GrahamB wrote:I started the thread about the subject to start a discussion. I was really quite surprised that people, especially here, don't know what I thought were the basics of internal martial arts, as I've already explained.... Clearly my assumptions on what people know were wrong.
GrahamB wrote:I have no particular interest in CST or Wing Chun or his lineage. I didn't know who he was. I could have used a different video, but I just found that one by chance and thought - "Hey, this illustrates a fundamental point about Chinese martial arts quite nicely, I'll post it on the forum so others can see it..." It kind of feels like a waste of time to do that now.
GrahamB wrote:As I've realised from this thread this idea that there's a basic jin that people are all on the same page with just isn't there. I thought it was - my bad, I was wrong. Sorry if that's not clear, but I thought we'd addressed that a few pages ago. Is this still a sticking point? Can we move on?
GrahamB wrote:Ok, assuming that I'm wrong about it being the ground force that's doing the work, what's going on in the video then? I can't understand how that is being done with "structure" - in fact, he says explicitly it's not structure. So what is it? Qi?
Please tell me since you have more experience in this method - I'm really not attached to the idea of being right.
The reality of the situation is that there is one Jin, from which all the others come. If you don't understand that then you've missed a big part of the puzzle. However, this is the situation that I see 99% of Chinese Martial Artists in anyway, so it's not like you're alone How can I say there is one jin? Trace all the different types of Jin back to the source of their power... where does it come from? The ground.
Steve James wrote:The reality of the situation is that there is one Jin, from which all the others come. If you don't understand that then you've missed a big part of the puzzle. However, this is the situation that I see 99% of Chinese Martial Artists in anyway, so it's not like you're alone How can I say there is one jin? Trace all the different types of Jin back to the source of their power... where does it come from? The ground.
Bao wrote:I must have missed a big part of the puzzle then.... I really don't agree. "Jins" don't need to be about any kind of power or need to have a source of power.
I also agree that some aspects of what CST absolutely could be labelled as jin, regardless you see the method as having something to do with the ground or not . Though I don't agree whith the generalization of the term/word/character. CST absolutely show use of dongjin, who could disagree about that?
Trick wrote:Don't know much about Wing Chun, don't know who CST is. A couple of days ago I found this video, an old frail looking man showing some nice skill.
chimerical tortoise wrote:Bao wrote:I must have missed a big part of the puzzle then.... I really don't agree. "Jins" don't need to be about any kind of power or need to have a source of power.
I also agree that some aspects of what CST absolutely could be labelled as jin, regardless you see the method as having something to do with the ground or not . Though I don't agree whith the generalization of the term/word/character. CST absolutely show use of dongjin, who could disagree about that?
Bao wrote:chimerical tortoise wrote:Bao wrote:I must have missed a big part of the puzzle then.... I really don't agree. "Jins" don't need to be about any kind of power or need to have a source of power.
I also agree that some aspects of what CST absolutely could be labelled as jin, regardless you see the method as having something to do with the ground or not . Though I don't agree whith the generalization of the term/word/character. CST absolutely show use of dongjin, who could disagree about that?
Well, I am. Dongjin just means understanding force. You need to understand incoming force before you understand how to redirect it etc. You could label what he does in many different ways. What's the point of labels? CST just use a word for "thought". In IMA people like to use Yi. I don't like these ways of explaning physical action. Thought or Yi here is useless if there is no physical action. What he does to make it work has to do with leverage and angles, directions of meeting incoming force. People don't like to describe things in simplistic ways in terms of simple mechanics. I don't understand why. Maybe it still don't help people to get it with the body. You must learn to actually do something, teach your body how things feel when you do it right. And of course do instead of think. Then why use a word like think or intent? When the secret to do something is not to think, but to do?
Trick wrote:No brain no gain
LaoDan wrote:Bao,
I sympathize with your statements, but I also think that Yi is used for legitimate reasons. I suspect that the use of Yi does not equate with thinking (or over thinking) as you seem to view it.
GrahamB wrote:2) Yi is better understood as part of a process to do something, rather than a thing in isolation. That is why they say Xin leads the Yi, Yi leads the Qi, Qi leads the Li.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 22 guests