Meditation and taijiquan

[Bao]

That’s a stretch. Why would you want to attribute a creation of something to someone else? Wouldn’t that be disrespectful?

Disrespectful? Attribution to ancestors/significant historical (or mythical) characters is a key feature of any confucian society. It’s rooted in the ancestor veneration and constitutes the desired behavior protocol of its every and each member. Perhaps nowadays it’s not as strong, but at Chen Xin’s time it was still in full swing.

Because of a related sentiment, nowadays people keep attributing to Zhang Sanfeng, Southern Shaolin, or Wudang. I personally feel that it is even more disrespectful by our standards.

If they knew, or thought that Wangting invented something, yes of course it would be disrespectful not to honor that legacy. People worship or pay their respect to, yes, Zhang Sanfeng, Damo etc. If people had knew about that Wangting created a forerunner to modern TJQ, it is HIGHLY unlikely that people would forget about Wangting or dishonour him buy hiding him away. But before Tang Hao "invented" this legacy, nobody thought that Wangting had made such a contribution.

I will stick to the theory based on the research of professional historians until more conclusive proofs are discovered.

I wish I could do that as well. But Tang Hao didn't act professional. He mistook Chen Xin's note about "Wangting creating Quan" for "wangting creating Taijiquan" when Chen Xin didn't mean TJQ. He explicitly said in interviews, which has been confirmed by independent sources, that Chen Xin thought that Chen Bu might have been the inventor of TJQ.

At least it’s based on the logic

Basing a whole theory on mistakes does not prove a very good use of logic.

The first documented example of “a connection between Daoism, neidan and Chinese Martial arts” was created by Chang Naizhou whom CWT predated by at least one century. CNZ’s work was most likely based on the theories that had been brewing in the area for some time, but “many hundreds years before CWT” makes me feel skeptical. Could you cite any sources supporting this claim?

There was already a connection in the 200s from . I have already cited this source from the Taoist master Ge Hong (283-363) who wrote:

“All the martial arts [quan] have secret formulas to describe important techniques and have secret mysterious methods to overcome an opponent. If an opponent is kept unaware of these, then one could defeat him at will.”

We can also go forward to the early Song dynasty. From around the 10th century, there were many Daoists from various schools who travelled around and taught scholars, officials and high people in the court Daoist exercises. Those long-life and self-improvement exercises were extremely popular, many people practiced various exercises.

So there are actually several times in history we can make assumptions, "based on the logic", that neidan and other Daoist material could have had a broader influence on the Chinese martial arts. This, "based on the logic", did not occur by one or two, or even a few people, trying to infuse neidan or similar into existing martial arts. Rather, that martial arts and taoist methods melted together and developed together, was something which happened naturally as the Daoist influence was something highly prevalent in that society.

So there is really no need to trying to find any single inventor, creator or similar to Taijiquan. Personally, I suspect, that this and other arts, developed gradually in a much more complex manner than any of those legends could possibly reveal. By many more things and much more knowledge passing through many different people and many hands.

Myths and legends usually tend to simplify events in a way that the myths and legends themselves become completely useless for revealing any kind of truth. IMHO.

[HotSoup]

If people had knew about that Wangting created a forerunner to modern TJQ, it is HIGHLY unlikely that people would forget about Wangting or dishonour him buy hiding him away.

Well, people also knew that Dong Haichuan had invented Baguazhang, but just a few generations later there are those claiming that he didn’t People have all kinds of reasons to lose (or “lose”) information with time, especially in the past when no modern information retainment methods were available. So it is almost CERTAIN that they would forget about many things.

But before Tang Hao "invented" this legacy, nobody thought that Wangting had made such a contribution.

Let’s get back to how historical research works. One puts forward a thesis based on the available information. This is what Tang Hao did, after researching the quanpu’s and zupu’s in Chenjiagou. Starting with the overlapping technique names of Qi Jiguang and TJQ he traced the genealogies records up noticing the stories of people notable of their MA skill until there was someone most probably bridging Chenjiagou to Qi Jiguangs military system. That someone was Chen Waiting. This is science, not “invention”.

Now, does it mean that what CWT practiced was the TJQ as we know it? Of course not! That’s why I prefer to refer to it as proto-TJQ. It also doesn’t mean that this proto-TJQ is the sole source of the modern TJQ. Of course, there must be other influences and some of them perhaps even added more than the whole CWT’s contribution. Similarly, one can argue that modern English is influenced more by French and Latin than its Germanic ancestors. But it’s still useful to classify it as a Germanic language and attribute its origins to Angles, Saxons, and Jutes.

I will stick to the theory based on the research of professional historians until more conclusive proofs are discovered.

I wish I could do that as well. But Tang Hao didn't act professional. He mistook Chen Xin's note about "Wangting creating Quan" for "wangting creating Taijiquan" when Chen Xin didn't mean TJQ. He explicitly said in interviews, which has been confirmed by independent sources, that Chen Xin thought that Chen Bu might have been the inventor of TJQ.

Well, you could, if you accepted the idea that having a working model is better than having none at all. I take the CWT’s version as a working model. Technically, I’m fine with “someone in the Chen family before Chen Changxing and Chen Youben”, or even “someone outside of the family who taught someone before Changxing and Youben”, it doesn’t really matter as long as there is some baseline. Old Chens is just one point on the timeline, not the whole thing. Your current approach appears more as “historical nihilism” to me — “it’s very complicated, we don’t know anything and cannot learn anything either”. It’s hardly getting anyone closer to learning more.

Basing a whole theory on mistakes does not prove a very good use of logic.

True, if those really are mistakes. If treating Tang Hao’s assumptions as a way to create the initial hypothetical model, I think they are still fine and waiting for something rooted in facts to be disproved, e.g. is there anything to prove that CWT couldn’t learn some form of Chanquan/Tongbei in his youth? That he didn’t serve in [para-]military influenced by Ji Qiguang’s system? That he couldn’t bring it back and put together his own amalgamation of both? And so on and so forth. Modern science involves a lot of work with probabilities, excluding the less probable events and this way creating an opportunity to prove something that we may never have any better approximation of.

There was already a connection in the 200s from . I have already cited this source from the Taoist master Ge Hong (283-363) who wrote:

“All the martial arts [quan] have secret formulas to describe important techniques and have secret mysterious methods to overcome an opponent. If an opponent is kept unaware of these, then one could defeat him at will.”

He’s just saying that they have secrets and rhyming formulas to remember them. Nothing about the Daoist connection, yin-yang, channels, and so on. The fact that he’s a daoist himself isn’t enough, I’m afraid. So, the starting documented point stays with Chang Naizhou in the 18th century.

We can also go forward to the early Song dynasty.

If it’s of the same level of connection (i.e. none), no need.

[Bao]

Well, people also knew that Dong Haichuan had invented Baguazhang, but just a few generations later there are those claiming that he didn’t People have all kinds of reasons to lose (or “lose”) information with time, especially in the past when no modern information retainment methods were available.

There was never a real consensus about what Dong created, how much he himself invented of what he taught, and also about who he taught what.

So it is almost CERTAIN that they would forget about many things.

There are plenty of names in Tai Chi history and in the Chen documents. There are records about people, about who they were, what they did. Yet there is not evidence of anything resembling Taijiquan in Chen Jiagou before Chen Changxing. Even the verbal tradition in Chenjiagou goes against the CWT myth.

Let’s get back to how historical research works. One puts forward a thesis based on the available information. This is what Tang Hao did, after researching the quanpu’s and zupu’s in Chenjiagou. Starting with the overlapping technique names of Qi Jiguang and TJQ he traced the genealogies records up noticing the stories of people notable of their MA skill until there was someone most probably bridging Chenjiagou to Qi Jiguangs military system. That someone was Chen Waiting Wanting. This is science, not “invention”.

Scholars work in many different ways. There are different ways to approach problems and work with what you observe and work with hypothesis. There's something called "Hypothetico-deductive" model and there is something called "Confirmation bias". How people achieve their results do not always match the ideals we have about scientific methods.

However, Tang Hao's goal was originally not really to prove that CWT was the inventor of TJQ, but to find alternative narratives to the Chang Sanfeng and Damo myths, to prove that those myths about Chinese martial arts were just fictional inventions, which was something he wrote a book about. Douglas Wile amongst others mention this. Anyway, Tang Hao had a clear goal, a political motif for his research, that clearly coloured his "scientific" approach.

Your current approach appears more as “historical nihilism” to me — “it’s very complicated, we don’t know anything and cannot learn anything either”. It’s hardly getting anyone closer to learning more.

You are free to think what you want. I never said we cannot learn. But we need to approach these things from a different angle. There are in fact people who have written about different things and have tried explaining things. In general, it's not always the theories and explanations that lies closest to the truth that people listen to, want to hear or repeat. Yes, history is very complex and it is hard to understand. But that doesn't mean that we should not try to understand things. But we must be open to things like that things can develop gradually, through many different people and generations. And that there might be no clear inventor to any of these things.

True, if those really are mistakes. If treating Tang Hao’s assumptions as a way to create the initial hypothetical model, I think they are still fine and waiting for something rooted in facts to be disproved, e.g. is there anything to prove that CWT couldn’t learn some form of Chanquan/Tongbei in his youth? That he didn’t serve in [para-]military influenced by Ji Qiguang’s system? That he couldn’t bring it back and put together his own amalgamation of both?

Tongbei was studied in Chenjiagou and by the Chen family, I don't doubt that. But there is no proof that Tai Chi Chuan have a close connection to Qijiguang. Neither Yang TJQ or any of the styles derived from Yang have those clearly Buddhist names or postures in Qi's manual. There is no proof that what YLC learned any of those movements. So they might as well have put into a modern Chen style after YLC's death. So we can't still prove any link between what CWT did and Chen Taijiquan.

If it’s of the same level of connection (i.e. none), no need.

There are clear early connections between Daoism (daoist concepts, thoughts, terms) and martial arts. Exactly how neidan is connected is another question. Do you want to discuss the roots of Daoist concepts in TCMA in general, or should we stick to Neidan only?

[LaoDan]

I do not follow the theories of the origins of TJQ too closely since there is still such a lack of clarity, but there are some interesting evidence that I am aware of (and perhaps put too much faith in?). There is indirect evidence for the incorporation of Daoism into martial arts as early as 1669 with a epitaph written by Huang Zongxi (黃宗羲 1610-1695) that mentions Shaolin and Wudang as two great schools of martial arts (although it is not stated what those Wudang martial arts were), and his son who wrote that the internal style used stillness to overcome movement, and that it reversed the principles of Shaolin. BUT, since this was when the Ming (native dynasty) was overthrown by the Qing (foreign rule), the writing may have been politically loaded (more of an allegory to distinguish between domestic [neijia] and foreign [waijia] than truly talking about actual martial arts traditions). The reason I tend to credit the Huang epitaph is his son’s writing. Since this was also contemporaneous with the “Chen Family Genealogy” noting that Chen Wangting (陈王庭 1580-1660) created the hand, saber and spear forms, I am comfortable crediting CWT with “creating” “proto-TJQ.”

[Bao]

... but there are some interesting evidence that I am aware of (and perhaps put too much faith in?). There is indirect evidence for the incorporation of Daoism into martial arts as early as 1669 with a epitaph written by Huang Zongxi (黃宗羲 1610-1695) that mentions Shaolin and Wudang as two great schools of martial arts (although it is not stated what those Wudang martial arts were), and his son who wrote that the internal style used stillness to overcome movement, and that it reversed the principles of Shaolin.

Absolutely. There are several ideas and passages that could be connected to Daoist ideas and concepts. However, many things, that "sound" or appears to be Daoist thoughts are deeply rooted In Chinese cultural traditions. You can not only find them in works as the Seven military classics, but also in old stories.

This text below is from the "The Maiden of Yue and the Magnificent Chu", a story of a Maiden who should have lived in the state of Yue (496–465 BCE). The story was written down in the Eastern Han (around 25 AD) in the "Spring and Autumn Annals of Wu and Yue".
(From: https://chinesemartialstudies.com/2020/ ... icent-chu/)

‘And what method do you practice now?’ asked the King.

‘The method involves great mystery and depth. The method involves “front doors” and “back doors” as well as hard and soft aspects. Opening the “front door” and closing the “back door” closes off the soft aspect and brings the hard aspect to the fore.

‘Whenever you have hand-to-hand combat, you need to have nerves of steel on the inside, but be totally calm in the outside. I must look like a demure young lady and fight like a startled tiger. My profile changes with the action of my body, and both follow my subconscious.

Overshadow your adversary like the sun; but scuttle like a flushed hare. Become a whirl of silhouettes and shadows; shimmer like a mirage. Inhale, exhausting, moving in, moving back out, keeping yourself out of reach, using your strategy to block the adversary, vertical, horizontal, resisting, following, straight, devious, and all without sound. With a method like this one man can match a hundred; a hundred men can match ten thousand. If Your Majesty wants to try me out, you can have a demonstration right away.’

The King of Yue was overjoyed and immediately gave her the title ‘Daughter of Yue.’ Then he ordered the divisional commanders and crack troops to practice the new method so that they could pass on their skills to the troops. From then on, the method was known as ‘The Daughter of Yue’s Swordsmanship.’”

[Steve James]

I tend to look at tcc as a folk art (customary culture), and one commonality it has with others is that its "history" began as a story. No one could know what (whatever today we call tcc) would become what it has. Did anyone claim that he was the one to create tcc, or did someone write down a history of what was already created? For me, the question of whether it was or wasn't tcc is a scholarly debate, but essentially moot.

Afa the CSF legend, I think it was normal because people didn't know the exact origin. Every folk art is like that. What's the name of the person who invented the wheel? It's been very important to civilization. More than likely it's because it was created by several individuals. I mean, how'd the first guy learn if he didn't practice with someone else? What would happen if you "invented" a martial art?

I agree 100%, fwiw, with the idea that elements of Daoism (and Buddhism) existed in China before Daoism (or Buddhism) existed. I'd say the same is true for tcc (and all cma styles). There had to be an original that all descend from --indirectly, because no one claims to practice the first. (Well, okay, maybe except shuai jiao. But its origins have the same problems).

[Bob]

Little, if anything, escapes the lens of the Yi Jing and correlative cosmology in very early China which contains the principles of Yin & Yang - this would frame the manner in which the individual and collective society, martial artists included, would perceive and experience the world

So Yin & Yang would also serve as the launching platform for Daoism and a multitude of other cultural activities.

[Steve James]

The idea/principle of taiji had to permeate all elements of Chinese life, particularly any that would be recorded orally or in writing. Why it was attached specifically to tcc (or taichi mantis, etc) is a separate question. In what cma doesn't the principle of yin and yang apply or isn't?
.

[Bob]

Steve, if you were around I would sit down and have a beer and "shoot the breeze" about these issues - I once took 3 workshops with Yi Jing author Steven Kartcher and raised a similar issue and he was able to show me how these concepts permeated the entire Chinese culture.

2 Sources that are quite useful and readable are:

1) The I Ching: A Biography Richard J. Smith PhD, the George and Nancy Rupp Professor of Humanities and professor of history at Rice University

"From the Han dynasty (206 BCE - 220 CE) through the Qing (1644-1912 CE), the YIjing remained a work of enormous and unchallenged scriptural authority; for everyone in Chinese society esteemed it and employed it in some way from emperors and officials to artisans and peasants. Commoners used pages from the book as a charm to ward off evil, and scholars gave it prides of place as "first among the [Confucian] classics." P. 2

The Gen hexagram . . . Chinese scholars, past and present, have considered it to capture the essence of the Yijing, but also because it had particularly wide appeal as an object of contemplation for Confucians, Buddhist, and Daoists alike . . . The image of this hexagram is the mountain, the youngest son of Heaven and Earth. The solid line at the top represents the yang(active) principle, because it strives upward by nature. The broken to line at the bottom represents the yin (passive) principle, since the direction of its movement is downward. . . in its application to man, the hexagram turns on the problem of achieving a quiet heart and mind . pp. 6-7

2) YingYang: The Way of Heaven and Earth in Chinese Thought and Culture, Robin R. Wang PhD, Daum Professor in the Bellarmine College of Liber Arts, Professor of Philosophy, and Director of Asian Pacific Studies at Loyola Marymount University in Los Angeles (side note Thomas Merton's materials are at Bellarmine College in Louisville, Kentucky

I spent some time with Sun Deyao (not learning mei hua praying mantis) and I don't recall him labeling his art TaiChi and when I asked about it from others they said it was simply added by others to give their art more prestige and status.

As you might recall Yang style Taijiquan was not referred to as Taijiquan and if I remember correctly, it was added in the mid 1800s by an academic in reference to China's "Sick Man Syndrome" to "strengthen the nation" in the face of the European "invasion"

Not sure if it is in this article but Stanley Henning wrote and researched it:

https://crnagorataiji.files.wordpress.c ... ai-chi.pdf

[Bob]

Not without controversy LOL

https://thesanghakommune.org/2012/07/13 ... taijiquan/

ttp://www.nardis.com/~twchan/henning.html

Henning discusses the origin of the term ‘Taijiquan’ and suggests that it was invented as late as 1854, and that any attempt to contradict this date is a product of both ignorance and myth originating within Chinese culture. Henning is not stating this explicitly, but he is implying it by presenting and passing on information in a specific manner designed to lead the general reader toward this particular conclusion. This is the section of Henning’s article that clearly defines his intention;

‘Yang style books, tended to copy the Zhang Sanfeng story of the origins of Taijiquan. Infact, they even went beyond the call of duty by attributing portions of Wu Yuxiang’s writings to Zhang Sanfeng. After all, what self respecting founder would fail to pass on a few pearls of wisdom? Wu was merely the founder’s ghost writer. Anyway, who would know? Actually, the most important Yang Style “classics” are from Wu’s writings, except for Wang Zong Yue’s Taijiquan Theory, and there are some who believe Wu even penned it as well as coined the term “Taijiquan” around 1854, but that is another story!’

The references Henning gives for this final statement (numbered “22” in his text) are emarkably ‘sparse’ considering the implications and impact that this conveyed i nformation is bound to produce, the single reference reads as follows;

‘Zhao Ximin Op Cit’.

Throughout the article, Henning writes with vigour and confidence. He firmlybelieves that he has the moral and intellectual upper-hand to comment authoritatively upon this subject. Yet at the end of the paragraph in question, even when he delivers the final crushing blow (to traditional thinking), he distances himself from the implications of his own statement with the words ‘there are some who believe’, giving the distinct impression, upon closer examination, that perhaps he does not necessarily subscribe to the view (his writing projects), which is premised upon a single reference. It must be concluded, however, that the end of this paragraph lacks the usual confidence that exudes throughout the rest of the article. Why should this be?

Henning’s article itself is in reality an attempt at projecting a strictly ‘materialist’ Western paradigm upon a set of historical circumstances that developed within a different cultural milieu. Indeed, the initial premise for the article rests upon Henning’s obvious and expressed dislike for a book entitled ‘The Art of Tai Chi’, by Paul Crompton. The central reason for this dislike, is that the book by Crompton (so Henning believes) conveys within its pages the myth that Taijiquan might have developed from the Daoist immortal Zhang Sanfeng – a common enough opinion found within Chinese language sources. This, of course, if it were true, would imply an ancient origin for the art of Taijiquan. However, this idea, (present in virtually all traditional schools) is not conveyed as a ‘fact’ by Crompton as he clearly refers to it as a myth, albeit an inspiring one. Even Henning has to admit this when he directly quotes from Crompton;

“True or not, the very existence of the legends tends to elevate Tai Chi and make it some thing to be striven for.” (The Art of tai chi: By P Crompton – Page X)

However, this single statement, according to Henning, serves as the motivation behind his article. Henning uses Crompton as the justification for his attempted dismissal of the Zhang Sanfeng myth in its relationship to the development of Taijiquan. Indeed. this is the true objective and intention behind Henning’s article. Crompton is used (rightly or wrongly) as a catalyst for the negative assessment of Zhang Sanfeng. Nothing Henning presents in this regard is original, and his rhetoric appears to be more of an attack on Chinese culture, rather than an as a legitimate attempt to establish objective historical accuracy. All the facts he uses are available elsewhere and Henning is careful in his presentation of them. The idea that Taijiquan has more than one origination story, or that it is not possible to know fully the real beginning of the art, again is not new. Many traditionalists, both Western and Chinese, tend to know simultaneously nowadays, both the mythological and the historical narratives – (the former speculative, the latter factual), and as such, are able to integrate and present them for what they are. The vital and most important point that Henning misses (or chooses not acknowledge) is that ‘myth’ does not have to be destroyed – for ‘historical fact’ to be established. This is the greatest flaw in Henning’s article. In effect, he presents nothing academically ‘new’, other than his own view-point, which clearly expresses that he does not favour Chinese mythology, in relation to the historical assessment of Taijiquan development. This is especially true of the ‘1854’ date he tentatively presents as the time the term ‘Taijiquan’ was invented.

Unfortunately, as Henning presents virtually no evidence to back this theory up, this statement may be viewed as being as unreliable as the mythology he attempts to discredit. The facts that Henning presents, are presented well, fulfilling the agenda he is striving to establish, but crucial pieces of information are omitted in his narrative. Consider, for instance the fact that the emperor Taizong (1627-1643), called himself ‘Taiji’. Henning does not go into this aspect in much more detail, other than to say that when an emperor uses a name, it is forbidden for others to do so. This is correct, but the emperor Taizong lived during much of the lifetime of Chen Wangting (1600-1680), and Henning does not make the obvious connection that as a result of the taboo surrounding the emperor’s name, the Chen family could not have publically called their art ‘Taiji’ even if this was its actual name. However, according to the well known Chen stylist Davidine Sim, an even earlier taboo stemming from the time of the Song Dynasty (960–1279) was also in effect regarding the use of the term ‘Taiji’, linked to the Taizu emperor, although the term ‘Taiji’ does occur (in the commentary section) of the much earlier Book of Changes (Yijing), dating to around 300 BCE, and has been associated with martial practice for many hundreds of years.

The body of Henning’s article may be considered a rehash of the old ‘Wudang’ vs. ‘Shaolin’ mythology, with the facts (where they can be established), presented in a logical, if not meandering fashion; dates, names of emperors and portions of lineages, etc. China’s ‘Self Strengthening’ movement is mentioned near the end, as the final impetus for the association of Zhang Sanfeng with the development of Taijiquan – but oddly enough, Henning (who has written in military journals), does not acknowledge that this movement developed in China as a response to the rampant Western Imperialist aggression typical of the time. Curiously Henning makes no reference to the pre-Song uses of the term ‘Taiji’ which are known to refer to the practice (and usage) of martial arts. It is ironic therefore, that Henning would refer to Chinese myths and legends as ‘ignorance’, when so much of his historical omissions and oversights could well attract a similar criticism.

©opyright: Adrian Chan-Wyles (ShiDaDao) 2012.

[Bao]

The idea/principle of taiji had to permeate all elements of Chinese life,
...
In what cma doesn't the principle of yin and yang apply or isn't?

The original Tai Chi concept is a very specific interpretation of yin yang and there are many different ways to understand yin yang. So instead maybe you should ask how do different TCMA interpret yin yang?

[Steve James]

The original Tai Chi concept is a very specific interpretation of yin yang and there are many different ways to understand yin yang. So instead maybe you should ask how do different TCMA interpret yin yang?

I could ask, but I couldn't answer for them. I'm not sure I know the original specific interpretation, either. I only know how I (was taught to) apply it, but that the application of the principle in mas and life are infinite. I can't say it's the right way.

[everything]

adult humans are amazing at over-complicating every possible thing, especially things they don't actually understand.

on the flip side, in a very "binary" digital world, having an ancient philosophy that says everything comes from a "1" or "0" is interesting.

[origami_itto]

Numbers are fun. Going further with yin and yang there's greater and lesser of each, and also the four duograms. Physics identifies four fundamental forces, and DNA is composed of four bases.

It's a useful model for all sorts of thinking.

[Bob]

Great source for the Yi Jing and you can read a bit about Yin and Yang. However, and understandably so, the site is very strict on it's cut/paste copyright.

https://www.biroco.com/yijing/

Just as a side note someone has already written a paperback on the Yi Jing and DNA LOL

(Johnson Faa Yan is from the town in China where Chu Hsi, the Sung Dynasty I Ching scholar, lectured and meditated. After receiving his PhD from Kent State University, Dr. Yan did post-doctoral research on computational chemistry of biopolymers at Cornell University. His current interest is, of course, the interpretation of DNA and protein sequences.)

https://www.amazon.com/DNA-I-Ching-Tao- ... 1556430973