Yang Family Tai Chi Discussion Board

Posted: **Mon Nov 28, 2011 7:50 pm**

Greetings Jim,

I'm glad to see the discussion continue. I remain curious about the question I asked earlier about whether you experience movement in your foot -- irrespective of whether or not the position of the foot changes -- when moving other parts of your body. The example I provided was the shifting of the center of gravity from the right foot to the left foot in the sequence, Left Brush Knee Twist Step, but if you don't like that one it could be any movement in the form. It could be standing in the beginning posture and turning the waist ever so slightly. Is there movement in the muscles and joints of the foot? I'm asking for an answer based on your own experience, not on theory, or small frame vs. large frame.

Take care,
Louis

Posted: **Tue Nov 29, 2011 6:16 pm**

Hello all,
Maybe I can help a bit here.
I have studied both Wu style Taijiquan and Yang style Taijiquan. I started with Yang, moved to Wu, then back to Yang, now I practice them together because there's no difference.
I have not been a very good student of either style, unfortunately. I do what I can but I'm still just a beginner trying to learn a little about all of this. But learning the two styles separately lead me to some very big misconceptions. The same ones you are all having in this discussion.
Some history:
I had just begun to get a grasp on Yang Large Frame, round Taijiquan when the teacher I was studying with moved away. Most of his students, including myself, then went to study at a Wu style school where we were taught the small frame, square form.
We all had one heck of a time adjusting to the small frame, I can tell you. It was almost nightmarish at first! The changes in body alignment and different uses of the same body parts for the generation of movement and power, as well as the disparity of the words used being mostly the same but seeming to mean something entirely different, seemed to me at that time to indicate that these were two entirely different martial arts.
And I persisted in that belief for quite a long time. The entire time I was training Wu style I honestly believed that there was SO little in common between the Yang style I had learned and the Wu style I was learning that there was no way to reconcile them into one Taijiquan.
But being only a poor student, at best, I let it go and steeped myself into the Wu style, forgetting what I had learned of the Yang style entirely.
When I changed locations there was no one else doing Wu style. There still isn't. I am the only person with any knowledge of Wu style, that I know of, within 350 miles of my location. And believe me, I've checked.
So when I found a Yang style group I decided to go ahead and start re-learning Yang style with them.
When I began learning Yang large frame round form again, I was once again convinced that there was no connection between these two styles. The "differences" were so profound I was absolutely amazed, yet again, that anyone could claim this was the same art.
This went of for nearly ten years. I had the occasional insight that made me say, "Hey! That's sort of the same", but for the most part I was convinced that there was very little in common between the two styles.
And now:
In 2009 I attended the International Tai Chi Symposium in Nashville and had an opportunity to experience a little of all five major styles.
I spent quite a bit of time before the Symposium reacquainting myself with Wu style. I had continued to practice the Wu form, but hadn't really worked on expanding my knowledge of it in all the time I spent learning the Yang family style but I didn't want to embarrass myself in the Wu classes.
So when I walked into Grand Master Ma Hailong's 16 Posture form class, I did so thinking "This will be EASY!".
But I was wrong.
It was very, very hard for me.
Why? Because there it was, the missing link that joined the two styles together for me.
The forms that Ma Hailong and Amy were teaching in that class were a direct compilation of the two styles I had studied, using the principles and movements of both styles combined together. Just enough like each of the other forms to be familiar, enough not alike to throw me off completely.
You would think it would have been easy for me to put them together and bring out the two styles as one. But quite the opposite was true. I found it to be one of the most difficult things I had ever done.
I was very awkward in those classes and didn't start to pick up on working with the two styles as one until much later, after the Symposium.
When I got home and the dust settled in my mind I realized that these two styles were, in fact not just in name, exactly the same art.
At first I fought that, there were so many of what I saw as "differences" between the two that my mind and body were screaming "it can't be". But empirical evidence suggested otherwise.
I began to practice the 16 posture form taught to me by Ma Hailong and Amy at the Symposium every day, as often as I could in fact.
The difference now was that I was working on finding those things that were the same, instead of concentrating on what was different.
I got quite good at doing that form, in fact. I worked on it ad nauseum, working on finding the "link" that I was looking for.
What I learned from that has come in useful indeed, as I feel that I now have reconciled most of what I thought of before as "differences" in between my two styles of Taijiquan.
In fact, I now see them clearly as being identical, no "differences" at all.
What finally brought me full circle,sort of a Taijiquan Rosetta stone for me, was an article in Tai Chi Magazine.
I cannot, for the life of me, remember who wrote the article. It's just not in my head right now.
Anyway, in the article was a very profound statement. It spoke about the different frame sizes of Taijiquan.
As I recall it:
Large circle, use hands and feet.
Medium circle, use knees and elbows.
Small circle, lean.
This made me realize that the "differences" I had thought were so huge were actually just the same principle being applied in a different fashion.

Now when I read threads like this one, I actually find myself laughing. Not at anyone else or what they're saying, at myself for missing this obvious truth for so long.
I see very clearly that you guys are all talking about the exact same things; the same actions, the same principles, but you're forgetting that the art of Taijiquan is exactly the same.
You're all just applying it differently.
And you're all using the same words to mean slightly different things.
You're comparing apples to apples, really, only you think you're comparing apples to oranges.
These things you're all talking about are exactly the same, it's just how you use them that is different.

I know you guys seem to be talking against each other, but from where I'm sitting all I'm seeing is all of you going back and forth, saying the same things to each other over and over again, but not understanding that you're all correctly stating the same things to each other.
It's one art, it all works the same. Reread what you've all said, forget any idea that there's some differences in between what you're doing, and I hope maybe you can start to see this the same way I now do.

Bob

Posted: **Wed Nov 30, 2011 5:26 am**

Louis Swaim wrote:Greetings Jim,

GREETINGS

"I'm glad to see the discussion continue. "

I AM TOO, AND THANK JIM FOR OPENING THIS DISCUSSION (I AM NOT SCREAMING. JUST WANT MY FONT LOOK DIFFERENT THAN THE QUOTE)

"I remain curious about the question "
SO DO I.

"I asked earlier about whether you experience movement in your foot -- irrespective of whether or not the position of the foot changes -- when moving other parts of your body. The example I provided was the shifting of the center of gravity from the right foot to the left foot in the sequence, turning the waist ever so slightly. Is there movement in the muscles and joints of the foot? "

THAT WAS A VERY GOOD 64 CENTS QUESTION.

"I'm asking for an answer based on your own experience, not on theory, or small frame vs. large frame. "

NOW YOU ARE TALKING...JIM HAVE BAGS FULL OF INTELLECTUAL, BUT LOVE TO TAKE A PEEP INTO HIS TAIJI LAB WORK WISDOM....SECRETS PROTECTS ITSELF.

CIAO,
YSLIM

Take care,
Louis

Posted: **Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:46 am**

Greetings one and all,

Jim R

Posted: **Wed Nov 30, 2011 8:56 pm**

Greetings Jim,

Great post! It’s very thought provoking. So it’s good to know that you observe the movement in your feet, and that, together, we have answered the question that you raised in your initial post. However, some of the statements you make here cause me real concern and some of them I frankly don’t understand. So I may have further questions. That’s a good thing, right? Inquiry leads to more inquiry.

You remarked about the slight movements in your foot, “This is what I would call localized nerve activity which leads to gradations of extraneous movement in the supporting leg, for after all do the nerves in the foot not respond as well?”

Isn’t it more than what you call “nerve activity?” There are muscles, joints and tendons moving in the foot, leg and ankle. The foot has many muscles and joints that make it a remarkable adaptive structure that enables equilibrium in a standing human. Moreover, the neural activity is not exclusively a matter of causing movement; it is also feeding information back to the central nervous system that enables the body’s equilibrium as an adaptive response. Being sensitive to this feedback is one of the entailments of tingjin. Yi relies on the constant feedback of the neural system in order to make it adapt to changing circumstances.

Your statement, “The point on which I think we both would agree is that the yin side of the posture needs strength for strong rooting and building power.” is not a point I can agree upon, for I don’t understand what it means. What do you mean by “the yin side of the posture,” and what are the practical implications of this concept. In my view, a posture cannot be arbitrarily divided into a yin side and a yang side. The interplay of yin and yang can be observed in the rotation of an arm, in the palm of a hand, or in a finger – or in a foot. Again, when you say, “in order to achieve internal movements, yin and yang must be paired to form a junction at the right place in the torso,” I have to ask, what does that mean?

You write about “extraneous movements.” I think that’s a useful thing to talk about. In my view, however, extraneous movement is a matter of degree, of control, and of skill. Extraneous movement would be movement that is superfluous, unnecessary, uncontrolled, unskilled. But a case of no movement at all would not be a good thing in a human foot. Without the constant micro-adjustments of the muscles, joints and tendons in the foot and throughout the body, it would not be possible to maintain standing equilibrium. The practice of zhanzhuang helps the practitioner eliminate extraneous movement. But while in post standing we may emulate a post, the human body is not a post. Again, observe what’s going on in your feet while “standing still.” Even while standing still, there are constant micro-adjustments occurring that enable standing equilibrium. If you have a chance, have a look at a discussion thread here from some years back, on “Stillness in Movement,” in which I assert that equilibrium is a process, not a state. I cite some well-established kenesiological findings on standing posture in the human body. Audi makes some excellent observations on something he touched on in this current thread about relative motion.

http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/phpBB3/ ... ?f=7&t=722

The notion of relative motion brings up something I think is important for understanding “movement” and “stillness” in taijiquan theory. Stillness can refer to a locus—or a position—that is still relative to other points of the body. Think, for example, of the axis of a rotating sphere. The axis is a point of stillness around which the sphere spins. The axis, however, is not a “thing” that does not move—it is a locus of stillness. Within the rotating sphere, there is no “matter” that does not move, not even at the axis. It all moves.

There’s another point I would like to make about the aphorism we’re discussing. It’s not an injunction. There’s no “should” or “must” saying that “all parts of the body must move.” It’s more of an observation, and an invitation to pay attention to movement and stillness in the body. The word 刻 (ke) means “to carve,” but reduplicated as it is in this saying (ke ke zai xin), it means “moment by moment.” So it means “bear in mind, moment by moment” that “when one part moves, there is no part that does not move.” It’s an observation of reality.

In your concluding paragraph, you write: “A good example on the importance of stillness (yin) is the sweeping leg move in which one stands on one leg and sweeps the other leg outward to kick the opponents feet from under him. I have demonstrated this move on my students, Hwa has done this moveDuring this move, if the body moves slightly with the sweeping foot, the power of the sweep will diminish. In addition, the knee of the standing foot will feel pain. Since that foot is firmly planted on the ground with the entire body weight on it, any turn of the body above will result in a torque in that knee joint causing pain or injuries. In other words, the yin part of the body's alignment has to be instinctively maintained.”

I must say that this is in fact a good illustration for some of the points that I’m trying to convey. Here again, I think there may be some confusion about what stillness entails. By stillness, I think you are referring here to position, not to absolute stillness of muscles and joints in the supporting leg or in the torso. Again, the muscles of the supporting leg and torso will be making constant micro-adjustments (movement) in order to maintain equilibrium. Try doing the movement you describe at the slowest possible pace, say, like stop-action photography slow. Observe how much movement is occurring in the supporting foot, ankle, leg, and in the torso, “moment by moment.” Let me know your findings.

Take care,
Louis

Posted: **Wed Nov 30, 2011 11:59 pm**

Louis, Audi, Bob, et. al,

Thanks much for taking time to chat with a stranger. Now I take leave and I think it is time for some diplomacy. I must say that you all exemplify what it means to hold a spirited but polite discussion. I hope to visit some time again and ask that you keep an chair open at your table... for I do not find such welcome as yours in many other places.

Best regards,
Jim R

Posted: **Thu Dec 01, 2011 4:47 pm**

Greetings Jim,

I do hope that you feel welcome to join in anytime for polite, spirited discussion of taijiquan!

Take care,
Louis

Posted: **Sat Dec 03, 2011 9:49 am**

Audi wrote:Greeting Jim, yslim, and Louis,

For me what it means is that "integrated movement/stillness" has an implication: the part partakes of the whole and vice versa. If you are trying to move, but one part does not, that means that in one sense the integrated whole does not move. On the other hand, if you are trying to be still, but one part is not still, that means that in one sense the whole and all its integral parts are not still.

Audi

I like the above explanation as the answer to the OP.

As Jim have commented, Movement is Yang and Stillness is Yin, therefore we should looked at it as ''one whole integrated movement''. This understanding can be found in qigong and TCM books and from qigong teachers. Just a quick quote from one book Qte// From the Canon of Internal Medicine - The human body can be divided into 3 pairs of yin and yang, with the navel(from navel to the head) is Yang and below that (from the navel to the feet) is Yin. With the points Baihui(Du 20) and Huiyin (Ren 1) as a vertical demarcation line; the left half of the body is Yang and the right is Yin. The posterior half is Yang and the anterior half is Yin.// Unquote.

This is only part of it and there all many more such pairing in our body system.

And IMO and experience, qigong is an intergal part of taichi. Because of my qigong background, I was able to manifested several ''descriptive'' feeling of the Taichi 13 Postures, two of which in fajin as in '' Direct the qi like threading the 'nine bend pearls' by flowing continuously like tempered steel, it reached everywhere unrestricted.'' And also ''Store up the jin like drawing a bow and dischrge the jin like releasing an arrow.''

This is the 2 of several other method of fajin we are training now. Both are to me different way of expressing ''4 ozs deflecting 1000 lbs ''.

Cheers,
D

Posted: **Sun Dec 11, 2011 8:27 pm**

Greetings all,

Thanks much for taking time to chat with a stranger. Now I take leave and I think it is time for some diplomacy. I must say that you all exemplify what it means to hold a spirited but polite discussion. I hope to visit some time again and ask that you keep an chair open at your table... for I do not find such welcome as yours in many other places.

Jim, thanks very much for your open and considered contribution. A chair will definitely remain open.

I

know you guys seem to be talking against each other, but from where I'm sitting all I'm seeing is all of you going back and forth, saying the same things to each other over and over again, but not understanding that you're all correctly stating the same things to each other.
It's one art, it all works the same. Reread what you've all said, forget any idea that there's some differences in between what you're doing, and I hope maybe you can start to see this the same way I now do.

Bob, it's great that you got so much out of the seminar and have reached a unity in your practice. I am still working on understanding much of what I was exposed to there.

Louis's point is well taken, but once again, in order to achieve internal movements, yin and yang must be paired to form a junction at the right place in the torso.However, such extraneous motions or nerve signals as he describes, along the path of qi, such as “feet”, legs, shoulders, elbows, arms has the same effect of disrupting the flow of qi between the body and the fingers. People who use their hands intensively, dancers,typists, piano players or people who use the legs, feet intensively could have such problems. It is important to keep localized nerve activity dormant and let the qi from the body take over.

A good example on the importance of stillness (yin) is the sweeping leg move in which one stands on one leg and sweeps the other leg outward to kick the opponents feet from under him. I have demonstrated this move on my students, Hwa has done this moveDuring this move, if the body moves slightly with the sweeping foot, the power of the sweep will diminish. In addition, the knee of the standing foot will feel pain. Since that foot is firmly planted on the ground with the entire body weight on it, any turn of the body above will result in a torque in that knee joint causing pain or injuries. In other words, the yin part of the body's alignment has to be instinctively maintained.

Jim, as I read your clarifications and your reference to yin-yang pairs, I wonder if you are referring more to what we would refer to as "Separating/Distinguishing full and empty."

There’s another point I would like to make about the aphorism we’re discussing. It’s not an injunction. There’s no “should” or “must” saying that “all parts of the body must move.” It’s more of an observation, and an invitation to pay attention to movement and stillness in the body. The word 刻 (ke) means “to carve,” but reduplicated as it is in this saying (ke ke zai xin), it means “moment by moment.” So it means “bear in mind, moment by moment” that “when one part moves, there is no part that does not move.” It’s an observation of reality.

Louis, I like this way of putting it, even if I am not completely sure you are correct from a metalinguistic point of view. From what I have been taught and from my practice and study, I would say that from moment to moment we should look for and feel for the flow in our postures and movements, and our whole body, mind, and spirit must contribute to this flow and movement. At the same time, however, we should look for and feel for the stability and stillness in our postures and movements, and our whole body, mind, and spirit must contribute to this stability and stillness. If you issue Jin, considering only movement, it will be excessive and deficient as you lose balance. If you assume a posture considering only stability and stillness, your Jin will be weak and deficient as your Qi stagnates.

This is the 2 of several other method of fajin we are training now. Both are to me different way of expressing ''4 ozs deflecting 1000 lbs ''.

D, I have usually encountered this saying in reference to neutralizing and not in reference to Fajin. Could you elaborate on how you see these methods expressed in this aphorism?

Take care,
Audi

Posted: **Mon Dec 12, 2011 3:06 pm**

Jim R wrote:Greetings everyone,

I am a Wu Style practitioner. I have a question that I hope will lead to some discussion about a statement in Louis Swaim's book: "The Essence and Applications of Yang Style Taijiquan, p. 117. The specific statement is as follows: "Carve this, each moment into your mind/heart; remember closely: when one part moves, there is no part that does not move. When one part is still, there is no part that is not still."

How is this possible in light of the fact that martial movements depend on rooting? There will be a nonmoving part of the body attached to the ground to provide the rooting. It would seem that only an external martial art which pushes off from the ground to generate sustained momentum to attack can qualify as "there is no part that does not move".
Thanks,
Jim R

One thing you might want to consider more deeply is the idea that there is "a nonmoving part of the body attached to the ground to provide the rooting." I do not think that this is the case. In tai chi and in the classics there is a moving root (i.e. river, mountain...). In no way is there more of a physical connection between you and the ground if you try to lock your foot in place. All you have is peng, gravity, and friction. You use the center to redirect the force either into the ground or to move across it. If you are alone, then it is just your body weight and momentum. If you are pushed by another person, then you have to deal with that. But, you don't use local musculature to root, rather you use relaxed peng guided by your center, thus, "when one part moves, there is no part that does not move. When one part is still, there is no part that is not still."
Just my $0.02

Posted: **Tue Dec 13, 2011 11:05 am**

Audi wrote:Greetings all,

This is the 2 of several other method of fajin we are training now. Both are to me different way of expressing ''4 ozs deflecting 1000 lbs ''.
D, I have usually encountered this saying in reference to neutralizing and not in reference to Fajin. Could you elaborate on how you see these methods expressed in this aphorism?

Take care,
Audi

Hi Audi,

It is interesting to note that ''4 oz deflecting 1000lbs'' is reference for neutralizing. It could boils down to how the teachers bring it across to students. Your teachers could have break-down the neutralizing and issueing/fajin separately for a clearer picture. In my taichi sessions, because we are doing internal martial art taichi, we tend to linked the two together as one move. We are taught as a small group(3-6) and often students come in via introduction and knowing what to expect and knowing what the teacher can do, we tend to go with his way of teaching and reference. BTW, we are from CMC, Huang Sheng Shyan linage. I am also doing the Wu Style Internal Taichi in another small group and this group place even less emphasis on neutralizing.

In IMA taichi, we emphasize on attacking skill and neutralizing is part of it. Once we neutralized the next step is issueing/fajin. So we tend to look more at the end stage. So both are correct. In modern day taichi classes, students are asking more questions every step of the way. Some want scienetific explanation how it is done and all that and to continue teaching, the teachers have to give what is asked.

I myself have sorted out some questions which I come across some science write-up.
I would like to share one on fajin with everyone here. In the Taichi principles we ''sink qi to dantian'' to fajin. However, I am also told by my ''teacher'' and also read from writings of some old master who said ''stick qi to spine'' which is the Mingmen. So which is it ? To me or anyone for that matter, when one sink qi to dantian, the qi were naturally stick to spine/Mingmen at the same time. A few weeks ago, I got the answer from some science write-up and can now confidently said it is from BOTH. In the write-up, it explain how the energy goes up from the front and down from the back, which are the mid region of the body where both energy center are located. It is something like a Plasma Energy Ball when activated, sends the energy to all direction in the globe but you can see that Two very prominent strike, one going up and the other up simultaneously with the rest of the other smaller strike. This type of fajin is described as ''direct qi like threading the nine bend pearls, by flowing cont...'' It feel like an electric jolt from touching a live wire. A book by B.K. Frantzis also have similar descriptions. Another description by Prof. Fang Ning is ''Point strike'' where every touch is a strike.

Hope the above is helpful in your training.

Cheers,
D

Posted: **Wed Dec 14, 2011 5:30 pm**

Unitaichi,
I have been taught that attack and defense are two sides of the same coin and can happen at the same time. When this happens it is a demonstration of great skill, but this does not mean you cannot use one without the other.
There will be times when attack/defense will be simultaneous, certainly. But this can only happen when both you and your opponent are in just the right place, at just the right time. There will also be times where they are totally separate things though. This does not mean you are not doing an IMA when you do so, not by any stretch of the imagination.
What of when you are in a non-advantageous position for attack but you must defend against an attack from your opponent? How could you both attack and defend at the same time if it is not advantageous to attack at that time? More importantly, why would you? You would be sending out energy for no apparent purpose and wasting your effort. Possibly even leaving yourself open for a counter attack by doing so.
This is what "sticking, adhering, following" is all about. So you can defend yourself and learn about your opponent while you wait for the opportunity to attack and only attack when the time is right.

Bob

Posted: **Thu Dec 15, 2011 3:53 pm**

Bob Ashmore wrote:Unitaichi,
I have been taught that attack and defense are two sides of the same coin and can happen at the same time. When this happens it is a demonstration of great skill, but this does not mean you cannot use one without the other.
There will be times when attack/defense will be simultaneous, certainly. But this can only happen when both you and your opponent are in just the right place, at just the right time. There will also be times where they are totally separate things though. This does not mean you are not doing an IMA when you do so, not by any stretch of the imagination.
What of when you are in a non-advantageous position for attack but you must defend against an attack from your opponent? How could you both attack and defend at the same time if it is not advantageous to attack at that time? More importantly, why would you? You would be sending out energy for no apparent purpose and wasting your effort. Possibly even leaving yourself open for a counter attack by doing so.
This is what "sticking, adhering, following" is all about. So you can defend yourself and learn about your opponent while you wait for the opportunity to attack and only attack when the time is right.

Bob

Hi Bob,
My reply is to elaborate on Audi specific request on how I express the ephorism of ''4oz delfecting 1000lb'' through Fajin. Just to recap, it boils down to individual teacher emphasis and his teachers could have broken it down to two seperate move for a clearer picture. Whereas our emphasis is we linked both up as one move as we advance our technique. And I did said that both are correct. I did not said ''one cannot use one without the other''

The IMA reference is to differentiate between the various type of Taichi (TC) and their different emphasis which is dependent on which type of taichi one is practising eg; TC for health, for Self-defence, Combat TC with and without Internal and all others in-between and over-lapping. And I agreed with you that if the type of TC you are doing is along the line of IMA/Combat then any ''emphasis'' is considered IMA.

For the other Jin like ''sticking, adhering, following'' , we learned these as well each on its own and linked other Jin as we advanced in our training.

My view on defence(neutralizing) and attack(issue/fajin) is more like the Yin(neutralizing) and Yang(issue/fajin) on the Taichi Diagram. Two(Yin/Yang) seperate but in One(Taichi). - Perhaps this sums up best the way we express the method in fajin on the enphorism.

Cheers,
UniTaichi

Posted: **Fri Dec 16, 2011 5:18 am**

UniTaichi wrote:
Audi wrote:Greetings all,

This is the 2 of several other method of fajin we are training now. Both are to me different way of expressing ''4 ozs deflecting 1000 lbs ''.
D, I have usually encountered this saying in reference to neutralizing and not in reference to Fajin. Could you elaborate on how you see these methods expressed in this aphorism?

Take care,
Audi

Hi Audi,

"It is interesting to note that ''4 oz deflecting 1000lbs'' is reference for neutralizing. It could boils down to how the teachers bring it across to students. Your teachers could have break-down the neutralizing and issueing/fajin separately for a clearer picture."

HI D
( I'M NOT SCREAMING JUST LOVE THOSE 'LARGE PRINT'. AND I CAN'T DO LIKE WHAT AUDI CAN DO WITH HIS SEPARATING THE QUOTE AND REPLY IN TYPING)

I AM WITH AUDI IN THIS ONE. I TOO WOULD LIKE YOU TO SHOW US WHAT AND HOW YOUR TEACHER BREAK-DOWN THE 'NEUTRALIZING AND THE ISSUING/FAJIN SEPARATELY FOR A CLEARER PICTURE'. I'M SORRY FOR BEING SUCH A TAIJI IDIOT, YOU HAVE GIVING SO MUCH TIME AND WRITING WHICH I READ, BUT I HAVE NOT ANY FEELING IN MY BONE TO CONNECTING THIS DOTED LINE --- THE 'NEUTRALIZING AND FAJIN' THING OF YOUR TO YOUR '4 OZ DEFLECTING 1000 LBS' .YOU MENTIONED THE 'BOW AND THE ARROW' THING IN YOUR FAJIN WHICH I CAN UNDERSTAND . BUT THERE SEEN TO BE WAS A BIG PIECE OF PROCESS THAT GO BETWEEN THE NEUTRALIZING BEFORE THE FAJIN. OTHERWISE YOUR FAJIN IS NOT A "TAIJI FAJIN" BECAUSE YOU OMITTING THE TAIJI PRINCIPLE, WHAT HAPPEN WHEN YOU CAN'T "FIND" YOUR OPPONENT AS YOUR FAJIN WAS ISSUED, YET HE STILL STAND ? I'M HAVING A 'SENIOR MOMENT' RIGHT NOW BUT HOPING YOU HAVE A LONG PENCIL WITH YOUR NOTEBOOK. AND ENLIGHTEN US.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH.
yslim

Posted: **Fri Dec 16, 2011 8:36 pm**

Uni,
I misunderstood your post. I do that from time to time. My apologies.

About "separating" concepts for students:
I tell my students, "I have to break this down for you into separate, individual parts at this time. Eventually you will do all of this at the same time."
It's my mantra, because I was constantly confused when my teachers taught me to do things in a discordant manner but the literature all spoke of doing things as coordinated movements. My teachers were traditional Chinese when I first began to learn and there was not only a cultural gap, there was a language gap as well. So I didn't get too much in the way of explanation of their method, just "do it this way". And I did, fortunately, and worked through the confusion until I gained understanding, but it was difficult at times.
I have found that as long as I explain to my students that there is a difference between the "beginner breakdown" that I have them do while they learn and what they will actually be doing once they have put it all together, I can relieve that confusion for them.

Yang Family Tai Chi Discussion Board

"When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."

Re: "When one part moves..."