Hi Kal,
Ah, I see...even so, your description gives me something to ponder and a sensation to look forward to.
Your statement makes me think of the buoyant feel similar in form practice, when one has become rooted, by sinking the qi, and the upper and lower are connected...seems to have a similar effect...
I guess essentially, in form, ones upper body is connected with the energy from ones own root...
and in push hands ones upper body is moved by both ones own, AND by his/her partners rooted energy?
They say give oneself up to ones partner, but I assume this cannot be literal completely?
Since one must maintain ones own root?
Would be a correct assumption?
Thank you,
Best wishes,
Pamela
Sticking vs. Adhering
-
Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
Greetings Pamela,
You wrote: “They say give oneself up to ones partner, but I assume this cannot be literal completely? Since one must maintain ones own root? Would be a correct assumption?”
I think it is literal, but qualified. Zhang Yun explains the qualification well in that “Four Important Skills” essay. Yang Chengfu also put this in context in his discussion of Rollback in the Push Hands section of his Essence and Applications book:
~~~
One who is being rolled back must “give up the self and follow the other” (she ji cong ren), yet must also know where to “give up the other and follow yourself” (she ren cong ji). If the one being rolled back senses an increase of pressure from the opponent’s hand, he can then take advantage and apply kao (Shoulder technique). Or if he senses a sudden break in the continuity in the other’s Roll Back energy (lujin), then he can swiftly let that side go, so that it is possible to attack using ji (Press).
~~~
The phrase, “give up the self and follow the other,” or “yield to the initiative of the other” is a well-established phrase going back to the Warring States period. Yang Chengfu’s use of the alternate phase, “give up the other and follow yourself” has an ironic twist to it. I’ve never encountered that anywhere else, but it illustrates very well the objective you mention. In my experience, it is more difficult to learn how to “give up the self and follow the other,” but it is, according to the Taijiquan Treatise, “the foundation”:
~~~
The foundation is to yield to the initiative of the other (she ji cong ren). Many mistakenly forsake the near in pursuit of what is far away. It is said: “To be off in one’s aim by the slightest fraction, one will lose the target by a thousand miles.”
~~~
Building this foundation, then—of being comfortable in yielding to the other’s initiative—is a prerequisite to knowing how to “seize the opportunity and the strategic advantage” (de ji de shi).
Take care,
Louis
You wrote: “They say give oneself up to ones partner, but I assume this cannot be literal completely? Since one must maintain ones own root? Would be a correct assumption?”
I think it is literal, but qualified. Zhang Yun explains the qualification well in that “Four Important Skills” essay. Yang Chengfu also put this in context in his discussion of Rollback in the Push Hands section of his Essence and Applications book:
~~~
One who is being rolled back must “give up the self and follow the other” (she ji cong ren), yet must also know where to “give up the other and follow yourself” (she ren cong ji). If the one being rolled back senses an increase of pressure from the opponent’s hand, he can then take advantage and apply kao (Shoulder technique). Or if he senses a sudden break in the continuity in the other’s Roll Back energy (lujin), then he can swiftly let that side go, so that it is possible to attack using ji (Press).
~~~
The phrase, “give up the self and follow the other,” or “yield to the initiative of the other” is a well-established phrase going back to the Warring States period. Yang Chengfu’s use of the alternate phase, “give up the other and follow yourself” has an ironic twist to it. I’ve never encountered that anywhere else, but it illustrates very well the objective you mention. In my experience, it is more difficult to learn how to “give up the self and follow the other,” but it is, according to the Taijiquan Treatise, “the foundation”:
~~~
The foundation is to yield to the initiative of the other (she ji cong ren). Many mistakenly forsake the near in pursuit of what is far away. It is said: “To be off in one’s aim by the slightest fraction, one will lose the target by a thousand miles.”
~~~
Building this foundation, then—of being comfortable in yielding to the other’s initiative—is a prerequisite to knowing how to “seize the opportunity and the strategic advantage” (de ji de shi).
Take care,
Louis
-
Anderzander
- Posts: 210
- Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:01 am
- Location: UK
- Contact:
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Pamela:
<B>They say give oneself up to ones partner, but I assume this cannot be literal completely?
Since one must maintain ones own root?
Would be a correct assumption?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Rather than emphasising the root you emphasise suspending the crown making the body light and empty. The body has a floating feel where you allow the other person to act upon you unimpeded. You wait in stillness with no intention - wuji.
He feels no root or resistance and so does not know or understand you. You, by not resisting, feel the direction and quality of his push and so can know and understand him.
As his push moves into you it sets you in motion, movement is taiji - the exchange of substantial and insubstantial. So your body naturally exchanges its energies. Not neutralising you naturally neutralise.
Then you can change from following to leading. If you can stick to his reaction of feeling nothing then you can use 4oz to throw 1000lbs. Like a chair being pulled from under him - you remove the support he expected and circle it back to him throwing him with his mind.
If he senses your leading he will seek to regain his equilibrium which is a tendancy to withdraw. You remain in contact and follow his withdrawal. You move his centre out and back and then follow that movement with your body.
Thats the technique for using Yi instead of Li or Jing.
<B>They say give oneself up to ones partner, but I assume this cannot be literal completely?
Since one must maintain ones own root?
Would be a correct assumption?
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Rather than emphasising the root you emphasise suspending the crown making the body light and empty. The body has a floating feel where you allow the other person to act upon you unimpeded. You wait in stillness with no intention - wuji.
He feels no root or resistance and so does not know or understand you. You, by not resisting, feel the direction and quality of his push and so can know and understand him.
As his push moves into you it sets you in motion, movement is taiji - the exchange of substantial and insubstantial. So your body naturally exchanges its energies. Not neutralising you naturally neutralise.
Then you can change from following to leading. If you can stick to his reaction of feeling nothing then you can use 4oz to throw 1000lbs. Like a chair being pulled from under him - you remove the support he expected and circle it back to him throwing him with his mind.
If he senses your leading he will seek to regain his equilibrium which is a tendancy to withdraw. You remain in contact and follow his withdrawal. You move his centre out and back and then follow that movement with your body.
Thats the technique for using Yi instead of Li or Jing.
Greetings all,
For those of you who may be relatively knew to this discussion board, I wanted to mention that we have discussed this issue twice before. The most recent time was on this forum on a thread entitled Sticking vs. Adhering. An earlier more extensive discussion was on a thread entitled Posture Names on the Barehand Forum, beginning with a post dated 6/20/2001.
In the earlier thread, we discussed Zhang Yun's article, which I also liked and still like very much. As much as I do like his treatment of the subject, I have, however, begun to wonder whether the focus of his article is a little different from what I have been taught.
Zhang Yun's article appears to discuss zhan-nian-lian-sui in the context of a competitive freestyle push hands session. I have begun to believe, however, that the skills in question are equally supposed to be manifest, usually in combination, within individual applications, whether of push hands or otherwise. In other words, it may be less about what you do over ten to twenty seconds of freestyle push hands, and more about how you execute an individual application.
For instance, if you were to use an application based on the Push of Grasp Sparrow's tail, you could use sui to follow the opponent's force as it approaches you. You can then use hua to change the force and lead it into emptiness. You could then use zhan to lead the opponent into excess and to lose her root. You could then use lian to stay connected as she tries to change defensively. You could then use nian to prevent her from changing effectively. You could then finally issue in total safety and with total effectiveness, at least in theory. I am not sure if I have the energies right in this particular example, but hopefully am still conveying the idea.
If I had to describe what are key concepts about Yang Style Taijiquan, at least as represented by the Association, I would point to the concepts of zhan-nian-lian-sui for the push hands/combat theory and to "self-aware movement" (zhijue yundong) for the form movement theory.
If you take to heart the idea of sticking and following and try to add them to the idea of ¡°self-aware movement¡± in the form movements, I think there are literally hundreds of small form details that can take on new meanings and deepen your practice. It also becomes easier to understand why extreme precision is desired even in transitional movements..
Consider for example the Press of Grasp Sparrow's Tail. This movement is an effective push hands application; however, to executive it effectively in the fashion shown in the form, you need to use Adhering and Connecting to set up the correct energy flow. Without Adhering, you cannot borrow enough force to overcome the opponent's root. Without Connecting, you dissipate whatever force you have borrowed.
Consider the rightward redirection of Deflect Downward Parry and Punch. Without Connecting, the opponent can disengage and successfully retreat to launch another attack. Without Sticking, the opponent can withdraw his left arm and easily strike again.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>They say give oneself up to ones partner, but I assume this cannot be literal completely?
Since one must maintain ones own root?
Would be a correct assumption?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To understand what this reference means in Taijiquan, I think it is essential to ponder and understand the full import of what Sunzi was getting at in Chapter 6, line 17 of the Art of War and to understand the concept of empty and full. According to my understanding, ¡°Giving up yourself and following the other¡± has nothing to do with surrender, giving up your root, being passive, or even being empty. It has to do with putting your faith in the fact that no initiative you take based on yourself is safe. Instead, you want your opponent to take the initiative and reveal his empty and full. If he completely reveals his empty and full to you and you have the requisite knowledge, he cannot protect himself from your attack. If he defends the left, the right is exposed. If he defends the right, the left is exposed, etc. If you use the opponent¡¯s initiative for your purposes, he cannot use it for his.
More concretely, consider the practice of the basic single arm, horizontal circle. In practical terms, this exercise has little in the way of application. Even this little, however, may hide quite a lot of potential and illustrate why offense and defense should be dynamic.
I think it is easy to make two mistakes in the single-arm horizontal circling that can obscure its relationship to zhan-nian-lian-sui. First, I think it is easy to think of it simply as drawing a circle pattern in the air. This violates the idea of ¡°forgetting yourself¡± and will obscure the interplay of energy. A circle is indeed drawn, but only indirectly through the actions and reactions of you and your partner. Although I think that the concept of zhan-nian-lian-sui means the most during applications, I think it is also intended to be experienced in the circling as well.
The second mistake is to see the circle simply as an alternation in attack and defense, thinking, ¡°I push, and my partner will try to deflect it. She will then push and give me a turn at deflecting.¡± Although yin and yang have an aspect of alternation, the doctrine of the Taiji, as I understand it, means that yin can never depart from yang and yang can never depart from yin. In other words, as you move through a complete circle, you can ¡°attack¡± not only by shifting the weight forward and pushing, but also by shifting weight backward and using Adhering and turning the waist. You defend not only by retreating backward, but also by advancing forward and using Sticking to complicate your opponent¡¯s withdrawal. With this view, you are always moving toward an attack and always developing a defense as you move around the circle. What happens is not a simple alternation, but rather an ebb and flow and a dynamic ¡°complementarity¡± between various techniques.
I should clarify that some versions of Yang Style circling (e.g., Cheng Man-Ch¡¯ing) do indeed seem to be structured around an alternation of attack and defense, rather than a circle where attack and defense are not so clearly separate. If this is the kind of push hands you do, I am not sure if my words will make much sense.
There is also a third mistake in the single-arm horizontal circle that I think is also easy to make and that I myself make more often than not. This mistake is to misunderstand what it means to avoid resistance. With this mistake, you divide the backward weight shift into a retreat and than a deflection. The problem with a retreat is that it must come to an eventual end. The idea violates the principal of continuity. Although you may not want to offer resistance against your partner¡¯s push, your feet restrict your movement and provide a limit to your retreat. Your retreat is really a collapse.
If you try to save yourself by deflecting the push, you provide an ¡°angle,¡± a ¡°corner,¡± or a ¡°discontinuity¡± that is extremely easy for your partner to feel. If he shifts his pressure into this angle, he can make you push yourself. (This assumes that your stances are close enough that you cannot simply shift weight backward out of range of an effective push to the body.) To avoid this dilemma, I know I have to focus on three things in the typical counterclockwise circle with the right foot forward. First, I must coordinate the backward weight shift with my adhering intent. Simply retreating at the first sign of pressure is problematic. Second, I cannot be passive, but rather must convert every centimeter of my partner¡¯s pressure into a centimeter of subsequent redirection. The feel I want is much more of pulling my partner into position than of deflecting his arm. This conversion must clearly start from my partner¡¯s pressure and not my own. Third, I must relate my center to the various pressures and counter pressures in real time and cannot move in a rote trajectory. If I do all these things, I expect my partner not to feel any discontinuity or abrupt change. I also expect to feel us mutually creating the trajectory of our movement with an ebb and flow of Adhering, Sticking, Connecting, and Following.
Take care,
Audi
For those of you who may be relatively knew to this discussion board, I wanted to mention that we have discussed this issue twice before. The most recent time was on this forum on a thread entitled Sticking vs. Adhering. An earlier more extensive discussion was on a thread entitled Posture Names on the Barehand Forum, beginning with a post dated 6/20/2001.
In the earlier thread, we discussed Zhang Yun's article, which I also liked and still like very much. As much as I do like his treatment of the subject, I have, however, begun to wonder whether the focus of his article is a little different from what I have been taught.
Zhang Yun's article appears to discuss zhan-nian-lian-sui in the context of a competitive freestyle push hands session. I have begun to believe, however, that the skills in question are equally supposed to be manifest, usually in combination, within individual applications, whether of push hands or otherwise. In other words, it may be less about what you do over ten to twenty seconds of freestyle push hands, and more about how you execute an individual application.
For instance, if you were to use an application based on the Push of Grasp Sparrow's tail, you could use sui to follow the opponent's force as it approaches you. You can then use hua to change the force and lead it into emptiness. You could then use zhan to lead the opponent into excess and to lose her root. You could then use lian to stay connected as she tries to change defensively. You could then use nian to prevent her from changing effectively. You could then finally issue in total safety and with total effectiveness, at least in theory. I am not sure if I have the energies right in this particular example, but hopefully am still conveying the idea.
If I had to describe what are key concepts about Yang Style Taijiquan, at least as represented by the Association, I would point to the concepts of zhan-nian-lian-sui for the push hands/combat theory and to "self-aware movement" (zhijue yundong) for the form movement theory.
If you take to heart the idea of sticking and following and try to add them to the idea of ¡°self-aware movement¡± in the form movements, I think there are literally hundreds of small form details that can take on new meanings and deepen your practice. It also becomes easier to understand why extreme precision is desired even in transitional movements..
Consider for example the Press of Grasp Sparrow's Tail. This movement is an effective push hands application; however, to executive it effectively in the fashion shown in the form, you need to use Adhering and Connecting to set up the correct energy flow. Without Adhering, you cannot borrow enough force to overcome the opponent's root. Without Connecting, you dissipate whatever force you have borrowed.
Consider the rightward redirection of Deflect Downward Parry and Punch. Without Connecting, the opponent can disengage and successfully retreat to launch another attack. Without Sticking, the opponent can withdraw his left arm and easily strike again.
I can see how this might be an effective visualization and an effective training technique. It is an intriguing visualization. I think, however, that the Association's training method may be a little different. From the very beginning, you are not allowed to slide or slip at all (except for pivoting around a single point). In addition to the macro-level movement, you are supposed to pay attention to this micro-level quality of contact. In this view, any sliding or slipping indicates a failure to stick and, in the ¡°traditional practice,¡± authorized your partner to deviate from the normal push hands rules and strike you. I view our practice as basically an exercise in learning the uses and consequences of light and medium physical pressure. Slipping or sliding dissipates pressure.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Zhang Luping taught to act like you are spreading something viscous (like honey) on your opponent/partner. See how this affects their movements/postures. Initially you may want to do this large, i.e. with your palm actually sliding over the partner¡¯s flesh, but this can be gradually reduced such that there is no slipping.</font>
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>They say give oneself up to ones partner, but I assume this cannot be literal completely?
Since one must maintain ones own root?
Would be a correct assumption?</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
To understand what this reference means in Taijiquan, I think it is essential to ponder and understand the full import of what Sunzi was getting at in Chapter 6, line 17 of the Art of War and to understand the concept of empty and full. According to my understanding, ¡°Giving up yourself and following the other¡± has nothing to do with surrender, giving up your root, being passive, or even being empty. It has to do with putting your faith in the fact that no initiative you take based on yourself is safe. Instead, you want your opponent to take the initiative and reveal his empty and full. If he completely reveals his empty and full to you and you have the requisite knowledge, he cannot protect himself from your attack. If he defends the left, the right is exposed. If he defends the right, the left is exposed, etc. If you use the opponent¡¯s initiative for your purposes, he cannot use it for his.
More concretely, consider the practice of the basic single arm, horizontal circle. In practical terms, this exercise has little in the way of application. Even this little, however, may hide quite a lot of potential and illustrate why offense and defense should be dynamic.
I think it is easy to make two mistakes in the single-arm horizontal circling that can obscure its relationship to zhan-nian-lian-sui. First, I think it is easy to think of it simply as drawing a circle pattern in the air. This violates the idea of ¡°forgetting yourself¡± and will obscure the interplay of energy. A circle is indeed drawn, but only indirectly through the actions and reactions of you and your partner. Although I think that the concept of zhan-nian-lian-sui means the most during applications, I think it is also intended to be experienced in the circling as well.
The second mistake is to see the circle simply as an alternation in attack and defense, thinking, ¡°I push, and my partner will try to deflect it. She will then push and give me a turn at deflecting.¡± Although yin and yang have an aspect of alternation, the doctrine of the Taiji, as I understand it, means that yin can never depart from yang and yang can never depart from yin. In other words, as you move through a complete circle, you can ¡°attack¡± not only by shifting the weight forward and pushing, but also by shifting weight backward and using Adhering and turning the waist. You defend not only by retreating backward, but also by advancing forward and using Sticking to complicate your opponent¡¯s withdrawal. With this view, you are always moving toward an attack and always developing a defense as you move around the circle. What happens is not a simple alternation, but rather an ebb and flow and a dynamic ¡°complementarity¡± between various techniques.
I should clarify that some versions of Yang Style circling (e.g., Cheng Man-Ch¡¯ing) do indeed seem to be structured around an alternation of attack and defense, rather than a circle where attack and defense are not so clearly separate. If this is the kind of push hands you do, I am not sure if my words will make much sense.
There is also a third mistake in the single-arm horizontal circle that I think is also easy to make and that I myself make more often than not. This mistake is to misunderstand what it means to avoid resistance. With this mistake, you divide the backward weight shift into a retreat and than a deflection. The problem with a retreat is that it must come to an eventual end. The idea violates the principal of continuity. Although you may not want to offer resistance against your partner¡¯s push, your feet restrict your movement and provide a limit to your retreat. Your retreat is really a collapse.
If you try to save yourself by deflecting the push, you provide an ¡°angle,¡± a ¡°corner,¡± or a ¡°discontinuity¡± that is extremely easy for your partner to feel. If he shifts his pressure into this angle, he can make you push yourself. (This assumes that your stances are close enough that you cannot simply shift weight backward out of range of an effective push to the body.) To avoid this dilemma, I know I have to focus on three things in the typical counterclockwise circle with the right foot forward. First, I must coordinate the backward weight shift with my adhering intent. Simply retreating at the first sign of pressure is problematic. Second, I cannot be passive, but rather must convert every centimeter of my partner¡¯s pressure into a centimeter of subsequent redirection. The feel I want is much more of pulling my partner into position than of deflecting his arm. This conversion must clearly start from my partner¡¯s pressure and not my own. Third, I must relate my center to the various pressures and counter pressures in real time and cannot move in a rote trajectory. If I do all these things, I expect my partner not to feel any discontinuity or abrupt change. I also expect to feel us mutually creating the trajectory of our movement with an ebb and flow of Adhering, Sticking, Connecting, and Following.
Take care,
Audi
-
Kalamondin
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 7:01 am
Hi Pamela,
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Your statement makes me think of the buoyant feel similar in form practice, when one has become rooted, by sinking the qi, and the upper and lower are connected...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're onto something with the rooted feeling below and the buoyancy up top--it's very helpful for push hands and aids in sticking, but I don't think it's sticking/adhering per se. It's more like the quality of being heavy below and light above makes it possible for one to go wherever the other wants. It's the difference between being a flower weighed down by a bumble bee (rooted below, light above, moved by a heavier force but not broken) and being a stop sign that's been hit by a car (shallow root, no flexibility, pushed over by the heavier force). What if a stop sign could move like wheat in the wind? What if a telephone pole could bend like bamboo and snap back? It's like that.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
They say give oneself up to ones partner, but I assume this cannot be literal completely?
Since one must maintain ones own root?
Would be a correct assumption? </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes. I feel like the better my root, the easier it is to give myself up to following my opponent. In a sense, I do let them guide the movements of my upper body and take the initiative for where we go. But it feels like corroboration, not capitulation. The better my root, the more I can understand where they are going and shape my response into something that is guided by them, but not trapped by them—exactly where they were going, but not quite. It’s a little like walking a dog on a leash. In the park, you can give them more free rein and let yourself be guided by where they want to go. You can give yourself up and follow the dog. But you always have the choice to control their movements through the leash. But if it’s a big dog and you lack ground, then the dog will be in control of the walk and you’ll be unbalanced. Same in push hands. Ideally, both people are following each other and it’s more like a dynamic collaboration—but the one with more ground and responsiveness (which I associate with the combination of zhan-nian-lian-sui) tends to keep their balance.
Audi expressed it well: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
According to my understanding, ¡°Giving up yourself and following the other¡± has nothing to do with surrender, giving up your root, being passive, or even being empty. It has to do with putting your faith in the fact that no initiative you take based on yourself is safe. Instead, you want your opponent to take the initiative and reveal his empty and full. If he completely reveals his empty and full to you and you have the requisite knowledge, he cannot protect himself from your attack. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With a strong root and a lightness in the upper body, it's easier to read the opponent's empty and full. It's also possible to yield more, and give up more without being uprooted. I think the stronger the root, the better the sense of proprioception (the ability to sense where the body is in space, even with the eyes closed) and thus (?) the easier it is to stick and follow.
Regards,
Kal
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
Your statement makes me think of the buoyant feel similar in form practice, when one has become rooted, by sinking the qi, and the upper and lower are connected...
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
You're onto something with the rooted feeling below and the buoyancy up top--it's very helpful for push hands and aids in sticking, but I don't think it's sticking/adhering per se. It's more like the quality of being heavy below and light above makes it possible for one to go wherever the other wants. It's the difference between being a flower weighed down by a bumble bee (rooted below, light above, moved by a heavier force but not broken) and being a stop sign that's been hit by a car (shallow root, no flexibility, pushed over by the heavier force). What if a stop sign could move like wheat in the wind? What if a telephone pole could bend like bamboo and snap back? It's like that.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
They say give oneself up to ones partner, but I assume this cannot be literal completely?
Since one must maintain ones own root?
Would be a correct assumption? </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Yes. I feel like the better my root, the easier it is to give myself up to following my opponent. In a sense, I do let them guide the movements of my upper body and take the initiative for where we go. But it feels like corroboration, not capitulation. The better my root, the more I can understand where they are going and shape my response into something that is guided by them, but not trapped by them—exactly where they were going, but not quite. It’s a little like walking a dog on a leash. In the park, you can give them more free rein and let yourself be guided by where they want to go. You can give yourself up and follow the dog. But you always have the choice to control their movements through the leash. But if it’s a big dog and you lack ground, then the dog will be in control of the walk and you’ll be unbalanced. Same in push hands. Ideally, both people are following each other and it’s more like a dynamic collaboration—but the one with more ground and responsiveness (which I associate with the combination of zhan-nian-lian-sui) tends to keep their balance.
Audi expressed it well: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
According to my understanding, ¡°Giving up yourself and following the other¡± has nothing to do with surrender, giving up your root, being passive, or even being empty. It has to do with putting your faith in the fact that no initiative you take based on yourself is safe. Instead, you want your opponent to take the initiative and reveal his empty and full. If he completely reveals his empty and full to you and you have the requisite knowledge, he cannot protect himself from your attack. </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
With a strong root and a lightness in the upper body, it's easier to read the opponent's empty and full. It's also possible to yield more, and give up more without being uprooted. I think the stronger the root, the better the sense of proprioception (the ability to sense where the body is in space, even with the eyes closed) and thus (?) the easier it is to stick and follow.
Regards,
Kal
-
Kalamondin
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 7:01 am
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"><B>
I think it is easy to make two mistakes in the single-arm horizontal circling that can obscure its relationship to zhan-nian-lian-sui. First, I think it is easy to think of it simply as drawing a circle pattern in the air. This violates the idea of ¡°forgetting yourself¡± and will obscure the interplay of energy. A circle is indeed drawn, but only indirectly through the actions and reactions of you and your partner. Although I think that the concept of zhan-nian-lian-sui means the most during applications, I think it is also intended to be experienced in the circling as well.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed! In fact, students were getting so caught in the shape of the circle, to the degree of not perceiving the other, that recently Master Yang Jun took to starting beginners with no patterns at all. He has each partner connect with the back of the hand and move the connected hands together with the sole purpose of "Do not resist. Do not separate" Only after they have experienced this and listened to his preliminary explanation of zhan-nian-lian-sui does he teach the horizontal circle.
Best,
Kal
I think it is easy to make two mistakes in the single-arm horizontal circling that can obscure its relationship to zhan-nian-lian-sui. First, I think it is easy to think of it simply as drawing a circle pattern in the air. This violates the idea of ¡°forgetting yourself¡± and will obscure the interplay of energy. A circle is indeed drawn, but only indirectly through the actions and reactions of you and your partner. Although I think that the concept of zhan-nian-lian-sui means the most during applications, I think it is also intended to be experienced in the circling as well.
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
Indeed! In fact, students were getting so caught in the shape of the circle, to the degree of not perceiving the other, that recently Master Yang Jun took to starting beginners with no patterns at all. He has each partner connect with the back of the hand and move the connected hands together with the sole purpose of "Do not resist. Do not separate" Only after they have experienced this and listened to his preliminary explanation of zhan-nian-lian-sui does he teach the horizontal circle.
Best,
Kal
-
Bob Ashmore
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
- Location: Frankfort, KY, USA
Kal,
That is how he taught us in Louisville.
First he gave us a lecture on the theory of pushing hands, then we all connected at our wrists and tried to follow each other without disconnecting but in no set pattern. Then we learned the patterns.
It was quite interesting as I'd never had anyone present push hands that way before.
I learned quite a bit about pushing hands that day. The first and foremost was that it did not always have to be a contest but could and should at first be a co-operative venture geared towards learning and not a contest to see who can shove each other around the most often.
Quite a different approach than I'd learned at other schools, where the object is to offset your partner as often as you can right from the start.
Since being taught that pushing hands can be something other than a fight to the finish, I feel I have learned a great deal.
MYJ has a very light touch when you connect with him. I almost could not feel him at all when it was my turn to push with him. When he finally got me to relax we circled for a minute or two.
I was amazed at how easily he controlled me with my just barely feeling him. I imagine my tenseness made it easy for him.
Not resisting is a skill I have yet to learn, but I'm working on it. Better now that I can push hands without a constant feeling of being in competition, rather one of working together to learn. Working with my group I have begun to fingure out the not resisting thing, though I certainly have a long way to go with it.
Interesting thread and timely for me. My group has just begun to push hands, some of them are doing so for the first time, and I've just begun to do so in a more correct fashion than I ever have before.
Bob
That is how he taught us in Louisville.
First he gave us a lecture on the theory of pushing hands, then we all connected at our wrists and tried to follow each other without disconnecting but in no set pattern. Then we learned the patterns.
It was quite interesting as I'd never had anyone present push hands that way before.
I learned quite a bit about pushing hands that day. The first and foremost was that it did not always have to be a contest but could and should at first be a co-operative venture geared towards learning and not a contest to see who can shove each other around the most often.
Quite a different approach than I'd learned at other schools, where the object is to offset your partner as often as you can right from the start.
Since being taught that pushing hands can be something other than a fight to the finish, I feel I have learned a great deal.
MYJ has a very light touch when you connect with him. I almost could not feel him at all when it was my turn to push with him. When he finally got me to relax we circled for a minute or two.
I was amazed at how easily he controlled me with my just barely feeling him. I imagine my tenseness made it easy for him.
Not resisting is a skill I have yet to learn, but I'm working on it. Better now that I can push hands without a constant feeling of being in competition, rather one of working together to learn. Working with my group I have begun to fingure out the not resisting thing, though I certainly have a long way to go with it.
Interesting thread and timely for me. My group has just begun to push hands, some of them are doing so for the first time, and I've just begun to do so in a more correct fashion than I ever have before.
Bob
-
Kalamondin
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 7:01 am
Hi Bob,
Nice job with the new way of pushing hands. I continue to work on similar things. One time when I was being too fast and pushy MYJ pointed out that I needed to slow down in order to stick better--that speed is no good if you lose contact b/c if the opponent is better they can strike you when you lose contact, just as Audi said. He also pointed out that I needed to invest in loss a lot more and not want to win so much. That I would learn more if I really took the time to analyze each loss.
I have the opposite sensation when pushing with him--that his arms are really heavy. Totally responsive ("lead blanket" was his metaphor) but heavy and if I lost my root for a moment just the weight of his arms in a normal circling pattern would be enough to offset me. That really sunk in with moving step.
OK, must catch bus.
Bye,
Kal
Nice job with the new way of pushing hands. I continue to work on similar things. One time when I was being too fast and pushy MYJ pointed out that I needed to slow down in order to stick better--that speed is no good if you lose contact b/c if the opponent is better they can strike you when you lose contact, just as Audi said. He also pointed out that I needed to invest in loss a lot more and not want to win so much. That I would learn more if I really took the time to analyze each loss.
I have the opposite sensation when pushing with him--that his arms are really heavy. Totally responsive ("lead blanket" was his metaphor) but heavy and if I lost my root for a moment just the weight of his arms in a normal circling pattern would be enough to offset me. That really sunk in with moving step.
OK, must catch bus.
Bye,
Kal
-
Bob Ashmore
- Posts: 754
- Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 6:01 am
- Location: Frankfort, KY, USA
Kal,
One of the my push hands partners, also a participant at MYJ's push hands seminar, said the same thing about his experience pushing with the Master. That he felt that MYJ had one of the heaviest feeling set of arms he's ever encountered.
I wonder why the differing sensations?
I clearly felt him to be very light, almost like I was pushing by myself and yet I had no doubt that he was in control of the situation.
When I pushed with Andy Lee, I felt her arms to be quite heavy and she was also very much in control of the session. When I pushed with Michael Coulon I got varying impressions, sometimes light, sometimes heavy but he was also still very much in control.
When I push with my partners, I feel a great deal of resistance from them while I did not feel that with MYJ, Andy Lee or Micheal. Sometimes I feel them to be very heavy, but I've not felt any of them to be light. Mostly I just feel stiffness and resistance, as I'm sure they do with me. I must remember to ask their impression of what I feel like, as I have not thought to do so before now.
I can't help but wonder if the varying sensations have to do with how they responsed to how I pushed with them...? Stiff, resistant and not following very well.
Different people would use different responses, I would imagaine, to the various sensations they receive from their "opponent". I wonder if that's the reason?
I dunno.
Fun stuff, though.
Bob
One of the my push hands partners, also a participant at MYJ's push hands seminar, said the same thing about his experience pushing with the Master. That he felt that MYJ had one of the heaviest feeling set of arms he's ever encountered.
I wonder why the differing sensations?
I clearly felt him to be very light, almost like I was pushing by myself and yet I had no doubt that he was in control of the situation.
When I pushed with Andy Lee, I felt her arms to be quite heavy and she was also very much in control of the session. When I pushed with Michael Coulon I got varying impressions, sometimes light, sometimes heavy but he was also still very much in control.
When I push with my partners, I feel a great deal of resistance from them while I did not feel that with MYJ, Andy Lee or Micheal. Sometimes I feel them to be very heavy, but I've not felt any of them to be light. Mostly I just feel stiffness and resistance, as I'm sure they do with me. I must remember to ask their impression of what I feel like, as I have not thought to do so before now.
I can't help but wonder if the varying sensations have to do with how they responsed to how I pushed with them...? Stiff, resistant and not following very well.
Different people would use different responses, I would imagaine, to the various sensations they receive from their "opponent". I wonder if that's the reason?
I dunno.
Fun stuff, though.
Bob
“I think, however, that the Association's training method may be a little different. From the very beginning, you are not allowed to slide or slip at all (except for pivoting around a single point). In addition to the macro-level movement, you are supposed to pay attention to this micro-level quality of contact. In this view, any sliding or slipping indicates a failure to stick and, in the ¡°traditional practice,¡± authorized your partner to deviate from the normal push hands rules and strike you. I view our practice as basically an exercise in learning the uses and consequences of light and medium physical pressure. Slipping or sliding dissipates pressure.” - Audi
Audi, I was intending to let your comments pass without a reply since you are apparently following what your Association specifies, and you can certainly benefit from that style of practice, but I also do not really understand the implications in those statements.
In the very beginning of push-hands training I could see requiring the contact point to stay constant (except for pivoting around it) since beginners tend to lose their ability to stick and control the interaction when the contact point slips. But later is there no training in shifting the contact point while maintaining control? How are you taught to change the control point from the wrist to the elbow or shoulder or torso and back? Accidental slipping is not good, but ‘smearing’ motions to assist in controlling the partner/opponent seems desirable to me, even if the training that I mentioned progresses towards less and less movement, and less and less amount of contact, thus less and less ‘slipping’ until the influence on the partner/opponent can be done at a single point of contact (even when that contact is as slight as with the edge of the little finger’s fingernail). Even if you are not using ‘smearing’ to aid in controlling the partner/opponent while changing the contact point, it would seem like you would maintain contact (i.e. sliding) when changing the contact point. Sliding (if not accidental) does not necessarily mean that you would allow an opening for an opponent to strike you. You can also maintain pressure when slipping, sliding, or smearing, if desired, as long as you maintain control (i.e. not accidental). I may be misinterpreting what you said, but it seems like you are stating that any movement from the point of contact means that you are failing to stick as well as dissipating pressure. If you are saying that, then I disagree! But this would be one of those things that would be best felt personally rather than described.
DP
Audi, I was intending to let your comments pass without a reply since you are apparently following what your Association specifies, and you can certainly benefit from that style of practice, but I also do not really understand the implications in those statements.
In the very beginning of push-hands training I could see requiring the contact point to stay constant (except for pivoting around it) since beginners tend to lose their ability to stick and control the interaction when the contact point slips. But later is there no training in shifting the contact point while maintaining control? How are you taught to change the control point from the wrist to the elbow or shoulder or torso and back? Accidental slipping is not good, but ‘smearing’ motions to assist in controlling the partner/opponent seems desirable to me, even if the training that I mentioned progresses towards less and less movement, and less and less amount of contact, thus less and less ‘slipping’ until the influence on the partner/opponent can be done at a single point of contact (even when that contact is as slight as with the edge of the little finger’s fingernail). Even if you are not using ‘smearing’ to aid in controlling the partner/opponent while changing the contact point, it would seem like you would maintain contact (i.e. sliding) when changing the contact point. Sliding (if not accidental) does not necessarily mean that you would allow an opening for an opponent to strike you. You can also maintain pressure when slipping, sliding, or smearing, if desired, as long as you maintain control (i.e. not accidental). I may be misinterpreting what you said, but it seems like you are stating that any movement from the point of contact means that you are failing to stick as well as dissipating pressure. If you are saying that, then I disagree! But this would be one of those things that would be best felt personally rather than described.
DP
While you are changing the contact point, or while that point is moving around in space, the incidental contact area may slide. That is one type of "sliding", but probably not what Audi is referring to.
When you have contact area but no *point*, and move the entire area, that is a different type of sliding. It indicates that you have abandoned the balance point, or never found it in the first place?
-----
Chris
Martial Development
When you have contact area but no *point*, and move the entire area, that is a different type of sliding. It indicates that you have abandoned the balance point, or never found it in the first place?
-----
Chris
Martial Development
-
JerryKarin
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 7:01 am
- Contact:
I am not sure that the contact point is not allowed to change at all. For example, whenever you rotate your arm, as in peng, the contact tends to roll up to a different spot on the opponent's arm. The primary arm in rollback, which is on top of the opponent's arm, also can roll up the opponent's arm toward the shoulder.
[This message has been edited by JerryKarin (edited 08-30-2006).]
[This message has been edited by JerryKarin (edited 08-30-2006).]
Greetings DP and Chris,
As I understand it, the ability to change the contact point is not only permitted, but required.
Let me make an analogy to the connection that the feet have with the ground during the form. Although it is perfectly okay (or in fact, required) for the foot to have "rolling" contact with the ground from time to time, sliding or slipping is never permitted. Pivoting, however, is definitely permitted and quite frequent.
Let me make another analogy, to a wratchet or to two gears in contact with each other. Although the two gears can change contact points, they cannot slide with respect to each other.
Another analogy would be the way the tire of a car should contact the road. Although you do not necessarily lose complete contact with the road if the tires skid a little bit, any skidding at all is best avoided if one is trying to maintain full control.
If you prefer geometry, imagine two spheres in contact. If one slides with respect to the other, the relative motion of the centers is easy to assess, but hard to control. If, however, the contact point changes through rotation, the relative motion is not so transparent, but easier to control. If both spheres rotate at the same rate, the two centers will maintain their relative positions. If one sphere rotates, but the other is still, the rotating sphere will traverse completely around the other sphere by means of its rotation. In either case, if you are in control of the rotation, you know exactly where you are relative to the other sphere and can control the relationship.
In some of the basic/intermediate circling, you are supposed to learn how to change at will from wrist circles to elbow circles to shoulder circles, and vice versa, basically through "coiling and small rotations." It actually takes one or two circles to complete the switch, depending on your skill. At no point, however, are you permitted to slide from one point of contact to another.
At this point, my understanding is that the real principles go beyond the physical discussion I have laid out above. The true sticking is not really about physical movement; nevertheless, the external physical movement is the foundation of what is supposed to happen internally and can still be thought of as the ideal. It is not simply a question of mind sticking to mind regardless of what your body does. Inner and outer are supposed to reflect each other. If external circumstances force you to slide, you do so, but still try not to "slide" with your mind. "Sliding" and "sticking" are viewed as opposites in the same way that "disconnecting" and "sticking" are viewed.
As for what I meant my "dissipating energy," I guess I was trying to capture the idea that "sliding with pressure" seems to involve two vectors of energy; whereas sticking, even with gear-like rotation, involves only one. (E.g., we can move a bicycle forward even when we apply only downward pressure on the pedals.) Part of what I understand to be Yang Style's inheritance from Sunzi is the idea of concentrating and unifying force wherever possible.
As I understand it, the ability to change the contact point is not only permitted, but required.
Let me make an analogy to the connection that the feet have with the ground during the form. Although it is perfectly okay (or in fact, required) for the foot to have "rolling" contact with the ground from time to time, sliding or slipping is never permitted. Pivoting, however, is definitely permitted and quite frequent.
Let me make another analogy, to a wratchet or to two gears in contact with each other. Although the two gears can change contact points, they cannot slide with respect to each other.
Another analogy would be the way the tire of a car should contact the road. Although you do not necessarily lose complete contact with the road if the tires skid a little bit, any skidding at all is best avoided if one is trying to maintain full control.
If you prefer geometry, imagine two spheres in contact. If one slides with respect to the other, the relative motion of the centers is easy to assess, but hard to control. If, however, the contact point changes through rotation, the relative motion is not so transparent, but easier to control. If both spheres rotate at the same rate, the two centers will maintain their relative positions. If one sphere rotates, but the other is still, the rotating sphere will traverse completely around the other sphere by means of its rotation. In either case, if you are in control of the rotation, you know exactly where you are relative to the other sphere and can control the relationship.
In some of the basic/intermediate circling, you are supposed to learn how to change at will from wrist circles to elbow circles to shoulder circles, and vice versa, basically through "coiling and small rotations." It actually takes one or two circles to complete the switch, depending on your skill. At no point, however, are you permitted to slide from one point of contact to another.
At this point, my understanding is that the real principles go beyond the physical discussion I have laid out above. The true sticking is not really about physical movement; nevertheless, the external physical movement is the foundation of what is supposed to happen internally and can still be thought of as the ideal. It is not simply a question of mind sticking to mind regardless of what your body does. Inner and outer are supposed to reflect each other. If external circumstances force you to slide, you do so, but still try not to "slide" with your mind. "Sliding" and "sticking" are viewed as opposites in the same way that "disconnecting" and "sticking" are viewed.
As for what I meant my "dissipating energy," I guess I was trying to capture the idea that "sliding with pressure" seems to involve two vectors of energy; whereas sticking, even with gear-like rotation, involves only one. (E.g., we can move a bicycle forward even when we apply only downward pressure on the pedals.) Part of what I understand to be Yang Style's inheritance from Sunzi is the idea of concentrating and unifying force wherever possible.
-
Kalamondin
- Posts: 309
- Joined: Fri Feb 27, 2004 7:01 am
Hi DP,
I have to concur with what Audi said about the general way the Association does its training. But I understand what you are saying about "smearing" in order to move the contact point while still maintaining control. I can see how it would be very useful and quite possible to do and do well as a method for controlling the opponent while changing the sticking point.
However, that's not the way MYJ is teaching (at present--it may be that as we gain more skill we will be taught the technique you metion). The method I learned for changing the point of contact from wrist to elbow to shoulder involves a kind of twining. Your arm twists around the opponent's arm like a snake winding about a tree. There's movement, but still no sliding or slippage permitted, just as a snake does not really slide when climbing trees, but smoothly transfers the point of contact by gripping with the whole body. In this method, one is sticking with every point that is in contact with the opponents arm in a kind of sequential point A to point B to point C where each point is a solid point of contact with no slippage.
It might be that slipping and smearing techniques may be more advanced than the general student body is ready for. I think the general student body could not readily tell the difference between controlled and uncontrolled. If the point is to teach sticking, I think it's a rule that is best learned before it can be broken.
MYJ changes his point of contact at will--but there's never any disjointure, disconnection, or feeling of slippage even though his hand may be twisting, or his arm twining, etc. I don't think I've experienced him do anything like what I imagine "smearing" would be.
Sounds interesting though. I hope I will meet someone who can show me some time.
Regards,
Kal
I have to concur with what Audi said about the general way the Association does its training. But I understand what you are saying about "smearing" in order to move the contact point while still maintaining control. I can see how it would be very useful and quite possible to do and do well as a method for controlling the opponent while changing the sticking point.
However, that's not the way MYJ is teaching (at present--it may be that as we gain more skill we will be taught the technique you metion). The method I learned for changing the point of contact from wrist to elbow to shoulder involves a kind of twining. Your arm twists around the opponent's arm like a snake winding about a tree. There's movement, but still no sliding or slippage permitted, just as a snake does not really slide when climbing trees, but smoothly transfers the point of contact by gripping with the whole body. In this method, one is sticking with every point that is in contact with the opponents arm in a kind of sequential point A to point B to point C where each point is a solid point of contact with no slippage.
It might be that slipping and smearing techniques may be more advanced than the general student body is ready for. I think the general student body could not readily tell the difference between controlled and uncontrolled. If the point is to teach sticking, I think it's a rule that is best learned before it can be broken.
MYJ changes his point of contact at will--but there's never any disjointure, disconnection, or feeling of slippage even though his hand may be twisting, or his arm twining, etc. I don't think I've experienced him do anything like what I imagine "smearing" would be.
Sounds interesting though. I hope I will meet someone who can show me some time.
Regards,
Kal
Hi Jeff,
I missed your post. As far as I know what you and I do is exactly the same and I do not disagree with your post.
For those who do not train the same way, let me add some clarifications. In the basic single-hand horizontal circling, there are times when you rotate to change the contact point and times when you do not. Knowing when to make the change (basically as you cross the midline of the body) is an important part of the basic practice.
Most people I have pushed with do not seem to have an obvious tendency to slide in the horizontal circle, but the minute we switch to the "four-hand" vertical circle, the problems begin. Part of what I understand the training to be is how to learn not to slide and how to rotate so that you always cover the opponent's wrists and elbows. As you actually proceed through the drill, your contact point (and often the jin point)will cycle through the palm, the back of the wrist, the elbow, and the middle of the inside of the forearm.
As I understand it, Wardoff itself has no inherent rotation; but in order to switch from Wardoff to another technique, you will often have to change the contact point. This sort of change is shown in numerous points throught the form, usually through a rotation.
Take care,
Audi
I missed your post. As far as I know what you and I do is exactly the same and I do not disagree with your post.
For those who do not train the same way, let me add some clarifications. In the basic single-hand horizontal circling, there are times when you rotate to change the contact point and times when you do not. Knowing when to make the change (basically as you cross the midline of the body) is an important part of the basic practice.
Most people I have pushed with do not seem to have an obvious tendency to slide in the horizontal circle, but the minute we switch to the "four-hand" vertical circle, the problems begin. Part of what I understand the training to be is how to learn not to slide and how to rotate so that you always cover the opponent's wrists and elbows. As you actually proceed through the drill, your contact point (and often the jin point)will cycle through the palm, the back of the wrist, the elbow, and the middle of the inside of the forearm.
As I understand it, Wardoff itself has no inherent rotation; but in order to switch from Wardoff to another technique, you will often have to change the contact point. This sort of change is shown in numerous points throught the form, usually through a rotation.
Take care,
Audi