zhan 沾 nian 黏 lian 连 sui 随

[wayne hansen]

An hour of (correct ) pushing
An hour of Buddha

[origami_itto]

[
methods f
Who said anything about Buddhism or chinese philosophy? I'm talking specifically about the strategies, tactics, practices, and results associated with Taijiquan.

Full stop. No silk Pjs or cowtows, just practical methods for getting more out of life.

You do understand what the methods are based on.

For example lets take the name "taiji" why call it that,,,
what does it mean, where does it come from


One could look at what noted a master says

Translated by a friend

Taiji by Gao, ZhuangFei

(Tai Chi), it is both scientific and philosophical.

These two are combined together, using boxing principles and boxing methods.

So I think it means that if you don’t have the knowledge of Tai Chi and the understanding of the word Tai Chi, you won’t be able to practice Tai Chi very well.

What is Tai Chi? It is Wuji(infinity), Wuji generates Youji(extremes),
Youji generates two characteristics, two characteristics generate four images, and four images generate eight trigrams.

always interesting

Would post a clip of his functional usage , probably wouldn't be received very well...


In Taiwan...

All about functional usage,,, demoed through PH
In working with his group,, practitioners of many years....
Related the practice to the cultural underpinnings from which it's based on, perhaps giving them a
different appreciation of something they grow up in..

Okay, so... which is it? Inextricably tied to chinese philosophy and religion, or just for beating people up?

In either case, you have completely missed the point.

I'm not a buddhist. I'm not a taoist. I just do taijiquan. It helps me civilly and martially. It promotes robust health and enables effective self defense.

[wayne hansen]

Just to clarify my statement was not about Buddhism
It was about what you put in you get out
The original statement is an inch of meditation an inch of Buddha
I go back toCMC
Three essentials
Right method
Persaverence
Natural talent

[origami_itto]

Just to clarify my statement was not about Buddhism
It was about what you put in you get out
The original statement is an inch of meditation an inch of Buddha
I go back toCMC
Three essentials
Right method
Persaverence
Natural talent

I got what you were saying. I agree and there is research to back it up.

[everything]

Nothing

Before the Big Bang, there was empty space.

There had to be energy to cause exponential expansion.

So it was “Wuji”.

My point is these ideas are the same.

Magic

My point is not that there is magic in “X”, but if you cannot do the “trick”, it feels like it the same way a card trick seems like Magic.

Or redefine “X” as “athleticism”. Or some weird thing like “eccentric”.

People who can do X don’t say it’s magic.

[origami_itto]

Nothing

Before the Big Bang, there was empty space.

There had to be energy to cause exponential expansion.

So it was “Wuji”.

My point is these ideas are the same.

Magic

My point is not that there is magic in “X”, but if you cannot do the “trick”, it feels like it the same way a card trick seems like Magic.

Or redefine “X” as “athleticism”. Or some weird thing like “eccentric”.

People who can do X don’t say it’s magic.

What I'm saying is that isn't accurate.

The current understanding is that everything existed in a one dimensional point. Everything, including empty space. Like it wasn't just hanging out in empty space and we're just filling it with stuff. The space doesn't exist outside "The universe" and everything existed already

[everything]

I think that was the popular theory for a long time, but now they think it’s a cycle of bangs

https://www.space.com/what-came-before-big-bang.html

This gets even more confusing. The “one point” is part of the continuum. Possibly there is a “negative” “side”. Maybe there are multiverses. It kind of leaves Physics to go into Metaphysics. At the “end” of Physics, we have philosophy.

NeverMind how confusing talking about tai chi is here LOL.

[everything]

We could be on a loop

But our focus here is on explanations which remain within the realm of physics. There are three broad options to the deeper question of how the cycles began. It could have no physical explanation at all. Or there could be endlessly repeating cycles, each a universe in its own right, with the initial quantum state of each universe explained by some feature of the universe before. Or there could be one single cycle, and one single repeating universe, with the beginning of that cycle explained by some feature of its own end. The latter two approaches avoid the need for any uncaused events – and this gives them a distinctive appeal. Nothing would be left unexplained by physics.

https://www.bbc.com/future/article/2022 ... e-big-bang

[origami_itto]

I think that was the popular theory for a long time, but now they think it’s a cycle of bangs

https://www.space.com/what-came-before-big-bang.html

This gets even more confusing. The “one point” is part of the continuum. Possibly there is a “negative” “side”. Maybe there are multiverses. It kind of leaves Physics to go into Metaphysics. At the “end” of Physics, we have philosophy.

NeverMind how confusing talking about tai chi is here LOL.

Well i didn't want to get into the big crunch theory too. Then you've got string theory and the idea that a collision in a parallel universe provided the energy

The salient point , which your link and quote supports, is that it always existed.

[everything]

always existed

which is just so weird, lol. I love reading about it, but it gets more and more confusing.

[Steve James]

The current understanding is that everything existed in a one dimensional point. Everything, including empty space. Like it wasn't just hanging out in empty space and we're just filling it with stuff. The space doesn't exist outside "The universe" and everything existed already

No one knows what "space" is. One way to think of it as the stuff in which everything is and where everything happens. In that sense, there was very little "space" before the big bang (or the "time" at which space began to expand).

But, it was "space" that began to expand, and there was already something/s (specifically energy) in that space -else no big bang. Moreover, that energy is still in space, and we know because the rate of its expansion is increasing.

Afa wuji, it would be what existed before the singularity because taiji is a singularity. I.e., taiji is the unity of yin and yang. All positive and negative is contained within. Yin and yang cannot exist on their own.

There's a big question in physics as to why matter and antimatter particles didn't annihilate themselves. Logically, there should have been equal amounts, but somehow matter predominated. Higgs demonstrated a mechanism, and the more particles we smash into each other at nearly the speed of light, the more particles we find. Particles move through "empty" space at those speeds around us and through us all the time. Yet, this universe and everything in it is "one" thing.

[origami_itto]

So we know what space is. It's the distance between things and the area they occupy.

What I'm saying is that space doesn't exist outside the universe. Not space like stars and planets, space like distance between things and an area they can exist within.

Like the universe isn't like a basketball in an empty gym. Space isn't what it's expanding into. Everything exists inside the basketball and there is nothing outside the basketball, not even empty space.

https://www.newscientist.com/lastword/m ... and%20into.

[everything]

that's another weird contradiction I don't get.

the Universe is expanding because the distance between celestial bodies is growing. but what is it expanding into? it's not expanding into anything. so it's what? expanding into nothing-ness? there is nothing "outside" of it to expand into. WTH.

[Steve James]

So we know what space is. It's the distance between things and the area they occupy.

Fine. When/if there was a singularity, there was no distance or things. Whatever that was expanded/inflated and is continuing to expand. I never implied anything different, or that there was anything outside, or anything else.

But, fwiw, space as "the distance ... area they occupy" is Newton's idea of space, which is useful on our macro level, but which has been superseded by Einstein's "space time" and later quantum mechanics (i.e., reality at the sub-atomic level). And, at the sub-atomic level, there is no such thing as "empty space." It's been experimentally demonstrated that if you could remove every single atom from an area, there'd be something.

Anyway, right, the universe is not expanding into space. Space is expanding, faster than the speed of light (the speed limit for things with mass in space). Nope, no one knows what is outside the universe. Now, what is causes the measured expansion is why we're smashing particles and measuring gravitational waves. But, I'm saying the only time we'll be able to say we understand what space "is" is when we understand quantum mechanics.

[everything]

which, using a "for dummies" understanding of all that, is why I say

- ultimately if we go far enough with current (and probably future) instruments and math and experiements, we always arrive at philosophy and metaphysics, and "culture" NOT "science". beyond the "outer reaches" of science, that's all we got with our human brains.
- "taiji and the 10k things comes from wuji" is a valid statement.
- "culture" and a different worldview from that philosophical "reading" of things is "valid" as "science" doesn't form the basis of some kind of definitive epistemology. there is no "science" > "culture" in this matter as some people seem to erroneously conclude.