Greetings.
I have been reading Waysun Liao's translation of the "Tai Chi Classics", published by Shambhala. I purchased the book because of the explanations and examples of chi, jing, li, and the translations of the classic treatises. What I found most interesting about this book was the history and philosophy of Tai Chi discussed in the first chapter. As with Louis Swaim’s two books, I am really enjoying the translator’s notes and contributions as much as the subject material translated.
Ok, to the point of the post: I am interested in reading more about Tai Chi history, it's roots in Taoism, and gaining more insight as to how the verses from the Tao Te Ching manifest themselves physically through the study of Tai Chi.
I realize that a culture’s history cannot be understood simply from a few pages from one person’s point of view; so, does anyone have any recommendations on further readings about these subjects?
For anyone who has read this particular book, what are your opinions of it?
(Note: my Chinese linguistic skills are almost non-existent…so, I am looking for suggested readings that have been translated to English.)
Thank you for your time.
Respectfully,
Wu
Tai Chi history
Well, as far as the theoretical basis for T'ai Chi, in my opinion a good palce to start would be:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-confucianism
The Neo-Confucians synthesized (consciously or not) many strands of Taoist, Buddhist and Confucian thought into a coherent structure that eventually became Imperial orthodoxy. While it is a source of controversy for some, myself and many others believe that the origins of T'ai Chi Ch'uan lie in the research associated with the time in Chinese history (10th-13th centuries A.D.) that the Neo-Confucian school was flourishing.
Regards,
P.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neo-confucianism
The Neo-Confucians synthesized (consciously or not) many strands of Taoist, Buddhist and Confucian thought into a coherent structure that eventually became Imperial orthodoxy. While it is a source of controversy for some, myself and many others believe that the origins of T'ai Chi Ch'uan lie in the research associated with the time in Chinese history (10th-13th centuries A.D.) that the Neo-Confucian school was flourishing.
Regards,
P.
-
JerryKarin
- Posts: 1067
- Joined: Wed Jan 24, 2001 7:01 am
- Contact:
-
Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
Greetings Jerry,
Re: ‘While it is true that taiji, like everything else in modern Chinese culture, grew up with Neo-Confucianism as a backdrop, I suspect if you really knew how pompous and silly most of it is you wouldn't want to be associated with it.’
That’s a pretty big “it.” Whoever wrote the Taijiquan Treatise seemed to have no problem associating himself with some fairly explicit use of Neo-Confucian language and concepts.
Was there something in particular you had in mind?
Or were you thinking about some other neo-cons?
Take care,
Louis
Re: ‘While it is true that taiji, like everything else in modern Chinese culture, grew up with Neo-Confucianism as a backdrop, I suspect if you really knew how pompous and silly most of it is you wouldn't want to be associated with it.’
That’s a pretty big “it.” Whoever wrote the Taijiquan Treatise seemed to have no problem associating himself with some fairly explicit use of Neo-Confucian language and concepts.
Was there something in particular you had in mind?
Or were you thinking about some other neo-cons?
Take care,
Louis
I agree that like any other idea that ends up becoming state orthodoxy, Neo-Confucianism ended up becoming an instrument for political and social control instead of self-cultivation. It is their original non-sectarian conception of "The three teachings are not separate schools, But all speak of the one Great Ultimate (T'ai Chi)," found in chapter 38 of the 40 chapters Wu Ch'uan-yu inherited from Yang Pan-hou, that I find illuminating for our purposes.
The teachings of Lao-tzu, Buddha and Jesus have all been used historically for the opposite purposes for which they were intended. It is unfortunate that any philosophy can be abused by people for their own ends if they want to do so.
The teachings of Lao-tzu, Buddha and Jesus have all been used historically for the opposite purposes for which they were intended. It is unfortunate that any philosophy can be abused by people for their own ends if they want to do so.
Greetings Jerry and Wu and everyone else,
Jerry,
I think I can guess at the source of your comments about Neo-Confucianism. It brought a smile to my lips. I must confess, however, that when I first read about Zhu Xi, I was quite pleasantly surprised by what he had to say and found his cosmology surprisingly engaging.
Most of what I know about Confucianism I learned through reading De Bary's Sources of Chinese Tradition. This was the first work I had encountered that presented any aspect of Confucianism in a sympathetic light.
I found the section on Neo-Confucianism and Zhu Xi's thought a delightful surprise and a good complement to things I had only encountered in Daoist writings before. Despite having grave reservations about many traditional views espoused by traditional Confucianism, I generally have a positive view of Zhu Xi and share Louis' curiosity about what exactly puts you off in Neo-Confucianism. It seems to me that there were a whole lot of ancient philosophers who espoused stuff that strikes the modern ear as quite "pompous" and "silly" and would not rush to put Zhu Xi in the forefront of this bunch.
Wu,
I believe I recall reading Waysun Liao's book with profit, but cannot find my copy at the moment to confirm this.
A book that I would recomend to get a quick flavor of a wide variety of Taiji-related philosophy is The Dao of Taijiquan: Way to Rejuvenation by Tsung Hwa Jou. You can go to that link to amazon.com and read some of the reviews to get a flavor for what the book might have to offer you.
I would caution, however, that survey books that try to approach Taijiquan as a whole, rather than address discreet issues or the teachings of particular masters, tend to share an inevitable weakness. There are many aspects of practice about which practitioners differ. Trying to describe Taijiquan as having consistent positions on all issues forces authors to take personal positions on many questions, often without the opportunity to make readers aware that their positions are by no means universally accepted or may not even be near the "center of gravity" of the greater Taiji community. If you assimulate too many categoric statements of principle early on in your study, this can complicate later practice if you run into teachers with differing positions. It can also complicate your ability to interact with fellow practitioners who may have valuable insights, but espouse ideas you had assumed were not permissible or somehow inherently faulty. If you take what you read with a grain of salt, however, and keep an open mind, you can avoid these potential pitfalls.
As far as the Taoist/Daoist nature of Taijiquan is concerned, there are a few things you may want to note that are alluded to by some previous posts. First, much casual writing on things Chinese does not accurately define what is precisely Daoist in Chinese culture and what is not. Many early Chinese cultural works and concepts were actually adopted by many schools of Chinese thought and are part of a general Chinese cultural heritage. A work like the I Ching/Yi Jing is a good example.
Sun-tzu's/Sunzi's Art of War is another work that probably underlies some of the martial theory in Taijiquan. It has concepts that resonate with many Daoist and Confucian theories, but arguably stands outside of both traditions. Even the term "Tao"/"Dao" is something that is used in both Daoism and Confucianism, with somewhat different meaning and with rather different emphasis in each.
Among intellectuals, many schools of thought were fiercely opposed to each other and persecuted each other where possible. Among ordinary people, a more eclectic attitude was generally the norm than what probably has been usual in the West. In my view, the Taiji classics generally exhibit this eclectic attitude and attempt to appeal to notions that would have been part of everyone's daily cultural heritage, rather than part of any particular sectarian beliefs about Daoism, Confucianism, or even Buddhism. Polaris's post echoes this view in my opinion.
A rough analogy with American realities would be trying to disentangle what is the precise origin of American democratic institutions in "Judeo-Christian values," explicit biblical precedent, pre-Christian Roman governmental institutions, ancient Athenian ideas, pre-Christian German tribal law, and even the Iroquois League. All of these things arguably show up somewhere, but implying sole credit or even predominant credit to anyone of them probably overstates the historical case. In reality, American democracy grew out of the general cultural environment, which had many influences.
The Neo-Confucianism that Polaris also refers to was founded in cosmic theories that have close affinities with Daoist cosmology; as a result, much of what Taijiquan has to say about Yin and Yang and about movement and stillness can be comfortably approached from either perspective. In reality, though, the Taiji theories probably draw on both traditions separately. For example, I would say that most of the ideas about softness and hardness come from the Tao Te Ching/Daodejing, but much of the talk about Wuji and Taiji comes from the Confucian Chou Tun-Yi/Zhou Dunyi. To complicate matters further, Zhou Dunyi's views were apparently later adopted by many Daoists, further muddling what philosophy is truly behind what.
Below is a good link that discusses some of these issues and that delves into some of the philosophy by quoting from original sources. The short essay by Zhou Dunyi in the middle of the link, entitled "Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Polarity," should really be required reading for anyone who wants to get serious about Taiji philosophy. This is probably even a principal source of the name of the art itself. I would also recommend a look at some of the footnotes if you want to get a really deep appreciation of some of the philosophical and historical niceties.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/F ... 1/CHOU.htm.
It is also worthy of note that the Taiji Classics have references to certain Confucian moral imperatives and pithy sayings that almost certainly have nothing to do with Daoism. I think an example is "abandoning self and following the other." Questions of person-to-person ethics have typically been much more a preoccupation in Confucian thought than in Daoist thought. The latter tends to be concerned with relating the individual to his or her environment, nature, and the Dao itself more than to other individuals per se. These things tend to be lesser or non-existent concerns in most Confucian thought, except to the degree that they relate back to person-to-person ethics.
Another thing you may want to know is that asserting that Taijiquan is explicitly a Daoist practice is commonly done in the secondary Taiji literature; however, it is often associated with a widely reported theory about the origin of Taijiquan that is controversial to many and somewhat offensive to parts of the Taiji community. You are welcome to believe and assert what you like, but realize that attributing the creation of Taijiquan exclusively to Daoism and Daoists can be interpreted by some as denying the validity of their teaching lineage or marginalizing the relevance of their practice to the rest of the Taiji community.
I should rush to say that I personally find nothing offensive in your post, even though some of your phrasing begins to tiptoe around potential controversy. In your shoes, however, I would want to be made aware of the potential problem. I should also say that I personally find that most discussion of controversies like the one I refer to fall in the category of things where people tend to speak too quickly and too categorically based on too little real evidence.
The most scholarly-appearing treatments of the origins of Taijiquan tend to raise quite complex and perplexing historical questions, but reserve ultimate judgment about what actually happened and why. I think that most practitioners should similarly reserve judgment about such things and content themselves with following the insights of whomever they perceive to be the fountainhead of their particular teaching lineage, whether such person is ancient or modern. There is no reason to believe that anyone has ever had a monopoly on good ideas and that one shoe has to fit everyone the same. I think that practitioners should make sure to identify the characteristics of the particular shoe they want to wear, but should not begrudge that other people make different choices.
Good luck in your search and with your practice,
Audi
Jerry,
I think I can guess at the source of your comments about Neo-Confucianism. It brought a smile to my lips. I must confess, however, that when I first read about Zhu Xi, I was quite pleasantly surprised by what he had to say and found his cosmology surprisingly engaging.
Most of what I know about Confucianism I learned through reading De Bary's Sources of Chinese Tradition. This was the first work I had encountered that presented any aspect of Confucianism in a sympathetic light.
I found the section on Neo-Confucianism and Zhu Xi's thought a delightful surprise and a good complement to things I had only encountered in Daoist writings before. Despite having grave reservations about many traditional views espoused by traditional Confucianism, I generally have a positive view of Zhu Xi and share Louis' curiosity about what exactly puts you off in Neo-Confucianism. It seems to me that there were a whole lot of ancient philosophers who espoused stuff that strikes the modern ear as quite "pompous" and "silly" and would not rush to put Zhu Xi in the forefront of this bunch.
Wu,
I believe I recall reading Waysun Liao's book with profit, but cannot find my copy at the moment to confirm this.
A book that I would recomend to get a quick flavor of a wide variety of Taiji-related philosophy is The Dao of Taijiquan: Way to Rejuvenation by Tsung Hwa Jou. You can go to that link to amazon.com and read some of the reviews to get a flavor for what the book might have to offer you.
I would caution, however, that survey books that try to approach Taijiquan as a whole, rather than address discreet issues or the teachings of particular masters, tend to share an inevitable weakness. There are many aspects of practice about which practitioners differ. Trying to describe Taijiquan as having consistent positions on all issues forces authors to take personal positions on many questions, often without the opportunity to make readers aware that their positions are by no means universally accepted or may not even be near the "center of gravity" of the greater Taiji community. If you assimulate too many categoric statements of principle early on in your study, this can complicate later practice if you run into teachers with differing positions. It can also complicate your ability to interact with fellow practitioners who may have valuable insights, but espouse ideas you had assumed were not permissible or somehow inherently faulty. If you take what you read with a grain of salt, however, and keep an open mind, you can avoid these potential pitfalls.
As far as the Taoist/Daoist nature of Taijiquan is concerned, there are a few things you may want to note that are alluded to by some previous posts. First, much casual writing on things Chinese does not accurately define what is precisely Daoist in Chinese culture and what is not. Many early Chinese cultural works and concepts were actually adopted by many schools of Chinese thought and are part of a general Chinese cultural heritage. A work like the I Ching/Yi Jing is a good example.
Sun-tzu's/Sunzi's Art of War is another work that probably underlies some of the martial theory in Taijiquan. It has concepts that resonate with many Daoist and Confucian theories, but arguably stands outside of both traditions. Even the term "Tao"/"Dao" is something that is used in both Daoism and Confucianism, with somewhat different meaning and with rather different emphasis in each.
Among intellectuals, many schools of thought were fiercely opposed to each other and persecuted each other where possible. Among ordinary people, a more eclectic attitude was generally the norm than what probably has been usual in the West. In my view, the Taiji classics generally exhibit this eclectic attitude and attempt to appeal to notions that would have been part of everyone's daily cultural heritage, rather than part of any particular sectarian beliefs about Daoism, Confucianism, or even Buddhism. Polaris's post echoes this view in my opinion.
A rough analogy with American realities would be trying to disentangle what is the precise origin of American democratic institutions in "Judeo-Christian values," explicit biblical precedent, pre-Christian Roman governmental institutions, ancient Athenian ideas, pre-Christian German tribal law, and even the Iroquois League. All of these things arguably show up somewhere, but implying sole credit or even predominant credit to anyone of them probably overstates the historical case. In reality, American democracy grew out of the general cultural environment, which had many influences.
The Neo-Confucianism that Polaris also refers to was founded in cosmic theories that have close affinities with Daoist cosmology; as a result, much of what Taijiquan has to say about Yin and Yang and about movement and stillness can be comfortably approached from either perspective. In reality, though, the Taiji theories probably draw on both traditions separately. For example, I would say that most of the ideas about softness and hardness come from the Tao Te Ching/Daodejing, but much of the talk about Wuji and Taiji comes from the Confucian Chou Tun-Yi/Zhou Dunyi. To complicate matters further, Zhou Dunyi's views were apparently later adopted by many Daoists, further muddling what philosophy is truly behind what.
Below is a good link that discusses some of these issues and that delves into some of the philosophy by quoting from original sources. The short essay by Zhou Dunyi in the middle of the link, entitled "Explanation of the Diagram of the Supreme Polarity," should really be required reading for anyone who wants to get serious about Taiji philosophy. This is probably even a principal source of the name of the art itself. I would also recommend a look at some of the footnotes if you want to get a really deep appreciation of some of the philosophical and historical niceties.
http://www2.kenyon.edu/Depts/Religion/F ... 1/CHOU.htm.
It is also worthy of note that the Taiji Classics have references to certain Confucian moral imperatives and pithy sayings that almost certainly have nothing to do with Daoism. I think an example is "abandoning self and following the other." Questions of person-to-person ethics have typically been much more a preoccupation in Confucian thought than in Daoist thought. The latter tends to be concerned with relating the individual to his or her environment, nature, and the Dao itself more than to other individuals per se. These things tend to be lesser or non-existent concerns in most Confucian thought, except to the degree that they relate back to person-to-person ethics.
Another thing you may want to know is that asserting that Taijiquan is explicitly a Daoist practice is commonly done in the secondary Taiji literature; however, it is often associated with a widely reported theory about the origin of Taijiquan that is controversial to many and somewhat offensive to parts of the Taiji community. You are welcome to believe and assert what you like, but realize that attributing the creation of Taijiquan exclusively to Daoism and Daoists can be interpreted by some as denying the validity of their teaching lineage or marginalizing the relevance of their practice to the rest of the Taiji community.
I should rush to say that I personally find nothing offensive in your post, even though some of your phrasing begins to tiptoe around potential controversy. In your shoes, however, I would want to be made aware of the potential problem. I should also say that I personally find that most discussion of controversies like the one I refer to fall in the category of things where people tend to speak too quickly and too categorically based on too little real evidence.
The most scholarly-appearing treatments of the origins of Taijiquan tend to raise quite complex and perplexing historical questions, but reserve ultimate judgment about what actually happened and why. I think that most practitioners should similarly reserve judgment about such things and content themselves with following the insights of whomever they perceive to be the fountainhead of their particular teaching lineage, whether such person is ancient or modern. There is no reason to believe that anyone has ever had a monopoly on good ideas and that one shoe has to fit everyone the same. I think that practitioners should make sure to identify the characteristics of the particular shoe they want to wear, but should not begrudge that other people make different choices.
Good luck in your search and with your practice,
Audi
"The most scholarly-appearing treatments of the origins of Taijiquan tend to raise quite complex and perplexing historical questions"
Indeed! That is the one consistent thread I've noticed about scholarly histories of T'ai Chi. Before Yang Lu-ch'an is in Beijing there is no relibale documentation. As Wile points out, the earliest texts known may actually only have been written in the 20th century! They may certainly be copies of much earlier works, but the received manuscripts themselves, physically, can only be assigned a relatively late date.
So, I tell my students who ask that none of the scholars are in a position to prove anything beyond this, and the weight of the oral traditions associated with the T'ai Chi families is at least as great as the "academic" theories that smugly assert that Chang San-feng never existed, etc. There is no "proof" Chang San-feng existed, there is no "proof" Ch'en-Wang-ting in his turn did or didn't invent T'ai Chi Ch'uan. There is no "proof" Yang Lu-ch'an (or Wu Yu-hsiang) did or didn't coin the actual term "T'ai Chi Ch'uan."
We are left with what our teachers give us. I also tell my students: "Since they seem to be strictly correct about every other aspect of T'ai Chi they have seen fit to teach me, why shouldn't I believe their history of their own family?"
Indeed! That is the one consistent thread I've noticed about scholarly histories of T'ai Chi. Before Yang Lu-ch'an is in Beijing there is no relibale documentation. As Wile points out, the earliest texts known may actually only have been written in the 20th century! They may certainly be copies of much earlier works, but the received manuscripts themselves, physically, can only be assigned a relatively late date.
So, I tell my students who ask that none of the scholars are in a position to prove anything beyond this, and the weight of the oral traditions associated with the T'ai Chi families is at least as great as the "academic" theories that smugly assert that Chang San-feng never existed, etc. There is no "proof" Chang San-feng existed, there is no "proof" Ch'en-Wang-ting in his turn did or didn't invent T'ai Chi Ch'uan. There is no "proof" Yang Lu-ch'an (or Wu Yu-hsiang) did or didn't coin the actual term "T'ai Chi Ch'uan."
We are left with what our teachers give us. I also tell my students: "Since they seem to be strictly correct about every other aspect of T'ai Chi they have seen fit to teach me, why shouldn't I believe their history of their own family?"
-
Wu Chang-Chi
- Posts: 16
- Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:01 am
Re: Tai Chi history
May be here are some more information you will enjoy
About the Written Tradition of Taijiquan
http://taichi-philosophy.blogspot.de/20 ... iquan.html
Martin
About the Written Tradition of Taijiquan
http://taichi-philosophy.blogspot.de/20 ... iquan.html
Martin
Re: Tai Chi history
Hi Audi and All,It is also worthy of note that the Taiji Classics have references to certain Confucian moral imperatives and pithy sayings that almost certainly have nothing to do with Daoism. I think an example is "abandoning self and following the other." Questions of person-to-person ethics have typically been much more a preoccupation in Confucian thought than in Daoist thought. The latter tends to be concerned with relating the individual to his or her environment, nature, and the Dao itself more than to other individuals per se. These things tend to be lesser or non-existent concerns in most Confucian thought, except to the degree that they relate back to person-to-person ethics.
I have a very simplistic view of Taichi history and their influence and that is Taiji is a Daoist concept. Period. All those so call influences are only '' an expression in words '' of the Daoist Taiji Concept'
Since quite a nbr of people here agreed that the writers of the various TJQ books are influenced by Confucian ,Sunzi, Neo-Confucian and even Buddhist, than am I correct to say that because of your knowledge of those system stated that you and other draw their conclusion from. Pls correct me if I am wrong. My definition of ''influence'' is as stated above. What are your definaition ?
So for a little experiment, you or anybody wished to take part, pls do ; Take the approach that you have not heard of the others accept only on Daoist and the Yijing or Daodejing. Would you then be able to connect '' abandoning self and following the others'' to Daoist teaching ?
Another interesting one is from Martin blog on
Thus, in the Classics Confucian influence is significantly visible. But what about Buddhism? That Buddhism was not entirely without influence on the development of Taijiquan can been seen e.g. in a name of the Chen-Style Taijiquan form: "Buddha's warrior pounds mortar".
Would perhaps Martin can connect this with Daoist Taiji concept.
Awaiting your feedback and comments.
Cheers,
UniTaichi
Re: Tai Chi history
Hi, UniTaichi
As far as I know, from the Chinese literature, Confucian ,Sunzi, Neo-Confucian and even Buddhist had never mentioned that they were connected to Tai Ji Quan.
As far as I know, from the Chinese literature, Confucian ,Sunzi, Neo-Confucian and even Buddhist had never mentioned that they were connected to Tai Ji Quan.
Yes! According to my study and understanding, TJQ was developed by following the yin/yang concept of Yijing. I believe that the Daodejing was, also, written based on the fundamental principals of Yijing.Take the approach that you have not heard of the others accept only on Daoist and the Yijing or Daodejing. Would you then be able to connect '' abandoning self and following the others'' to Daoist teaching ?
A deep discussion requires explicit details for a good comprehension of a complex subject.
Re: Tai Chi history
Hi UniTaichi,
I am aware that some Chinese Tai Chi teachers stress Daoism or Traditional Chinese Medicine; however, Master Yang says explicitly that his art is based on multiple aspects of Chinese culture and is not exclusively Daoist, Confucian, or anything else. I have heard him quote from concepts in Daoism, Confucian thought, and Sunzi's writing. I also recall explicit references to Chinese medical theory. I have attended two symposia involving the traditions of five or six styles. The only people who seemed to give pride of place to Daoism were non-Chinese members of the audience.
I am not trying to rundown Daoism or a Daoist approach to Tai Chi, but do want to state clearly that someone looking only for the Daoist bits of Tai Chi may miss a lot of what others teach.
Much of traditional Chinese thought has overlapping concepts, but there are differences. Both Daoists and Confucians revered and lay claim to the Yijing and the Taijitu, but there are distinct differences in their approaches, including on the significance of the Taiji.
Let me talk about one of the core Tai Chi classics, the Taijiquan Tratise, by making a number of references to Barbara Davis's The Taijiquan Classics: An Annotated Translation, Including Commentary by Chen Weiming. On page 103, she talks about the Taijiquan Treatise, which says:
Zhou Dunyi was a Neo-Confucian, and this writing was a foundational document for Neo-Confucians.
Taiji Treatise:
I hope this clarifies how I understand a few of the philosophical underpinnings of Tai Chi.
Take care,
Audi
I should clarify that I am not trying to take a position about the origins of Tai Chi or about whether or not it is possible to study Tai Chi from a Daoist perspective. I am trying to say that for our Tai Chi one is not compelled to take a Daoist perspective and that recognizing multiple perspectives will likely be more fruitful.I have a very simplistic view of Taichi history and their influence and that is Taiji is a Daoist concept. Period. All those so call influences are only '' an expression in words '' of the Daoist Taiji Concept'
Since quite a nbr of people here agreed that the writers of the various TJQ books are influenced by Confucian ,Sunzi, Neo-Confucian and even Buddhist, than am I correct to say that because of your knowledge of those system stated that you and other draw their conclusion from. Pls correct me if I am wrong. My definition of ''influence'' is as stated above. What are your definaition ?
So for a little experiment, you or anybody wished to take part, pls do ; Take the approach that you have not heard of the others accept only on Daoist and the Yijing or Daodejing. Would you then be able to connect '' abandoning self and following the others'' to Daoist teaching ?
I am aware that some Chinese Tai Chi teachers stress Daoism or Traditional Chinese Medicine; however, Master Yang says explicitly that his art is based on multiple aspects of Chinese culture and is not exclusively Daoist, Confucian, or anything else. I have heard him quote from concepts in Daoism, Confucian thought, and Sunzi's writing. I also recall explicit references to Chinese medical theory. I have attended two symposia involving the traditions of five or six styles. The only people who seemed to give pride of place to Daoism were non-Chinese members of the audience.
I am not trying to rundown Daoism or a Daoist approach to Tai Chi, but do want to state clearly that someone looking only for the Daoist bits of Tai Chi may miss a lot of what others teach.
Much of traditional Chinese thought has overlapping concepts, but there are differences. Both Daoists and Confucians revered and lay claim to the Yijing and the Taijitu, but there are distinct differences in their approaches, including on the significance of the Taiji.
Let me talk about one of the core Tai Chi classics, the Taijiquan Tratise, by making a number of references to Barbara Davis's The Taijiquan Classics: An Annotated Translation, Including Commentary by Chen Weiming. On page 103, she talks about the Taijiquan Treatise, which says:
Barbara Davis:Taiji is born from wuji;it is the mother of yin and yang. If it moves, it divides; if it is at rest, it unites.
.Notes: Taiji is born from Wuji. These introductory sentences parallel the opening of the Taiji tushuo (Diagrammatic Explanation of Taiji) by Zhou Dunyi (1017-1073
Zhou Dunyi was a Neo-Confucian, and this writing was a foundational document for Neo-Confucians.
Taiji Treatise:
Barbara Davis:Not overpassing (wuguo), not falling short (buji). Let bend (qu), then extend (Shen).
Taiji Treatise:This line quotes Neo-Confucian philosopher Zhou Xi's commentary to the Doctrine of the Mean (c. 340 B.C.E.). Adhering to the zhong, the Mean, or the Middle Way, is one of the earliest and most pervasive themes of Chinese philosophy, and is discussed thoroughly in the Doctrine of the Mean.
Barbara Davis:[My] opponent is hard (gang), I am soft (rou); this is called "yielding" (zou).
I go along with shun, [my] opponent goes against (bei); this is called "sticking" (nian).
Taiji Treatise:Notes: My opponent is hard, I am soft. Hard and soft are the classic examples of yin and yang, as exemplified in the Yijing. Hard and soft can also be translated as "unyielding and yielding," "strong and weak," or "firm and pliant." . The Great Commentary (Dazhuan, or Xici zhuan) of the yijing points out that all phenomena of the universe are based upon the interplay between the hard and soft (i.e., yin and yang). Rou can be translated as "yielding." I have translated it as "soft" in part to keep it distinct from the specific technique of "yielding" (zou or hua) discussed below. The focus on softness and yielding is one of the reasons that taijiquan is linked in many people's minds with Laozi's Daodejing, which exalts softness over hardness.
Davis:Through understanding jin one can reach divine-like clarity (shenming).
However, one cannot just suddenly understand it thoroughly without applying effort for a long time.
Taiji Treatise:Notes:
* * * [I have omitted some text here because I have a strong disagreement with Davis's translation of 着熟]
gradually comprehend. The term for gradual comprehension or enlightenment, jianwu, has a special meaning within the Buddhist tradition, referring to the kind of enlightenment that comes in stages.
* * *
However, one cannot just suddenly. This line of the text quotes the philosopher Zhou Xi, in his commentary on the Great Learning, Chapter Five: "After exerting himself in this way for a long time, he will suddenly find himself possessed of a wide and far-reaching penetration."
Davis:A feather cannot be added, a fly cannot alight.
My opponent does not know me, I alone know him.
A great hero faces no enemy. In a word it comes to this.
Treatise:Notes: My opponent does not know me. Knowing the enemy is of crucial concern in any battle, whether mental or physical. This line refers to Sunzi's The Art of War:....
Davis:In desiring to avoid this fault, one must know yin and yang.
To stick (nian) is to yield (Zhou), to yield is to stick;
yin does not separate from yang; yang does not separate from yin;
yin and yang complete each other.
Only then has one understood jin.
Treatise:Notes: To stick is to yield. This line parallels both paradox and grammar of a well-known phrase from the Buddhist Diamond Sutra: "Matter is precisely Emptiness, Emptiness is precisely Matter."
Davis:...or what is called "being off by a hair's breadth is to miss by a thousand li." Those who study must do it in detail.
This type of liberal quoting from multiple traditions is exactly what scholars would expect from the time period when the Tai Chi classics were written. Neo-Confucian though was the official belief of the state and the examination system; however, educated people would be thoroughly familiar with the classics of Daoist and Buddhist thought, as well as the Art of War and the basics of traditional medical theory. Strict sectarianism was no longer prevalent among the masses or scholars outside explicitly religious contexts or legislation.Notes: "being off by a hair's breadth." This is a quote from the Book of Rites, a Confucian-era book on ritual.
I hope this clarifies how I understand a few of the philosophical underpinnings of Tai Chi.
Take care,
Audi
Re: Tai Chi history
Hi Audi,
I only saw your post yesterday and was typing a reply but it disappeared when I submit.
Guess was using too much time and got auto lockout. Coming back, I am perfectly aware that you or anyone else is not taking any position and fully agreed that using other perspective can enhance any skill , including TJQ. Pls note that I was not talking about any particular school and certainly not yours. It's a general view that quite a few people bring in other school of thoughts into TJQ. Last, I don't think anyone is running down daoism or the approach to it. I am not a Daoist. I am a Free Thinker. That done with, now back to topic.
On TCM. TCM is also an original Daoist practice, so linking it to TJQ is only right and natural.
To just clarify my understanding : Original Taijiquan is a concept based on Pure Daoism Practice.
To be contiuned ...... (submit before time out again)
Cheers,
UniTaichi
I only saw your post yesterday and was typing a reply but it disappeared when I submit.
Guess was using too much time and got auto lockout. Coming back, I am perfectly aware that you or anyone else is not taking any position and fully agreed that using other perspective can enhance any skill , including TJQ. Pls note that I was not talking about any particular school and certainly not yours. It's a general view that quite a few people bring in other school of thoughts into TJQ. Last, I don't think anyone is running down daoism or the approach to it. I am not a Daoist. I am a Free Thinker. That done with, now back to topic.I am in agreement with what you written here, in my previous post and now. What I was trying to express was, the Original Taijiquan when it was founded by Zhang San Fung or even earlier, is from Pure Daoist Concept. Like what we agreed above statement, TJQ is being explained through multiple perspective and influence nowadays. My idea of influence might be different which is why I asked for your definition. Mine definition is that these ''influence'' is only based on written expression which the writers of TJQ QuanPu (books) saw similarities of expression in other school. Egs given by you in the B.Davis and the Treatise.his type of liberal quoting from multiple traditions is exactly what scholars would expect from the time period when the Tai Chi classics were written. Neo-Confucian though was the official belief of the state and the examination system; however, educated people would be thoroughly familiar with the classics of Daoist and Buddhist thought, as well as the Art of War and the basics of traditional medical theory. Strict sectarianism was no longer prevalent among the masses or scholars outside explicitly religious contexts or legislation.
My take is that more non-Chinese give pride to Daoism is exactly the respective logic given by you and me. The Chinese (your view) have knowledge of various school and are following the ''trend'' of multiple perspective. The non-Chinese(my view) , most of which have no or only a general idea of the other school, more or less, and therefore gives more emphasize the role and concept to Daoism.I have attended two symposia involving the traditions of five or six styles. The only people who seemed to give pride of place to Daoism were non-Chinese members of the audience.
On TCM. TCM is also an original Daoist practice, so linking it to TJQ is only right and natural.
To just clarify my understanding : Original Taijiquan is a concept based on Pure Daoism Practice.
To be contiuned ...... (submit before time out again)
Cheers,
UniTaichi
Re: Tai Chi history
Hi Audi, All,
To continue....
V.31 : Center of Dao is Harmony.
V.45 : Dao allows things to happen. She shapes event as they come.
V.50 : Dao gives himself up to whatever the moment brings. He doesn't think about his action (Mindless)
V.51 : Guiding without interfering.
V.56 : Be like the Dao. It gives itself up continually.
V.57 : Follow the Dao and stop trying to control.
V.66 : If you want to lead the people, you must learn how to follow them.
BDavis quote Zhou Dunyi which is Neo-Confucian a school which combines the Dao and confucian school, so its no surprises if she see the link.
V.45 : True fullness seems empty. True straightness seems crooked.
V.69 : There is no greater misfortune than underestimating your enemy.
V.78: Nothing in the world is as soft and yielding as water. Yet for dissolving the hard and inflexible, nothing can surpass it. ( If destroy/dissolved by its constant contact, Nian, and at the same time yielding An eg. as water flows down the river, it met a piece of rock, it flow round it, yielding but same time dissolving it slowly as the water flow round it endlessly.) Pls note :Word in bracket are mine.
Submit now before timeout.
cheers,
UniTaichi
To continue....
Since the post to date no one have taken the little experiment, so I will give some examples and will start with below;So for a little experiment, you or anybody wished to take part, pls do ; Take the approach that you have not heard of the others accept only on Daoist and the Yijing or Daodejing. Would you then be able to connect '' abandoning self and following the others'' to Daoist teaching ?
In the phrase, I see that it actually encompasses the essence of Dao, which is Harmony. Below are the reference from DaoDeJing verses. (pls note that it is not the whole verse)'' abandoning self and following the others''
V.31 : Center of Dao is Harmony.
V.45 : Dao allows things to happen. She shapes event as they come.
V.50 : Dao gives himself up to whatever the moment brings. He doesn't think about his action (Mindless)
V.51 : Guiding without interfering.
V.56 : Be like the Dao. It gives itself up continually.
V.57 : Follow the Dao and stop trying to control.
V.66 : If you want to lead the people, you must learn how to follow them.
V.42 : Dao give birth to one, one to two, two to three, three to All things.Taiji is born from wuji;it is the mother of yin and yang. If it moves, it divides; if it is at rest, it unites.
BDavis quote Zhou Dunyi which is Neo-Confucian a school which combines the Dao and confucian school, so its no surprises if she see the link.
V.22 : If you want to become straight , let yourself be crooked.Not overpassing (wuguo), not falling short (buji). Let bend (qu), then extend (Shen).
V.45 : True fullness seems empty. True straightness seems crooked.
V.33 : Knowing others is intelligence, knowing yourself is true wisdom.A feather cannot be added, a fly cannot alight.
My opponent does not know me, I alone know him.
A great hero faces no enemy. In a word it comes to this.
V.69 : There is no greater misfortune than underestimating your enemy.
V.42 : When male and female combine, all things achieve Harmony. (Oneness)In desiring to avoid this fault, one must know yin and yang.
To stick (nian) is to yield (Zhou), to yield is to stick;
yin does not separate from yang; yang does not separate from yin;
yin and yang complete each other.
Only then has one understood jin.
V.78: Nothing in the world is as soft and yielding as water. Yet for dissolving the hard and inflexible, nothing can surpass it. ( If destroy/dissolved by its constant contact, Nian, and at the same time yielding An eg. as water flows down the river, it met a piece of rock, it flow round it, yielding but same time dissolving it slowly as the water flow round it endlessly.) Pls note :Word in bracket are mine.
Submit now before timeout.
cheers,
UniTaichi