forms and perspectives

[bamboo_ leaf]

Forms and perspectives.

Different masters have modified what they learned to reflect (my belief) a different perspective or achievement that they found.

Do you feel that different TC forms lead to different conclusions or are they just basic expressions of the same ideas?

Is it so important to learn the "what some call the real / org TC form" or the one that most fits your view of TC?

I ask these questions because most of what I read here seems to revolve around:

1. The real intent of TC i.e. weather it should be view as a deadly combat art first or that combat is just one of many components.

2. Who is teaching the most org. version of a particular set or style

3. Defining what is real inner power and what is not

I think many of these questions revolve around who a person follows, their inner inclinations and understandings/experience

A big factor IMO is until they themselves develop an understand of what they’re looking for and expect is the teacher. :) People tend to follow the teacher that best represents their views or is it the teacher teaches students that best represent their views?

I tend to view it as the former but I have met people with little or no skill that where closed to other views because of the strong views of their teacher. i think there are many "masters" but even among masters there are levels, heance differnt views until one can find and listen to their own inner master

no real point, just intersted in others views ;)

[KC Elbows]

Couldn't directly speak on tai chi, as I do not practice that art.

However, last night I saw a video of my teacher's teacher(not sure the proper term for that), his teacher, and one of his kung fu uncles doing the core internal from from our system(tai hui, generally called six elbows in the US).

Each person was doing the same form. Yet the forms looked completely different between the three. The master's form was exquisite, he's kind of wiry with huge hands, and you could see the martial intent in each move. The other two each had their own take on the form. For each, certain moves were more blended into other moves, so that the accent of the form was different for each person.

I had to watch it three times to be sure they were doing the same form, it looked so different from one person to the next.

[miscjinx]

"Do you feel that different TC forms lead to different conclusions or are they just basic expressions of the same ideas? "

Depends greatly on how the form is taught not the actual form itself.

What form determines how complete the learning is IMO, as Yang Cheng Fu removed the leaping kicks and fajings in his grandfather's form to teach to the general public to make them stronger. The Yang Chen Fu form is lacking a couple things contained in the older Yang Lu Chan form. Yang Lu Chan form does not contain everything in Chen style Yi Lu and Er Lu forms (for example - coiling and uncoiling, figure 8 twisting).

As I have experienced, TC forms teach the basic same ideas (internal movement, etc), however the degree of completeness is determined by what you study. I find I learn more and more missing portions by going to older forms. However, if a teacher knows these portions - the new forms could be taught with those in mind.

[EARTH DRAGON]

Good post, I think you are very informative and knowldgeable about the art itself, so I would just like to add my explaination to people or students that ask simular questions.

The bible was written by men and compiled by facts and experiences. This is the way, however if you take 20 people and ask them to read it and explain what it meant you will have 20 different versions of the same words. What is meant to follow can only be done by what is meant to understand.
Not one of these people would be wrong simply by their diverse understanding and comprehension but who is to judge? and who is to say your interpretation is wrong.... based simply on my interpretation.

If you do not understand something you can only ask the writer or creator, if he is deseased or not available you can only ask whom which has shown you. Then you are attempting to learn or understand only from what THIER understanding is....

If THIER understanding is not exactly right then yours will be even ****her fom the exact meaning.
This is why people usually trust thier teacher and learn live and believe what is is thier shown. However while they might not be lied to they can only assume that what thire teacher has told them is right. But again only from their level of understanding. But most people tend to think that if thier teacher told or taught them something then they must be correct.......does that make sense? it does to me but hard to expalin to others.

[mantis108]

Nice topic, Bambooleaf. :)

Fighting is a science. Fighting is also an art. Fighting is sport and entertainment. Fighting is also only a portion of Martial Education.

In school, we have books and most likely we will read the same books. But we don't all become scientist, doctors or whatever. Teaching methology changes according to the needs of the society. It is not a question of what is better or worst. It is a question of changing with times. Some people grow from fighters to educators. Some remain the same throgh out their life. It is a personal choice.

Back to the text book, Taijiquan the form, which in many people's view "is" the entire system. It is like reading the one and only book and "puff" you become PHD. What about the problem solving? what about understanding between the lines? A lot of the new age Taiji teachers claim mastery without any understanding of Push hand, pile standing, etc. They simply have no idea of how and why all these elements are important and why classical training emphasized them. Those people are the one book PHDs. Personally, I am not against artistic license but without a good foundation in classical training and then interpret the form at will intellectually or otherwise is definitely not what Taijiquan training is about. Someone, who has deep understanding of the classical training and can apply his own insights in teaching Taijiquan, is definitely a master. I would have no problem learning from such a person.

Mantis108

[bamboo_ leaf]

Thanks for the replies all-interesting.

[TaiChiBob]

Greetings..

Excellent post.. good questions.. good responses..

The available material and oral traditions really leave this open.. but, my own understanding is as follows: At some time in the 1500s - 1700s Kung Fu frightened the ruling class.. they feared the masses would be able to overpower the military.. consequently the practice of MA was banned.. now, the families and clans weren't going to let their heritage fade away, so.. they practiced in secret.. but even then there were spies and the occasional meeting with soldiers, at that point they slowed their practice down added flowing movements and claimed it was a village dance or health exercise... Now, the Qi Gong practicioners noticed that certain benefits were flowing from these slow movements and pursued this research.. while the MA afficianados worked out the choreography, the QiGong guys worked on structure and internal development.. Hundreds of years later we have this multi-faceted art.. available to the student according to the nature of their character..

Indeed it is a Martial Art, indeed it is a healing Art.. indeed it is a meditation.. Unfortunately, there are too few teachers that have sincerely investigated the whole range of potentials, and fewer yet that can transmit the knowledge.. Likely the art will divide itself into areas of expertise according to teachers abilities and students desires.. but, i hope against hope that a few will treat it as a Whole system for improving the Human situation..

As for original.. i don't think there is an original, except as to some certain flavor we find appealing.. here too, we endanger the art by egotistical claims, (ie: it's this and not that, mine's better your's isn't) time spent worrying about best/worst is better spent training.. training will sort out the inconsistencies.. i sense that it is a living/evolving Art.. its foundation is and should be Martial, Medical, Meditative, and Philosophical.. like the four legs of a table, those four pillars support the Art.. I don't favor the strict defining of the Art, i feel that it speaks to each of us according to our "nature".. and, "birds of a feather flock together".. we will naturally be drawn to schools/teachers/students with which we have common purpose, likemindedness.. i only hope that we don't subdivide the Art into so many parts we "can't see the forest for the trees"... (lord, i'm hot on the cliche's tonight)..

Anyway.. that's just the view from a 60's relic.. done lots of research, heard lots of stuff.. but, this seems to feel right to me, it's a living thing and we need to nourish it well, and with a certain reverence.. i know it has saved my life in many ways, now i must return the favor..

Be well, be sincere, be compassionate.. the rest is easy..

[bamboo_ leaf]

TCBob,

Always interesting, feel very much the same as what you have written but probably couldn’t have expressed it as well.

..” I don't favor the strict defining of the Art, i feel that it speaks to each of us according to our "nature".. and, "birds of a feather flock together".. we will naturally be drawn to schools/teachers/students with which we have common purpose, likemindedness”

Very nicely put, :) many people that I know really search for people that can answer some inner awareness they have.

The key IMO is to have the awareness. I think this may take awhile to develop. “when the student is ready, a teacher will appear”

they never say what being ready is :)