by LaoDan on Tue Sep 17, 2019 8:59 am
OK, this is a rather lengthy post, so I hope that it communicates clearly my thoughts on this topic. I realize that it is better to feel the following experientially, but words will have to do.
Instructions based on feelings can be inaccurate. We can sense gross muscular actions, but not the fine changes used when maintaining structure. I doubt that anyone is capable of detecting muscle fiber recruitment used during the stretch reflex, for example, where one’s structure (joint angles) is maintained without conscious control (reflex actions bypass brain processing, so it does not even require “intent”). [Note that I would argue that this stretch reflex plays a big part in the pengjin 掤勁 structural integrity and rebounding energy that is used in TJQ.] For someone without modern knowledge of anatomy and physiology (etc.) an explanation using qi may be satisfactory. But when someone FEELS like they are not using muscles, and then states that practitioners should use qi and NOT muscles, then there is misinformation in the way that the directions are being conveyed that is inconsistent with modern knowledge.
Stating that muscles are not being used is simply wrong. Better would be to state that one should move so that muscle use is imperceptible. When one is trying to move in as relaxed a manner as possible, one IS still using muscles, and to state that one is using qi RATHER than muscles is inaccurate.
When one is careful in their usage of traditional terminology, it can be fine, and often even better than when attempting to explain things in modern terms, but one needs to either be careful, or be able to understand modern knowledge enough to be able to explain thing in ways that are not inconsistent with modern knowledge.
As others have mentioned, qi is a broadly applied concept, and is even used in describing the brushwork in calligraphy and paintings. It may be thought of as energy, but I view it more as the animating qualities/influences. Brushwork can be used to render liveliness in paintings, even though the painting itself is without life.
If we look at trees, then the internal animating quality is evident in the growth, leafing, flowering and fruiting phenomena exhibited by the living tree. But one can also describe the movements of the limbs being moved by the wind in terms of qi, in this case the animating force is the wind that acts on the tree (i.e., a force external to the tree itself, even though the effect of the invisible wind is visible on the movement of the tree).
If not careful, usage of the qi terminology in TJQ can be confusing. In humans, the animating quality of movement can be attributed to many things like intent, nerve impulses, the ATP energy source, oxygen, food, etc, and the processes that keep us animated include the biological processes that aid us in fighting or recovering from diseases or injuries and promote growth and cell replacement, etc. (all of which, and more, are needed to maintain life or “animation” in human bodies). But for movement, these various qi qualities act through the muscles. As far as I am aware, one cannot move our skeletal structure without activating the musculature (except for the collapse or fall resulting from entirely relaxing the muscles, or by moving the structure through connections to external sources of movement...). Activation of muscles can be attributed to qi, but one cannot totally eliminate muscle activation from the TJQ movements.
In the opening of Yang style forms, teachers often direct students to use intent or to use qi to raise the arms, or they use imagery like being as if one was a puppet with the wrists attached by strings that lift the arms (moving like the tree being moved by an external source like the wind), or letting the arms float up as when one is standing up to shoulder deep in water and the buoyancy lifts the arms (also being moved by an external source). But we do not have strings attached to our wrists like puppets, nor are we buoyed by nonexistent water. We still use muscles to make the desired movement, even though we are using imagery to reduce the PERCEPTIBLE (or excess) muscle usage.
This is why some teachers use terminology like eliminating any UNNECESSARY muscles for the desired actions. But it is incorrect to say “use qi instead of muscles” or anything similar (qi acts through the muscles for activating/moving one’s body). Muscles are still being used as long as we do not have an external source that is moving us (like a training partner lifting our wrists for us). It is insufficient to use traditional teaching language that conflicts with modern knowledge, unless the students are willing to ignore that modern knowledge. Knowledgeable teachers can still use traditional imagery to teach their students, but insisting that traditional ideas are correct, despite modern knowledge that contradicts it, is simply being uninformed or misinformed, and is itself wrong.
Granted, traditional language is genuinely being used in an effort to help the students, but many Western students are unwilling to discount their modern knowledge to ignore any resulting conflicts. I think that modern teaching can still use references to traditional thoughts, but one should be careful to distinguish what one feels or has been told is happening from what modern science indicates is actually happening. When we cannot explain something through modern knowledge, it just indicates that our understanding is not yet complete or that it is not being looked at sufficiently carefully. We are incapable of being aware of every process happening in our bodies (and minds), and so there is a lot that we miss or do not understand.
Returning to the Yang style opening where the arms raise, if we use a partner that provides resistance to the arm raise, most students will attempt to PUSH their arms up against the resistance, and they will find that it is quite difficult to do and requires a lot of strength to be used without much success. This is clearly not what we want for this movement; it is “muscling” the movement and is not very effective. One could then use any of the instructions given previously in order to get the student to abandon the force against force instinctive action and use something else instead.
Alternatively, one could instruct them that the elbow must lead the wrist since the elbow is above the wrist at the start. This produces a PULLING of the wrist up rather than trying to push against the resistance. One is then properly using the flexor muscles to move against resistance rather than using the extensor muscles. It becomes much more effective and is much easier to do, achieving the “effortlessness” that we desire, the moving with relaxation that we desire, the not using force against force butting against the resistance. It is using the muscles that are positioned to efficiently and effectively do the movement against their resistance rather than the ones that we may instinctively try to use. It is approaching the effortlessness that we are striving for – but it is still using muscles!
Teachers do not need to be specialists in modern anatomy and physiology (etc.), but they should not insist on traditional explanations when those explanations contradict modern knowledge. We should avoid the dogmatic usage of the traditional teaching, and we should seek to understand it well enough to explain it using modern information, if possible (especially when teaching Western students). There is not a common model for communication when a teacher relies on traditional models but the students are coming from a modern background. I would rather the teacher communicate in a way that is compatible with modern knowledge rather than forcing the students to abandon their knowledge in order to adapt one that has incompatible information in the dogmatic ways that it is passed on.
It is various physiological and physiological (and mental, etc.) principles that allows one to avoid using oppositional strength and instead utilize the mechanical advantages in order to “use qi” or “use relaxed movements” instead. Trying to dissociate the energetic from the physical seems like it is missing the point. One can learn how these principles aid the energetic, or one can hope to gain the desired qualities through feeling someone who already incorporates them, whether or not they can explain the actual physical details, or one can gain them through trial and error experiences (trying to find ways to move without feeling the use of oppositional strength until it eventually works).
To me, it is the movement principles that help practitioners avoid using oppositional strength, and it is the lack of oppositional strength that allows the “qi to flow.” The physical and the energetic are mutually connected, not separate. When someone talks in terms that separate them, then they may have the abilities, but their understanding of one or the other, and their interdependence, appears to be mistaken.
Yang Cheng Fu's 10 Essential Principles describe various physical and energetic qualities, but to me they are all addressing both, just in different ways. They are not separated into those principles that are just energetic (qi related) and others that are just physically related. I do not think that modern practitioners should separate them either. Both physical and energetic principles are addressing the same conditions and qualities that are important in TJQ movement.
To continue with the raising the arms example from the opening of Yang style TJQ, some schools will teach the principles of the relationship between the wrist and the elbow (using appropriate strength to power movements) and therefore help one to avoid using oppositional strength, but they may not realize that this is addressing the same issue as when teachers talk about using qi to raise the arms.
There are numerous other physical/energetic principles (depending on which framework one is using to speak about them; but to me they are both addressing the same qualities) that I could illustrate. For example, the idea that one should go one direction before circling or looping into the opposite direction is a commonly understood physical principle that can also be applied to the opening raising arms movement. Here if one’s opponent or partner applies resistance to your raising movement, they typically align the center of their arms against your wrists in such a way that they land their force squarely towards your arms. The slight extension prior to raising your arms affects the relationship at the contact point such that the opponent/partner now is applying their force at a tangential angle rather than directly square. This reduces their ability to oppose you, and when you do raise your arms there is less oppositional force being used (i.e., it requires less effort to raise your arms).
One should not “reverse” direction to go from extending downward to raising the arms because that would return the resistor to the point where they were square against you. Instead, you should loop or circle which should be able to be used to maintain the resistor at a tangent to your movements, therefore avoiding direct oppositional force and making your movements easier.
This mechanical action can similarly be achieved by instructions to extend qi into the middle finger (extending in the opposite direction to the eventual direction of raising the arms), followed by directing the qi to circle into the laogong acupuncture point in the center of the palm (looping or circling which keeps the resistor on a tangent). But both physical and energetic instructions are addressing the same quality than one wants in this opening movement of raising the arms. The physical and energetic are mutually dependent.
I could continue with other example in this opening raising arms move (like addressing the resistor’s yin or yang body surfaces and how the primary musculature under these surfaces act for flexion and extension), but I have already written about 2000 words for this post. Therefore I will end here and hope that this was sufficient to get my point across. To me, the energetic and the physical (physiological, mental...) are different ways of addressing the same qualities. They are not using one or the other separately. They are united as one. They address the same qualities that are desired in TJQ, just using a different framework (or reference point) and different terminology.
If you have gotten all the way through this, then thank you for taking the time to read my viewpoint.