, can all be said to be inheritances from ancient shamanism (13).



Author : Li Gang
Translator: David Palmer
Copy Editor: David Palmer

[Andy_S]

This thread raises some very interesting topics - notably "Who practiced MA in Olde China - and why." I've started another thread on this so as not to derail the various discussions of HsingI, spear, etc.

Scott:

Judging by YouTube you are a total maniac - but I like you: Welcome to the Fist.

Get a shave, a haircut and a nice conservative suit (blue pinstripe, perhaps?) and your respect will go through the roof.

[Muad'dib]

Perhaps someone could correct me, but as I understand it, there is a certain divergence in daoism. One side is sort of populist magical type stuff, and the other side focuses on philosophical or more purely mystical elements. (IE, getting in touch with the universe, rather than calling on the various lower spirits that populate it.) Writings on the matter can be conflicting, and this is not unusual.