Re: The Taiji "Classics"
Posted: Wed Aug 28, 2019 4:03 am
The Taiji Classy - wear your colorful silk and quote from old books
dedicated to the discussion of the chinese internal martial arts of xingyiquan, baguazhang, taijiquan, related arts, and anything else best discussed over a bottle of rum
http://rumsoakedfist.org/
Bhassler wrote: What leads anyone to believe that just because some guy with a Chinese name and some free time wrote some stuff down, it has any relevance to actual practice or meaningful gongfu? Or was it just the equivalent of some hobbyist with more enthusiasm than good practice doing the contemporary equivalent of writing a wikipedia article?
They weren't trying to figure out what or how to practice based upon the correct interpretation of what someone else wrote.
Many modern practitioners base much of their practice on their particular interpretation of what dead guys wrote in cryptic notes - and then insist that their interpretation is the right one.
Steve James wrote:However, none of the classics could have begun as texts. They were oral expressions and meant to transmitted orally and therefore face to face, hand to hand. Understanding was meant to be transmitted through the mitts, not the words.
Many modern practitioners base much of their practice on their particular interpretation of what dead guys wrote in cryptic notes - and then insist that their interpretation is the right one.
I think the first part is necessary because there's no alternative. If they simply ignore what the dead guys wrote, they might as well not claim to do what the dead guys did.
I agree that people insist on the correctness of their interpretation --even from a translation. Otoh, what Bao said is true in that most (Yang/Wu) tcc practitioners know the same words. One could even say they agree on the same words. But, they do not agree on what the words mean or how to express the words correctly. More precisely, they believe that most tcc practitioners are doing it wrong.
The alternative is to study with someone, firsthand, who has traditional skills. I suggest that there is no other way to achieve traditional skills, the stuff the "classics" attempted to describe.
charles wrote:Bhassler wrote: What leads anyone to believe that just because some guy with a Chinese name and some free time wrote some stuff down, it has any relevance to actual practice or meaningful gongfu? Or was it just the equivalent of some hobbyist with more enthusiasm than good practice doing the contemporary equivalent of writing a wikipedia article?
That's a good question.
One could argue that there were relatively fewer people practicing/learning Taijiquan when the "classics" were written and that people who were practicing it learned it closer to a legitimate source. Today, many learn from someone who learned from someone who learned from someone who learned from a legitimate source. Or, in modern times, one learned from books or videos.
...