Dmitri wrote:GrahamB wrote:you're saying you do teach Silk Reeling
That's not what he said at all. He said that part of what he's teaching is very similar to the ICMA concept of "silk reeling" (as many other parts are respectively similar to their Chinese versions) and alluded to the similarities being historical in nature. Not sure why put words in mouth...? And more importantly, -- why shift the thread to being (yet again) about what Dan teaches, his teachers, etc.?
That said -- Dan had a hand in topic shift of his own; the relevance of how little internal skill the majority of ICMA folks can exhibit - an important subject on its own - is largely irrelevant here. And as everyone knows, the situation with IJMA folks in that respect is notably worse.
The good news is, both are improving these days, it seems.
strange
bodywork:
*I don't really care what you call anything.
I met Chinese Grandmasters and lessor teachers. It was they who told me what I s doing in my body was what you call pulling and reeling silk. Me?....
What do I care? I rarely use those terms, preferring mechanical descriptions as they are more relevant.
It would seem that its not similar its the same as noted by those who use the terminology.
I tend to agree with "bodywork" in that what is named or described is only relevant to help explain ones view point of what they feel is happening, regardless of what one calls it.
Its what one can do thats important.
Interesting enough I had the same conversation with one of the people I work with asking me if what he explained or thought was happening was correct or not.
I explained to him, that there is no correct in talking about it, its what you can do.
What is said will change as ones understanding deepens, in some cases one may not be able to
articulate what is being done or how or even feel the need too.
My own teacher is like this, his explanations are through doing.
Its only important to those one works with, either helping or confusing depending on the back ground of those that one works with.
Many of the older teachers I've met are using a more physic's based approach in their explanations understanding that
until the basic physical ideas are trained, talking about qi, yi, is not so productive in that it can lead down a different path of feeling that
one might understand how something is done with out really being able to do it.....
oddly enough by the time people who've put in the time and effort of practice, start talking about these aspects,
they dont need too as they'er able to do it, the explanations only help to
clarify what they already known.