BTDT (1): What is IMA?

[shawnsegler]

All the "internal" schools put an emphasis on developing shen fa which comes about from doing exercises that specifically target things like tendons and organs and stuff...stuff that's inside...internal. They all have these practices and generally put the highest priority of the training regime on developing that "internal" aspect of their art. That doesn't mean you still don't need to do "training" that's "external" Qigong is good for you and so are pushups, and then you have things like technique and other stuff like that...but the first and most important thing in the "internals" is the shenfa thing...hence...internal.

Not so complicated.

S

[bailewen]

Omar,

the question is whether the 3 arts all shared the same basics originally, or whether they became the same when people started practicing all three together

CD

Personally I reject both those theories in favor of a belief in parallel evolution. What I believe happened is that when Guo Yun Shen and Yang Lu Chan and guys like that got together to talk shop they went, "Hey! AFAIK, what your doing is really identical to what I am doing." Maybe they didn't see it at first as the forms are so different but when they started sharing techniques and getting into the mechanics and the theory that informed their arts they realized that the differences were just the different expressions of a common truth.

Parallel evolution.

edit: After going to the Wiki for a link I decided that actually "convergent evolution" is probably more accurate as these arts had very different begginings and, I believe, grew more similar over time which is closer to what you proposed except that I believe it did not start only after people started sharing in the 20th century. I think they shared because they were the same not that they ar the same because they shared.

[nianfong]

well, considering a lot of the fundamental theories of chen taijiquan came from the book of six harmonies, one could argue that they share this root as well.

I don't argue that the goal of the 3 are different, i believe the 'essence' to be the same as well, as sun lu tang says, but again, I think they are also quite different in strategy preferences and outward appearances, as well as expression of force. while the chansi jing may be present in the xingyi follow step, the expression of it is quite different. and bagua... well it came well after all the others, so it could easily be viewed as starting its foundation from the other two in a way.

[Chris Fleming]

"Which of the many old Yang styles do you mean ?"

The one that Yang Lu Chan created.

[bailewen]

I can go with that, Fong.

Shifu often likes to talk about the progression from "no form to form to no form" (没有到有；有到没有 or more classically from 无 to 有 and back again)
When you get back to "no form" or 无形, that is the point when they are identical. At some point you abandon the form and just move "naturally". You have moved beyond techniques. So basically the "essence" is "nothing" for all 3.

[edededed]

Omar,

the question is whether the 3 arts all shared the same basics originally, or whether they became the same when people started practicing all three together

CD

Personally I reject both those theories in favor of a belief in parallel evolution. What I believe happened is that when Guo Yun Shen and Yang Lu Chan and guys like that got together to talk shop they went, "Hey! AFAIK, what your doing is really identical to what I am doing." Maybe they didn't see it at first as the forms are so different but when they started sharing techniques and getting into the mechanics and the theory that informed their arts they realized that the differences were just the different expressions of a common truth.

Parallel evolution.

edit: After going to the Wiki for a link I decided that actually "convergent evolution" is probably more accurate as these arts had very different begginings and, I believe, grew more similar over time which is closer to what you proposed except that I believe it did not start only after people started sharing in the 20th century. I think they shared because they were the same not that they ar the same because they shared.

But taijiquan, baguazhang, and xingyiquan all had their own basics, forms, and methods before meeting each other - once they did meet each other, there was some commingling and exchange of methods, which blurred lines a bit. There were more differences before (that still exist in older versions of the styles) than there are now (in the newer versions of the styles), although in a runabout way, you can still sort of trace these back to older martial arts, like Shaolin.

[bailewen]

I'm not a hard liner on this issue by any means.

Just my personal opinion on this issue.

[cloudz]

but the first and most important thing in the "internals" is the shenfa thing...hence...internal.

but interestingly everyone tends to judge shen fa on external appearences.. I personally agree, that shen fa by the definitions I use is "external".. I'm not sure how you can explain the above to "external" stylists - I'm sure they'd be like but hey my style has shen fa too, does that mean it's internal ..?

Oh well, I guess we can't all agree!

[cdobe]

Omar,

the question is whether the 3 arts all shared the same basics originally, or whether they became the same when people started practicing all three together

CD

Personally I reject both those theories in favor of a belief in parallel evolution. What I believe happened is that when Guo Yun Shen and Yang Lu Chan and guys like that got together to talk shop they went, "Hey! AFAIK, what your doing is really identical to what I am doing." Maybe they didn't see it at first as the forms are so different but when they started sharing techniques and getting into the mechanics and the theory that informed their arts they realized that the differences were just the different expressions of a common truth.

Parallel evolution.

edit: After going to the Wiki for a link I decided that actually "convergent evolution" is probably more accurate as these arts had very different begginings and, I believe, grew more similar over time which is closer to what you proposed except that I believe it did not start only after people started sharing in the 20th century. I think they shared because they were the same not that they ar the same because they shared.

Omar,

I'm not a hardliner either. I just wanted to bring some awareness to the fact that integration of information is a very important and unavoidable aspect of learning and that there are implications for this recurring discussion.
I also like to apply evolutionary concepts and terminology to the development in martial arts. It's very useful and I think you're onto something with your idea. The three internals were probably easier to integrate than other arts. But I would say that convergent evolution creates analogue properties and not identical ones. IMO the identity arose with the integration.

CD

[cloudz]

Maybe they didn't see it at first as the forms are so different but when they started sharing techniques and getting into the mechanics and the theory that informed their arts they realized that the differences were just the different expressions of a common truth.

We can probaly go one further.. Like Wang Xiang Zhai. Perhaps we can look at different arts and say these are more closely related, share more than these etc. But ultimately the essence of all gong fu/ martial arts is the same. As you say - different expressions of a common truth.

What is style at the end of the day. A way to train, a way to do this, a way to do that - expression is not a bad description.

[justincasea]

Careful man, he might be one of those "undercover grandmasters" Yusuf is warning everyone about on the other thread... Thou shalt not judge, but listen and absorb -- you know, just in case... (j/k...)

Dmitri,

I just found Yusuf's thread a min ago. Thanks for the warning, I certainly would not judge your IMA level based on this. )

Justin

[yusuf]

lol

Please don;t allow my words to stop you all cleaving each other into pieces

yusuf

[justincasea]

Yusuf,

Haha, no problem. Dmitri is considered to be quite knowledgeable. He is a fine person. No cleaving on my part.

Thanks

Justincasea

[justincasea]

观耄耋御众之形，快何能为

"when you watch [the form of] an old man fight many people, how can he be fast?"
this is incomplete, and you need the following few lines, which I'm pulling from memory:
活似車輪, 立如平準, 偏沉則隨, 雙重則滯
"live like a cart wheel, stand like a level/scale, lean sink and follow, double heavy stagnates"

There's actually whole bunch more. I only chose that little piece of it because I was looking for what I thought came closest to drawing a distinction between internal and external, specifically the phrase, "斯技旁门甚多，虽势有区别..." Maybe it was an awkward place to cut it off.

edit: Justincasea The native speaker on this thread doesn't seem to see a problem with my translation of 观耄耋御众之形，快何能为? If your own English is not good enough to translate that phrase, how can you tell I got it wrong?

As to the point about the sameness of the big 3, while Fong got the time-line right the 3 arts as one art is a debatable but widely held view. My Shifu learned Bagua from Song Weiyi who was famous for a book called 'The Unity of Bagua and Taiji' or something like that. I only disagree with Justincasea about Wong Zongyue making the distinction but later on, I feel that the term "internal" was adopted for just that reason, to imply that those 3 arts were really the same. My own Shifu has made it clear that he feels that they are ultimately the same. Different Taolu, same gongfu.

Omar,
Here is my two cents: (1) you've got a good instructor to learn from and good martial art to learn. Listen to your instructor. (2)观耄耋御众之形，快何能为? josh's tranlation is good, so is your wife's. Their difference was due to the mark at the end of the sentence. Some version ends with "?"(question), another ends with "."(period). regardless, the essence of two translations is the same. 观 (look at)耄耋(an old man at least over 80)御(defense against)众(more than one person)之(of)形(situation or actions), 快(high speed, being fast)何(how)能(be able)为(do or done)("." or" ?") (3) from that translation, we see that this is not just a language problem. One has to understand taijiquan to certainl level to translate this, other wise , the whole sentence sounds like a crazy statement or joke. The real question is : Why is this piece considered to be the most important classics in IMA? WHy would generations of IMA masters take it so serious? I am sure you will find your answer in a few months. By the time comes, please do share with me your experience.

Justincasea

[TaoJoannes]

The fastest movement is stillness.