discussion about the taichi classics

[nianfong]

Posted by: bruce Posted on: Apr 30th, 2008, 10:15pm
from the secret of empty and full handed down from yang pan-hou.

"when one has the opponent's vital point in the palm of ones hand; finding empty be on guard, but if full attack.
if we fail to attack the full our art will never be superior"

to me one of the things this says is to strike the opponent when they are rooted / against their strong angle so you can damage them and not just push them away.
in a way it might be what some think of as force against force.

what are your thoughts about that quote?

please add a quote and a comment about a tai chi chuan "classic" that interests you.
Posted by: SPJ Posted on: Apr 30th, 2008, 10:43pm
if some how, the chinses text may be "cited".

--

Huh
Posted by: SPJ Posted on: Apr 30th, 2008, 10:45pm
what interests me most

is wo shun ren bei.

we are on our front side.

and the opponent is on his back side.

in terms of steps, positions, ability to balance, exert the force/jin fully etc.

--

Cool
Posted by: bruce Posted on: Apr 30th, 2008, 11:05pm
on Apr 30th, 2008, 10:43pm, SPJ wrote:
if some how, the chinses text may be "cited".

--

Huh

i dont speak or write chinese ...
Posted by: GrahamB Posted on: Apr 30th, 2008, 11:26pm
on Apr 30th, 2008, 10:15pm, bruce wrote:
from the secret of empty and full handed down from yang pan-hou.

"when one has the opponent's vital point in the palm of ones hand; finding empty be on guard, but if full attack.
if we fail to attack the full our art will never be superior"

to me one of the things this says is to strike the opponent when they are rooted / against their strong angle so you can damage them and not just push them away.
in a way it might be what some think of as force against force.

what are your thoughts about that quote?


Yes, that's a good insight (yang aspect), but the counter insight (yin aspect) is also important here - don't apply your power to them if they feel 'empty' at the point of contact, where you're going to apply power to. If you do, then it's not going to work. You only apply power once you feel like you've 'got them', i.e. you can feel their centre.

I always find it most helpful to think about these things in terms of a push hands situation, but you can also extrapolate that to free sparring.

G
Posted by: Walk_the_Torque Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 12:55am
on Apr 30th, 2008, 11:26pm, GrahamB wrote:


Yes, that's a good insight (yang aspect), but the counter insight (yin aspect) is also important here - don't apply your power to them if they feel 'empty' at the point of contact, where you're going to apply power to. If you do, then it's not going to work. You only apply power once you feel like you've 'got them', i.e. you can feel their centre.

I always find it most helpful to think about these things in terms of a push hands situation, but you can also extrapolate that to free sparring.

G



I'm with Graham on this.

For our foundation in Yang Style we did a lot of testing of postures, like punches, elbows, Push hands postures, etc.

Some poeple think this just incourages resistance; but I am a firm believer in this practice because not only can you test your alignment/spirals/rooting blah blah, but you can also work on timing your technique to another person's push/fullness.

When you become sensitive to the iminent incoming force, you can use your peng energy to lift,redirect or bounce your partner out. To me this is attacking the full; and is in alignment with the lines "peng is like water supporting a boat" and he moves, I arrive first.

To me this is the true borrowing energy; because you actually give it back Wink

Posted by: cdobe Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 2:11am
on Apr 30th, 2008, 10:15pm, bruce wrote:
from the secret of empty and full handed down from yang pan-hou.

"when one has the opponent's vital point in the palm of ones hand; finding empty be on guard, but if full attack.
if we fail to attack the full our art will never be superior"

to me one of the things this says is to strike the opponent when they are rooted / against their strong angle so you can damage them and not just push them away.
in a way it might be what some think of as force against force.

what are your thoughts about that quote?

please add a quote and a comment about a tai chi chuan "classic" that interests you.


Where do you have that quote from, Bruce ?
Posted by: GrahamB Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 2:49am
Sounds like it's from Wiles' Tai Chi Touchstones book.
Posted by: GrahamB Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 2:50am
on May 1st, 2008, 12:55am, Walk_the_Torque wrote:

To me this is the true borrowing energy; because you actually give it back Wink



Nail hit, on head. Smiley
Posted by: Deus Trismegistus Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 7:47am
on Apr 30th, 2008, 10:15pm, bruce wrote:
from the secret of empty and full handed down from yang pan-hou.

"when one has the opponent's vital point in the palm of ones hand; finding empty be on guard, but if full attack.
if we fail to attack the full our art will never be superior"

to me one of the things this says is to strike the opponent when they are rooted / against their strong angle so you can damage them and not just push them away.
in a way it might be what some think of as force against force.

what are your thoughts about that quote?

please add a quote and a comment about a tai chi chuan "classic" that interests you.


I would explain it as, "If when you attack you feel that your opponent has already began to yield be on guard because he is likely to counter, if your opponent hasn't yielded use full power becasue you have already caught him."

If your opponent is rooted and has correct posture and bone alignment then attacking at their strong angle or to their rooted aligned structure will likely be inneffective. If you are rooted, and sensitive then you can yield to any force or you can use alignment to direct the force through your bones to the ground, or even let it move right through you. If you are unbalaned and in an awkward position you won't be able to yield, or redirect the force and it will only be able to go into your body. In addition you won't be able to move quickly because you won't be very balanced.

I think what I have described above is different than attacking someone when they are moving into your strike. You WANT to have them moving into your strike, it adds force to it. It is difficult to move back or to the side when you have comitted to moving forward. This may be force on force but it certainly isn't in a bad way.
Posted by: chicagoTaiJi Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 7:51am
Does anyone have a link to the classics in chinese?
Posted by: T J Lazarus Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 9:18am
I believe he's talking there about finding the opponent's center, or ground path, to use the Sigmanese.

One thing that I picked up somewhere is that you don't want to go directly center against center, because it's possible for receiving energy to put the whole thing back in your face, but once you find it, attack at a sort of slant vector to it.
Posted by: Dmitri Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 9:48am
on Apr 30th, 2008, 10:15pm, bruce wrote:
"when one has the opponent's vital point in the palm of ones hand; finding empty be on guard, but if full attack.
if we fail to attack the full our art will never be superior"

"When you think you got an advantage over your opponent, feel the quality of your contact with them. If it is light, their skill is probably good and they can change quickly, so whatever advantage you think you have is probably not really there (e.g. this could be a trap.) If it is "present" (hard, full, solid, etc.) that probably means they are unable to change with you and you actually DO have the advantage.
If we fail to be able to take advantage when we have it, our art will never be superior."

(I say "probably" because nothing is ever written in stone, when you engage someone.)

FWIW, my $0.00002

Posted by: cdobe Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 1:53pm
Here is a passage from Wang Peisheng's book (Wu style Taijiquan, page 191) that deals with the same issue:

" [...], one should follow the opponent's movement, at the same time, issue a very slight amount of energy to try to drive the opponent into a disadvantageous or unstable position. At this juncture, if no counter-acting energy is felt, one could use any hand-method that deemed fit to send the opponent off his feet. And if a sense of heaviness is felt at the attached point, one should slightly loosen the attachment to let the opponent have a sudden feeling of emptiness, and follow with an attack immediately. That will send the opponent much farther."
Posted by: SPJ Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 7:44pm
on May 1st, 2008, 1:53pm, cdobe wrote:
Here is a passage from Wang Peisheng's book (Wu style Taijiquan, page 191) that deals with the same issue:

" [...], one should follow the opponent's movement, at the same time, issue a very slight amount of energy to try to drive the opponent into a disadvantageous or unstable position. At this juncture, if no counter-acting energy is felt, one could use any hand-method that deemed fit to send the opponent off his feet. And if a sense of heaviness is felt at the attached point, one should slightly loosen the attachment to let the opponent have a sudden feeling of emptiness, and follow with an attack immediately. That will send the opponent much farther."


It reads like testing or feeling or listening the direction and amplitude/intensity of the opponent's jin.

cool.

Without the original Chinese text for the quote from the first post, it is very diffcult to comment.

--

Grin
Posted by: Yuen-Ming Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 8:23pm
[UFT-8]

�寊蚣

��寊寊��䞭��寊寊�����緎��諳�寊�� �費�倫����
��寊��䞭��䞭寊����粟��寊���寊�� 寊寊����空�
Posted by: bruce Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 8:41pm
on May 1st, 2008, 2:49am, GrahamB wrote:
Sounds like it's from Wiles' Tai Chi Touchstones book.


yes
Posted by: bruce Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 8:43pm
on May 1st, 2008, 7:44pm, SPJ wrote:

Without the original Chinese text for the quote from the first post, it is very diffcult to comment.

--

Grin


are you saying that those words mean nothing to your practice or that you want to understand the original statement in chinese to have the correct context?

does it not make sense in english as it is presented?
Posted by: SPJ Posted on: May 1st, 2008, 9:39pm
yes, I can make some senses from the English text, too.

Just like to be careful not to lose/miss some "meanings" from the original text.

or something lost or gained (not intended) due to translating from one language to another.

Grin
Posted by: nianfong Posted on: May 2nd, 2008, 12:16am
the new forum is almost ready. we should continue this there.....
Posted by: I-mon Posted on: May 2nd, 2008, 1:53am
where?
Posted by: Walk_the_Torque Posted on: May 2nd, 2008, 2:37am
When?


I'm excited Cheesy
Posted by: SPJ Posted on: May 2nd, 2008, 2:48am
If someone asks you just name a word that represents Tai Ji?

or how do you know some thing that is tai ji or not?

--

"what would you say?"

my answer is to follow or shui.

it is very difficult to do.

"how to do?"

never lose contact and never oppose (the opponent's jin) or bu diu bu ding.

"please be more specific."

if the opponent peng, we lu.

if the opponent lu, we ji.

if the opponent ji, we an.

if the opponent an, we peng?

if the opponent's jin is slow and weak, we cai first.

if the opponent's jin is fast and strong, we lu first.

--

we just get more specific technically about the meaning of the first post.

--

so in short, what is tai ji? I would say to follow or shui.

what would you say what tai ji is in one word?

--

Grin Wink Smiley

Posted by: SPJ Posted on: May 2nd, 2008, 2:50am
on May 2nd, 2008, 12:16am, nianfong wrote:
the new forum is almost ready. we should continue this there.....


YEAH.

Cheesy Cool
Posted by: KiltedTaiji Posted on: May 2nd, 2008, 2:54am
on May 1st, 2008, 1:53pm, cdobe wrote:
Here is a passage from Wang Peisheng's book (Wu style Taijiquan, page 191) that deals with the same issue:

" [...], one should follow the opponent's movement, at the same time, issue a very slight amount of energy to try to drive the opponent into a disadvantageous or unstable position. At this juncture, if no counter-acting energy is felt, one could use any hand-method that deemed fit to send the opponent off his feet. And if a sense of heaviness is felt at the attached point, one should slightly loosen the attachment to let the opponent have a sudden feeling of emptiness, and follow with an attack immediately. That will send the opponent much farther."


I like this.

My own teacher says something similar, to paraphrase, "You give a little force so he resists, then you relax a little so he looses root, then strike"
Posted by: Bao Has Risen from the Grave Posted on: May 2nd, 2008, 6:17am
Quote:
" Here is a passage from Wang Peisheng's book (Wu style Taijiquan, page 191) that deals with the same issue:

' [...], one should follow the opponent's movement, at the same time, issue a very slight amount of energy to try to drive the opponent into a disadvantageous or unstable position. At this juncture, if no counter-acting energy is felt, one could use any hand-method that deemed fit to send the opponent off his feet. And if a sense of heaviness is felt at the attached point, one "should slightly loosen the attachment to let the opponent have a sudden feeling of emptiness, and follow with an attack immediately. That will send the opponent much farther.' "


I like this.
My own teacher says something similar, to paraphrase, "You give a little force so he resists, then you relax a little so he looses root, then strike"


If you give your opponent something to hold on to, he can resist or use the pressure. If you relax or make yourself "empty" before you do something, he will have nothing to resist against. First let go, and then immediately after, you do a sudden move. This is an excellent method if you want to push, pull or throw him far. But if you want to strike, then I prefer to not make him loose his root. If he is balanced, it is easier to make more dameáge. If he is unstable, he will fall or move away as the strike hits and it will loose it's penetrative capacity. If you want him to stand on his toes or heels, you better lock him into that position before throwingt the punch or unbalance him in such a way he falls into your fist.

But as always, everything is much more easy to say than to do. By meeting some unwilling opponent, you will need to improvise in such ways you have never thought about before.

Posted by: bruce Posted on: May 2nd, 2008, 11:53am
on May 2nd, 2008, 12:16am, nianfong wrote:
the new forum is almost ready. we should continue this there.....


will the current threads be able to be imported to the new forum software?
Posted by: nianfong Posted on: May 2nd, 2008, 2:03pm
probably not... unfortunately. but those that we want to keep, I will try to cut and paste in. like the beng quan one.
Posted by: bruce Posted on: May 2nd, 2008, 3:07pm
on May 2nd, 2008, 2:03pm, nianfong wrote:
probably not... unfortunately. but those that we want to keep, I will try to cut and paste in. like the beng quan one.


thanks ... impermanence ...
Posted by: nianfong Posted on: May 2nd, 2008, 3:13pm
part of my whole reason for posting the "don't get settled in, this is the couch" comment Wink
Posted by: Yuen-Ming Posted on: May 6th, 2008, 5:13am
It's a pity if this thread gets lost, so I'll add a few words to see whether they can spark a bit of interest and  maybe others may chime in.

I don't have Wile's work handy but if Bruce's quotation is correct I believe that Wile's is totally off-base with his understanding of this poem understanding differs from mine greatly ...

The original couplet reads (again in UTF-8 encoding):

��寊��䞭��
䞭寊����粟�

Wile's apparently interprets it as:

When one has the opponent's vital point in the palm of ones hand;
finding empty be on guard, but if full attack.
If we fail to attack the full our art will never be superior.

Here is my interpretation/translation of the same couplet:

(when) insubstantial (I) defend
(when) substantial (I) attack
the key is in the center of my palms

(if my) center is substantial and I don't attack
my art will hardly reach its essence

I think that Wile's totally missing the point talks about his understanding of Taijiquan.

YM

PS: Needless to say, for those who don't agree with my interpretation, the same stands true  Smiley
Posted by: Dmitri Posted on: May 6th, 2008, 5:29am
Wow...
Damn. Cry

Thanks YM. Cool
Posted by: GrahamBonaparte Posted on: May 6th, 2008, 5:31am
YM,

Hmmm... I think both translations are essentially saying the same thing. I just prefer Wiles. Why is the key in the centre of your palm? I'm not sure that makes any sense...

Anyway, with the following line:

"I think that Wile's totally misses the point talks about his understanding of Taijiquan."

I think I might have to request a translation of your English too! Grin

What did you mean?
Posted by: Yuen-Ming Posted on: May 6th, 2008, 5:47am
on May 6th, 2008, 5:31am, GrahamBonaparte wrote:
I think both translations are essentially saying the same thing.


?

Wile apparently believes that the *substantial/unsubstantial* in the first sentence refers to one's opponent.
So he argues that when (the opponent) is empty/unsubstantial one should be 'on guard' and when HE is full/substantial we should attack.

I am actually, among other things, saying the exact opposite as that dichotomy refers IMHO to ourselves.

So we defend/deflect/what-have-you in unsubstantial mode while working on finding OUR OWN center and make it full/substantial: at that point we cannot but attack.

Needless to say, we attack with our full/substantial center his unsubstatial center - since our change from empty to full is generated by his change full to empty.

If we were to "attack him when he is full" we would be, again IMHO, not be doing Taijiquan.

YM
Posted by: GrahamBonaparte Posted on: May 6th, 2008, 6:42am
on May 6th, 2008, 5:47am, Yuen-Ming wrote:


?

Wile apparently believes that the *substantial/unsubstantial* in the first sentence refers to one's opponent.
So he argues that when (the opponent) is empty/unsubstantial one should be 'on guard' and when HE is full/substantial we should attack.

I am actually, among other things, saying the exact opposite as that dichotomy refers IMHO to ourselves.

So we defend/deflect/what-have-you in unsubstantial mode while working on finding OUR OWN center and make it full/substantial: at that point we cannot but attack.

Needless to say, we attack with our full/substantial center his unsubstatial center - since our change from empty to full is generated by his change full to empty.

If we were to "attack him when he is full" we would be, again IMHO, not be doing Taijiquan.

YM


Yes..... but our opponent and ourselves are ONE!

This is the tue Tai Chi! Grin
Posted by: Walk_the_Torque Posted on: May 6th, 2008, 3:02pm
If we find insubstantial in our opponant, it may mean that he is in his yin phase, and is preparing to smash your face in Shocked , so I would be on guard. If however he was substantial, it might mean that he was committed to his attack. How wonderful Wink

Posted by: Formosa Neijia Posted on: May 6th, 2008, 11:44pm
on May 6th, 2008, 5:13am, Yuen-Ming wrote:
I think that Wile's totally missing the point talks about his understanding of Taijiquan.

YM

PS: Needless to say, for those who don't agree with my interpretation, the same stands true  Smiley


Hmm... there's a bit of nuance here that we shouldn't overlook.

Bruce's quote comes from pg. 76 of Taichi Touchstones. It's his translation of the Nine Poems of Wu Meng-xia from his teacher Niu Lien-yuan, who claimed to get them from Yang Ban-hou.

An alternate translation of the same passage from Marcus Brinkman:

"emptiness receives, fullness discharges, the key is within the palm. If there is fullness within and you do not discharge then the technique is difficult to refine."

What makes this passage interesting and what shows why Wile translated it the way he did is the explanation that Wu Meng-xia gives of the poem.

Again, Marcus' translation:
"This verse elucidates upon obtaining the enemy's secret when entangling hands with him, and ultimately testing and listening to his emptiness and fullness. If (one) meets emptiness then (one) receives, if (one) meets fullness then (one) discharges. If the center is full and I don't understand how to release, then this is equivalent to loosing a good opportunity."

From what Wu Meng-xia wrote, it seems pretty clear that he's talking about sensing the enemy's emptiness and fullness, not your own emptiness or fullness as YM implies.

However, I don't see this as force against force -- it's just common sense. You have to have something to fajing against. You can't use fajing against emptiness. It just doesn't work. There's nothing substantial to attack and your attack would fail completely.

You have to sense where the opponent's fullness is and issue against it's inherent weakness.

Wu's further commentary is helpful:
"Event though the principle of responding to an initial empty contact should be receiving and fullness should be met with issuing (fajing)...if one applies emptiness to meet fullness, you should then follow closely with fullness afterwards...if you can grasp the principle of the transformations of empty and full, then your attempts will not fail."

This quote shows that fajing and the transformations of empty and full are the real issue. Not using force against force.

Dave C.

P.S. A translation of Wu Meng-xia's book is available here:
http://formosaneijia.com/my_products/
Posted by: cdobe Posted on: May 7th, 2008, 2:21am
on May 6th, 2008, 5:31am, GrahamBonaparte wrote:
YM,

Hmmm... I think both translations are essentially saying the same thing. I just prefer Wiles. Why is the key in the centre of your palm? I'm not sure that makes any sense...


Empereur des Français,
my wild speculation about this part would be, that when you fa jin you do it with the center of the palm, where the lao gong point is located. If your palm is slightly concave at first and at the impact the center of the palm thrusts forward you can produce a very serious percussion. It works especially well as a no-inch hit. Therefore it fits very well in the context of the passage. You first listen to your partner with your palms and then discharge instantantaneously when the required condition is met.

Chris

Posted by: GrahamBonaparte Posted on: May 7th, 2008, 2:37am
Mon Due! It is impossible to use my fist to Fa Jing?

Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools!

Posted by: cdobe Posted on: May 7th, 2008, 2:38am
on May 6th, 2008, 11:44pm, Formosa Neijia wrote:

However, I don't see this as force against force -- it's just common sense. You have to have something to fajing against. You can't use fajing against emptiness. It just doesn't work. There's nothing substantial to attack and your attack would fail completely.

I don't think it's that easy. I would differentiate between someone who intentionally (actively) empties a part of his body and someone who is empty, because he is uprooted, in an awkward position or simply passive. In the first case you'ld fall into emptiness when you discharge in the other cases you will succesfully hit him. That's because all bodies have inertia. If your opponent would be hovering in front of you in a state of weightlessness, you could easily beat him to death.

Posted by: cdobe Posted on: May 7th, 2008, 2:43am
on May 7th, 2008, 2:37am, GrahamBonaparte wrote:
Mon Due! It is impossible to use my fist to Fa Jing?

Impossible is a word to be found only in the dictionary of fools!


I have a simple experiment for you then: Take your dictionary and look it up ... I... Im ... Imp Grin

Of course you can use a fist. The Taiji fist, as I have learned it, is also soft on the inside and tightens on impact.
Posted by: Yuen-Ming Posted on: May 7th, 2008, 8:17am
on May 6th, 2008, 11:44pm, Formosa Neijia wrote:
An alternate translation of the same passage from Marcus Brinkman:

"emptiness receives, fullness discharges, the key is within the palm. If there is fullness within and you do not discharge then the technique is difficult to refine."

What makes this passage interesting and what shows why Wile translated it the way he did is the explanation that Wu Meng-xia gives of the poem.

Again, Marcus' translation:
"This verse elucidates upon obtaining the enemy's secret when entangling hands with him, and ultimately testing and listening to his emptiness and fullness. If (one) meets emptiness then (one) receives, if (one) meets fullness then (one) discharges. If the center is full and I don't understand how to release, then this is equivalent to loosing a good opportunity."

From what Wu Meng-xia wrote, it seems pretty clear that he's talking about sensing the enemy's emptiness and fullness, not your own emptiness or fullness as YM implies.


Dave,

if you read your quotation of Brinkman translation and mine they match perfectly. I have only added 'subjects' (in parenthesis, since they are my own), that were not in the original text, as per my understanding.

Quite far away from Wile's.

I have re-read Wu Mengxia's text and it has the additional commentary that you also quote, but that's simply Wu's commentary and not in (Banhou's) text.

I don't agree with that commentary.
We should always try to keep balancing xu/shi (full/empty) in between us and our opponent, so I need to be empty when he is full (as when he is full he is striking) and accompany his fullness to the maximum so that it changes into emptyness. That's when my emptyness becomes fullness and I can strike with minimum risk, minimum effort and maximum result.

The secret is only that all those changes are to be done at the blink of an eye.

YM
Posted by: Ma Long Posted on: May 7th, 2008, 10:38am
As a strategy if I remain full as much as possible, for example while in my guard and I receive a strike to my body, I will sustain much damage than if I had been empty. While my stance is rooted and full, my leg can be incapacitated in just two kicks. As a strategy it is best to remain empty in your guard until you can tempt or lead your opponent to be full. If your opponent also has this strategy, and assume he/she does, then a match is strategically force meeting force. But not tactically, necessarily. Once full meets full, the one who lands first will win, but if the one who receives first is able to neutralize or deflect then he/she will have a superior advantage if it can be used. In dealing with striking, the problem is "rhythm".
Posted by: ViagraOnlineCialisCHEAPES Posted on: May 7th, 2008, 2:00pm
on May 7th, 2008, 10:38am, Ma Long wrote:
As a strategy if I remain full as much as possible, for example while in my guard and I receive a strike to my body, I will sustain much damage than if I had been empty. While my stance is rooted and full, my leg can be incapacitated in just two kicks. As a strategy it is best to remain empty in your guard until you can tempt or lead your opponent to be full. If your opponent also has this strategy, and assume he/she does, then a match is strategically force meeting force. But not tactically, necessarily. Once full meets full, the one who lands first will win, but if the one who receives first is able to neutralize or deflect then he/she will have a superior advantage if it can be used. In dealing with striking, the problem is "rhythm".


When does a punch do more damage?

A The opponent anticipates the punch and tightens up (solidifies himself)
or
B The opponent doesn't see it coming and eats it while beeing neutral

Posted by: johnwang Posted on: May 7th, 2008, 2:13pm
on May 7th, 2008, 2:00pm, ViagraOnlineCialisCHEAPES wrote:
When does a punch do more damage?

Punch is "head on collusion" and throw is "rear end collusion".
Posted by: Formosa Neijia Posted on: May 7th, 2008, 6:24pm
on May 7th, 2008, 8:17am, Yuen-Ming wrote:
Dave,

if you read your quotation of Brinkman translation and mine they match perfectly. I have only added 'subjects' (in parenthesis, since they are my own), that were not in the original text, as per my understanding.

Quite far away from Wile's.

I have re-read Wu Mengxia's text and it has the additional commentary that you also quote, but that's simply Wu's commentary and not in (Banhou's) text.

I don't agree with that commentary.
We should always try to keep balancing xu/shi (full/empty) in between us and our opponent, so I need to be empty when he is full (as when he is full he is striking) and accompany his fullness to the maximum so that it changes into emptyness. That's when my emptyness becomes fullness and I can strike with minimum risk, minimum effort and maximum result.

The secret is only that all those changes are to be done at the blink of an eye.

YM


From what I can tell, Wile seems to be letting Wu Meng-xia's commentary color his translation of the passage in question. This may seem off to some folks, maybe a literal translation would work better.

But Wu was a lot closer to the source than us. And his understanding does represent a certain legitimate interpretation of what Ban-hou was saying. Perhaps Wile's teachers share Wu's opinions, as some of mine did.

I think Wu's commentary shows that he wasn't talking about using force against force. I quoted it because I found it useful in refuting that idea.

The change over from empty to full that you mention is naturally a part of the training.

But again, as Ban-hou and Wu say, if you don't learn to fajing when the enemy is vulnerable to it, then it's hard to advance in the training. That's what sensitivity training is for.

You say you disagree with that commentary, but in what aspect?

Dave C.
Posted by: Yuen-Ming Posted on: May 8th, 2008, 4:40am
on May 7th, 2008, 6:24pm, Formosa Neijia wrote:


From what I can tell, Wile seems to be letting Wu Meng-xia's commentary color his translation of the passage in question. This may seem off to some folks, maybe a literal translation would work better.

But Wu was a lot closer to the source than us. And his understanding does represent a certain legitimate interpretation of what Ban-hou was saying. Perhaps Wile's teachers share Wu's opinions, as some of mine did.

I think Wu's commentary shows that he wasn't talking about using force against force. I quoted it because I found it useful in refuting that idea.

The change over from empty to full that you mention is naturally a part of the training.

But again, as Ban-hou and Wu say, if you don't learn to fajing when the enemy is vulnerable to it, then it's hard to advance in the training.


Where do you see Banhou saying that we have to "fajin when the enemy is vulnerable" ?
And what does it mean "be vulnerable" in this respect: when he is full or empty ?

Yes, Wu Mengxia was closer to the source (Banhou) then myself or you but that does not necesserely mean his commentary/understanding is *correct*.

Wile's translation, if he is making use of his own insights or other material and the same is not clearly stated, is not a translation but an interpretation.
It might be *right*, of course, but it must be taken with a pinch of salt and - in any case - cannot be taken to represent Banhou's.

I don't agree with the idea that we issue when the opponent is full and we guard when he is empty.
I see it the other way round, actually.

YM

Posted by: Formosa Neijia Posted on: May 8th, 2008, 5:58pm
on May 8th, 2008, 4:40am, Yuen-Ming wrote:
Where do you see Banhou saying that we have to "fajin when the enemy is vulnerable" ?
And what does it mean "be vulnerable" in this respect: when he is full or empty ?

Yes, Wu Mengxia was closer to the source (Banhou) then myself or you but that does not necesserely mean his commentary/understanding is *correct*.

Wile's translation, if he is making use of his own insights or other material and the same is not clearly stated, is not a translation but an interpretation.
It might be *right*, of course, but it must be taken with a pinch of salt and - in any case - cannot be taken to represent Banhou's.

I don't agree with the idea that we issue when the opponent is full and we guard when he is empty.
I see it the other way round, actually.

YM


In answer to your first question: "...If there is fullness within and you do not discharge then the technique is difficult to refine."

Ban-hou said this but Wu clarified it. Wu's commentary further clears it up IMO.

As to this question: "And what does it mean "be vulnerable" in this respect: when he is full or empty ?"

You have to fajing when he is at least partially full. There has to be something to fajing against. If I just hold up my empty hand with nothing behind it and let you fajing into it, you won't be able to hurt me. My center won't be behind it.

When it comes to fajing you just can't do it when the enemy is totally empty. This is Wu is saying.

Again, that doesn't mean force against force. Your force vector has to be into his fullness but in the direction that the fullness is weak.

We got these poems of Ban-hou's from Wu as far as I know. And Ban-hou was his grandteacher. So I see his commentary as coming from Ban-hou's lineage.

I'm just curious: why would you reject what he says?

Dave C.
Posted by: johnwang Posted on: May 8th, 2008, 6:23pm
on May 8th, 2008, 5:58pm, Formosa Neijia wrote:
If I just hold up my empty hand with nothing behind it and let you fajing into it, you won't be able to hurt me. My center won't be behind it.

When it comes to fajing you just can't do it when the enemy is totally empty.

Now you are talking about plain English. That's why it's better to Fajin when your opponent is on the ground. His center is behind him and the ground is behind his center.

on May 8th, 2008, 5:58pm, Formosa Neijia wrote:
Again, that doesn't mean force against force. Your force vector has to be into his fullness but in the direction that the fullness is weak.

Now you are not talking about plain English. There is nothing wrong about force against force. Without "force against force" the theory of striking won't work. Don't confuse with the difference between the striking art (force against force) and the throwing art (borrow force). Even in the throwing art, you still let the ground to do the "force against force" for you.
Posted by: ViagraOnlineCialisCHEAPES Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 1:09am
on May 8th, 2008, 5:58pm, Formosa Neijia wrote:

You have to fajing when he is at least partially full. There has to be something to fajing against. If I just hold up my empty hand with nothing behind it and let you fajing into it, you won't be able to hurt me. My center won't be behind it.

When it comes to fajing you just can't do it when the enemy is totally empty. This is Wu is saying.

Again, that doesn't mean force against force. Your force vector has to be into his fullness but in the direction that the fullness is weak.


What does 'empty' mean to you, Dave ?

Your 'empty' hand will get hurt, when I increase the velocity of my strike. A totally relaxed body is still a mass.

Posted by: Formosa Neijia Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 3:13am
I'm talking about fajing, not punching.

Dave C.
Posted by: ViagraOnlineCialisCHEAPES Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 3:27am
on May 9th, 2008, 3:13am, Formosa Neijia wrote:
I'm talking about fajing, not punching.

Dave C.


Punching is also a fajin.

When talking about offbalancing, the question is whether you want to succeed by using a greater force to break the opponents structure or whether wou want to issue the force where the opponents weakness is.


Chris
Posted by: Yuen-Ming Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 5:05am
on May 8th, 2008, 5:58pm, Formosa Neijia wrote:
In answer to your first question: "...If there is fullness within and you do not discharge then the technique is difficult to refine."

Ban-hou said this but Wu clarified it. Wu's commentary further clears it up IMO.


Banhou did not say WHO is full.
My reading is 'myself', yours and Wu's is 'the opponent'.

Quote:
You have to fajing when he is at least partially full. There has to be something to fajing against. If I just hold up my empty hand with nothing behind it and let you fajing into it, you won't be able to hurt me. My center won't be behind it.

When it comes to fajing you just can't do it when the enemy is totally empty. This is Wu is saying.


First of all, there is no discussion of "jin" here in the text, but only of "fa" (issuing).

Furthermore, if your opponent is good enough not te get hurt if you issue when he is empty he is either:

- so good in understanding full and empty that if you were to issue when he is full you might be bounced back

or

- your issuing skill is not good enough

Quote:
Again, that doesn't mean force against force. Your force vector has to be into his fullness but in the direction that the fullness is weak.


Fullness (shi) in Taijiquan, the way I understand it, is not uni-directional but instead omni-directional.
So there is no weak (xu) direction to be exploited.

All IMHO of course.

YM
Posted by: Formosa Neijia Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 8:00am
on May 9th, 2008, 5:05am, Yuen-Ming wrote:
Banhou did not say WHO is full.
My reading is 'myself', yours and Wu's is 'the opponent'.
Fair enough.


Quote:
First of all, there is no discussion of "jin" here in the text, but only of "fa" (issuing).

Furthermore, if your opponent is good enough not te get hurt if you issue when he is empty he is either:

- so good in understanding full and empty that if you were to issue when he is full you might be bounced back

or

- your issuing skill is not good enough

If you're not issuing jin, then what are you issuing? Qi? Shen? Li?

My understanding of issuing seems to be radically different from yours. As I've been taught, issuing where the opponent is empty is like dropping bombs where the enemy isn't located. It does nothing. If the opponent's center isn't there, there will be nothing to receive your force.

Quote:
Fullness (shi) in Taijiquan, the way I understand it, is not uni-directional but instead omni-directional.
So there is no weak (xu) direction to be exploited.


Fullness is like that when no movement is involved. But as soon as he moves, the fullness must take a direction. I mainly practice moving step BTW. I train to catch the fullness at the weak angles as they move.

However, most of us even in fixed step are so very far from perfect, so our fullness is rarely truly omni-directional. There are usually weaknesses to be exploited if you can find them.

Dave C.
Posted by: Steve James Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 12:29pm
"I don't agree with the idea that we issue when the opponent is full and we guard when he is empty.
I see it the other way round, actually."

Hi YM,

long time, no speak to. Anyway, I agree with your point. However, I think the word "when" is a problem. I.e., the argument could be made that a more precise word would be "where", as in "issue where the opponent is full."

As JW suggested, there's no contradiction in striking the opponent. Striking something when it is "empty" doesn't make sense in that context. Otoh, someone can argue that one strikes "after" the point in time "when" the opponent's "force" or strike is empty. But, that's looking it in another context. That would be when his force is empty but where he is full (or dead center?).

my .02
Posted by: Yuen-Ming Posted on: May 9th, 2008, 5:08pm
on May 9th, 2008, 12:29pm, Steve James wrote:
Hi YM,

long time, no speak to. Anyway, I agree with your point. However, I think the word "when" is a problem. I.e., the argument could be made that a more precise word would be "where", as in "issue where the opponent is full."

As JW suggested, there's no contradiction in striking the opponent. Striking something when it is "empty" doesn't make sense in that context. Otoh, someone can argue that one strikes "after" the point in time "when" the opponent's "force" or strike is empty. But, that's looking it in another context. That would be when his force is empty but where he is full (or dead center?).

my .02


Good points as usual, Steve !

My "when" was a time reference, actually.
The "where" is possibly his center, of course, not his hand of something.

IMO both where and when are equally important.
Any change xu/shi follows phases and timing (when) must be accurate as much as precision (where) for the effect to be important.
There is only a small point in time/space where a movement is totally full/empty, all the rest is a mixture of the two.

Moreover, there are so many subtle implications that we might be saying the same thing actually.
For instance, my reading of the second sentence was to "strike when MY CENTER is full" and not my movement.

Maybe, just like you say, we are simply looking at the issue from different angles.

Bows to both of you Smiley

YM
Posted by: T J LePetomane Posted on: May 11th, 2008, 7:49pm
Wowza, I love these.

I think the best illustration of this prinicple is the way the Bergenholm Drive changed space combat in E. E. "doc" Smith's fabulous Lensman series.

Prior to this drive, space combat was pretty easy, you just lob some missles at the target, they hit, and BOOSH his hull A-splode.

But the Bergenholm rendered the mass of the ship essentially inertialess, so when the A-spolsion happened, all of the force was essentially turned into thrust, so the ship just caroomed off in whatever direction was opposite the blast, much like a billiard ball.

The only way to then damage another ship was to lock on with tractor beams and then regaining your own inertia in order to provide an anchor for the force to work against.

That's all that they're saying in the classic, there. If you have nothing backing the structure and you issue force into it, the structure just flies away from teh point of contact, if there is some substance there, then it can absorb some of the energy and thereby take damage.

This isn't to be confused with using force to defeat force, i.e. if a hard strike comes in, using a harder strike directly at it to overcome it, because we're frail beings, and whatever force we put into the opponent's body is also being put back into our own body.

So, therefore, we create a structure that efficiently channels that rebound force through our body without damaging it, while applying that force to the opponent's body in a way that is going to cause the force to move through their body in a way that is going to damage it.

We can either apply the force directly, or, by finding a structure to move, rather than percussively strike, we move it into something that is better able to take the rebound force, like a wall, or the ground, or a passing train.

[nianfong]

for reference, on the japanese wikipedia no less, this is the wang zong yue taichi treatise
http://ja.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E5%A4%AA% ... 3%E8%AB%96

太極拳論　　　王宗岳

　太極者、無極而生、動静之機、陰陽之母也。動之則分、静之則合。無過不及、隨曲就伸。人剛我柔謂之「走」、我順人背謂之「黏」。動急則急應、動緩則緩隨。雖變化萬端、而理唯一貫。由着熟而漸悟懂勁、由懂勁而階及神明。然非用力之久、不能豁然貫通焉！

　虚領頂勁、氣沉丹田、不偏不倚、怱隱怱現。左重則左虚、右重則右杳。仰之則彌高、俯之則彌深。進之則愈長、退之則愈促。一羽不能加、蠅蟲不能落。人不知我、我獨知人。英雄所向無敵、蓋皆由此而及也！

　斯技旁門甚多、雖勢有區別、概不外壯欺弱、慢譲快耳！有力打無力、手慢譲手快、是皆先天自然之能、非關學力而有為也！察「四兩撥千斤」之句、顯非力勝、觀耄耋能禦衆之形、快何能為？

　立如平準、活似車輪。偏沉則隨、雙重則滯。毎見數年純功、不能運化者、率皆自為人制、雙重之病未悟耳！

　欲避此病、須知陰陽、黏即是走、走即是黏、陰不離陽、陽不離陰、陰陽相濟、方為懂勁。懂勁後愈練愈精、黙識揣摩、漸至從心所欲。

　本是「捨己從人」、多誤「捨近求遠」。所謂「差之毫釐、謬之千里」、學者不可不詳辨焉！是為論。

[Bugang]

For me this sums up Taijiquan Training:

氣宜鼓盪，
神宜內斂。

(Qì yí gǔ dàng,
shén yí nèi liàn.)

Translation:
The Qi (intrinsic energy) should be excited
The Shen (spirit/vitality) gathered within

The Taijiquan Jing or The Taijiquan lilun
Attributed to Chang San-feng
Translated and explained by David Roth-Lindberg

https://taichithoughts.wordpress.com/ca ... -classics/

[Bugang]

Some Translations:
2A. Calmly stimulate the ch'i, with the Spirit of Vitality concentrated internally.
2B. Chi should be stirred. The spirit of vitality, or Shen, should be concentrated
inwards.
2C. Qi should be full and stimulated, Shen (Spirit) should be retained internally.
2D. The qi should be excited; the spirit should be gathered within.
2E. The internal energy should be extended, vibrated like the beat of a drum.
The spirit should be condensed in toward the center of your body.
2F. The ch'i (breath) should be excited, the shen (spirit) should be internally
gathered.
2G Energize the body and quiet the gathered spirit.
Raise up awareness to draw Chi to every nerve,
Fill up the body with the strength of the excited Force,
Stir and stimulate the Chi from head to toe,
Playing the Great Drum of Inner Powers.
Keep the spirit calm within,
Vital forces tamed and quiet,
Riding the Tigress to the Temple,
Gently leading the Great Ox past the Gate;
Condensing the Elixir of Spirit in the Inner Chamber.

A. Olson, Stuart Alve, 2001.
B. Jou, Tsung-Hwa, 1980.
C. Yang, Jwing-Ming, 1996.
D. Davis, Barbara, 2004.
E. Liao, Waysun, 1990.
F. Lo, Benjamin, 1979
G. Garofalo, Michael, 2006
from: http://www.egreenway.com/taichichuan/chang1.htm#Lu

The ch'i [vital life energy] should be excited,
The shen [spirit of vitality] should be internally gathered.
from: http://www.scheele.org/lee/classics.html