GrahamB wrote:I keep reading people talking about how Tai Chi Chuan perfectly expresses all the principles for life - i.e. it's a kind of panacea through which all the problems of life - whether that's your relationships or your work or your home life or your gardening, or whatever - can be "solved".
I think we all (including me) buy into this idea when we first encounter Tai Chi, as it seems to be a collection of simple principles that apply to everything. i.e. we go to far in one direction, we become the opposite.
And of course it is linked back to major philosophical works like Lao Tzu, which adds the necessary gravitas.
However, these days I'm not so sure. Perhaps the Tai Chi World View is too simple, too ordered, too..... Confucian, to really apply to nature, or reality.
It's starting to seem to me that Zhu Xi the "neo Confucian", (who would have just been a regular Confucian in his day) had more to do with the creation of this Tai Chi World View than any other individual. His teachings were very popular in the time when Yang Lu Chan was in Beijing and the Wu brothers were "finding" lost Tai Chi Classics in salt cellars.
Here's a short introduction to his work:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XUMND6OFuRA
GrahamB wrote:Yes, carelessly worded, you are correct. What would he have been called in his time then?
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:No, he would not simply have been called a Confucian in his time because that is not a word that existed or exists in Chinese, Japanese, Vietnamese, or Korean.
Neo Confucianism is a useful term that, while perhaps needing some sort of glossing, is historically and intellectually distinct from the earlier canon and commentaries in both concept and aim.
yeniseri wrote:This Tai Chi World view appears to have nothing to do with its martial origins but is actually based on (it seems) post Qing rhetoric since taijiquan had become defanged and Tai Chi, the philosophy, reared its hairless face to occupy its place in revisionist hisotry. It's nice and it fits the direction of movement that allows the many to dream and rationalize its new purpose.
Bao wrote:
Confucianism was called Rujia in Chinese, but Zhu Xi's philosophy, and his branch of Neo-Confucianism, became known as "Li Xue" The School of Reason.
Neo Confucianism is a useful term that, while perhaps needing some sort of glossing, is historically and intellectually distinct from the earlier canon and commentaries in both concept and aim.
Bao wrote:Neo confucianism is "Songxue" in Chinese, or "School of the Song [dynasty]" which in fact both precedes and cover the time of "Neo Confucianism". Zhou Yi and Zhang Cai is considered to be two of the first Songxue philosophers, but in Western studies, they are mostly called forerunners, as Neo Confucianism doesn't really start until Zhu Xi.
GrahamB wrote: I keep reading people talking about how Tai Chi Chuan perfectly expresses all the principles for life - i.e. it's a kind of panacea through which all the problems of life - whether that's your relationships or your work or your home life or your gardening, or whatever - can be "solved".
I think we all (including me) buy into this idea when we first encounter Tai Chi, as it seems to be a collection of simple principles that apply to everything. i.e. we go to far in one direction, we become the opposite.
And of course it is linked back to major philosophical works like Lao Tzu, which adds the necessary gravitas.
However, these days I'm not so sure. Perhaps the Tai Chi World View is too simple, too ordered, too..... Confucian, to really apply to nature, or reality.
It's starting to seem to me that Zhu Xi the "neo Confucian", (who would have just been a regular Confucian in his day) had more to do with the creation of this Tai Chi World View than any other individual. His teachings were very popular in the time when Yang Lu Chan was in Beijing and the Wu brothers were "finding" lost Tai Chi Classics in salt cellars.
Ian C. Kuzushi wrote:Contemporaneously with early followers of Kongzi, Ru could refer to his followers, or simply to scholars. It did eventually come to be identified more specifically with Confucians, but not until much later and Graham was asking specifically about Zhu Xi's contemporaries. So, unless you can show me some primary sources, I'd say you are missing the mark here.
Um, well, I guess that could be considered "some sort of glossing?" But, even online free sources clearly state that Neo-Confucianism started before Zhu Xi, as do dated works like those used as intro textbooks at all the top schools in the West such as W.T De Barry's edited volumes. So, you just are way off here.
Return to Xingyiquan - Baguazhang - Taijiquan
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 90 guests