)) Good luck in your practice
Serious Push-Hands Question
-
Yury Snisarenko
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:01 am
Yuri,
It does take practice to see the internal energies without the external getting in the way. It's worth taking the time, though.
I believe you're going to find that this new way of getting training is pretty much worldwide.
If there is someplace out there that you can still bow before your proposed Master and have him accept you as a servant in exchange for your daily training, where you don't have to work to support yourself and pay your Master money...
I don't know where it is.
Why is this bad? I have no idea.
However, it has to go both ways. If someone is taking money from you instead of service for training, then they will not last long or make much money if they withhold any real training simply because people are paying them and not bowing down and washing their socks.
Do you see this?
Unfortunately some Masters haven't quite grasped this idea yet. Once you start taking money, that whole "personal loyalty" thing kind of goes out the airlock. The old vaunted standard of "be my servant, I will teach you the true meaning" is no longer valid.
You will no longer have "servants", loyal to you body and soul and in return you give them the true transmission, instead you will have "paying students", who will pay you cash and in return you teach them.
In my not so personal or humble opinion, if you don't teach them the entire transmission of which you are aware, you are a scam artist.
Whether or not they can then pick it up, is up to them. But I feel it is incumbent upon you to show them the way. If they can find it, then all is good, if not then it is their failure, at least at that time, and not your ommission.
When Masters began to take money instead of service, the rules had to change. The old days of giving only the most loyal and long lasting servants your secrets is kind of out the airlock, and you are now into "must train to the best of my ability, because I'm now a professional, paid teacher".
It's been slow, but I'm starting to see it happening more and more.
No disparagement, again. It's just that I have seen a lot of the "old school" mentality and it kind of surprises me. The entire premise of the training has evolved beyond that, it's time for it to go the way of all things that used to be good, but now are not.
Enough of that soapbox!
I have practice to get to.
Regards.
It does take practice to see the internal energies without the external getting in the way. It's worth taking the time, though.
I believe you're going to find that this new way of getting training is pretty much worldwide.
If there is someplace out there that you can still bow before your proposed Master and have him accept you as a servant in exchange for your daily training, where you don't have to work to support yourself and pay your Master money...
I don't know where it is.
Why is this bad? I have no idea.
However, it has to go both ways. If someone is taking money from you instead of service for training, then they will not last long or make much money if they withhold any real training simply because people are paying them and not bowing down and washing their socks.
Do you see this?
Unfortunately some Masters haven't quite grasped this idea yet. Once you start taking money, that whole "personal loyalty" thing kind of goes out the airlock. The old vaunted standard of "be my servant, I will teach you the true meaning" is no longer valid.
You will no longer have "servants", loyal to you body and soul and in return you give them the true transmission, instead you will have "paying students", who will pay you cash and in return you teach them.
In my not so personal or humble opinion, if you don't teach them the entire transmission of which you are aware, you are a scam artist.
Whether or not they can then pick it up, is up to them. But I feel it is incumbent upon you to show them the way. If they can find it, then all is good, if not then it is their failure, at least at that time, and not your ommission.
When Masters began to take money instead of service, the rules had to change. The old days of giving only the most loyal and long lasting servants your secrets is kind of out the airlock, and you are now into "must train to the best of my ability, because I'm now a professional, paid teacher".
It's been slow, but I'm starting to see it happening more and more.
No disparagement, again. It's just that I have seen a lot of the "old school" mentality and it kind of surprises me. The entire premise of the training has evolved beyond that, it's time for it to go the way of all things that used to be good, but now are not.
Enough of that soapbox!
I have practice to get to.
Regards.
-
psalchemist
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am
Greetings All,
It certainly has been active on the board lately...And there is indeed, much material to contemplate and comment on, question and address...Summer is waning...
... I will try to address the many points of interest to me, which have arisen, however I may not be successfull in my endeavors to do so.
Thanks to all for sharing some great knowledge and experience.
Greetings Louis,
I am so glad you made mention of the "TO~FRO" aspect in Tai chi...It is a great new discovery for me!
I now see a strong initiation beginning from Hai Di Chen(needle at sea bottom)...and once I noted the To~Fro of it, I then noted how it carries on expressly throughout several movements of the form...Excellent!
79hai3 di3 zhen1 Needle at Sea Bottom
80shan4 tong1 bei4 Fan Through Back
81zhuan3 shen1 bai2 she2 tu4 xin4 Turn Body White Snake Spits tongue
The awareness of this action seems to add alot of impetus, momentum, power to the movements, it is very strongly felt, accented at this point in the form...Perhaps this is what gives Spits tongue its special impetus..
.Does anyone know if this particular aspect of action is mentioned in the Classic texts anywhere?
Does anyone know if this is a quality which permeates the complete form?
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
I am finding the discovery and study(observing and practicing) of these Big Picture qualities of T'ai Chi a fascinating journey. It is all a study in Yin~Yang theory (as everyone here knows)...
Circles...
Balancing of :
"Curved and straight",
"To and fro",
"Soft and hard",
"Push and pull",
"Empty and full",
"Upper and lower",
"Inner and outer",,,
I would be pleased at any additions to my list..
Thank You,
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 08-06-2004).]
It certainly has been active on the board lately...And there is indeed, much material to contemplate and comment on, question and address...Summer is waning...
... I will try to address the many points of interest to me, which have arisen, however I may not be successfull in my endeavors to do so.Thanks to all for sharing some great knowledge and experience.
Greetings Louis,
I am so glad you made mention of the "TO~FRO" aspect in Tai chi...It is a great new discovery for me!
I now see a strong initiation beginning from Hai Di Chen(needle at sea bottom)...and once I noted the To~Fro of it, I then noted how it carries on expressly throughout several movements of the form...Excellent!
79hai3 di3 zhen1 Needle at Sea Bottom
80shan4 tong1 bei4 Fan Through Back
81zhuan3 shen1 bai2 she2 tu4 xin4 Turn Body White Snake Spits tongue
The awareness of this action seems to add alot of impetus, momentum, power to the movements, it is very strongly felt, accented at this point in the form...Perhaps this is what gives Spits tongue its special impetus..
.Does anyone know if this particular aspect of action is mentioned in the Classic texts anywhere?
Does anyone know if this is a quality which permeates the complete form?
Thanks for bringing this to my attention.
I am finding the discovery and study(observing and practicing) of these Big Picture qualities of T'ai Chi a fascinating journey. It is all a study in Yin~Yang theory (as everyone here knows)...
Circles...
Balancing of :
"Curved and straight",
"To and fro",
"Soft and hard",
"Push and pull",
"Empty and full",
"Upper and lower",
"Inner and outer",,,
I would be pleased at any additions to my list..
Thank You,
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 08-06-2004).]
Hi Psalchemist,
I would suggest expanding your list with “stillness and movement,” “opening and closing,” and “fast and slow.” “Big and small” and “near and far” might also be appropriate; but for the moment, I cannot recall any classical support for these dynamic oppositions. They just seem relevant to how we in fact practice.
Take care,
Audi
I would suggest expanding your list with “stillness and movement,” “opening and closing,” and “fast and slow.” “Big and small” and “near and far” might also be appropriate; but for the moment, I cannot recall any classical support for these dynamic oppositions. They just seem relevant to how we in fact practice.
Take care,
Audi
Greeting to all,
Mr. Brit, you asked:
To make the application work, I do not try to maximize the intensity or reach of my forward power (i.e., Jin). I do not want my partner to feel a striking energy he would feel a need to absorb or deflect. If he feels this, he will naturally be led into adjusting his “mind-body” communication (i.e., “Yi”) in a way that will defeat what I am attempting. I need a particular kind of muscular cooperation from him in order to have him push away from me. I also want most of the energy to come from him, not from me.
I would focus through my partner's shoulder blades toward infinity only if I were more indifferent to the state of his muscular activity, such as when I am considering only the impact site of a strike. For this application, I think I need to be more interested in how my partner feels about the state of his body than in the pure physics of the force vectors. Both are important, but the former seems to be a prerequisite to bringing the latter into play in the way I want.
In imagining an opponent holding my wrists, I assume that his purpose is to prevent me from escaping and pulling away. This implies that the “Yi” of my opponent is biased towards pulling my arms toward him and preventing me from withdrawing my hands. As you perform the initial rotation, I think that you are testing the waters to verify this and lock the opponent into this mindset. You are giving the feel of strengthening the grip. You then follow the opponent’s intent by giving him more than what he wants or can temporarily deal with. You follow his “withdrawing” intent by moving your arms forward and up. As the opponent is caught off guard and tries to reassert the same relative body positions, he will try to extend his arms back to the same place. The true situation (i.e., the “Shi”) will, however, have changed. The angles are now different and your “intent” is different. As the opponent extends, he will tend to push himself off and release his grip.
To verify all of this, or rather to “Listen” for it, I think that you must feel for the state of your opponent’s upper back, almost as if you are trying to complete a circuit of energy. If your opponent’s arms are “solid/full,” I think you feel for where the change to “emptiness” begins, as you focus in towards your opponent’s “center.” If your perception stops at the opponent’s elbows and they are “empty,” you cannot feel his center and must do something else, such as “reeling” in his emptiness by lowering your arms or simply challenging his gripping intent. (How can he hold you with an “empty” grip?).
If the opponent’s wrist and elbows are “solid” and your perceptions can reach to the center of his back, you can sound out whether this area is “empty” or “solid.” (I just realized the neat connection between the English term “sound out” and “Listening” energy.) If the area between the opponent’s shoulder blades is “empty,” you will feel his positioning become increasingly awkward as you raise your arms and “eat up” this emptiness. You can rely on the principle that this emptiness must soon change to solidity, but at a moment that will now be advantageous to you. You can await his response.
If his arms and upper back are both “solid,” I think his legs must then necessarily be empty, and you can attack his root through lowering your arms and pivoting. You will then be challenging this area of emptiness to adapt.
In all of this, I am presuming that you are using good body structure and principled movement; however, my understanding is that you are not just aligning with force vectors or physical principles, but also “dancing” with the opponent’s “mind intent.” Your opponent’s “mind intent” guides how you deploy your structure from moment to moment, rather than what might otherwise be optimal physics. You try to go along with your opponent’s “intent” to a point where he has difficulty circulating Jin and cannot adapt to your changes. At that point, your combined energy should produce a “catastrophic” failure in your opponent’s “deployment” and expose a vulnerability. The failure or the vulnerability may be slight, depending on what the opponent does; however, one failure can lead to another and yet another, until the opponent manages to bring his mind intent back in synch with reality. In the meantime, I think you can accomplish a lot.
Polaris,
. Methinks it soundeth more harmonious to mine ear than "bleated," "blurted," or "droned on." My thanks for classing up my act. On a more serious note,
Quoth Polaris:
Michael, you asked:
My shortcut way of describing the motion and sensation is to talk about “banana arms” up and then “banana arms” down. In other words, what can look like a straightforward rise and fall of straight arms seems in fact to be a rising energy curve followed by a falling one, like whipping an almost taught rope up and then down. Within the apparent straight line movement is actually an alternating curve, although our anatomy makes the physical expression of this imperfect. For my application, I actually see the “energy” peak of the curve as being at the wrist on the way up and at the elbows on the way down, rather than staying in the middle of the arms. In any case, this is really just a matter of feel.
You also stated:
The details of the arm movements I originally learned were distinctly different from what the Yangs’ teach. We were taught to have the hands hang down from the wrists on the way up in order to accentuate the striking point at the back of the wrists. We also had more bend in the elbows to account for the close distance between you and the opponent. There was also a forward-up-and-back movement of the hands that led the hands in front of your shoulders.
If breaking a front choke hold were the application the Yangs had in mind, I had difficulty understanding why one would take care to extend the fingers forward as the hands were raised. It seemed as if the fingers would bump into the opponent’s body and risk being jammed.
I also had difficulty understanding how lowering my arms could help relieve the choke hold after an unsuccessful strike. With my original form details, it seemed that one could have some leverage to press the opponent’s arms down if the hands were brought closer in and then folded over the opponent’s arms. Keeping the arms extended would seem to weaken the available leverage and leave the opponent’s forearms and hands free to cause damage.
I was delighted when shown my new application, because it seemed to follow much more closely the details of the Yangs form and how I might want to send energy through my arms and why I might want to extend my fingers. If one has managed to send the opponent away, but not to break the grip, it also seemed to justify why there was a reason to move the arms up and down and not circle the wrists up and in toward the body.
I have also come to wonder whether or not the Yangs form is more control-oriented and connected than the form and applications I originally learned. My original form seemed designed with lots of quick disabling strikes and discontinuous “in-and-out” scenarios; for instance, Lifting Hands was explained almost as a slap aimed at breaking the opponent’s arm. Sustained contact was not really contemplated.
Most of the applications I have since learned seem much more likely to incorporate some type of sticking along with the strikes or throws. They also seem much more tightly linked in their details to what comes before and after in the form. For instance, the Brush Knee and Twist Step that follows White Crane is what I think of as a classic means of breaking a forward choke. That application involves an immediate control move, rather than a straightforward strike. The exchange and circulation of energy between you and the opponent seems clearer to me than in a straightforward wrist strike to the back of the opponent’s arms.
Michael, Yuri, and Wushuer,
You all make very good points about pivoting. This issue seems to be both quite simple and quite complex. In any case, I think your comments show that puzzling over what method is universally best is probably not the right question to examine.
For the application I have described, I think it works best to shift weight to the left first, since it seems to improve the angle of attack. Also, if one is trying to spin the opponent out to the right, one should presumably want first to go left, according to the classics. “To go right, first go left.” On the other hand, if one is primarily interested in stepping forward with the left foot to meet an attack, one would presumably want first to shift weight to the right in order to accord best with the classics. “To go left, first go right.” As Wushuer mentions, different intent requires different execution.
I also think there can be significant long term training issues involved with how one performs pivots. One of the things that seem to mark Taijiquan off from most other martial arts is that long-term training principles play a significant role in how we practice forms. Slow, continuous movement is perhaps an obvious example. If one focuses on form only as a “rehearsal” of combat techniques, I think that other issues can be overlooked.
In the case of pivots, I think that some form designers have created or modified some of the performance details not simply to improve the efficiency of combat applications, but also with particular training goals in mind: for example, strengthening joints, easing the strain on joints, focusing on effortless movement, focusing on powerful movement, reinforcing the importance and possibilities of weight shifts, focusing on speed, focusing on joint expansion, focusing on joint contraction, minimizing tension in the ankle, emphasizing floor clearance, standardization to prioritize training focus, increasing variety to improve adaptability, training balance, etc. I think that one can legitimately focus on some goals at the expense of others and that it is not possible to optimize the form to achieve everything at once. Examining pivots only from the point of view of combat efficiency can overlook these other training goals.
Another consideration is training surface and footwear, as well as what possible surfaces and footwear one wants to train for. Training that is optimized for sneakers on wood will not be optimized for bare feet on concrete, and vice versa. At least to my mind, emphasizing different goals and different training surfaces will drive different choices about how to perform and teach the form.
Take care,
Audi
[This message has been edited by Audi (edited 08-06-2004).]
Mr. Brit, you asked:
I guess my short answer is: "Yes." I direct my attention between my partner’s shoulder blades. I am certainly no expert in this stuff, but here are my best speculations.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> So would you focus your Yi actually into that area - i.e. between his shoulder blades - or would you project through it and out the back, if that makes any sense? </font>
To make the application work, I do not try to maximize the intensity or reach of my forward power (i.e., Jin). I do not want my partner to feel a striking energy he would feel a need to absorb or deflect. If he feels this, he will naturally be led into adjusting his “mind-body” communication (i.e., “Yi”) in a way that will defeat what I am attempting. I need a particular kind of muscular cooperation from him in order to have him push away from me. I also want most of the energy to come from him, not from me.
I would focus through my partner's shoulder blades toward infinity only if I were more indifferent to the state of his muscular activity, such as when I am considering only the impact site of a strike. For this application, I think I need to be more interested in how my partner feels about the state of his body than in the pure physics of the force vectors. Both are important, but the former seems to be a prerequisite to bringing the latter into play in the way I want.
In imagining an opponent holding my wrists, I assume that his purpose is to prevent me from escaping and pulling away. This implies that the “Yi” of my opponent is biased towards pulling my arms toward him and preventing me from withdrawing my hands. As you perform the initial rotation, I think that you are testing the waters to verify this and lock the opponent into this mindset. You are giving the feel of strengthening the grip. You then follow the opponent’s intent by giving him more than what he wants or can temporarily deal with. You follow his “withdrawing” intent by moving your arms forward and up. As the opponent is caught off guard and tries to reassert the same relative body positions, he will try to extend his arms back to the same place. The true situation (i.e., the “Shi”) will, however, have changed. The angles are now different and your “intent” is different. As the opponent extends, he will tend to push himself off and release his grip.
To verify all of this, or rather to “Listen” for it, I think that you must feel for the state of your opponent’s upper back, almost as if you are trying to complete a circuit of energy. If your opponent’s arms are “solid/full,” I think you feel for where the change to “emptiness” begins, as you focus in towards your opponent’s “center.” If your perception stops at the opponent’s elbows and they are “empty,” you cannot feel his center and must do something else, such as “reeling” in his emptiness by lowering your arms or simply challenging his gripping intent. (How can he hold you with an “empty” grip?).
If the opponent’s wrist and elbows are “solid” and your perceptions can reach to the center of his back, you can sound out whether this area is “empty” or “solid.” (I just realized the neat connection between the English term “sound out” and “Listening” energy.) If the area between the opponent’s shoulder blades is “empty,” you will feel his positioning become increasingly awkward as you raise your arms and “eat up” this emptiness. You can rely on the principle that this emptiness must soon change to solidity, but at a moment that will now be advantageous to you. You can await his response.
If his arms and upper back are both “solid,” I think his legs must then necessarily be empty, and you can attack his root through lowering your arms and pivoting. You will then be challenging this area of emptiness to adapt.
In all of this, I am presuming that you are using good body structure and principled movement; however, my understanding is that you are not just aligning with force vectors or physical principles, but also “dancing” with the opponent’s “mind intent.” Your opponent’s “mind intent” guides how you deploy your structure from moment to moment, rather than what might otherwise be optimal physics. You try to go along with your opponent’s “intent” to a point where he has difficulty circulating Jin and cannot adapt to your changes. At that point, your combined energy should produce a “catastrophic” failure in your opponent’s “deployment” and expose a vulnerability. The failure or the vulnerability may be slight, depending on what the opponent does; however, one failure can lead to another and yet another, until the opponent manages to bring his mind intent back in synch with reality. In the meantime, I think you can accomplish a lot.
Polaris,
Wow! Nice touch. I don’t think I have ever been “quothed” before<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Quoth Audi: </font>
. Methinks it soundeth more harmonious to mine ear than "bleated," "blurted," or "droned on." My thanks for classing up my act. On a more serious note,Quoth Polaris:
I had always understood “An” to refer to pressing techniques, usually with the palms. What makes a “wrist strike” an instance of “An”? Are you referring to an upward wrist strike to the bottom of the opponent’s arms, such as what Michael describes?<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Which gets me back to the lean forward in the modern Wu family's commencement posture. It is done to easily coordinate the entire body's weight behind the p'eng (or an, if it is to be a wrist strike) application which is implied in the motion </font>
Michael, you asked:
The last hand form seminar I attended was in February, for the 49-Posture Form. I do not recall any mention of taking “tension out of the shoulders,” but this seems an accurate description of what seems to take place. As far as the elbows, wrists, and fingers go, I recall more or less what you describe.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Does Yang Jun still teach in the "commencement form" that when you lower the arms that you first take out the remaing tension/uplift of the shoulders, folowed by a small bending of the elbows, followed by a sinking of the wrists, with the fingers following behind?</font>
My shortcut way of describing the motion and sensation is to talk about “banana arms” up and then “banana arms” down. In other words, what can look like a straightforward rise and fall of straight arms seems in fact to be a rising energy curve followed by a falling one, like whipping an almost taught rope up and then down. Within the apparent straight line movement is actually an alternating curve, although our anatomy makes the physical expression of this imperfect. For my application, I actually see the “energy” peak of the curve as being at the wrist on the way up and at the elbows on the way down, rather than staying in the middle of the arms. In any case, this is really just a matter of feel.
You also stated:
This is the first application I learned when I originally learned Tai Chi. It is also the main reason I began to wonder about how the Yangs teach this posture.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> On the arms lifting. If an opponent has you by the neck or shirt, the rising arms--or "end of the arms" makes perfect contact with a nerve running on the back of the opponets arm. Striking this numbs them. I leanred this in a Hopkido seminar years and years ago. Makes perfect sense for the opening movement. Lowering the arms if the one fails seeks to break that same hold. YZJs sinking make sense in this regard.</font>
The details of the arm movements I originally learned were distinctly different from what the Yangs’ teach. We were taught to have the hands hang down from the wrists on the way up in order to accentuate the striking point at the back of the wrists. We also had more bend in the elbows to account for the close distance between you and the opponent. There was also a forward-up-and-back movement of the hands that led the hands in front of your shoulders.
If breaking a front choke hold were the application the Yangs had in mind, I had difficulty understanding why one would take care to extend the fingers forward as the hands were raised. It seemed as if the fingers would bump into the opponent’s body and risk being jammed.
I also had difficulty understanding how lowering my arms could help relieve the choke hold after an unsuccessful strike. With my original form details, it seemed that one could have some leverage to press the opponent’s arms down if the hands were brought closer in and then folded over the opponent’s arms. Keeping the arms extended would seem to weaken the available leverage and leave the opponent’s forearms and hands free to cause damage.
I was delighted when shown my new application, because it seemed to follow much more closely the details of the Yangs form and how I might want to send energy through my arms and why I might want to extend my fingers. If one has managed to send the opponent away, but not to break the grip, it also seemed to justify why there was a reason to move the arms up and down and not circle the wrists up and in toward the body.
I have also come to wonder whether or not the Yangs form is more control-oriented and connected than the form and applications I originally learned. My original form seemed designed with lots of quick disabling strikes and discontinuous “in-and-out” scenarios; for instance, Lifting Hands was explained almost as a slap aimed at breaking the opponent’s arm. Sustained contact was not really contemplated.
Most of the applications I have since learned seem much more likely to incorporate some type of sticking along with the strikes or throws. They also seem much more tightly linked in their details to what comes before and after in the form. For instance, the Brush Knee and Twist Step that follows White Crane is what I think of as a classic means of breaking a forward choke. That application involves an immediate control move, rather than a straightforward strike. The exchange and circulation of energy between you and the opponent seems clearer to me than in a straightforward wrist strike to the back of the opponent’s arms.
Michael, Yuri, and Wushuer,
You all make very good points about pivoting. This issue seems to be both quite simple and quite complex. In any case, I think your comments show that puzzling over what method is universally best is probably not the right question to examine.
For the application I have described, I think it works best to shift weight to the left first, since it seems to improve the angle of attack. Also, if one is trying to spin the opponent out to the right, one should presumably want first to go left, according to the classics. “To go right, first go left.” On the other hand, if one is primarily interested in stepping forward with the left foot to meet an attack, one would presumably want first to shift weight to the right in order to accord best with the classics. “To go left, first go right.” As Wushuer mentions, different intent requires different execution.
I also think there can be significant long term training issues involved with how one performs pivots. One of the things that seem to mark Taijiquan off from most other martial arts is that long-term training principles play a significant role in how we practice forms. Slow, continuous movement is perhaps an obvious example. If one focuses on form only as a “rehearsal” of combat techniques, I think that other issues can be overlooked.
In the case of pivots, I think that some form designers have created or modified some of the performance details not simply to improve the efficiency of combat applications, but also with particular training goals in mind: for example, strengthening joints, easing the strain on joints, focusing on effortless movement, focusing on powerful movement, reinforcing the importance and possibilities of weight shifts, focusing on speed, focusing on joint expansion, focusing on joint contraction, minimizing tension in the ankle, emphasizing floor clearance, standardization to prioritize training focus, increasing variety to improve adaptability, training balance, etc. I think that one can legitimately focus on some goals at the expense of others and that it is not possible to optimize the form to achieve everything at once. Examining pivots only from the point of view of combat efficiency can overlook these other training goals.
Another consideration is training surface and footwear, as well as what possible surfaces and footwear one wants to train for. Training that is optimized for sneakers on wood will not be optimized for bare feet on concrete, and vice versa. At least to my mind, emphasizing different goals and different training surfaces will drive different choices about how to perform and teach the form.
Take care,
Audi
[This message has been edited by Audi (edited 08-06-2004).]
Greetings Audi,
In my school, the generic usage of "an" refers to any strike with the hand, be it a fist, palm, wrist or fingertip. Our "classic an" strike is one where we tilt the opponent slightly by lifting with the fingertips and then cutting their centre with a palm shot, as in our usage of "Brush Knee" or the palm in "Single Whip," as just two examples.
There are different ways to express the "an" strike, such as "fa" (distance, no impact, which resembles a push) or "ta" (da, impact, no distance, used especially to change an opponent's psychological charge with a sudden, violent strike to a tender area), but we generally use the word "an" for most striking or pushing applications with the hand and wrist. Ts'ai (cai) also uses the hand in a downward direction, while our lieh (lie) especially uses the thumb and inside of the wrist. So the "eight gates" are also sometimes equated with a specific part of the arm: p'eng uses the top of the forearm, lu the bottom and outside side (in a backwards direction), chi the outside (forward, also using the wrist very often for leverage), an the "hand end" of the forearm, ts'ai the bottom of the forearm, the palm or fingertips in a downward "pluck" or "pick." Lieh uses the thumb, the brawn of the thumb or the inside edge of the forearm to twist or spiral an opponent off of their feet. Tsou is the elbow and k'ao the upper arm, shoulder and back. This is only a rough guideline for training purposes, however, because in practise one can perform some remarkable "mixed metaphors" with the power generations, IME.
AND, I should say that this is the usage of just one school. It wouldn't surprise me at all that they mean different things to different teachers.
Cheers,
P.
In my school, the generic usage of "an" refers to any strike with the hand, be it a fist, palm, wrist or fingertip. Our "classic an" strike is one where we tilt the opponent slightly by lifting with the fingertips and then cutting their centre with a palm shot, as in our usage of "Brush Knee" or the palm in "Single Whip," as just two examples.
There are different ways to express the "an" strike, such as "fa" (distance, no impact, which resembles a push) or "ta" (da, impact, no distance, used especially to change an opponent's psychological charge with a sudden, violent strike to a tender area), but we generally use the word "an" for most striking or pushing applications with the hand and wrist. Ts'ai (cai) also uses the hand in a downward direction, while our lieh (lie) especially uses the thumb and inside of the wrist. So the "eight gates" are also sometimes equated with a specific part of the arm: p'eng uses the top of the forearm, lu the bottom and outside side (in a backwards direction), chi the outside (forward, also using the wrist very often for leverage), an the "hand end" of the forearm, ts'ai the bottom of the forearm, the palm or fingertips in a downward "pluck" or "pick." Lieh uses the thumb, the brawn of the thumb or the inside edge of the forearm to twist or spiral an opponent off of their feet. Tsou is the elbow and k'ao the upper arm, shoulder and back. This is only a rough guideline for training purposes, however, because in practise one can perform some remarkable "mixed metaphors" with the power generations, IME.
AND, I should say that this is the usage of just one school. It wouldn't surprise me at all that they mean different things to different teachers.
Cheers,
P.
Audi,
I would agree with your assesmant of the pivots. I think it is both, and there are numerous reasons for training both, technique wise and for training.
On the raisng of the arms. I would agree with what you say about the extended fingers allowing, or making it easier to bring energy out. I also think this is easier for beginners to accomplish this. This "may" one of the reasons. Just a guess. I was also taught that if the hold was not broken, the extended fingers were used for brushing the opponents eyes.
I would be very interested in the other techniques you mention, not just for possible "new" techiques but in terms of principles and "energy".
Have to run, more later.
I would agree with your assesmant of the pivots. I think it is both, and there are numerous reasons for training both, technique wise and for training.
On the raisng of the arms. I would agree with what you say about the extended fingers allowing, or making it easier to bring energy out. I also think this is easier for beginners to accomplish this. This "may" one of the reasons. Just a guess. I was also taught that if the hold was not broken, the extended fingers were used for brushing the opponents eyes.
I would be very interested in the other techniques you mention, not just for possible "new" techiques but in terms of principles and "energy".
Have to run, more later.
Audi,
I would agree with your assesmant of the pivots. I think it is both, and there are numerous reasons for training both, technique wise and for training.
On the raisng of the arms. I would agree with what you say about the extended fingers allowing, or making it easier to bring energy out. I also think this is easier for beginners to accomplish this. This "may" one of the reasons. Just a guess. I was also taught that if the hold was not broken, the extended fingers were used for brushing the opponents eyes.
I would be very interested in the other techniques you mention, not just for possible "new" techiques but in terms of principles and "energy".
On Lift hands, I would say usage varies. It is an arm break if it is needed to be, depending on circumstances, as well it is control and used to take someone out of thier root. Whether it is lift hands, single whip,...all possibilities exist and are valid....following principles of course.
Have to run, more later.
[This message has been edited by Michael (edited 08-06-2004).]
I would agree with your assesmant of the pivots. I think it is both, and there are numerous reasons for training both, technique wise and for training.
On the raisng of the arms. I would agree with what you say about the extended fingers allowing, or making it easier to bring energy out. I also think this is easier for beginners to accomplish this. This "may" one of the reasons. Just a guess. I was also taught that if the hold was not broken, the extended fingers were used for brushing the opponents eyes.
I would be very interested in the other techniques you mention, not just for possible "new" techiques but in terms of principles and "energy".
On Lift hands, I would say usage varies. It is an arm break if it is needed to be, depending on circumstances, as well it is control and used to take someone out of thier root. Whether it is lift hands, single whip,...all possibilities exist and are valid....following principles of course.
Have to run, more later.
[This message has been edited by Michael (edited 08-06-2004).]
-
Louis Swaim
- Posts: 1390
- Joined: Mon Feb 12, 2001 7:01 am
- Location: Oakland, CA
Greetings Ps,
You wrote: ‘I am so glad you made mention of the "TO~FRO" aspect in Tai chi...It is a great new discovery for me!. . . Does anyone know if this particular aspect of action is mentioned in the Classic texts anywhere?’
The term, "to and fro" (wangfu) appears twice in Yang Chengfu's book, Essence and Applications of Taijiquan (taijiquan tiyong quanshu), once in the Grasp Sparrow's Tail section, and once in the Needle at Sea Bottom section. Wang3fu4 can also be translated, "coming and going," or "back and forth." To my knowledge, the compound wangfu appears in at least one of the taiji classics—Wu Yuxiang’s “Mental Elucidation of the Thirteen Postures”—in the line, “In going to and fro, there must be foldings and alternations; in advancing and retreating there must be turning transitions.” But it is implied in the fundamental theories, and expressed in other classical formulations using different words. Some of the examples that come to mind: “Follow, bend, then extend. When the other is hard and I am soft, this is called yielding. I go along with the other's backing up. This is called adhering.” (Wang Zongyue’s ‘Taijiquan Treatise’) Or: “Adhere, connect, stick, and follow, without letting go or resisting.” (Song of Pushing Hands)
“Wangfu” is a sort of short-cut way of conveying the experiential mechanics, more explicitly evident in push hands than in the form, but every bit as essential in solo form training.
Take care,
Louis
[This message has been edited by Louis Swaim (edited 08-07-2004).]
You wrote: ‘I am so glad you made mention of the "TO~FRO" aspect in Tai chi...It is a great new discovery for me!. . . Does anyone know if this particular aspect of action is mentioned in the Classic texts anywhere?’
The term, "to and fro" (wangfu) appears twice in Yang Chengfu's book, Essence and Applications of Taijiquan (taijiquan tiyong quanshu), once in the Grasp Sparrow's Tail section, and once in the Needle at Sea Bottom section. Wang3fu4 can also be translated, "coming and going," or "back and forth." To my knowledge, the compound wangfu appears in at least one of the taiji classics—Wu Yuxiang’s “Mental Elucidation of the Thirteen Postures”—in the line, “In going to and fro, there must be foldings and alternations; in advancing and retreating there must be turning transitions.” But it is implied in the fundamental theories, and expressed in other classical formulations using different words. Some of the examples that come to mind: “Follow, bend, then extend. When the other is hard and I am soft, this is called yielding. I go along with the other's backing up. This is called adhering.” (Wang Zongyue’s ‘Taijiquan Treatise’) Or: “Adhere, connect, stick, and follow, without letting go or resisting.” (Song of Pushing Hands)
“Wangfu” is a sort of short-cut way of conveying the experiential mechanics, more explicitly evident in push hands than in the form, but every bit as essential in solo form training.
Take care,
Louis
[This message has been edited by Louis Swaim (edited 08-07-2004).]
-
psalchemist
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am
Greetings Yuri,
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your sharing the knowledge that you possess on this subject. Explorations into T'ai Chi theory can seem like quite the formidable puzzle...Every little piece helps...
You wrote:
<<It's known that traditional Yang style accents the idea of experiencing jin as needle in cotton or steel wrapped in cotton. I've read YZD's article where he describes features of traditional Yang style and in comparison and contrary to other Yang based (sport or only health oriented forms) stresses the importance of "having needle in cotton".>>Yuri
Actually, I have just re-read an article from an old publication of T'ai Chi magazine I just recently acquired, including an interview with master YangZhenDuo...and discovered a similar reference for this expression...
<<"...So we speak of loosening, lengthening and extending the joints. When you are very loose, there is the feeling of sinking and of weight in the hips. They go hand in hand. We say the outside is like soft cotton. The inside is hard as steel. It can look very soft. The minute you are very, very loose, you get the force inside and it can be very, very strong. In the past they said the strength is like a steel rod inside. This expresses the idea of jin." >> Master Yang Zhen Duo
From what I understand from that text...Jin...the possession of it...allows one to be very strong while seeming very soft...(This statement means more to me now, )
Someone mentioned a bag of ice vs.a bag of water...??? Should one really, actually, FEEL like a bag of water to the touch, as stated...or simply MOVE more like a bag of water than a bag of ice...???
Jin seems to be the operative word there...I have been pondering the concepts of Jin for quite some time and think this article may have helped considerably...But I imagine y'all are familiar with "Jin" ...So I shall leave my prattle upon the subject at that...
I am glad you pointed out the fact that YZD's style is particularly oriented towards this ideology compared with other Yang based styles...The comparisons of the styles are always interesting and insightfull.
<<I think other fellows here who practice just traditional style can describe this idea much better than me. From what I understand, there are two close ideas -
"moving/leading jin as drawing silk out" and "central qi" (zhong qi).>>Yuri
I also saw reference to these two mentionables...But have not the foggiest how they are directly, or moreover, exclusively related to this expression...Jin seems to be the basis for T'ai Chi, silk reeling and central qi, to me, seem simply two of many components of the contructions of "Jin"...Jin seems to be the basis for all T'ai Chi theory, excluding only the Pushing hands interaction theory...
Simply my impressions...I would be interested in any further thoughts on these matters...
Thank you,
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
Thanks for your reply. I appreciate your sharing the knowledge that you possess on this subject. Explorations into T'ai Chi theory can seem like quite the formidable puzzle...Every little piece helps...
You wrote:
<<It's known that traditional Yang style accents the idea of experiencing jin as needle in cotton or steel wrapped in cotton. I've read YZD's article where he describes features of traditional Yang style and in comparison and contrary to other Yang based (sport or only health oriented forms) stresses the importance of "having needle in cotton".>>Yuri
Actually, I have just re-read an article from an old publication of T'ai Chi magazine I just recently acquired, including an interview with master YangZhenDuo...and discovered a similar reference for this expression...
<<"...So we speak of loosening, lengthening and extending the joints. When you are very loose, there is the feeling of sinking and of weight in the hips. They go hand in hand. We say the outside is like soft cotton. The inside is hard as steel. It can look very soft. The minute you are very, very loose, you get the force inside and it can be very, very strong. In the past they said the strength is like a steel rod inside. This expresses the idea of jin." >> Master Yang Zhen Duo
From what I understand from that text...Jin...the possession of it...allows one to be very strong while seeming very soft...(This statement means more to me now,
)Someone mentioned a bag of ice vs.a bag of water...??? Should one really, actually, FEEL like a bag of water to the touch, as stated...or simply MOVE more like a bag of water than a bag of ice...???
Jin seems to be the operative word there...I have been pondering the concepts of Jin for quite some time and think this article may have helped considerably...But I imagine y'all are familiar with "Jin" ...So I shall leave my prattle upon the subject at that...
I am glad you pointed out the fact that YZD's style is particularly oriented towards this ideology compared with other Yang based styles...The comparisons of the styles are always interesting and insightfull.
<<I think other fellows here who practice just traditional style can describe this idea much better than me. From what I understand, there are two close ideas -
"moving/leading jin as drawing silk out" and "central qi" (zhong qi).>>Yuri
I also saw reference to these two mentionables...But have not the foggiest how they are directly, or moreover, exclusively related to this expression...Jin seems to be the basis for T'ai Chi, silk reeling and central qi, to me, seem simply two of many components of the contructions of "Jin"...Jin seems to be the basis for all T'ai Chi theory, excluding only the Pushing hands interaction theory...
Simply my impressions...I would be interested in any further thoughts on these matters...
Thank you,
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
-
Yury Snisarenko
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:01 am
Greetings Psalchemist,
Thank you for the excerpt from YZD's article. His words are always very interesting.
When I first time met the notions of chan si jin and central qi in Chen Xin's works they became the subject of my interest and long time investigation. As far as I know the notion of central qi was firstly introduced by famed martial expert Chang Naizhou. Then Chen Xin adopted the term and wrote about it a lot. Actually it's one of the core terms of his teaching.
You may read about this on J. Szymanski's site:
http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/other ... Zbook.html
http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/taiji/chenxin.html
It seems that Chen Xin was first martial arts scholar who enriched Taijiquan language with such terms and notions as central qi, hao ran zhi qi, different kinds of chan si jin and others.
BTW if some investigations are true then Yang Luchan learned just small frame of chen style (which Chn Xin wrote about).
You may read about this in http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/taiji/xiaojia.html
Kind Regards
Yuri
Thank you for the excerpt from YZD's article. His words are always very interesting.
When I first time met the notions of chan si jin and central qi in Chen Xin's works they became the subject of my interest and long time investigation. As far as I know the notion of central qi was firstly introduced by famed martial expert Chang Naizhou. Then Chen Xin adopted the term and wrote about it a lot. Actually it's one of the core terms of his teaching.
You may read about this on J. Szymanski's site:
http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/other ... Zbook.html
http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/taiji/chenxin.html
It seems that Chen Xin was first martial arts scholar who enriched Taijiquan language with such terms and notions as central qi, hao ran zhi qi, different kinds of chan si jin and others.
BTW if some investigations are true then Yang Luchan learned just small frame of chen style (which Chn Xin wrote about).
You may read about this in http://www.chinafrominside.com/ma/taiji/xiaojia.html
Kind Regards
Yuri
-
psalchemist
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am
Greetings Yuri,
Thank you for responding to my queries.
<<Thank you for the excerpt from YZD's article. His words are always very interesting.>>Yuri
It is the only interview I have read from Master Yang Zhen Duo and I found it really excellent...VERY interesting indeed...Wonderfully clear expressions and communications upon the art. Very understandable.
<<When I first time met the notions of chan si jin and central qi in Chen Xin's works they became the subject of my interest and long time investigation. As far as I know the notion of central qi was firstly introduced by famed martial expert Chang Naizhou. Then Chen Xin adopted the term and wrote about it a lot. Actually it's one of the core terms of his teaching.>>Yuri
I had not realized the specialized nature of the expression "Central qi"...I am glad for your distinctions.
I thank you for those references on the subject
I will explore these sites you kindly provided and will undoubtedly return with a new perspective.
Thank you,
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
Thank you for responding to my queries.
<<Thank you for the excerpt from YZD's article. His words are always very interesting.>>Yuri
It is the only interview I have read from Master Yang Zhen Duo and I found it really excellent...VERY interesting indeed...Wonderfully clear expressions and communications upon the art. Very understandable.
<<When I first time met the notions of chan si jin and central qi in Chen Xin's works they became the subject of my interest and long time investigation. As far as I know the notion of central qi was firstly introduced by famed martial expert Chang Naizhou. Then Chen Xin adopted the term and wrote about it a lot. Actually it's one of the core terms of his teaching.>>Yuri
I had not realized the specialized nature of the expression "Central qi"...I am glad for your distinctions.
I thank you for those references on the subject
I will explore these sites you kindly provided and will undoubtedly return with a new perspective.
Thank you,
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
-
Yury Snisarenko
- Posts: 73
- Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2003 7:01 am
Greetings Psalchemist
Article what I've read was placed somewhere in Chinese internet. Probably I could find it for everyone's observation but I am going to move out of my city just now for couple of weeks and will be without access to internet. Vacation…. nature… and minimum civilization….)))
Kind Regards
Yuri
Article what I've read was placed somewhere in Chinese internet. Probably I could find it for everyone's observation but I am going to move out of my city just now for couple of weeks and will be without access to internet. Vacation…. nature… and minimum civilization….
)))Kind Regards
Yuri
-
psalchemist
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am
-
psalchemist
- Posts: 619
- Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am
Greetings Louis,
Thank you for your reply, for the direct translation of TO~FRO (Wang3fu4), and for confirming the wheres and hows of its existance in classic T'ai Chi theory literature.
<<The term, "to and fro" appears twice in Yang Chengfu's book, Essence and Applications of Taijiquan (taijiquan tiyong quanshu), once in the Grasp Sparrow's Tail section, and once in the Needle at Sea Bottom section.>> Louis Swaim
I am glad to hear reference to this quality in specific areas, since I do not see the evidence of TO~FRO, myself, throughout the whole form. I shall have to experiment with the TO~FRO feel in the Grasp the Sparrows Tail section, since I am finding it more difficult to obtain this sensation there, than in the Needle at Sea Bottom area...I have not really noted, what to me, seems a more subtle demonstration of the TO~FRO quality. Thank you for providing that reference...It will save me time and energy seeking in futility...
You also explained:
<<But it is implied in the fundamental theories, and expressed in other classical formulations using different words.
Some of the examples that come to mind: “Follow, bend, then extend.
When the other is hard and I am soft, this is called yielding.
I go along with the other's backing up. This is called adhering.” (Wang Zongyue’s ‘Taijiquan Treatise’)
Or:
“Adhere, connect, stick, and follow, without letting go or resisting.” (Song of Pushing Hands)>>Louis Swaim
That is very valuable to my growing perceptions...It may have been quite an arduous endeavor ferreting out these subtle implications and relations...So, really...the TO~FRO actions are simply reflections of the pushing hands skills:Zhan, Nian, Lian and Sui ...Thank you.
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
Thank you for your reply, for the direct translation of TO~FRO (Wang3fu4), and for confirming the wheres and hows of its existance in classic T'ai Chi theory literature.
<<The term, "to and fro" appears twice in Yang Chengfu's book, Essence and Applications of Taijiquan (taijiquan tiyong quanshu), once in the Grasp Sparrow's Tail section, and once in the Needle at Sea Bottom section.>> Louis Swaim
I am glad to hear reference to this quality in specific areas, since I do not see the evidence of TO~FRO, myself, throughout the whole form. I shall have to experiment with the TO~FRO feel in the Grasp the Sparrows Tail section, since I am finding it more difficult to obtain this sensation there, than in the Needle at Sea Bottom area...I have not really noted, what to me, seems a more subtle demonstration of the TO~FRO quality. Thank you for providing that reference...It will save me time and energy seeking in futility...
You also explained:
<<But it is implied in the fundamental theories, and expressed in other classical formulations using different words.
Some of the examples that come to mind: “Follow, bend, then extend.
When the other is hard and I am soft, this is called yielding.
I go along with the other's backing up. This is called adhering.” (Wang Zongyue’s ‘Taijiquan Treatise’)
Or:
“Adhere, connect, stick, and follow, without letting go or resisting.” (Song of Pushing Hands)>>Louis Swaim
That is very valuable to my growing perceptions...It may have been quite an arduous endeavor ferreting out these subtle implications and relations...So, really...the TO~FRO actions are simply reflections of the pushing hands skills:Zhan, Nian, Lian and Sui ...Thank you.
Best regards,
Psalchemist.