all tai chi enthusiasts welcome
https://discuss.yangfamilytaichi.com/
This quote from your site is something that I attribute more to the circumstances for which Lie was "designed" than to the intent of the energy itself. In other words, as you are being "forced from the circle," you have a means of using the opponent's energy to strike back. For me, this is also linked to the idea of rotation. Something comes forward and is returned back. Many of your definitions include aspects that I attribute more to "design" purposes than to the nature of the energy themselves.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Strike – striking the opponents body whilst attracting his movement</font>
DPasek,<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> view Lie (Split/Tear/Rend/Wring/Snap…) as any force-couple (force applied in opposing directions) whether applied quickly or slowly. </font>
I agree with this, but what about the simple horizontal single-hand circle? From what you describe, it does not contain any Lu at all. Do you see this exercise as only an alternation between Ward Off and Push? I ask about this particularly because this motion seems directly comparable to Cloud Hands, a rotation that receives the opponent's force, absorbs some Jin and leads it to the side.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Even smaller than these Roll Backs is the one in single-arm figure 8 push hands. There’s a transition from Ward Off to Lu: the hand rotates palm up and one uses the forearm to cover/deflect the opponent’s push downward and to the outside.</font>
). If someone asked me to show how to do Lu, I would do it exactly as how you have described it. If, however, someone asked me where Lu is in the form, I would be tempted to point out many other places where you accept oncoming force and divert it to the side with some sort of rotation peformed or led by the waist. In other words, I am distinguishing between how to use Lu effectively as the lead energy and how Lu might interact and combine with other energies.I hope this is so, because it would make things simpler. One final reason I have resisted adopting this definition is that I have heard from one native speaker of the Hebei dialect of Chinese that "split" is really not correct. I have difficulty coming up with a good English equivalent of what he describes, but I think it is what is behind those who translate Lie as "thrash." Basically, this person said that Lie refers to the slapping arm motion that occurs in Flying Diagonal.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Audi, I think “split” does mean to divide into two pieces. I don’t agree with the above; I think the word “split” does describe accurately how the energy is deployed and also what happens to the opponent.</font>
If I apply this to Flying Diagonal, I would assume that using Zhan or using a high degree of energy in the left hand Pull Down (Cai/ts'ai) would be necessary to meet the definition of attacting movement. In contrast, such techniques should not be necessary in order to emphasise Ward Off and Shoulder Stroke in Parting Wild Horse's Mane. I must say, however, that I do not feel such a distinction in my form. A contrary argument could be that the scenario underlying Flying Diagonal inherently involves an opponent who is closing with greater force than in Parting Wild Horse's Mane.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">The body rotates, striking the opponent whilst attracting his movement.</font>
I have answered your post a bit out of sequence..I feel that if perhaps if we could have crossed hands with him he could have made himself clear in five minutes too. The nature of writing limits us to theory - and the limit is one's language as much as ones skill. This board being no exception<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The other reservation I have about Kuo's excellent book is the emphasis on theorizing itself. The most authoritative and pertinent teaching I have received about the eight Jins I received in the space of about five minutes each.</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> I agree with cheefatt taichi that the Jins are essentially simple things and variations on a single them. The only nuance of a difference I may have is that I apply the onion imagery to them and think there may be value to peeling away additional layers of their depth in the manner Kuo does in his book. For instance, what is the location of the typical Jin point? Where does it typically fit in during an engagement with the opponent? I also understand that the Jins are fundamentally internal, rather than external things. Internals are harder to understand than externals.</font>
Yes - I wrote those things (several years ago now) from the perspective of application of the jin rather than the nature of it. I think that still provides input into the nature of the energy too.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">This quote from your site is something that I attribute more to the circumstances for which Lie was "designed" than to the intent of the energy itself. In other words, as you are being "forced from the circle," you have a means of using the opponent's energy to strike back. For me, this is also linked to the idea of rotation. Something comes forward and is returned back. Many of your definitions include aspects that I attribute more to "design" purposes than to the nature of the energy themselves.</font>
I must confess I do not recall this. Could you amplify on your motivation when and where appropriate? Why do you see this as the key to your practice and what method do you actually use.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">I have written on here not so long ago that my taiji was turned on its head and after many years of focusing on the 8 jin. I am now practicing a method based on the use of just Lu (roll back) and central equilibrium.</font>
In all the applications I cited, I would argue that we are indeed forcing the opponent's body into opposing directions. In the "brushing off" examples, the opponent's arm is pulled and pushed at the same time. The pulling is key to the applications, although it is not necessarily important that the opponent's grip actually be broken.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Perhaps I should have been more careful in my illustrations of Lie earlier. While they are all examples of split energy force-couples, not all of them illustrate Lie applications particularly well. I think that the force-couple would have to be applied to the opponent for the application to be classified as Lie. Thus your examples of brushing off an opponent's grip on your arm in various movements would be an example of splitting your own energy in your two arms, but it would not be a Lie application since you are not forcing the opponent's body into opposing directions (no force-couple against them).</font>
I was actually describing my understanding of the internal and external qualities—but I’m not kidding myself that I actually understand these things well yet. As for where Lu is in the form, well, I’d say there are plenty of places where the opponent is diverted to the side using the waist, but I would not call all of them roll back. Did you have some examples you were thinking of?<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Much of how you describe Lu I have attributed to the necessary mechanics of effective performance, rather than to what is necessary to describe its internal qualities (whatever that means ). If someone asked me to show how to do Lu, I would do it exactly as how you have described it. If, however, someone asked me where Lu is in the form, I would be tempted to point out many other places where you accept oncoming force and divert it to the side with some sort of rotation peformed or led by the waist. In other words, I am distinguishing between how to use Lu effectively as the lead energy and how Lu might interact and combine with other energies. </font>
Kal, I think I see what you mean and basically agree, but please allow me to be a little picky with some of the wording. I would say that there is a slight feeling of arm rotation in Ward Off Right and Left. In both cases, the palm faces slightly upward in a way that requires a slight twisting feeling. I mention this because I believe that some teachers teach these postures with the palms vertically oriented. For the same reason, I would also agree more with your description of lifting rather than an emphasis on outward expansion. Some teach a Ward Off Right where the elbows noticeably extend from in to out and where both hands expand horizontally forward; whereas we do it with elbows already pretty much extended and with the right arm lifting and the left palm pressing down as the left elbow contracts.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Yes, I think you may be right—the direction of movement (outward) is more important for ward off than arm rotation. After all, in the first ward off applications taught for ward off right and ward off left, there’s no rotation of the lifting arm, just lifting the arm and waist turning. I still think it’s an expansive outward movement though.</font>
Since we are trying to make very fine distinctions here, I would differentiate between "applications" and "energies." I would agree that there is no intent to apply a Rollback application in the single arm circling. The constraints of the positioning make pure Rollback impractical. Perhaps I am beating a dead horse or requiring words for something that is better not put in a straight jacket of words; however, I still wonder about the interplay of energy, since this is such a common pattern in Push Hands and in the Form.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Lu has never been mentioned (that I’ve heard) as a part of the single-hand horizontal circle. The applications that were discussed were ward off, pull, and push (in that order).</font>
I find it interesting that you describe this possibility, because I was told that this is precisely how one would want to react, except for the desire to create a continuous horizontally-oriented exercise. In other words, I was told that it would actually be best to drop the elbow; however, if you did this, you would make it difficult for your partner to continue the exercise. He or she would normally be forced to follow and end up in what I think you are calling the figure-eight pattern.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">So for single arm circles, the only way to do rollback would be to drop the elbow in the transition from ward off to push. With the elbow down, the wrist could cover the opponent’s pushing hand and deflect it by moving from under to over.</font>
Places I wonder about would include the combined action of the descending right arm and rising left arm in the transitions leading into Brush Left Knee and Twist Step and the transition between the unnamed Ward Off Left and named Ward Off Right that begins Step up and Grasp Sparrows Tail (e.g., after Punch to the Groin). Another would be the leftward action of the left arm in Fist Under Elbow. In none of these would I think that Rollback is an end in itself, but would suggest that it must be complemented with some other energy. I would also say the same about Ward Off, which often is not very effective if used only by itself.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">As for where Lu is in the form, well, I’d say there are plenty of places where the opponent is diverted to the side using the waist, but I would not call all of them roll back. Did you have some examples you were thinking of?</font>
I know what you mean about getting these types of explanations to stick in one's head, especially when given on the fly. The worst--and best--can be when the explanations are accompanied by a demonstration on you. I often get a feeling of How did you actually do that? All I can say is thank heaven for the new DVD, where we now have the option of watching some applications over and over.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">He’s explained the pre-kick applications to me twice—the separation, the roll back—but I’m still rather foggy about them</font>
Well, I think it’s both. I agree that in the form, the lifting is more visible. But even in the form, a sense of outward expansion from the dantien (pung) is necessary to lift the opponent using that sense of internal buoyancy, even though the opponent is moved more upward than outward.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> For the same reason, I would also agree more with your description of lifting rather than an emphasis on outward expansion . </font>
Hmm, interesting. I think a jin point on the right palm could work if the posture were small frame, or the practitioner were really strong, but they might have a really different way of using it that I don’t know about. And two hands are not required for some applications of Ward Off…but I wonder what the left hand is getting ready to do? In the form we practice, the lower hand seems to serve a few different purposes: holding your opponent where you want them so you can get underneath and lift them; holding their arm as a kind of handle for stability after uprooting them and carrying them off their center (the way one holds a full pitcher of water by the handle, but then often supports it from underneath with one hand maintaining a lifting energy); or using the lower hand to control one of the two points necessary for split energy (as Ward Off can easily be turned into split, with the hands going in opposite directions—up and down on a diagonal).<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The practitioners who use the former method often describe the left hand as being ready to help the right, rather than as actually engaged in doing something. They often seem to orient both palms opposite each other, almost as if they are squeezing a small ball between them and as if the jin point is in the back of the right palm. </font>
Generally I enjoy splitting hairs with you, but this is one instance where I’m not convinced it’s useful to distinguish application from energy. I might be misunderstanding what you mean though. When we learned single arm circling, we practiced the form (shape) of the circles, then we practiced the applications within the circle (push, ward off, pull), all with the intent of coming to understand the energies. I think they are inseparable. I suppose that one could say that the long form contains specific applications, and that push hands is the study of the energies in use…and both statements are true, but making that distinction just feels too artificial to me, too Cartesian in its emphasis. To throw out a cliché: it’s not either-or; it’s both-and.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Since we are trying to make very fine distinctions here, I would differentiate between "applications" and "energies." …however, I still wonder about the interplay of energy, since this is such a common pattern in Push Hands and in the Form. </font>
If you mean the transitions in the Brush Knee sequence between one and the next, yes, I’ve been told there’s the possibility of Roll Back there.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Places I wonder about would include the combined action of the descending right arm and rising left arm in the transitions leading into Brush Left Knee and Twist Step</font>
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> and the transition between the unnamed Ward Off Left and named Ward Off Right that begins Step up and Grasp Sparrows Tail (e.g., after Punch to the Groin). </font>
Are you talking about a single arm roll back where after the Ward Off with the left arm, the left then covers the opponent with the back of the forearm and deflects them to the side (like in single arm figure 8s)? I think there’s the possibility of Roll Back there—but I think the application is more effective as it stands: Ward Off to Pull Down with a small circle into Lift and punch. In fact, it’s one of my favorites (albeit in theory at the moment…hmm, maybe I’ll practice).<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Another would be the leftward action of the left arm in Fist Under Elbow. </font>
Wow, that’s an interesting interpretation of Roll Back. I’m not 100% certain about it, but it’s interesting and I can see how it would work. It feels more like Embrace Tiger Return to Mountain in the circular rotation of the torso, which means that one wouldn’t need to use kao or zhao energies even if the shoulder and/or elbow is engaged. Of course, I agree that zhao and kao are possibilities there too. But to make it into Roll Back, I think one would need to cover the opponent’s energy with the torso, or right shoulder or right arm, before deflecting down and to the side (there’s that up to down, tables turned movement I was talking about before). One would need a really good sense of central equilibrium to pull this move off well—turning backwards, changing footwork, and rotating the torso off the center vertical line. There’s a vulnerability in rotating the torso around the center—and an even greater vulnerability in using the torso as both of your energy points for Roll Back because it’s so close to being the center that you have only your legs and spine flexibility to get you out of a tight spot if your opponent is able to counter with a push. There’s not much you can collapse or fold—if you have two points with your torso, it also means your opponent has two points on you.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Another example might be the transition after Step Forward and Punch Down (Jin Bu Zai Chui). Imagine that after you dispatch an opponent in the west with Punch Down, another opponent (who is in the east) comes to grab your waist from behind. If you are late in your reaction, you can use the rightward rotation of your torso (perhaps, an instance of kao ) to throw the opponent off and to the right. This is quite different from using Kao as a shoulder or even a hip strike and seems analogous to me to the type of absorbtion and redirection more usually encountered with the regular Rollback. If your reaction is quicker, you can meet your opponent with your elbow and use zhou . </font>
Hear, hear! But seriously, after the “How the…?!?” feeling—often combined with a more visceral feeling of befuddlement after being gently put through the wringer—I find I have a better physical memory than visual memory, so I often need to experience an application before I can approximate replicating it. But I’m certainly not complaining!<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> The worst--and best--can be when the explanations are accompanied by a demonstration on you. I often get a feeling of How did you actually do that? All I can say is thank heaven for the new DVD, where we now have the option of watching some applications over and over. </font>
Kal, I agree with this tactic, but I still see the energy as “lifting” because this action tends to float or buoy up the partner’s push. Another challenging scenario is the “horizontal” ward off that the left arm executes just prior to the “push” at the end of Single Whip. I understand this to be “ward off,” even though nothing is “lifted,” because of the arm shape and because of the manner in which the opponent’s power is diverted off to the side.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> But in push hands, the situation is a little different again. For example, in single arm horizontal circles, if you were to push towards me but with a slightly downward angle, then I could still do ward off, rotating my forearm in the same way, but heading downward.</font>
I not only enjoy splitting hairs with you and others, but it is actually the core of my learning method. I am extremely concept oriented, and so any inconsistency that threatens a concept is for me a basic issue, not a philosophical one. One of the implications of such an approach means that I have to be willing to change concepts whenever hairs do not “split” appropriately.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Generally I enjoy splitting hairs with you, but this is one instance where I’m not convinced it’s useful to distinguish application from energy. I might be misunderstanding what you mean though. When we learned single arm circling, we practiced the form (shape) of the circles, then we practiced the applications within the circle (push, ward off, pull), all with the intent of coming to understand the energies. I think they are inseparable. I suppose that one could say that the long form contains specific applications, and that push hands is the study of the energies in use…and both statements are true, but making that distinction just feels too artificial to me, too Cartesian in its emphasis. To throw out a cliché: it’s not either-or; it’s both-and.</font>
Wow, that is great stuff to work on! I think that sort of advice goes to the heart of our training method and distinguishes it from those that emphasize having no intent or complete mental emptiness. I think it also distinguishes it from methods that emphasize acting on the opponent as an object or automaton where quickness, power, or even cleverness are the main determinants of the result.<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Sorry—I got a double whammy of corrections last night: 1) I’m to develop the skill to use whatever application I want, slowly enough that my opponent sees it coming, but such that they are unable to counter it. 2) I’m to give up more.</font>