Hi all,
Since my previous post, I happened to read some information about weaving techniques and need to correct what I said about silk. As I now recall, silk tends to come off of a cocoon in one long filament, rather than as fibers. I do not recall whether this filament is used directly as a weaving thread or whether different filaments are generally twisted together to make yarn.
Whatever the case, I think that “silk reeling” probably refers only to how silk is unwound from the cocoon in a spiraling action, as the pull of the filament makes the cocoon rotate. “Drawing silk” would then refer to the process of carefully pulling on the filament in such a way as to avoid jagged motion that might cause the filament to break. As I recall, someone described in a past post how some substances exhibit a different tensile strength when challenged with a constant pull from when they are challenged with a sudden pull.
Take care,
Audi
Empty and Full
Hi all,
Thanks again for all the great posts. I gleaned a bunch of good nuggets for further contemplation. I especially like the discussion of reasons why teachers do not or cannot give students a simple and complete roadmap to suit all purposes.
I’d like to take a stab at addressing only a few of the recent comments. In talking about full and empty, Steve asked what we are supposed to be full or empty of. As I have thought about how one might answer this question, I have begun to wonder whether another translation issue may be involved. In fact, I think I danced around aspects of this in an earlier post.
As I understand it, the Chinese words “xu” and “shi” do not really express the polarity of meaning we normally associate with “full” and “empty” with respect to a container. In other words, I do not think that “full” means “full of weight” or “full of Jin,” etc. I think the Chinese words for this polarity are “kong” and “man,” which are not used to describe this principle, at least as far as I am aware. To avoid the mental associations with the word “full,” I am going to try to use “solid” as the equivalent of “shi” for most of this post. “Solidifying” and “emptying” might be even better equivalents, but they may be somewhat awkward to use.
As I recall, Louis listed a bunch of the meanings for “xu” and “shi” earlier on this thread. I will not repeat them here, but I think they can basically be summed up as follows: “xu” means lacking substance, and “shi” means having substance. As far as I understand, they do not really refer to a container that is full or empty of anything. “Having substance” can be thought of in all sorts of literal and metaphorical ways, e.g., “reflecting fact or reality,” “tangible,” “solid,” “realized,” etc.
I think that in the case of “Distinguishing ‘Full’/’Solid’ and ‘Empty,’” we are really talking about contrasts similar to the meanings connoted by “functioning” versus “dormant,” “employed” versus “available for use,” “substantive” versus “virtual,” “tangible” versus “evanescent,” “committed” versus “uncommitted,” “involved” versus “reserved,” “patent” versus “latent,” “engaged” versus “absent,” “concrete to the senses” versus “elusive,” and similar pairs. Again, there is no underlying substance or container being discussed, but rather innate qualities that the particular part or parts of the body manifest at a particular moment of time, in a particular context, and to a given extent.
These qualities are always paired and in absolute contrast to each other. For instance, while moving, one can judge which foot is more ‘engaged’ with the body’s interaction with gravity than the other. The relative presence and absence of this quality can also be assessed in isolation: how much of an individual foot is engaged with the body’s interaction with gravity. These contrasts can also be viewed as processes rather than states: i.e., which foot is engaging the ground and which foot is disengaging or how much of a foot is being used to engage the ground and how much is being used for other purposes.
Louis, I think this framework particularly works what you said about loading parts of the body. Each joint and each part of the body can be seen as doing two things at once: supporting an action and being supported in an action. I think that “Distinguishing full and empty” is meant to call attention to the importance of distinguishing the two and measuring their relative influence on the situation.
To try to put some flesh on these bones, I want to make use of the bicycle analogy that was put forth earlier in this discussion, but this time I would like to describe a unicycle. I realize that most people reading this forum have likely never ridden a unicycle, but I think my description can be understandable in any case. My own personal experience with riding unicycles can be more easily measured in feet than in yards, but I think what I will say will nonetheless be reasonably accurate.
Riding unicycles is by far more difficult than riding a bicycle. One would think that the difficulty lies in having to balance in four directions, rather than in two; but this is not the case. The difficulty lies in the fact that the combination of the wheel rotation and the lack of constraint on the angle of your upper body with the wheel is extremely unstable. It feels as if the unicycle can lunge forward or backward underneath you without warning. Having a good sense of balance is not nearly sufficient in itself to control this motion. Falling from a unicycle can feel like standing on a stool and having someone sneak up behind you and sweep the stool out from under your feet.
People who are reasonably fit, given time, patience, and a modicum of assistance, can be expected to learn to ride a unicycle. (By the way, I fail on just about all counts.) It is virtually impossible, however, to “coast” on a unicycle without almost immediately and catastrophically losing one’s balance. If you think about it, even expert circus performers do not manage to coast for more than an instant here or there.
To retain good control over a unicycle, you must keep both feet on the pedals at all times, in order to control both forward and backward motion. Even though both feet are on the pedals, they are just about never doing the same thing at the same time. In my opinion, one is “shi” (solid) and one is “xu.” It is tempting to think that this contrast of “shi” and “xu” can be reduced to the fact that one foot is pushing and the other is not, but the reality is subtler than this.
The solid foot is providing the basic power to move the unicycle along, and the empty foot is not; however they both do more. At the same time one is pedaling the unicycle along, one must also be braking it. If all you do is put positive pressure on the pedals, the unicycle will continue to accelerate, since friction with the ground is negligible. To maintain a constant speed, you would have to begin coasting, which, as I have said, is virtually impossible to do without falling. Rather than coasting, what you do is apply slight constant braking pressure to keep control over the cycle. Essentially then, what you do is constantly apply pressure as if trying to pedal forward and backward at the same time. Which direction you move in is controlled by which direction you put more of your pressure toward. If you “pedal” forward harder, you will move forward. If you “pedal” backward harder, you will move backward. However, you must constantly “pedal” somewhat both backward and forward at the same time to avoid losing control.
Rather than thinking of the solid foot as doing something and the empty foot as doing nothing, I think it is better to think of them in relative terms. Basically, the solid foot is leading and the empty foot is following. Put another way, the solid foot is providing driving pressure for the unicycle and the empty foot is providing balancing and adjusting pressure.
It would be easy to assume that solid and empty is only a function of direction or of the amount of pressure, but I do not believe this to be the case. It seems to me that the simple concept of solid and empty has considerable depth even in this simple unicycle scenario.
The physics of the body and the unicycle dictate that the foot can be solid and accelerate the unicycle only on the downstroke. (By the way, I think that this principle is independent of the action of gravity.) Similarly, the foot can be solid and decelerate the unicycle only by providing counter-pressure on the upstroke. The reverse is true of when the foot can be empty. These limitations mean that the feet are constantly changing from solid to empty regardless of which direction you are pedaling in and regardless of whether you are accelerating or decelerating.
If one were to see a snapshot of a man riding on a unicycle and ask whether a given foot should be considered solid or empty, this question could not be answered without recourse to knowing something of the intent of the cyclist. Is he accelerating or decelerating? Is he trying to go backwards or forward?
An additional complication is that the foot’s ability to apply pressure to the pedals is not equal throughout an upstroke or a downstroke. The feet have maximum leverage when they are level and almost no leverage when one is at the top and the other is at the bottom. If you ever watch a circus performer on a unicycle doing a trick that involves “standing” in place, you will notice that he or she will choose to rock back and forth in place in order to cycle between good leverage points.
This variable leverage means that there is yet another polarity of “strength” parameters that a unicyclist must “distinguish” clearly in order to maintain control. The amount of effort put in to pushing against the pedals must be adjusted according to where the foot is in its stroke. The cyclist does not lose control of the cycle, because he or she keeps continuity in the mind and anticipates the necessity to pay special attention to what can be done around this point of instability.
I see many parallels between what I have described with respect to riding a unicycle and what I believe to be principles behind the concept of “Distinguishing Full/Solid and Empty.” Hopefully, my descriptions have been clear enough to at least suggest some of them. Just to be more clear, let me describe some of them in closing.
Neither in unicycle riding nor in Yang Family Taijiquan do you want to cede control to momentum. Coasting with moment and stagnating without the possibility of momentum are ruinous in both activities.
Both activities try to arrange things so that the feet can support each other. Movement is generally accomplished by the operation of both feet acting in concert, in contrast, and simultaneously, and not by having them merely alternate at the same activity. Where continuity is physically impossible, the mind is used to bridge the physical discontinuity.
In both activities, the potential force the legs can exert is not constant throughout a stride/stroke. Movements must take this into account. On a unicycle, the issue is whether or not the feet are level or one above the other. In stepping, the variation concerns the circuit of energy formed by the two feet and the ground.
In both activities, solid and empty can switch in an instant, according to the intention and desires of the mind. A static description of the configuration of the limbs is not sufficient to capture the different possibilities inherent in that configuration.
Being double weighted in either activity means that stagnation, loss of control, and an inability to move at will will result. Essentially, double weighting (shuang zhong) or doubling up (shuang chong) means failing to respect the necessity for contrasting solid and empty and acting at cross purposes.
Take care,
Audi
Thanks again for all the great posts. I gleaned a bunch of good nuggets for further contemplation. I especially like the discussion of reasons why teachers do not or cannot give students a simple and complete roadmap to suit all purposes.
I’d like to take a stab at addressing only a few of the recent comments. In talking about full and empty, Steve asked what we are supposed to be full or empty of. As I have thought about how one might answer this question, I have begun to wonder whether another translation issue may be involved. In fact, I think I danced around aspects of this in an earlier post.
As I understand it, the Chinese words “xu” and “shi” do not really express the polarity of meaning we normally associate with “full” and “empty” with respect to a container. In other words, I do not think that “full” means “full of weight” or “full of Jin,” etc. I think the Chinese words for this polarity are “kong” and “man,” which are not used to describe this principle, at least as far as I am aware. To avoid the mental associations with the word “full,” I am going to try to use “solid” as the equivalent of “shi” for most of this post. “Solidifying” and “emptying” might be even better equivalents, but they may be somewhat awkward to use.
As I recall, Louis listed a bunch of the meanings for “xu” and “shi” earlier on this thread. I will not repeat them here, but I think they can basically be summed up as follows: “xu” means lacking substance, and “shi” means having substance. As far as I understand, they do not really refer to a container that is full or empty of anything. “Having substance” can be thought of in all sorts of literal and metaphorical ways, e.g., “reflecting fact or reality,” “tangible,” “solid,” “realized,” etc.
I think that in the case of “Distinguishing ‘Full’/’Solid’ and ‘Empty,’” we are really talking about contrasts similar to the meanings connoted by “functioning” versus “dormant,” “employed” versus “available for use,” “substantive” versus “virtual,” “tangible” versus “evanescent,” “committed” versus “uncommitted,” “involved” versus “reserved,” “patent” versus “latent,” “engaged” versus “absent,” “concrete to the senses” versus “elusive,” and similar pairs. Again, there is no underlying substance or container being discussed, but rather innate qualities that the particular part or parts of the body manifest at a particular moment of time, in a particular context, and to a given extent.
These qualities are always paired and in absolute contrast to each other. For instance, while moving, one can judge which foot is more ‘engaged’ with the body’s interaction with gravity than the other. The relative presence and absence of this quality can also be assessed in isolation: how much of an individual foot is engaged with the body’s interaction with gravity. These contrasts can also be viewed as processes rather than states: i.e., which foot is engaging the ground and which foot is disengaging or how much of a foot is being used to engage the ground and how much is being used for other purposes.
Louis, I think this framework particularly works what you said about loading parts of the body. Each joint and each part of the body can be seen as doing two things at once: supporting an action and being supported in an action. I think that “Distinguishing full and empty” is meant to call attention to the importance of distinguishing the two and measuring their relative influence on the situation.
To try to put some flesh on these bones, I want to make use of the bicycle analogy that was put forth earlier in this discussion, but this time I would like to describe a unicycle. I realize that most people reading this forum have likely never ridden a unicycle, but I think my description can be understandable in any case. My own personal experience with riding unicycles can be more easily measured in feet than in yards, but I think what I will say will nonetheless be reasonably accurate.
Riding unicycles is by far more difficult than riding a bicycle. One would think that the difficulty lies in having to balance in four directions, rather than in two; but this is not the case. The difficulty lies in the fact that the combination of the wheel rotation and the lack of constraint on the angle of your upper body with the wheel is extremely unstable. It feels as if the unicycle can lunge forward or backward underneath you without warning. Having a good sense of balance is not nearly sufficient in itself to control this motion. Falling from a unicycle can feel like standing on a stool and having someone sneak up behind you and sweep the stool out from under your feet.
People who are reasonably fit, given time, patience, and a modicum of assistance, can be expected to learn to ride a unicycle. (By the way, I fail on just about all counts.) It is virtually impossible, however, to “coast” on a unicycle without almost immediately and catastrophically losing one’s balance. If you think about it, even expert circus performers do not manage to coast for more than an instant here or there.
To retain good control over a unicycle, you must keep both feet on the pedals at all times, in order to control both forward and backward motion. Even though both feet are on the pedals, they are just about never doing the same thing at the same time. In my opinion, one is “shi” (solid) and one is “xu.” It is tempting to think that this contrast of “shi” and “xu” can be reduced to the fact that one foot is pushing and the other is not, but the reality is subtler than this.
The solid foot is providing the basic power to move the unicycle along, and the empty foot is not; however they both do more. At the same time one is pedaling the unicycle along, one must also be braking it. If all you do is put positive pressure on the pedals, the unicycle will continue to accelerate, since friction with the ground is negligible. To maintain a constant speed, you would have to begin coasting, which, as I have said, is virtually impossible to do without falling. Rather than coasting, what you do is apply slight constant braking pressure to keep control over the cycle. Essentially then, what you do is constantly apply pressure as if trying to pedal forward and backward at the same time. Which direction you move in is controlled by which direction you put more of your pressure toward. If you “pedal” forward harder, you will move forward. If you “pedal” backward harder, you will move backward. However, you must constantly “pedal” somewhat both backward and forward at the same time to avoid losing control.
Rather than thinking of the solid foot as doing something and the empty foot as doing nothing, I think it is better to think of them in relative terms. Basically, the solid foot is leading and the empty foot is following. Put another way, the solid foot is providing driving pressure for the unicycle and the empty foot is providing balancing and adjusting pressure.
It would be easy to assume that solid and empty is only a function of direction or of the amount of pressure, but I do not believe this to be the case. It seems to me that the simple concept of solid and empty has considerable depth even in this simple unicycle scenario.
The physics of the body and the unicycle dictate that the foot can be solid and accelerate the unicycle only on the downstroke. (By the way, I think that this principle is independent of the action of gravity.) Similarly, the foot can be solid and decelerate the unicycle only by providing counter-pressure on the upstroke. The reverse is true of when the foot can be empty. These limitations mean that the feet are constantly changing from solid to empty regardless of which direction you are pedaling in and regardless of whether you are accelerating or decelerating.
If one were to see a snapshot of a man riding on a unicycle and ask whether a given foot should be considered solid or empty, this question could not be answered without recourse to knowing something of the intent of the cyclist. Is he accelerating or decelerating? Is he trying to go backwards or forward?
An additional complication is that the foot’s ability to apply pressure to the pedals is not equal throughout an upstroke or a downstroke. The feet have maximum leverage when they are level and almost no leverage when one is at the top and the other is at the bottom. If you ever watch a circus performer on a unicycle doing a trick that involves “standing” in place, you will notice that he or she will choose to rock back and forth in place in order to cycle between good leverage points.
This variable leverage means that there is yet another polarity of “strength” parameters that a unicyclist must “distinguish” clearly in order to maintain control. The amount of effort put in to pushing against the pedals must be adjusted according to where the foot is in its stroke. The cyclist does not lose control of the cycle, because he or she keeps continuity in the mind and anticipates the necessity to pay special attention to what can be done around this point of instability.
I see many parallels between what I have described with respect to riding a unicycle and what I believe to be principles behind the concept of “Distinguishing Full/Solid and Empty.” Hopefully, my descriptions have been clear enough to at least suggest some of them. Just to be more clear, let me describe some of them in closing.
Neither in unicycle riding nor in Yang Family Taijiquan do you want to cede control to momentum. Coasting with moment and stagnating without the possibility of momentum are ruinous in both activities.
Both activities try to arrange things so that the feet can support each other. Movement is generally accomplished by the operation of both feet acting in concert, in contrast, and simultaneously, and not by having them merely alternate at the same activity. Where continuity is physically impossible, the mind is used to bridge the physical discontinuity.
In both activities, the potential force the legs can exert is not constant throughout a stride/stroke. Movements must take this into account. On a unicycle, the issue is whether or not the feet are level or one above the other. In stepping, the variation concerns the circuit of energy formed by the two feet and the ground.
In both activities, solid and empty can switch in an instant, according to the intention and desires of the mind. A static description of the configuration of the limbs is not sufficient to capture the different possibilities inherent in that configuration.
Being double weighted in either activity means that stagnation, loss of control, and an inability to move at will will result. Essentially, double weighting (shuang zhong) or doubling up (shuang chong) means failing to respect the necessity for contrasting solid and empty and acting at cross purposes.
Take care,
Audi
-
psalchemist
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am
Hi all,
Greetings Louis Swaim,
Thanks for the commentary on the learning methods I am trying to employ. Since you have expressed an interest in such matters, I thought I would make an effort to explain the benefits I have found of studying 'cross substantial','emptying and filling' assignments to specific actions.
Although, I appreciate the fact that, as you have stated, these results are limited and only of a particular value, I do find that it has assisted(and is still assisting of course) me as a tool for deeper examination of the underlying subtleties of Taijiquan. I am enjoying picking the form apart and exploring it bit by bit. Each new piece of information that I receive allows a fresh new personal perspective to emerge.
Firstly, I must state that my expressions and ideas on all of these issues are simply my own personal opinions. They in no way represent qualified or authoritative Taijiquan theories, just my own ramblings. Please feel free to correct me if I inadvertantly speak against Traditional, Taijiquan principles of which, unfortunately, I have little to no versing.
So, now without more ado, I will attempt to describe the learning potential of a study of emptying/filling in a cross substantial manner, as applied to particular movements, through the eyes of a beginner, in chart format. Phewww!
Making a chart style reference to the individual postures of the long form(Yang style-Yang ZhenDuo-103 mvmnts) within the context of yin and yang value assignment has led me to some interesting, thought provoking matter, suppositions,questions, and so on.
The distinct patterns within this form become more obvious when displayed in a more visual manner, such as a chart.
I am personaly,presently, studying the empty-empty-full-full pattern which (occurs on each side of the body-rt< )and which seems descriptive of 'cross substantial' movement. This pattern repeats throughout the whole form, and could be representative of a kind of 'guide' to the weight shifting cycles contained within.
One half of a full e/e/f/f cycle would be likened to a shift forward ,for example, which includes the emptying and filling process once then on the 'return trip' of the weight shift they alternate:filling/ emptying. Therefore a full cycle would include one complete cycle of yin-yin-yang-yang. Different energies contain different numbers of cycles.
Upon executing these movements with the emptying and filling intention in mind of all the limbs, I have discovered a new
found co-ordination which feels very unique. It seems to induce a correctness of co-ordination in the movements(At least in my mind it has, what it actually looks like...well!LOL.
But the most profound addition of late, for me in my studies,has been a concrete manifestation of a more secondary arm movement. Concentrating on the complete empty and full positions, and then slowly trying to transfer them has led to much less 'commanding' arms. My arms and hands seem to now react, rather than cause. They just seem to fall into place once the feet are respectively sunk and active. Leading with the feet instead of leading with the arms creates a totally different quality of physical movement. Effortless yet meaningfull.
I have been able also to clear up many misconceptions I had about what was actually active/supportive, yin/yang.Wild guesses only lead so far, but with the logical order of the pattern, all can be essentially 'worked through' with consideration, even as a new student.
The 'White Crane Spreads it's Wings' for example had given me the initial impression that the forward toe(once placed on the ground) was an active yang which pushes backwards, but upon comparison to the patterns it would actually turn into a propping/grounding /sinking (yin/empty) as soon as it makes contact with the ground and is becoming the 'tso lo tsi au po' posture.
I can also see more clearly why the small rotational values are secondary energies, as Audi had suggested, since they have little (or nothing )to do with the major cornerstones of emptying and filling 'cross substantialy'.
Lastly, I have also come closer to understanding double weightedness, nowthat I have a better understanding of the emptying and filling processes required. At least I know I won't forget the meaning of 'progression' anymore.
From what I have gathered on the subject, there is actually no possibility of double-weighting in the 'opening and closing postures' (cross hands), 'two footed' postures/stances (the word stance should perhaps be stricken due to it's un moving nature), since there is no actual point in time where one is actually standing on both feet at the same time(in the same way). Nor is one placing all of one's physical weight simultaneously on both feet. One is alternating constantly and therefore has no opportunity to become double weighted. Any kind of double-weighting occuring would be invariably due to a lack of ability of the student/practitioner to distinguish between empty(ing) and fill(ing). I realize that I am just repeating what has already been said, but for me it's an exciting new level of understanding, and I am very happy!
I do believe I have learned a tremendous amount of new valuable information of late.
Quite indebted,
Thanks all,
Psalchemist.
P.S. One final comment. This is only a useful method if the student 'creates' the chart himself, from his thought(logic) through application and investigation. It would be quite useless if it were just handed to a student as a reference. After all it is only a pattern. As you have stated, Louis, it is the logic that resides behind the pattern ,which is the important element to be considered.
P.S. (again)
Audi, I guess our postings have crossed in the delivery. If I inadvertantly said anything counter your posting it was unintentional. I was considering your previous mention of momentum, and just wanted to say that I see the value of avoiding momentum and replacing it with control, I am working on it.
[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 07-22-2003).]
Greetings Louis Swaim,
Thanks for the commentary on the learning methods I am trying to employ. Since you have expressed an interest in such matters, I thought I would make an effort to explain the benefits I have found of studying 'cross substantial','emptying and filling' assignments to specific actions.
Although, I appreciate the fact that, as you have stated, these results are limited and only of a particular value, I do find that it has assisted(and is still assisting of course) me as a tool for deeper examination of the underlying subtleties of Taijiquan. I am enjoying picking the form apart and exploring it bit by bit. Each new piece of information that I receive allows a fresh new personal perspective to emerge.
Firstly, I must state that my expressions and ideas on all of these issues are simply my own personal opinions. They in no way represent qualified or authoritative Taijiquan theories, just my own ramblings. Please feel free to correct me if I inadvertantly speak against Traditional, Taijiquan principles of which, unfortunately, I have little to no versing.
So, now without more ado, I will attempt to describe the learning potential of a study of emptying/filling in a cross substantial manner, as applied to particular movements, through the eyes of a beginner, in chart format. Phewww!
Making a chart style reference to the individual postures of the long form(Yang style-Yang ZhenDuo-103 mvmnts) within the context of yin and yang value assignment has led me to some interesting, thought provoking matter, suppositions,questions, and so on.
The distinct patterns within this form become more obvious when displayed in a more visual manner, such as a chart.
I am personaly,presently, studying the empty-empty-full-full pattern which (occurs on each side of the body-rt< )and which seems descriptive of 'cross substantial' movement. This pattern repeats throughout the whole form, and could be representative of a kind of 'guide' to the weight shifting cycles contained within.
One half of a full e/e/f/f cycle would be likened to a shift forward ,for example, which includes the emptying and filling process once then on the 'return trip' of the weight shift they alternate:filling/ emptying. Therefore a full cycle would include one complete cycle of yin-yin-yang-yang. Different energies contain different numbers of cycles.
Upon executing these movements with the emptying and filling intention in mind of all the limbs, I have discovered a new
found co-ordination which feels very unique. It seems to induce a correctness of co-ordination in the movements(At least in my mind it has, what it actually looks like...well!LOL.
But the most profound addition of late, for me in my studies,has been a concrete manifestation of a more secondary arm movement. Concentrating on the complete empty and full positions, and then slowly trying to transfer them has led to much less 'commanding' arms. My arms and hands seem to now react, rather than cause. They just seem to fall into place once the feet are respectively sunk and active. Leading with the feet instead of leading with the arms creates a totally different quality of physical movement. Effortless yet meaningfull.
I have been able also to clear up many misconceptions I had about what was actually active/supportive, yin/yang.Wild guesses only lead so far, but with the logical order of the pattern, all can be essentially 'worked through' with consideration, even as a new student.
The 'White Crane Spreads it's Wings' for example had given me the initial impression that the forward toe(once placed on the ground) was an active yang which pushes backwards, but upon comparison to the patterns it would actually turn into a propping/grounding /sinking (yin/empty) as soon as it makes contact with the ground and is becoming the 'tso lo tsi au po' posture.
I can also see more clearly why the small rotational values are secondary energies, as Audi had suggested, since they have little (or nothing )to do with the major cornerstones of emptying and filling 'cross substantialy'.
Lastly, I have also come closer to understanding double weightedness, nowthat I have a better understanding of the emptying and filling processes required. At least I know I won't forget the meaning of 'progression' anymore.
From what I have gathered on the subject, there is actually no possibility of double-weighting in the 'opening and closing postures' (cross hands), 'two footed' postures/stances (the word stance should perhaps be stricken due to it's un moving nature), since there is no actual point in time where one is actually standing on both feet at the same time(in the same way). Nor is one placing all of one's physical weight simultaneously on both feet. One is alternating constantly and therefore has no opportunity to become double weighted. Any kind of double-weighting occuring would be invariably due to a lack of ability of the student/practitioner to distinguish between empty(ing) and fill(ing). I realize that I am just repeating what has already been said, but for me it's an exciting new level of understanding, and I am very happy!
I do believe I have learned a tremendous amount of new valuable information of late.
Quite indebted,
Thanks all,
Psalchemist.
P.S. One final comment. This is only a useful method if the student 'creates' the chart himself, from his thought(logic) through application and investigation. It would be quite useless if it were just handed to a student as a reference. After all it is only a pattern. As you have stated, Louis, it is the logic that resides behind the pattern ,which is the important element to be considered.
P.S. (again)
Audi, I guess our postings have crossed in the delivery. If I inadvertantly said anything counter your posting it was unintentional. I was considering your previous mention of momentum, and just wanted to say that I see the value of avoiding momentum and replacing it with control, I am working on it.
[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 07-22-2003).]
Hi Audi,
Excellent Post!
A question and a few notes. (The question is for Louis and Jerry, too)
You wrote, > Each joint and each part of the body can be seen as doing two things at once: supporting an action and being supported in an action. I think that ?Distinguishing full and empty? is meant to call attention to the importance of distinguishing the two and measuring their relative influence on the situation. <
Is there a Chinese expression for "give and take?"
***
Most bicycles have ratchets so you can coast without moving your legs. This also means that you can't pedal backwards. Can you imagine a unicyle with such a ratchet? Would it be possible to ride it?
You wrote, > The physics of the body and the unicycle dictate that the foot can be solid and accelerate the unicycle only on the downstroke. (By the way, I think that this principle is independent of the action of gravity.) <
Has anyone perfected a technique of unicycling using only one foot, on a pedal with a toe clip?
Regards,
David J
[This message has been edited by DavidJ (edited 07-23-2003).]
Excellent Post!
A question and a few notes. (The question is for Louis and Jerry, too)
You wrote, > Each joint and each part of the body can be seen as doing two things at once: supporting an action and being supported in an action. I think that ?Distinguishing full and empty? is meant to call attention to the importance of distinguishing the two and measuring their relative influence on the situation. <
Is there a Chinese expression for "give and take?"
***
Most bicycles have ratchets so you can coast without moving your legs. This also means that you can't pedal backwards. Can you imagine a unicyle with such a ratchet? Would it be possible to ride it?
You wrote, > The physics of the body and the unicycle dictate that the foot can be solid and accelerate the unicycle only on the downstroke. (By the way, I think that this principle is independent of the action of gravity.) <
Has anyone perfected a technique of unicycling using only one foot, on a pedal with a toe clip?
Regards,
David J
[This message has been edited by DavidJ (edited 07-23-2003).]
Hi Psalchemist and David,
Psalchemist, I hope you feel free to disagree with any I say. I certainly do not want to hold myself out as an authority on correct interpretation of the classics. I just hope my musings on my experience can be helpful.
David, thanks for the interest in my post. I personally am not familiar with a Chinese expression for “give and take”; however, my vocabulary is scant enough that one or many might well exist. I can see how one might make parallels between the idea behind “give and take” and the concept of “solid/full” and “empty.
By the way, seeing the expression “give and take” suggests a grammatical issue that I find irresistible not to touch on, since it can influence how people understand many Chinese expressions of contrast and opposition. Believe it or not, the expression “and” in “give and take” has a somewhat ambiguous meaning. A popular Chinese equivalent of “and” is simply to smash two words together with no third word in between. This Chinese device results in even more ambiguity. Let me illustrate some possibilities.
If we translate the Chinese expression “fen xu shi” as “distinguish empty and full” (or solid), I believe that on grammatical grounds, we could also translate “empty and full” in the following ways: “empty from full,” “both empty and full,” “empty and also full,” “empty, full, etc.,” “empty and then full,” “empty, while full,” “empty or else full,” and “empty or full or whatever.” All these expressions mean slightly different things that imply different relationships between “empty” and “full” and how they relate to “distinguishing.” An expression like “give and take” can also have lots of possibilities that seem to have different implications for practice.
David, you also stated the following:
<<Most bicycles have ratchets so you can coast without moving your legs. This also means that you can't pedal backwards. Can you imagine a unicyle with such a ratchet? Would it be possible to ride it?>>
I have seen extra tall unicycles that I think had chain mechanisms; however, I do not believe they had ratchets. I think it would be extremely difficult to ride such a unicycle. I had always assumed that unicycles were deliberately designed with the flexibility to go forward and backward, but your question suggests to me that such a design may have been a necessity.
David you also asked:
<<Has anyone perfected a technique of unicycling using only one foot, on a pedal with a toe clip?>>
I have never heard of a unicycle with a toe clip, but I can see how a toe clip could allow one to exercise reasonable control, at least in theory. In any case, I would wonder if such a thing were not practically a deathtrap, since there would almost never be sufficient time or leverage to make a graceful dismount if one lost any balance.
There are actually many ways that a unicycle can be controlled using only one pedal, but they are only practical for experts. All the methods I recall seeing at circuses and the like essentially involve alternating between using the foot (or even the hand) to accelerate on the downstroke and using the foot to decelerate on the upstroke. I do not recall seeing anyone do this for a protracted distance or at a constant rate of speed.
Pondering all of these issues has led me to consider another way of looking at what the concepts of “distinguishing full and empty” and avoiding “double weighting” are trying to get. How about looking at the issue as: “Never allow inertia to govern your movements or postures.” Put even more succinctly: “Do not yield to inertia.”
I focus on the concept of inertia, because it covers not only the stagnation that results from having no sense of movement or the ability to move, but also the stagnation that results from being locked into a particular movement pattern. I also like the fact that the effects of “inertia” can never be negated. As I understand it, inertia is an inherent property of anything with mass. It cannot be eliminated, but it can be accounted for.
Take care,
Audi
Psalchemist, I hope you feel free to disagree with any I say. I certainly do not want to hold myself out as an authority on correct interpretation of the classics. I just hope my musings on my experience can be helpful.
David, thanks for the interest in my post. I personally am not familiar with a Chinese expression for “give and take”; however, my vocabulary is scant enough that one or many might well exist. I can see how one might make parallels between the idea behind “give and take” and the concept of “solid/full” and “empty.
By the way, seeing the expression “give and take” suggests a grammatical issue that I find irresistible not to touch on, since it can influence how people understand many Chinese expressions of contrast and opposition. Believe it or not, the expression “and” in “give and take” has a somewhat ambiguous meaning. A popular Chinese equivalent of “and” is simply to smash two words together with no third word in between. This Chinese device results in even more ambiguity. Let me illustrate some possibilities.
If we translate the Chinese expression “fen xu shi” as “distinguish empty and full” (or solid), I believe that on grammatical grounds, we could also translate “empty and full” in the following ways: “empty from full,” “both empty and full,” “empty and also full,” “empty, full, etc.,” “empty and then full,” “empty, while full,” “empty or else full,” and “empty or full or whatever.” All these expressions mean slightly different things that imply different relationships between “empty” and “full” and how they relate to “distinguishing.” An expression like “give and take” can also have lots of possibilities that seem to have different implications for practice.
David, you also stated the following:
<<Most bicycles have ratchets so you can coast without moving your legs. This also means that you can't pedal backwards. Can you imagine a unicyle with such a ratchet? Would it be possible to ride it?>>
I have seen extra tall unicycles that I think had chain mechanisms; however, I do not believe they had ratchets. I think it would be extremely difficult to ride such a unicycle. I had always assumed that unicycles were deliberately designed with the flexibility to go forward and backward, but your question suggests to me that such a design may have been a necessity.
David you also asked:
<<Has anyone perfected a technique of unicycling using only one foot, on a pedal with a toe clip?>>
I have never heard of a unicycle with a toe clip, but I can see how a toe clip could allow one to exercise reasonable control, at least in theory. In any case, I would wonder if such a thing were not practically a deathtrap, since there would almost never be sufficient time or leverage to make a graceful dismount if one lost any balance.
There are actually many ways that a unicycle can be controlled using only one pedal, but they are only practical for experts. All the methods I recall seeing at circuses and the like essentially involve alternating between using the foot (or even the hand) to accelerate on the downstroke and using the foot to decelerate on the upstroke. I do not recall seeing anyone do this for a protracted distance or at a constant rate of speed.
Pondering all of these issues has led me to consider another way of looking at what the concepts of “distinguishing full and empty” and avoiding “double weighting” are trying to get. How about looking at the issue as: “Never allow inertia to govern your movements or postures.” Put even more succinctly: “Do not yield to inertia.”
I focus on the concept of inertia, because it covers not only the stagnation that results from having no sense of movement or the ability to move, but also the stagnation that results from being locked into a particular movement pattern. I also like the fact that the effects of “inertia” can never be negated. As I understand it, inertia is an inherent property of anything with mass. It cannot be eliminated, but it can be accounted for.
Take care,
Audi
-
Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
Greetings David,
You asked, ‘Is there a Chinese expression for "give and take?"’
The expression "give and take" is of course an idiom, and idiomatic expressions always present difficulties in translation. The meaning of "give and take" in English most often is one carrying a sense of "compromise" or of mutual concession or accommodation between negotiating partners, so Chinese translations of "give and take" (ex.: tuo3xie2) tend to capture that meaning rather than the literal sense of giving and receiving. For me, the taiji concept of emptying and filling, opening and closing might better be expressed in the notions of "ebb and flow" as of tides, or of "waxing and waning" as of phases of the moon.
Still, like Audi, I think I can see what you're getting at in applying "give and take" to the notion of xu/shi, and in push hands in particular, the exchange of empty and full could be seen as an accomodative negotiation between partners.
Take care,
Louis
You asked, ‘Is there a Chinese expression for "give and take?"’
The expression "give and take" is of course an idiom, and idiomatic expressions always present difficulties in translation. The meaning of "give and take" in English most often is one carrying a sense of "compromise" or of mutual concession or accommodation between negotiating partners, so Chinese translations of "give and take" (ex.: tuo3xie2) tend to capture that meaning rather than the literal sense of giving and receiving. For me, the taiji concept of emptying and filling, opening and closing might better be expressed in the notions of "ebb and flow" as of tides, or of "waxing and waning" as of phases of the moon.
Still, like Audi, I think I can see what you're getting at in applying "give and take" to the notion of xu/shi, and in push hands in particular, the exchange of empty and full could be seen as an accomodative negotiation between partners.
Take care,
Louis
-
psalchemist
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am
Greetings Audi,
The considerate descriptions which you provided concerning 'threading', 'silk reeling', 'drawing silk' and 'relax' have been very helpful, thought triggering, research provoking and quite illuminating.
'Threading': "Threading refers to a particular way in which you use and relate to your joint movement. It is not merely about imagining connections through the joints...(accordion analogy)...; the same impulse simultaneously determines and unifies their movements...One rusty joint can mess up the whole system."-Audi
I must agree(according to what I have understood so far)that'threading has nothing to do with imagination. It is moreover a physical functioning. I am experiencing problems with 'threading' due to a 'rusty' hips/lumbar region/waist stiffness which plagues me occassionally. Any tips?
I am wondering if maybe it could be an 'opening and closing' issue...In your experience, what does 'opening and closing' refer to, I am really quite vague on the meaning of this expression.
'Drawing silk'"...has to do with moving jin in a way that is delicate, firm and continuous"-Audi
Within the "Song of the thirteen postures"(thanks for the reference Polaris) I found some phrasing I thought might be implying the same gesture...
from:Tai Chi Combat and Health, expositions of insights into the practice of the 13 postures by Wu Yu Hsiang(1812-1880).
"Make it(ch'i) move smoothly, so that it may easily follow the hsin(mind and heart). The I(mind intention) and ch'i must interchange agilely, then there is an excellence of roundness and smoothness. This is called the 'interplay of insubstantial and substantial'."
Would you say that this is a classic description of 'drawing silk'?
"1) focus on where and when the weight shift occurs.2) Stepping without using momentum.
3) Shifting weight first to the heel, then to the ball of the foot and then gripping with the toes."-Audi
Those three points are excellent advice for me, as a new student to Taijiquan. In studying the 'empty and full' I find that my attention is automatically drawn to these three points. I will keep these rules uppermost in my thinking during Taijiquan practice.
About 'relax': I agree that it is not really about the literal meaning of relax, as in slack. Holding the body 'correctly' does seem to induce a feeling of peng/lifting energy. From what I have gathered on this subject, it seems to me that we are speaking more about acheiving the proper carriage of the body entailling the 10 principals of Taijiquan as described in the 'classics', such as (lower the pelvis/sit, round back, head suspended from above, etc). When one is told to 'relax' do you think 'relax into position' is what is implied? I can see how 'relax' in the literal sense enters the picture though, if one does not relax the body, it will impede one's ability to 'get into position'. As a new student, I often don't relax in the literal sense, and find that I cannot sit/stand properly, and therefore cannot move 'properly' . When I do manage to relax ,however,especially in reference to the 'chi-chi shih' opening 'stance' that I do gain a distinct feeling of levity. My arms seem to raise almost of their own volition. Is this peng energy manifest?
I enjoyed your unicycle analogy. It has helped me to better understand the value of controlling one's inertia. I have never tried unicycling before, looks challenging. Pure bravery or complete disregard for life and limb must be a requirement. Even if I were brave enough to try, I think my life and limbs would surely suffer! Sounds like fun.
Thanks for providing many 'corners',
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
The considerate descriptions which you provided concerning 'threading', 'silk reeling', 'drawing silk' and 'relax' have been very helpful, thought triggering, research provoking and quite illuminating.
'Threading': "Threading refers to a particular way in which you use and relate to your joint movement. It is not merely about imagining connections through the joints...(accordion analogy)...; the same impulse simultaneously determines and unifies their movements...One rusty joint can mess up the whole system."-Audi
I must agree(according to what I have understood so far)that'threading has nothing to do with imagination. It is moreover a physical functioning. I am experiencing problems with 'threading' due to a 'rusty' hips/lumbar region/waist stiffness which plagues me occassionally. Any tips?
I am wondering if maybe it could be an 'opening and closing' issue...In your experience, what does 'opening and closing' refer to, I am really quite vague on the meaning of this expression.
'Drawing silk'"...has to do with moving jin in a way that is delicate, firm and continuous"-Audi
Within the "Song of the thirteen postures"(thanks for the reference Polaris) I found some phrasing I thought might be implying the same gesture...
from:Tai Chi Combat and Health, expositions of insights into the practice of the 13 postures by Wu Yu Hsiang(1812-1880).
"Make it(ch'i) move smoothly, so that it may easily follow the hsin(mind and heart). The I(mind intention) and ch'i must interchange agilely, then there is an excellence of roundness and smoothness. This is called the 'interplay of insubstantial and substantial'."
Would you say that this is a classic description of 'drawing silk'?
"1) focus on where and when the weight shift occurs.2) Stepping without using momentum.
3) Shifting weight first to the heel, then to the ball of the foot and then gripping with the toes."-Audi
Those three points are excellent advice for me, as a new student to Taijiquan. In studying the 'empty and full' I find that my attention is automatically drawn to these three points. I will keep these rules uppermost in my thinking during Taijiquan practice.
About 'relax': I agree that it is not really about the literal meaning of relax, as in slack. Holding the body 'correctly' does seem to induce a feeling of peng/lifting energy. From what I have gathered on this subject, it seems to me that we are speaking more about acheiving the proper carriage of the body entailling the 10 principals of Taijiquan as described in the 'classics', such as (lower the pelvis/sit, round back, head suspended from above, etc). When one is told to 'relax' do you think 'relax into position' is what is implied? I can see how 'relax' in the literal sense enters the picture though, if one does not relax the body, it will impede one's ability to 'get into position'. As a new student, I often don't relax in the literal sense, and find that I cannot sit/stand properly, and therefore cannot move 'properly' . When I do manage to relax ,however,especially in reference to the 'chi-chi shih' opening 'stance' that I do gain a distinct feeling of levity. My arms seem to raise almost of their own volition. Is this peng energy manifest?
I enjoyed your unicycle analogy. It has helped me to better understand the value of controlling one's inertia. I have never tried unicycling before, looks challenging. Pure bravery or complete disregard for life and limb must be a requirement. Even if I were brave enough to try, I think my life and limbs would surely suffer! Sounds like fun.
Thanks for providing many 'corners',
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
Hi,
I just wanted to refer back to the phrase from the Classics from which this discussion arises --I think.
"Insubstantial [empty; yin] and substantial [solid; yang]
should be clearly differentiated.
At any place where there is insubstantiality,
there must be substantiality;
Every place has both insubstantiality and substantiality."
***
Can this refer to weight?
Best,
Steve James
I just wanted to refer back to the phrase from the Classics from which this discussion arises --I think.
"Insubstantial [empty; yin] and substantial [solid; yang]
should be clearly differentiated.
At any place where there is insubstantiality,
there must be substantiality;
Every place has both insubstantiality and substantiality."
***
Can this refer to weight?
Best,
Steve James
-
psalchemist
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am
Hi Steve James,
Although I am in no position to attempt a guess at that, I thought I would add a little quotation I found which seems to be(maybe) a little bit different from the other references on the subject of 'separating yin and yang'. I really am not sure if it is pertinent or not, but I thought I would toss it into the mix anyway, to see what others have to say about it.
From: Wang Tsun Yueh's Taijiquan classics;
"Taiji comes from infinity; from it springs Yin and Yang. In movement the two act independantly; in stillness they fuse into one."
Regards,
Psalchemist.
Although I am in no position to attempt a guess at that, I thought I would add a little quotation I found which seems to be(maybe) a little bit different from the other references on the subject of 'separating yin and yang'. I really am not sure if it is pertinent or not, but I thought I would toss it into the mix anyway, to see what others have to say about it.
From: Wang Tsun Yueh's Taijiquan classics;
"Taiji comes from infinity; from it springs Yin and Yang. In movement the two act independantly; in stillness they fuse into one."
Regards,
Psalchemist.
Hi Psalchemist,
fwiw, imo, your counter-quote is astute. I think, whether about form or theory, it always helps to return to the basics.
Perhaps we can clarify the issue by resolving it to Wang's classic statement. I agree that neither "weight/mass" nor "momentum" are singularly definitive (i.e., comprehend every possible usage that might occur later in the Classics or informally), they can be seen as independent properties (of our physical bodies) that do have a yin/yang function that unites them. We always have the same mass until we initiate motion; but, we cannot move one part of us unless another part stabilizes that motion. Maybe that's why everything that comes after "Wuji" is "Taiji" in our forms?
Anyway, it's one way to extrapolate from your point.
Best,
Steve James
fwiw, imo, your counter-quote is astute. I think, whether about form or theory, it always helps to return to the basics.
Perhaps we can clarify the issue by resolving it to Wang's classic statement. I agree that neither "weight/mass" nor "momentum" are singularly definitive (i.e., comprehend every possible usage that might occur later in the Classics or informally), they can be seen as independent properties (of our physical bodies) that do have a yin/yang function that unites them. We always have the same mass until we initiate motion; but, we cannot move one part of us unless another part stabilizes that motion. Maybe that's why everything that comes after "Wuji" is "Taiji" in our forms?
Anyway, it's one way to extrapolate from your point.
Best,
Steve James
-
Gu Rou Chen
- Posts: 105
- Joined: Wed Jan 08, 2003 7:01 am
My impression is that the paired terms xu1/shi2 have more than one usage.
The following loose translation may give insight into an aspect of at least one of these usages.
The phrase, "Avoid the fullness, go to where it is empty; Use emptiness to move fullness" means that in pushing hands one should avoid meeting the partner's incoming force head-on in a directly opposing direction, i.e. avoid the partner's 'solid/full aspect' and catch an angle on the side of the point(s) of contact or obliquely at the weak angle of the partner's incoming force, i.e. go to where it is 'empty.' The oblique angle off of the partner's direct, incoming jin4 is referred to as his "emptiness within solidity/fullness." After connecting in this way with the partner's "emptiness" one can, via this empty point, lead his (fullness) solid point and use force against his source of jin4. In this way one can achieve the goal of moving the partner by borrowing his force; using four ounces to move a thousand pounds.
(Wang Yongquan. Yang Shi Taijiquan Shuzhen. p.234)
I remember seeing somewhere in the Classics an equating of xu1/shi2 with kai1/he2 "opening and closing"
I will try to locate and post later.
Jeff
The following loose translation may give insight into an aspect of at least one of these usages.
The phrase, "Avoid the fullness, go to where it is empty; Use emptiness to move fullness" means that in pushing hands one should avoid meeting the partner's incoming force head-on in a directly opposing direction, i.e. avoid the partner's 'solid/full aspect' and catch an angle on the side of the point(s) of contact or obliquely at the weak angle of the partner's incoming force, i.e. go to where it is 'empty.' The oblique angle off of the partner's direct, incoming jin4 is referred to as his "emptiness within solidity/fullness." After connecting in this way with the partner's "emptiness" one can, via this empty point, lead his (fullness) solid point and use force against his source of jin4. In this way one can achieve the goal of moving the partner by borrowing his force; using four ounces to move a thousand pounds.
(Wang Yongquan. Yang Shi Taijiquan Shuzhen. p.234)
I remember seeing somewhere in the Classics an equating of xu1/shi2 with kai1/he2 "opening and closing"
I will try to locate and post later.
Jeff
Greetings Psalchemist,
You asked, “I am experiencing problems with 'threading' due to a 'rusty' hips/lumbar region/waist stiffness which plagues me occassionally. Any tips?”
My very strong impression of the system that the Yangs teach is that it often involves practicing a mind intent that often seems quite divorced from ordinary life and ordinary movement. However, once one has the requisite mental framework, I find the movements to be by and large extraordinarily natural and easy. In my view, the movements themselves really do not need much rehearsal and require little native ability. I would even go so far as to say that once one has the right mental framework, it is hard to do the movements incorrectly.
Do most people have to practice clapping, sitting, smiling, and standing up? All these are natural movements. I believe the form to be essentially the same, with the very important exception that the purpose behind the individual form movements is by and large outside of our daily experience. What almost all of us do, consciously or not, is analogize the form movements to movements from our daily activities. We may be ignorant of the intent inherent in the form movements, or we may consciously or subconsciously ignore them. In either case, we end up either fighting the movement logic of the form or trying to do the form without any internal logic at all.
I believe that good flexibility is essential to be able to do high level Taijiquan; however, I believe good flexibility to be largely irrelevant to training Taijiquan correctly. As I understand the Yangs teaching, an important principle is to work within your personal limits. Trying to match someone else’s level of fitness or flexibility is not really that important for basic training and can even be detrimental.
Psalchemist, if you are saying that your “waist” is inherently inflexible, I would say that this should not prevent you from training properly and productively. If, on the other hand, you are saying that your mind habitually uses your “waist” inflexibly, then you are indeed bringing up an issue that almost everyone can improve on. If yours is the latter issue, I have two comments.
First, although some might disagree, I personally do not believe that “relaxing” the “waist” means finding opportunities to torque the lumbar spine to greater and greater lengths. The trunk of your body can rotate in space by various mechanisms. Lumbar torque is perhaps one of the weakest and most likely to result in injury. On the other hand, having the trunk of your body constantly facing square to the “direction” of your body’s overall movement is also unnatural and probably unhealthy.
Imagine that there is an arrow going through your back and out your navel. This arrow will form a “compass” angle relative to the ground and relative to your direction of overall movement. Think of this angle as a “joint” that must be threaded to the movement of all your other joints. Although it is not literally true that this joint is constantly rotating or moving through space during the form, one of these two movements is probably happening over 95% of the time. (This is of course an educated guess that I hope no one takes literally.)
Just for fun, here is a mental exercise you might try. Do the first paragraph of the form while imaging the following. You have four lengths of elastic bungee cord. Tie one end of each cord to each of your wrists and ankles. Now tie the free end of each cord to your navel or else to the point where the arrow I mentioned above intersects your spine.
As you physically do the first paragraph, imagine that you maintain smooth tension on each of your four mental bungee cords. Every time your navel moves forward or backward through space or else rotates, even slightly, verify that the angles and/or positions of your ankles and wrists are simultaneously changing in lock step with your navel. Your ankles, wrists, and navel should act like gears, but the “gear ratios” do not have to be, and probably should not be, identical to each other. Also, the “tension” on the bungee cords does not need to remain constant. Alternatively, verify that your navel is moving in space, either linearly or rotationally every time you move your ankles or wrists or change their angles, even slightly.
The only exceptions you could arguably make during the first paragraph of the form occur at the following points: (1) during the Preparation Posture, (2) during the Commencement Posture (Taiji Qi Shi or Tai Chi Ch’I Shih), (3) as you lower your arms to finish the paragraph, and (4) whenever one of your feet is completely off the ground.
If you manage to keep your “navel” physically moving or rotating to the extent I have described above, I would say that you were well on your way to incorporating a “relaxed waist” into the movement logic you use to do form.
Psalchemist, you quoted Wu Yu Hsiang/Xiang and added a comment as follows:
<<"Make it(ch'i) move smoothly, so that it may easily follow the hsin(mind and heart). The I(mind intention) and ch'i must interchange agilely, then there is an excellence of roundness and smoothness. This is called the 'interplay of insubstantial and substantial'."
Would you say that this is a classic description of 'drawing silk'?>>
This is indeed a good discussion of “drawing silk”; however, the concept is mixed in with so many other concepts that I think one could miss its significance or its distinctiveness. Just to make myself clearer, let me describe a practical way to understand what I am talking about.
Take a rubber band and rap it around the fingertips of one hand. As you alternatively expand and contract the space between your fingers, you can play with the apparent size of the rubber band and the level of tension it exerts on your fingers. As long as you maintain some tension in the rubber band, there is no point at which your finger joints feel stiff or stagnant. This feeling is independent of whatever tempo you use in your expansion and contraction and independent of the gross level of tension.
If you now remove the rubber band and try to repeat the experience through visualization, you must replace the physical tension of the rubber band with a feeling generated by your mind. If you focus on this, you can reproduce more or less the exact same physical sensation in your fingers as when you were using the rubber band. If, however, you are distracted for even one instant, your fingers will lose the feeling and feel either lax or stiff. The focused, continuous, yet delicate concentration that is needed to keep the sensation in the finger joints is what I think of as “drawing silk.” Although the tempo of the physical movement need not be continuous, your mind must smoothly connect the feeling generated at each instant of time to the next instant of time.
Psalchemist, you asked and commented on the following:
<<From what I have gathered on this subject, it seems to me that we are speaking more about acheiving the proper carriage of the body entailling the 10 principals of Taijiquan as described in the 'classics', such as (lower the pelvis/sit, round back, head suspended from above, etc). When one is told to 'relax' do you think 'relax into position' is what is implied? I can see how 'relax' in the literal sense enters the picture though, if one does not relax the body, it will impede one's ability to 'get into position'.>>
I find it hard to put into words, but I think that the Yangs’ concept of relaxation is actually far simpler than all the ideas wrapped up in the 10 Essentials. I have seen the core of it demonstrated in under 5 to 10 seconds. What is much more difficult is knowing how to express it throughout each posture and how to avoid falling back on habits learned outside of Taijiquan.
I know of one of the center directors that talks about always “lengthening the joints”; however, I have not seen this formulation in any of the classics or in any of the Yang Family writings. (If someone knows of a reference, I would appreciate knowing about it.) The only written reference I recall in the literature is in Kuo Lien Ying’s book (?), where his words are translated as something like “drawing the limbs up long.”
Despite the scant written evidence, I find this concept of “lengthening the joints” to be highly descriptive of what the Yangs actually do when they say to “relax.” It is something that can be physically demonstrated. It is also something that one should be doing 100% of the time while doing form or pushing hands, not just when one assumes the final position of a posture. You can get the feel of it when you “settle in” to a posture, but the fact that you can “settle in” means that you were not sufficiently “relaxed/loosened up” before.
As I understand it, “relaxing” in the Yangs system means to make your body frame go to its limits in expressing the Jin flow in any given posture and not to impose any arbitrary limits on your joints beyond what your anatomy requires. In other words, you have to consciously do something. If you do this thing, it will wholly occupy your muscles so that they cannot do the wrong thing. If you only try to avoid doing the wrong thing, this can help you more easily do the right thing, but it is not enough.
In my opinion, the Yangs place little or no emphasis on avoiding “unnecessary” muscular tension as you do form. Their approach in this respect is unlike many other notable “Yang Style” teachers. I speculate that they do not bother with discussions of muscular tension, because if you concentrate on doing the right thing (i.e., lengthening and loosening up the joints), the level of muscular exertion becomes largely irrelevant in this context. In my opinion, the correct level of muscle use is addressed elsewhere in their system in a very practical way. I have never heard them justify a particular movement because it involved less muscle “tension” than some alternative. The only time I recall them calling attention to unwanted muscular tension was in certain weapons movements, where tension made the movement impossible to perform correctly.
As I have practiced form, I have occasionally had success by consciously deactivating certain muscles in certain sequences; however, even then, I always transfer emphasis onto trying to move the right set of muscles in the right way. Most of the time, I simply try to focus on the right set of muscle movements and ignore the rest.
To sum up, the flavor of “relaxation” I am talking about is an active, deliberate, and positive process, not a passive, disengaging, or negative process. You are not trying to suppress any feelings or any activity, but rather to nurture and promote a particular set of feelings and activities. Put simply, while one is doing form, one should concentrate on loosen up the joint connections or on lengthening the apparent joint space and ignore the state of the muscles themselves. These two actions are physiologically linked, of course; nevertheless, I find that they occupy different mental space and result in different physical outcomes.
By “muscle movements,” I am not referring to gross posture movements, but rather to the feeling of relative muscle loading that exists from moment to moment in the form. In my view, all of your muscles, even your fingers, should feel as if they are sharing in structural loading. While you are doing the hand form, they should never feel droopy or lax, not even for a single moment. Either holding your muscles in a lax state or trying to freeze them in place makes it impossible to spread the muscular loading throughout your joints. I have to thank Louis for offering up the concept of “loading,” because I think this captures exactly what I have tried inartfully to express in the past.
Let me give an example. When we do the Push Posture of Grasp Sparrow’s Tail, most people concentrate only on pushing their hands forward to some imaginary place in space. When they do this, they put the other muscles in their torso in an imaginary straight jacket that is not related to how the Jin (or force vectors) needs to flow.
Imagine that the practitioner has no hands and that his or her arms stop at the wrists. Are his or her forearms really parallel to the midline of the body and in the position they would need to be to push forward with any power? Most likely, they would be angled too far inward. Imagine now that the practitioner has no forearms and that the upper arms stop at the elbows. Now, the practitioner needs to execute the push with the point of the elbows. Is the upper arm really in position to push, or is the upper arm pointed outward away from the midline? How about the shoulder? Are the muscles that go from the middle of the back to the tip of the shoulder truly pushing the shoulders forward, or are those muscles uninvolved in the pushing action?
If you are having difficulty following my description, assume the end position of the push posture and have someone push forward forcefully into your hands. Note any joints that feel unstable or near collapse. Now repeat the process, but have the person push forward forcefully into the point of your elbows, while you fold your forearms up and back out of the way. If you find yourself adjusting the angle of your elbows, upper arm, or shoulder to improve your leverage, ask yourself why you did not adopt the same final position when your partner was pushing on your hands.
Many people use their level of ease or comfort as the main judge of what is “relaxed” and so do not assume structurally sound positions. Comfort is important in Taijiquan; however, I believe reasonable comfort to be the proper outcome of good mind intent, not an independent goal and something to be maximized at the expense of other things. If one is uncomfortable doing something, one should question whether what is going on is really an attempt to do the impossible or the unreasonable. If one is, one should change the object of the attempt. One should not persist in the impossible or unreasonable thing while merely adjusting oneself to be more comfortable in the impossible or unreasonable action.
Take care,
Audi
You asked, “I am experiencing problems with 'threading' due to a 'rusty' hips/lumbar region/waist stiffness which plagues me occassionally. Any tips?”
My very strong impression of the system that the Yangs teach is that it often involves practicing a mind intent that often seems quite divorced from ordinary life and ordinary movement. However, once one has the requisite mental framework, I find the movements to be by and large extraordinarily natural and easy. In my view, the movements themselves really do not need much rehearsal and require little native ability. I would even go so far as to say that once one has the right mental framework, it is hard to do the movements incorrectly.
Do most people have to practice clapping, sitting, smiling, and standing up? All these are natural movements. I believe the form to be essentially the same, with the very important exception that the purpose behind the individual form movements is by and large outside of our daily experience. What almost all of us do, consciously or not, is analogize the form movements to movements from our daily activities. We may be ignorant of the intent inherent in the form movements, or we may consciously or subconsciously ignore them. In either case, we end up either fighting the movement logic of the form or trying to do the form without any internal logic at all.
I believe that good flexibility is essential to be able to do high level Taijiquan; however, I believe good flexibility to be largely irrelevant to training Taijiquan correctly. As I understand the Yangs teaching, an important principle is to work within your personal limits. Trying to match someone else’s level of fitness or flexibility is not really that important for basic training and can even be detrimental.
Psalchemist, if you are saying that your “waist” is inherently inflexible, I would say that this should not prevent you from training properly and productively. If, on the other hand, you are saying that your mind habitually uses your “waist” inflexibly, then you are indeed bringing up an issue that almost everyone can improve on. If yours is the latter issue, I have two comments.
First, although some might disagree, I personally do not believe that “relaxing” the “waist” means finding opportunities to torque the lumbar spine to greater and greater lengths. The trunk of your body can rotate in space by various mechanisms. Lumbar torque is perhaps one of the weakest and most likely to result in injury. On the other hand, having the trunk of your body constantly facing square to the “direction” of your body’s overall movement is also unnatural and probably unhealthy.
Imagine that there is an arrow going through your back and out your navel. This arrow will form a “compass” angle relative to the ground and relative to your direction of overall movement. Think of this angle as a “joint” that must be threaded to the movement of all your other joints. Although it is not literally true that this joint is constantly rotating or moving through space during the form, one of these two movements is probably happening over 95% of the time. (This is of course an educated guess that I hope no one takes literally.)
Just for fun, here is a mental exercise you might try. Do the first paragraph of the form while imaging the following. You have four lengths of elastic bungee cord. Tie one end of each cord to each of your wrists and ankles. Now tie the free end of each cord to your navel or else to the point where the arrow I mentioned above intersects your spine.
As you physically do the first paragraph, imagine that you maintain smooth tension on each of your four mental bungee cords. Every time your navel moves forward or backward through space or else rotates, even slightly, verify that the angles and/or positions of your ankles and wrists are simultaneously changing in lock step with your navel. Your ankles, wrists, and navel should act like gears, but the “gear ratios” do not have to be, and probably should not be, identical to each other. Also, the “tension” on the bungee cords does not need to remain constant. Alternatively, verify that your navel is moving in space, either linearly or rotationally every time you move your ankles or wrists or change their angles, even slightly.
The only exceptions you could arguably make during the first paragraph of the form occur at the following points: (1) during the Preparation Posture, (2) during the Commencement Posture (Taiji Qi Shi or Tai Chi Ch’I Shih), (3) as you lower your arms to finish the paragraph, and (4) whenever one of your feet is completely off the ground.
If you manage to keep your “navel” physically moving or rotating to the extent I have described above, I would say that you were well on your way to incorporating a “relaxed waist” into the movement logic you use to do form.
Psalchemist, you quoted Wu Yu Hsiang/Xiang and added a comment as follows:
<<"Make it(ch'i) move smoothly, so that it may easily follow the hsin(mind and heart). The I(mind intention) and ch'i must interchange agilely, then there is an excellence of roundness and smoothness. This is called the 'interplay of insubstantial and substantial'."
Would you say that this is a classic description of 'drawing silk'?>>
This is indeed a good discussion of “drawing silk”; however, the concept is mixed in with so many other concepts that I think one could miss its significance or its distinctiveness. Just to make myself clearer, let me describe a practical way to understand what I am talking about.
Take a rubber band and rap it around the fingertips of one hand. As you alternatively expand and contract the space between your fingers, you can play with the apparent size of the rubber band and the level of tension it exerts on your fingers. As long as you maintain some tension in the rubber band, there is no point at which your finger joints feel stiff or stagnant. This feeling is independent of whatever tempo you use in your expansion and contraction and independent of the gross level of tension.
If you now remove the rubber band and try to repeat the experience through visualization, you must replace the physical tension of the rubber band with a feeling generated by your mind. If you focus on this, you can reproduce more or less the exact same physical sensation in your fingers as when you were using the rubber band. If, however, you are distracted for even one instant, your fingers will lose the feeling and feel either lax or stiff. The focused, continuous, yet delicate concentration that is needed to keep the sensation in the finger joints is what I think of as “drawing silk.” Although the tempo of the physical movement need not be continuous, your mind must smoothly connect the feeling generated at each instant of time to the next instant of time.
Psalchemist, you asked and commented on the following:
<<From what I have gathered on this subject, it seems to me that we are speaking more about acheiving the proper carriage of the body entailling the 10 principals of Taijiquan as described in the 'classics', such as (lower the pelvis/sit, round back, head suspended from above, etc). When one is told to 'relax' do you think 'relax into position' is what is implied? I can see how 'relax' in the literal sense enters the picture though, if one does not relax the body, it will impede one's ability to 'get into position'.>>
I find it hard to put into words, but I think that the Yangs’ concept of relaxation is actually far simpler than all the ideas wrapped up in the 10 Essentials. I have seen the core of it demonstrated in under 5 to 10 seconds. What is much more difficult is knowing how to express it throughout each posture and how to avoid falling back on habits learned outside of Taijiquan.
I know of one of the center directors that talks about always “lengthening the joints”; however, I have not seen this formulation in any of the classics or in any of the Yang Family writings. (If someone knows of a reference, I would appreciate knowing about it.) The only written reference I recall in the literature is in Kuo Lien Ying’s book (?), where his words are translated as something like “drawing the limbs up long.”
Despite the scant written evidence, I find this concept of “lengthening the joints” to be highly descriptive of what the Yangs actually do when they say to “relax.” It is something that can be physically demonstrated. It is also something that one should be doing 100% of the time while doing form or pushing hands, not just when one assumes the final position of a posture. You can get the feel of it when you “settle in” to a posture, but the fact that you can “settle in” means that you were not sufficiently “relaxed/loosened up” before.
As I understand it, “relaxing” in the Yangs system means to make your body frame go to its limits in expressing the Jin flow in any given posture and not to impose any arbitrary limits on your joints beyond what your anatomy requires. In other words, you have to consciously do something. If you do this thing, it will wholly occupy your muscles so that they cannot do the wrong thing. If you only try to avoid doing the wrong thing, this can help you more easily do the right thing, but it is not enough.
In my opinion, the Yangs place little or no emphasis on avoiding “unnecessary” muscular tension as you do form. Their approach in this respect is unlike many other notable “Yang Style” teachers. I speculate that they do not bother with discussions of muscular tension, because if you concentrate on doing the right thing (i.e., lengthening and loosening up the joints), the level of muscular exertion becomes largely irrelevant in this context. In my opinion, the correct level of muscle use is addressed elsewhere in their system in a very practical way. I have never heard them justify a particular movement because it involved less muscle “tension” than some alternative. The only time I recall them calling attention to unwanted muscular tension was in certain weapons movements, where tension made the movement impossible to perform correctly.
As I have practiced form, I have occasionally had success by consciously deactivating certain muscles in certain sequences; however, even then, I always transfer emphasis onto trying to move the right set of muscles in the right way. Most of the time, I simply try to focus on the right set of muscle movements and ignore the rest.
To sum up, the flavor of “relaxation” I am talking about is an active, deliberate, and positive process, not a passive, disengaging, or negative process. You are not trying to suppress any feelings or any activity, but rather to nurture and promote a particular set of feelings and activities. Put simply, while one is doing form, one should concentrate on loosen up the joint connections or on lengthening the apparent joint space and ignore the state of the muscles themselves. These two actions are physiologically linked, of course; nevertheless, I find that they occupy different mental space and result in different physical outcomes.
By “muscle movements,” I am not referring to gross posture movements, but rather to the feeling of relative muscle loading that exists from moment to moment in the form. In my view, all of your muscles, even your fingers, should feel as if they are sharing in structural loading. While you are doing the hand form, they should never feel droopy or lax, not even for a single moment. Either holding your muscles in a lax state or trying to freeze them in place makes it impossible to spread the muscular loading throughout your joints. I have to thank Louis for offering up the concept of “loading,” because I think this captures exactly what I have tried inartfully to express in the past.
Let me give an example. When we do the Push Posture of Grasp Sparrow’s Tail, most people concentrate only on pushing their hands forward to some imaginary place in space. When they do this, they put the other muscles in their torso in an imaginary straight jacket that is not related to how the Jin (or force vectors) needs to flow.
Imagine that the practitioner has no hands and that his or her arms stop at the wrists. Are his or her forearms really parallel to the midline of the body and in the position they would need to be to push forward with any power? Most likely, they would be angled too far inward. Imagine now that the practitioner has no forearms and that the upper arms stop at the elbows. Now, the practitioner needs to execute the push with the point of the elbows. Is the upper arm really in position to push, or is the upper arm pointed outward away from the midline? How about the shoulder? Are the muscles that go from the middle of the back to the tip of the shoulder truly pushing the shoulders forward, or are those muscles uninvolved in the pushing action?
If you are having difficulty following my description, assume the end position of the push posture and have someone push forward forcefully into your hands. Note any joints that feel unstable or near collapse. Now repeat the process, but have the person push forward forcefully into the point of your elbows, while you fold your forearms up and back out of the way. If you find yourself adjusting the angle of your elbows, upper arm, or shoulder to improve your leverage, ask yourself why you did not adopt the same final position when your partner was pushing on your hands.
Many people use their level of ease or comfort as the main judge of what is “relaxed” and so do not assume structurally sound positions. Comfort is important in Taijiquan; however, I believe reasonable comfort to be the proper outcome of good mind intent, not an independent goal and something to be maximized at the expense of other things. If one is uncomfortable doing something, one should question whether what is going on is really an attempt to do the impossible or the unreasonable. If one is, one should change the object of the attempt. One should not persist in the impossible or unreasonable thing while merely adjusting oneself to be more comfortable in the impossible or unreasonable action.
Take care,
Audi
Hi Steve, Jeff, and everyone else:
Steve, I am not sure I could possibly deal with all the cases of solid and empty without simply regurgitating them in disguised format. Nevertheless, let me give a try at a formulation more to your liking. Tell me what you think of the following thoughts.
The exchange of full/solid and empty involves the exchange between muscle loading and offloading. In analyzing this, one must consider three actors: the practitioner, the partner, and the earth (or the ground). The practitioner and the partner affect the interchange by how their minds direct their limbs. The earth acts through gravity.
The role of the earth and the ground is the clearest to see in any given situation. It must always be taken into account. However, since the presence of the ground and the action of gravity are more or less constants, they are the least determinative of outcomes.
Loading and offloading contrast, reinforce, and interact with each other in various ways. For a part of the body to be loading up, it must first have been offloaded. Also, for that part to be loaded up requires that some other part be offloading onto it. When one part of the body is being loaded up by another part, it is also generally offloading to a third part, or else to the partner or to the ground.
I think this formulations can account for Jeff’s description.
Jeff, I look forward to what statements you can find about opening and closing. I have always had some difficulty understanding the full range of these concepts. I have basically settled on the image of a bellows and on the image of a bow, but would love more detail to test the usefulness and accuracy of these.
Recently, I became aware of some linguistic nuances in “kai” (for those readers with no Chinese, this word is pronounced like the “ki” in “kite”) and “he” (pronounced almost in the way the British pronounce the English word “her”) that may have been the source of part of my confusion. As I understand it, these words not only equate to “open” and “close,” respectively, but also have strong connotations of “separation” and “joining.” The common element becomes clearer, if one considers the relationship that a lid has to the corresponding pot: you open the pot by separating the lid from it and close the post by joining the lid to it. This relationship is reflected in the character that was chosen to represent the Chinese word “he,” which seems to be a picture of a lid over a pot, hole, or mouth.
Jeff, you also interpreted a quote, saying that it meant the following:
<<n pushing hands one should avoid meeting the partner's incoming force head-on in a directly opposing direction>>
This is, of course, a standard formulation of theory, with which I have no argument. I wonder, however, if one cannot draw too much from it. There is at least one situation in which you can borrow force from the opponent even though you appear to meet his or her force head-on. Let me described two situations.
First, suppose the opponent has grabbed your wrist and is about to execute a pull along his side and to his rear. In order to pull you, his pulling point must become solid. If he has mobilized his Jin, but has not yet set it in motion, you can cause his pull to reflect back on him by making his solid point “more solid.” You do this by pulling slightly against his pull after his Jin is mobilized, but before its force has been actualized. As the opponent follows through and executes the pull, he will pull himself forward out of his root, rather than pulling you to his rear out of your root. This situation represents my best understanding of something Yang Jun showed and described during a seminar and which I touched on in some earlier posts.
I believe that a second instance of this seeming opposition of forces can occur during a push. Yang Jun did not show this at the seminar, but I think I have seen others perform this technique and believe it to be consistent with the first situation. Suppose the opponent has his hands on you and has his weight to his rear in preparation for a push. In order to push you, the rear part of his body must become solid. If he has mobilized his Jin, but has not yet set it in motion, you can reflect his push back against him by making his rear even more “solid.” You do this by sinking, pushing slightly into him, and rooting his force into the ground in front of you. Your action must take place after his Jin is mobilized, but before it actually comes into play. As the opponent tries to push you, his force is reflected backward and he ends up pushing himself backward, largely with his own force.
I mention these two situations, because I think it is possible to incorrectly reinterpret the material you quoted as dealing only with whether or not to attack or defend along the midline of the body or with whether to meet straight lines with curves and vice versa. I think there is an element of mind intent and timing that the simple cases only hint at. I also think people can misinterpret the simple case and believe that one should always avoid whatever parts of the opponent are full and only engage those parts that are empty. I think, for instance, that “zhan” (making the opponent stick) always implies engaging the opponent where he or she is full.
Take care,
Audi
Steve, I am not sure I could possibly deal with all the cases of solid and empty without simply regurgitating them in disguised format. Nevertheless, let me give a try at a formulation more to your liking. Tell me what you think of the following thoughts.
The exchange of full/solid and empty involves the exchange between muscle loading and offloading. In analyzing this, one must consider three actors: the practitioner, the partner, and the earth (or the ground). The practitioner and the partner affect the interchange by how their minds direct their limbs. The earth acts through gravity.
The role of the earth and the ground is the clearest to see in any given situation. It must always be taken into account. However, since the presence of the ground and the action of gravity are more or less constants, they are the least determinative of outcomes.
Loading and offloading contrast, reinforce, and interact with each other in various ways. For a part of the body to be loading up, it must first have been offloaded. Also, for that part to be loaded up requires that some other part be offloading onto it. When one part of the body is being loaded up by another part, it is also generally offloading to a third part, or else to the partner or to the ground.
I think this formulations can account for Jeff’s description.
Jeff, I look forward to what statements you can find about opening and closing. I have always had some difficulty understanding the full range of these concepts. I have basically settled on the image of a bellows and on the image of a bow, but would love more detail to test the usefulness and accuracy of these.
Recently, I became aware of some linguistic nuances in “kai” (for those readers with no Chinese, this word is pronounced like the “ki” in “kite”) and “he” (pronounced almost in the way the British pronounce the English word “her”) that may have been the source of part of my confusion. As I understand it, these words not only equate to “open” and “close,” respectively, but also have strong connotations of “separation” and “joining.” The common element becomes clearer, if one considers the relationship that a lid has to the corresponding pot: you open the pot by separating the lid from it and close the post by joining the lid to it. This relationship is reflected in the character that was chosen to represent the Chinese word “he,” which seems to be a picture of a lid over a pot, hole, or mouth.
Jeff, you also interpreted a quote, saying that it meant the following:
<<n pushing hands one should avoid meeting the partner's incoming force head-on in a directly opposing direction>>
This is, of course, a standard formulation of theory, with which I have no argument. I wonder, however, if one cannot draw too much from it. There is at least one situation in which you can borrow force from the opponent even though you appear to meet his or her force head-on. Let me described two situations.
First, suppose the opponent has grabbed your wrist and is about to execute a pull along his side and to his rear. In order to pull you, his pulling point must become solid. If he has mobilized his Jin, but has not yet set it in motion, you can cause his pull to reflect back on him by making his solid point “more solid.” You do this by pulling slightly against his pull after his Jin is mobilized, but before its force has been actualized. As the opponent follows through and executes the pull, he will pull himself forward out of his root, rather than pulling you to his rear out of your root. This situation represents my best understanding of something Yang Jun showed and described during a seminar and which I touched on in some earlier posts.
I believe that a second instance of this seeming opposition of forces can occur during a push. Yang Jun did not show this at the seminar, but I think I have seen others perform this technique and believe it to be consistent with the first situation. Suppose the opponent has his hands on you and has his weight to his rear in preparation for a push. In order to push you, the rear part of his body must become solid. If he has mobilized his Jin, but has not yet set it in motion, you can reflect his push back against him by making his rear even more “solid.” You do this by sinking, pushing slightly into him, and rooting his force into the ground in front of you. Your action must take place after his Jin is mobilized, but before it actually comes into play. As the opponent tries to push you, his force is reflected backward and he ends up pushing himself backward, largely with his own force.
I mention these two situations, because I think it is possible to incorrectly reinterpret the material you quoted as dealing only with whether or not to attack or defend along the midline of the body or with whether to meet straight lines with curves and vice versa. I think there is an element of mind intent and timing that the simple cases only hint at. I also think people can misinterpret the simple case and believe that one should always avoid whatever parts of the opponent are full and only engage those parts that are empty. I think, for instance, that “zhan” (making the opponent stick) always implies engaging the opponent where he or she is full.
Take care,
Audi
-
Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
Greetings Jeff,
It’s great to see you post again! Thank you for your Wang Yongquan translation. I think that passage demonstrates how consistent taiji theory is with Sunzi, particularly with regard to this notion of xu/shi. Here is a footnote from Ralph Sawyer’s translation of Sunzi’s Art of War on xu/shi:
“The ‘substantial’ and the ‘vacuous’ (or empty) form a correlative pair that is closely identified with Sun-tzu’s thought, although the terms may have predated him. One of his fundamental principles is exploiting voids, weaknesses, fissures, and vacuities. The opposite, the ‘substantial’ (shih)—corresponding roughly to strong, well-organized, disciplined, expertly commanded, entrenched forces—is generally to be avoided rather than attacked with ineffectual and wasteful frontal assaults.”
Sawyer, _The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China_, p. 436, n. 17.
Your Wang Yongquan quote makes reference to avoiding direct confrontation with the opponent’s incoming strength and instead engaging their emptiness in order to set them off obliquely. Interestingly, the Sunzi uses another correlative pair to express the contrast of direct frontal assault with oblique attacks. This pair is qi2/zheng4. The word qi2 can mean “oblique,” “crafty,” “extraordinary,” “surprise,” etc., and these meanings contrast with those of zheng4: “straightforward,” “direct,” “regular,” etc. Here is a bit from Sunzi’s ch. 5 (Shi, ‘strategic advantage’), rendered by D.C. Lau:
“In the circumstances of war, there are no more than the ‘crafty’ [qi] and the ‘straightforward’ [zheng], yet these are capable of inexhaustible change. The ‘crafty’ and the straightforward’ produce each other endlessly like a ring, and who is there that can exhaust the possibilities?”
—D.C. Lau (1965), quoted in Lisa Raphals, _Knowing Words: Wisdom and Cunning in the Classical Traditions of China and Greece_, p. 111.
The military theory of qi/zheng was further developed and elaborated in the writings of the later military strategist, Sun Bin. In fact, ch. 31 of his book is titled, “Qi Zheng” (Straightforward and Surprise Operations). D.C. Lau and Roger T. Ames translated this brilliantly in _Sun Bin: The Art of Warfare_(Ballentine, 1996), which was allowed to go out of print, but I believe a new paperback edition has just come out from SUNY. The opening lines of the “Qi Zheng” chapter are:
“In the pattern of the heavens and the earth: when something has reached its extreme, it then returns; when something has waxed full, it then collapses. This is exemplified by the sun and moon.” (Lau/Ames, p. 253) Here again is this waxing and waning imagery to which I have previously referred that traditionally was used to evoke the behavior of correlative relationships. Further down, Sun Bin states:
“Battle then is simply the making use of one form to prevail over another. All distinguishable forms can be prevailed over. The problem lies in our lack of knowledge of which form will enable one to prevail. The changing calculus of forms which can lead one thing to prevail over another is as inexhaustible as the heavens and earth, which never wear out. Cases of forms which lead one thing to prevail over another could not be fully recorded even if you were to write on all of the bamboo that could be cut from the states of Ch’u and Yueh.” (pp. 253-254)
I can’t imagine a more succinct statement of “the problem” as that made above.
Then Sun Bin gets into a bit of definition of terms:
“To respond to form (hsing) by means of form (hsing) is the straightforward operation. To dominate that which has form (hsing) by means of that which has no form is a surprise [qi2] operation. That the combination of ‘surprise’ [qi] and ‘straightforward’ [zheng] operations produces inexhaustible possibilities is because the troops can be divided up [fen]. . . . If the way the troops are divided up [fen] is fixed [ding4], they have a set form (hsing), if their form (hsing) is fixed, it can be identified. . . [but] two sides using the same form cannot secure victory each over the other. Therefore, the surprise operation [qi] lies in being different. For this reason, being still is a surprise tactic for countering troops on the move [yi jing wei dong qi]. . . .” (p. 254)
Here, we have an enunciation of the inexhausible possibilites confronting a strategist. Note that it is the *combination* of qi and zheng operations that seems to be valued here, not one or the other by itself. What is proscribed is taking action that can be easily identified, and that is predictable. Again, as Sunzi had done earlier, Sun Bin argues against the futility of fixed configurations. I also find fascinating the reference to the use of stillness to manage movement, which is a familiar formulation in taiji theory.
Further in the same chapter, Sun Bin writes:
“Overt deployment of troops is a straightforward operation; deployment before it becomes manifest is a surprise operation. If we mount a surprise operation and the enemy does not respond to it, the victory is ours. An excess of surprise operations, however, will overshoot the mark of victory.” (p. 255)
The last line suggests that qi2 operations are not to be overemphasized; they are not ends in themselves, but means to achieve results. Straightforward operations, after all, can be used to entice and entrap.
Audi,
Your point is well taken regarding overly pat interpretations about avoiding head-on confrontation. I hope that some of the above material from Sun Bin will help contextualize this. I think a strong case can be made that taijiquan does in general advocate the avoidance of force against force, and that it does so for very sophisticated reasons, just as Sunzi and other early military theorists did. However, the taiji adept can use force in very clever and unpredictable ways.
Take care,
Louis
It’s great to see you post again! Thank you for your Wang Yongquan translation. I think that passage demonstrates how consistent taiji theory is with Sunzi, particularly with regard to this notion of xu/shi. Here is a footnote from Ralph Sawyer’s translation of Sunzi’s Art of War on xu/shi:
“The ‘substantial’ and the ‘vacuous’ (or empty) form a correlative pair that is closely identified with Sun-tzu’s thought, although the terms may have predated him. One of his fundamental principles is exploiting voids, weaknesses, fissures, and vacuities. The opposite, the ‘substantial’ (shih)—corresponding roughly to strong, well-organized, disciplined, expertly commanded, entrenched forces—is generally to be avoided rather than attacked with ineffectual and wasteful frontal assaults.”
Sawyer, _The Seven Military Classics of Ancient China_, p. 436, n. 17.
Your Wang Yongquan quote makes reference to avoiding direct confrontation with the opponent’s incoming strength and instead engaging their emptiness in order to set them off obliquely. Interestingly, the Sunzi uses another correlative pair to express the contrast of direct frontal assault with oblique attacks. This pair is qi2/zheng4. The word qi2 can mean “oblique,” “crafty,” “extraordinary,” “surprise,” etc., and these meanings contrast with those of zheng4: “straightforward,” “direct,” “regular,” etc. Here is a bit from Sunzi’s ch. 5 (Shi, ‘strategic advantage’), rendered by D.C. Lau:
“In the circumstances of war, there are no more than the ‘crafty’ [qi] and the ‘straightforward’ [zheng], yet these are capable of inexhaustible change. The ‘crafty’ and the straightforward’ produce each other endlessly like a ring, and who is there that can exhaust the possibilities?”
—D.C. Lau (1965), quoted in Lisa Raphals, _Knowing Words: Wisdom and Cunning in the Classical Traditions of China and Greece_, p. 111.
The military theory of qi/zheng was further developed and elaborated in the writings of the later military strategist, Sun Bin. In fact, ch. 31 of his book is titled, “Qi Zheng” (Straightforward and Surprise Operations). D.C. Lau and Roger T. Ames translated this brilliantly in _Sun Bin: The Art of Warfare_(Ballentine, 1996), which was allowed to go out of print, but I believe a new paperback edition has just come out from SUNY. The opening lines of the “Qi Zheng” chapter are:
“In the pattern of the heavens and the earth: when something has reached its extreme, it then returns; when something has waxed full, it then collapses. This is exemplified by the sun and moon.” (Lau/Ames, p. 253) Here again is this waxing and waning imagery to which I have previously referred that traditionally was used to evoke the behavior of correlative relationships. Further down, Sun Bin states:
“Battle then is simply the making use of one form to prevail over another. All distinguishable forms can be prevailed over. The problem lies in our lack of knowledge of which form will enable one to prevail. The changing calculus of forms which can lead one thing to prevail over another is as inexhaustible as the heavens and earth, which never wear out. Cases of forms which lead one thing to prevail over another could not be fully recorded even if you were to write on all of the bamboo that could be cut from the states of Ch’u and Yueh.” (pp. 253-254)
I can’t imagine a more succinct statement of “the problem” as that made above.
Then Sun Bin gets into a bit of definition of terms:
“To respond to form (hsing) by means of form (hsing) is the straightforward operation. To dominate that which has form (hsing) by means of that which has no form is a surprise [qi2] operation. That the combination of ‘surprise’ [qi] and ‘straightforward’ [zheng] operations produces inexhaustible possibilities is because the troops can be divided up [fen]. . . . If the way the troops are divided up [fen] is fixed [ding4], they have a set form (hsing), if their form (hsing) is fixed, it can be identified. . . [but] two sides using the same form cannot secure victory each over the other. Therefore, the surprise operation [qi] lies in being different. For this reason, being still is a surprise tactic for countering troops on the move [yi jing wei dong qi]. . . .” (p. 254)
Here, we have an enunciation of the inexhausible possibilites confronting a strategist. Note that it is the *combination* of qi and zheng operations that seems to be valued here, not one or the other by itself. What is proscribed is taking action that can be easily identified, and that is predictable. Again, as Sunzi had done earlier, Sun Bin argues against the futility of fixed configurations. I also find fascinating the reference to the use of stillness to manage movement, which is a familiar formulation in taiji theory.
Further in the same chapter, Sun Bin writes:
“Overt deployment of troops is a straightforward operation; deployment before it becomes manifest is a surprise operation. If we mount a surprise operation and the enemy does not respond to it, the victory is ours. An excess of surprise operations, however, will overshoot the mark of victory.” (p. 255)
The last line suggests that qi2 operations are not to be overemphasized; they are not ends in themselves, but means to achieve results. Straightforward operations, after all, can be used to entice and entrap.
Audi,
Your point is well taken regarding overly pat interpretations about avoiding head-on confrontation. I hope that some of the above material from Sun Bin will help contextualize this. I think a strong case can be made that taijiquan does in general advocate the avoidance of force against force, and that it does so for very sophisticated reasons, just as Sunzi and other early military theorists did. However, the taiji adept can use force in very clever and unpredictable ways.
Take care,
Louis
-
psalchemist
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am
Hello All,
Curiosity finds me presently exploring the historical origins of Taijiquan.
At the moment my interest is held by a certain former Ming General by the name of Chen Wang Ting(1600-1680).
Without opening a discourse on the validity of his contributions to Taijiquan,as such(which I understand are undocumented and debatable), I am looking for the answer to a specific question on this Commander's life experience.
From what I have gathered so far... In 1632 Chen Wang Ting joined the 'village reserve militia'. Sometime afterward he went to Kaifeng to take his military examinations. Apparently, misfortune ensued.
What I am seeking to know is...When,what date(approximately) did Chen Wang Ting pursue those exams?
Although I have scoured the web in search of this detail,unfortunately I have found no reference to it.Then again I spend more time in the water than on the board, when it comes to 'surfing the net'.
Thanks in advance,
Psalchemist.
P.S. I have heard that this General was
also refered to by the name 'Zouting'. I was wondering if this was simply a surname or if it held any descriptive connotations.
.
[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 07-28-2003).]
Curiosity finds me presently exploring the historical origins of Taijiquan.
At the moment my interest is held by a certain former Ming General by the name of Chen Wang Ting(1600-1680).
Without opening a discourse on the validity of his contributions to Taijiquan,as such(which I understand are undocumented and debatable), I am looking for the answer to a specific question on this Commander's life experience.
From what I have gathered so far... In 1632 Chen Wang Ting joined the 'village reserve militia'. Sometime afterward he went to Kaifeng to take his military examinations. Apparently, misfortune ensued.
What I am seeking to know is...When,what date(approximately) did Chen Wang Ting pursue those exams?
Although I have scoured the web in search of this detail,unfortunately I have found no reference to it.Then again I spend more time in the water than on the board, when it comes to 'surfing the net'.
Thanks in advance,
Psalchemist.
P.S. I have heard that this General was
also refered to by the name 'Zouting'. I was wondering if this was simply a surname or if it held any descriptive connotations.
.
[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 07-28-2003).]