Yang Family Tai Chi Discussion Board

Do yang style include silk reeling exercise or it is mostly practiced by other styles?

While Chen style Taijiquan, for example, has separate exercises for ‘silk reeling’ it is my understanding that all styles practice it, although perhaps not in isolated drills. Here is a link to a good discussion of silk reeling in the internal martial arts:
http://rumsoakedfist.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=21243

As far as I understand, the term "silk reeling" is not really part of the traditional Yang terminology and is not mentioned in the writings handed down inside the Yang tradition. There are, however, practices and concepts with similar content, and practicing Chen Style silk reeling could definitely give you insights into practicing Yang Style.

Would you mind giving more information about why you would be interested in a Yang Style approach to silk reeling? More information might help us give a response that might be more helpful to you.

Take care,
Audi

Silk reeling (chan si jin) is 'spiraling energy' . This name is given to stand out and be different from other internal style. Example, other style can be call 'luoxuanjin' or just spiraling. In fact, all movement and even in non-moment we are spiraling. In Yang style, not much emphasis but 'cloud hand' is the same as what is generally taught as Chen silk reeling.

http://youtu.be/tI25RzOXL_I

Cheers,
UniTaichi

Learned silk reeling in Chen.

Per my Yang Shifu (Tung Ying Chieh lineage) there is no silk reeling in Yang, there is no need for it, it is in the form.

However with that said I have had some who train Yang tell me there is something called silk pulling but I have no idea what that is

Dan,

I forgot to mention your link, which had a very interesting discussion of some quite knowledgeable people. Although I found it quite informative, I did not find that any of the opinions quite expressed my understanding.

In Yang style, not much emphasis but 'cloud hand' is the same as what is generally taught as Chen silk reeling.

I think this is a good comparison; but, of course, even more could be said.

I remember at the last Tai Chi Symposium in Nashville, Chen Zhenglei led us in some silk reeling exercise as warmups, which many of us found to be quite enjoyable and beneficial. Although some of them were quite similar to Yang Style Cloud Hands, he wanted us to coordinate the rotation differently, giving fits to the many of us Yang Stylists who were used to different coordination. Basically, in moving the right arm down and to the left, he wanted our palms to face up; and almost immediately as the hand moved to the right, he wanted us to rotate it to palm outward so that most of the rightward movement was done in this orientation. The motion was therefore like and unlike what we do in Yang Style.

While Cloud Hands is probably one of the postures where spiraling motions are most prominent in the Yang form, I would say that some kind of spiraling exists in just about every posture I can think about.

I would also say that there are other differences. According to my understanding:

1. Chen stylists talk about initiating spirals from the Dantian.
2. Yang stylists tend to talk about initiating external movement from the "waist" and talk about the Dantian only as a place to sink Qi.
3. Chen stylists talk about moving in spirals.
4. Yang stylists tend to talk about moving in curves.
5. Chen stylists tend to treat silk reeling as the most fundamental energy.
6. Yang stylists talk about Peng as the most fundamental energy.

I think the goal of the training is pretty much the same, but the journey is a little different.

Take care,
Audi

[quoteI would also say that there are other differences. According to my understanding:

1. Chen stylists talk about initiating spirals from the Dantian.
2. Yang stylists tend to talk about initiating external movement from the "waist" and talk about the Dantian only as a place to sink Qi.
3. Chen stylists talk about moving in spirals.
4. Yang stylists tend to talk about moving in curves.
5. Chen stylists tend to treat silk reeling as the most fundamental energy.
6. Yang stylists talk about Peng as the most fundamental energy.

][/quote]

If you look at the above and there are a few more diff, including what some of the masters of Chen style are saiding , any taiji enthusiast would asked WHY such major differences.

Cheers,
UniTaichi

any taiji enthusiast would asked WHY such major differences.

I presume the differences are because people with different experience and different understanding teach in different ways. As differences build up over teaching generations, you can end up with different styles. Do you see it differently?

Hi Audi,

Yes, I see it is different. You might have read from other websites, etc, eg Wu Tu Nam and other masters have also noticed the differences and done some 'investigation' . Some have pointed out that Chen style is actually Shaolin Canon Fists. The fact is Chen style never called their MA taijiquan BEFORE YLC.

What you have mentioned, different people, experiences, teaching style are correct. But I am talking about different taiji principles here, some of which you wrote. The way they use Yi, dantian, soft, is different. They use muscle strenght, granted with(some) body mechanics. But all MA uses body mechanics. The true essence of TJQ is ''use Yi, not Li''. Taiji is Daoist centric and Chen masters keep saiding it has nothing to do with Daoism. (because if it were, Wudang would be the birth place of TJQ. Not Chen Village.

Anyway, this is my own personal view but I want to said it because it seems like the Chen stylists are making effort to put themselves up as the original and Only true TJQ in some recent developments.

If they want to talk down on true TJQ principles, impacting the other styles and families, then someone have to respond.

Cheers,
UniTaichi

Hi UniTaichi,

Thanks for your explanation. I think I may understand your viewpoint better, even if I may have a somewhat different understanding of "Yi," "Li," and some other aspects of Tai Chi.

Taiji is Daoist centric and Chen masters keep saiding it has nothing to do with Daoism.

My understanding is that our flavor of Tai Chi has threads from multiple aspects of traditional Chinese philosophy. I have been taught with quotes not only from Daoist works, but also from Confucian, Neo-Confucian, Militarist (i.e., Sunzi/Sun-Tsu), and TCM works. It would not be unusual for me to use all these during a single push hands class or to refer to parts of the Tai Chi classics that appear to reflect these philosophies. In this way, I would not say that our Tai Chi is exclusively or even primarily Daoist. In fact, I think that taking only a Daoist viewpoint or only one of the other viewpoints would make it difficult to understand many of the principles important for our version of Yang Style.

The true essence of TJQ is ''use Yi, not Li''.

This is one of Yang Chengfu's "Ten Essentials" and is one of the things I often discuss in practice; however, I wouldn't find this something that distinguishes us from other styles of Tai Chi. I know that many people emphasize not using muscles, but I find this confusing and so do not talk much about this, even while using this quote. I feel that concentrating on using muscles or concentrating on not using muscles causes equal problems, and so I focus more on what I understand about how the mind and spirit should be used.

Take care,
Audi

Hi Audi,

This is one of Yang Chengfu's "Ten Essentials" and is one of the things I often discuss in practice; however, I wouldn't find this something that distinguishes us from other styles of Tai Chi.

IMU, Taiji is a set of principles and if one mastered the principles, then anything you do is TJQ. So it is not about style in other Taichi. On the other end, if you call whatever style one is doing Taijiquan but do not display the principles, then it is Not TJQ.

Daoist originate from Yijing, 5 to 7 thousand years ago. Then come Daodejin, then Confucian, and so on. What I am trying to said here is most of these works can be used to reflect TJQ. One can even refer to Buddhist understanding/teaching as the higher stage is converging at the same point. I want to assure you that I do not confine myself to one viewpoint. I am more multi-dimensional.

I feel that concentrating on using muscles or concentrating on not using muscles causes equal problems, and so I focus more on what I understand about how the mind and spirit should be used.

even if I may have a somewhat different understanding of "Yi," "Li," and some other aspects of Tai Chi.

'Yi' and 'Li' have been debated in other forums and so far always with the same outcome or more correctly, without a consensual. This is because everyone is at their own stage of development, different teachers/method , interest (health, self-defence ) etc, so it is best if one explain/teach what one can understand.

Cheers,
UniTaichi

Audi wrote:

The true essence of TJQ is ''use Yi, not Li''.

...I know that many people emphasize not using muscles, but I find this confusing and so do not talk much about this, even while using this quote. I feel that concentrating on using muscles or concentrating on not using muscles causes equal problems, and so I focus more on what I understand about how the mind and spirit should be used.

What you say here reminds me of the first line from two translations on this very important point.

Pointers Toward Enlightenment in Taiji

It is wrong to use force and it is wrong not to use force. It is right to have softness containing hardness.

The Method of Achieving Perfect Clarity in Taiji.

Using energy is not correct;
Not using energy is not correct.
To be soft but hard is correct.

Hi BBTrip,

What you say here reminds me of the first line from two translations on this very important point.

Pointers Toward Enlightenment in Taiji
It is wrong to use force and it is wrong not to use force. It is right to have softness containing hardness.

The Method of Achieving Perfect Clarity in Taiji.
Using energy is not correct;
Not using energy is not correct.
To be soft but hard is correct.

I can understand the last phase on softness and hardness and I have read similar phrase. But the other two lines are more difficult to understand. Would you be able to link where and who are the authors and translators . Also if possible the chinese version of it.

Cheers,
UniTaichi

UniTaichi wrote:Pointers Toward Enlightenment in Taiji
It is wrong to use force and it is wrong not to use force. It is right to have softness containing hardness.

The Method of Achieving Perfect Clarity in Taiji.
Using energy is not correct;
Not using energy is not correct.
To be soft but hard is correct.

I can understand the last phase on softness and hardness and I have read similar phrase. But the other two lines are more difficult to understand. Would you be able to link where and who are the authors and translators . Also if possible the chinese version of it.

Greetings UniTaichi,

The first, Pointers Toward Enlightenment in Taiji, is a Paul Brennan Translation of METHODS OF APPLYING TAIJI BOXING (TAIJI QUAN SHIYONG FA)
by Yang Chengfu and Tung Yingjie.
http://brennantranslation.wordpress.com ... hiyong-fa/

太極指明法
POINTERS TOWARD ENLIGHTENMENT IN TAIJI
用勁不對，不用力不對，綿而有剛對，丢不對，頂不對，不丢不頂對，沾不對，不沾不對，不即不離對，浮不對，重不對，輕靈鬆沈對，胆大不對，胆小不對，胆要壯而心要細對，打人不對，不打人不對，將敵治心服對。
- It is wrong to use force and it is wrong not to use force. It is right to have softness containing hardness.
- It is wrong to run away and it is wrong to crash in. It is right to be neither running away nor crashing in.
- It is wrong to stick to him and it is wrong not to stick to him. It is right to be neither joining nor separating.
- It is wrong to be floating and it is wrong to be heavy. It is right to be light and agile, loosened and settled.
- It is wrong to be reckless and it is wrong to be cowardly. It is right to be bold yet aware.
- It is wrong to fight and it is wrong not to fight. It is right to get him to control himself and give up.

The latter, The Method of Achieving Perfect Clarity, is a Douglas Wile translation of the same material from his book Tai-Chi Touchstones: Yang Family Secret Transmissions, pg. 116.

The Method of Achieving Perfect Clarity
Using energy is not correct;
Not using strength is not correct.
To be soft but hard is correct.

Leaning away is not correct;
Butting in is not correct.
Not leaning away and not butting in is correct.

Sticking is not correct;
Not sticking is not correct.
Being neither over-anxious
Nor separating is correct.

Floating is not correct;
Heaviness in not correct.
Lightness, sensitivity, relaxation
And sinking are correct.

Bravery is not correct;
Timidity is not correct.
Strong courage and keen perception
Are correct.

Striking people is not correct;
Not striking people is not correct.
Causing the opponent to mentally
Surrender is correct.

In fact, quite a few Taiji masters, that have written commentary on the classics, seem to have similar sayings.

Just for conversation sake, here's an excerpt from the Brennan's translation of Chen Weiming's ANSWERING QUESTIONS ABOUT TAIJI. The excerpt seems to mention something similar.
http://brennantranslation.wordpress.com ... ji-da-wen/

[41]
問太極拳必求其柔。柔之利益何在。
In Taiji Boxing, you must strive for softness, but what is the advantage of softness?
答求其柔者。所以使全身能撤散而不連帶也。假如推其手。手動而肘不動。推其肘。肘動而肩不動。推其肩。肩動而身不動。推其身。身動而腰不動。推其腰。腰動而腿不動。故能穩如泰山。若放人之時。則又由脚而腿而腰而身而肩而肘而手連為一氣。故能去如放箭。若不能柔。全身成一整物。力雖大。然更遇力大於我者。推其一處。則全身皆立不穩矣。柔之功用豈不大哉。故能整能散。能柔能剛。能進能退。能虛能實。乃太極拳之妙用也。

"Therefore, be able to integrate [with all parts] and also be able to disintegrate [with any part], be able to be hard and also be able to be soft, be able to advance and also be able to retreat, be able to fill and also be able to empty. This is the subtlety of Taiji Boxing."

Here's same passage translated by Benjamin Pang Jeng Lo from his book of the same title, pg. 27.

Thus the use of suppleness is crucial. With it you can be one unit attacking an fragmented parts defending—able to be relaxed and hard, agile stepping forward or back, and substantial and insubstantial as needed. With these abilities you will then have all of the Tai Chi function.

If this post seems to infer that, you should change your views on the subject—that is not my intent. If you've been winning with what you do, whatever that may be, who am I to tell you different.

My original post on the subject was because, as usual, a lot of Audi's views on the practice and teaching of Taiji resonate with me. What he says to his students reminded me of one of my Taiji teachers.

Whether my teacher would have us do slow form, push hands, application work or free style sparring, he would often say,
"To hit is not good, to not hit is not good."

Thanks for the reminder Audi.

Hi BBTrip,

Thks for the links.

none of my post is to infer that you should change your views on the subject

This is not my view to infer anybody understanding on the discusssed subject. If you have read carefully my postings eg.

This is because everyone is at their own stage of development, different teachers/method , interest (health, self-defence ) etc, so it is best if one explain/teach what one can understand.

Cheers,
UniTaichi
Hi Audi,

This is one of Yang Chengfu's "Ten Essentials" and is one of the things I often discuss in practice; however, I wouldn't find this something that distinguishes us from other styles of Tai Chi.

IMU, Taiji is a set of principles and if one mastered the principles, then anything you do is TJQ. So it is not about style in other Taichi. On the other end, if you call whatever style one is doing Taijiquan but do not display the principles, then it is Not TJQ.

Daoist originate from Yijing, 5 to 7 thousand years ago. Then come Daodejin, then Confucian, and so on. What I am trying to said here is most of these works can be used to reflect TJQ. One can even refer to Buddhist understanding/teaching as the higher stage is converging at the same point. I want to assure you that I do not confine myself to one viewpoint. I am more multi-dimensional.

I feel that concentrating on using muscles or concentrating on not using muscles causes equal problems, and so I focus more on what I understand about how the mind and spirit should be used.

even if I may have a somewhat different understanding of "Yi," "Li," and some other aspects of Tai Chi.

'Yi' and 'Li' have been debated in other forums and so far always with the same outcome or more correctly, without a consensual. This is because everyone is at their own stage of development, different teachers/method , interest (health, self-defence ) etc, so it is best if one explain/teach what one can understand.

I am very much with TJQ principles. My quote ;

IMU, Taiji is a set of principles and if one mastered the principles, then anything you do is TJQ. So it is not about style in other Taichi. On the other end, if you call whatever style one is doing Taijiquan but do not display the principles, then it is Not TJQ.

The discussion between Audi and myself is not about the method/understanding about Yi/Li between us. It is to a question Audi asking me what do I think is the differences between Chen style and other style TJQ.

The Ten Essentials or principle I have said before in other postings meant different things to people at different level/stage of development/training, with different teaching of the masters, etc. Yi and Li have multipy level. I believe you post in RSF too, so you know the on-going ''discussion'' on Yi, Qi, Shen, LKJ etc.

用勁不對，不用力不對，綿而有剛對

- It is wrong to use force and it is wrong not to use force. It is right to have softness containing hardness.

Some quotes are easier to understand than others. Who wrote what is also my question, YCF or Tung Yingjie. Everybody try to use their own words, want to be different and by that time, no one know what is the original saying anymore. That is why I often 'parrot' what is said. Everything that need to be said, change already been done. I am not smart enough to said it another way.

I will just share my understanding on the above chinese version. 勁 here means muscle strenght. So using muscle strenght is wrong. 力 here means internal strenght. So if you are not using internal, is wrong. 綿而有剛對 This part of the phrase is easier and often quote and again mean different things to each person. Steel in Cotton is correct. That means outside is soft 綿, inside is steel 剛 .

Cheers,
UniTaichi
p.s. Ken Fish post a comment that the Chen taiji Fundamental ZZ is very much the same as .... Shaolin Lohan ZZ.