Role of Jiang Fa in development of Chen Taijiquan

[Fu-Pow]

Curious what you guys think about the following hypothesis.

1) Up until the arrival of Jiang Fa in Chen in Chen Village the martial art practiced there was called Chen Family "Pao Chui" or Canon Fist.

2) Because of Chen Village's close proximity to the Honan Shaolin Temple the Chen Village "Pao Chui" was heavily influenced by Shaolin kung fu. (Read Jarek Szemanski's article about the similarities. )

3) Jiang Fa brought some kind of Taoist martial art to the Chen Village and combined with the Chen Family Pao Chui became what we commonly know today as Chen Style Taijiquan.

Questions?:

1)There used to be several sets of "Long Fist" which were dropped from the Chen Style curriculum. Did these come from or were influenced by the Shaolin Temple? Why were these routines dropped?

2) Where did Jiang Fa's martial art come from? Did he train on Wudang mountain or something? Does his MA training have some relation to what is known as Wudang or Taoist Taiji?

3) Do other "Internal" styles have some relation to Shaolin? Is it that there was orginally no such thing as internal and external but that certain components were lost from the arts along the way ie internal lost the external component and external lost the internal component of training?

4) Is Yang style more of a return to the "true" principles of Taiji as it has dropped many of the "kicking and striking" components of Chen Style (which may have come from Shaolin originally anyways.)

Food for thought.

[MusicalGirevik]

I once read some speculation in a discussion a few years ago about the possible influence of Xingyi. Might be plausible since Xingyi is supposed to be the oldest of the Chinese internal arts.

[backbreaker]

I don't know anything about this really, but I saw a video on a different forum which showed something called shaolin xin yi ba.It looked like xinyi. Some shaolin 2 person sets I've seen on the internet look alot like xingyi also. There is an ancient drawing of taijiquan which I think shows the 3 harmonies being hips/shoulders , elbows/knees, and bai hui/hui yin which I think is also in xingyi.Perhaps it's possible that taiji and xinyi were once one system. I don't know any luihebafa, but videos of it looked like it shares some similarities with taiji.I also think that the heng/ha breathing in taiji is exactly the same as pranic breathing in yoga. Also yoga has opening and closing the chest in a seated posture and taiji has opening and closing the torso exercises while seated so it seems to me that yoga and martial arts are also related. I don't know who Jiang Fa is and I really don't know who trained with who, or who traveled where for whatever missions or puposes, but my opinion is this, Taoist and buddhist styles strive for the same goal, have the same origin, and are completely compatible with each other. If both schools are real, then they will both be based off of the same real principles, so regardless if a specific art is directly related to another art or not, they are still related in the end.( a very long time ago)

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Fu-Pow and others.

About Chen History & Origin visit;

web.singnet.com.sg/~limttk/

The author has done quiet a bit of research and while I not agree with everything it is a good site.
It will answer some of your questions.

There was some Xing Yi practiced in the Chen Village.

Shaolin Red Fists I think are said to be internal as well as some other systems at the temple.

Chen style vs Yang style, I think YLC modified what he learned due to his prior MA knowledge and later experiences, Chen I think was more geared towards armored fighters whereas he taught Bodyguards and similar.

Buddhist vs Taoist arts there was not as much animosity as many would you like to believe, quiet a few buddhist monks escaped and hid in taoist temples and at wu-dang.

[MusicalGirevik]

Interesting. The article says Jiang Fa's teacher was from Shanxi. Xingyi is said to have originated from Shanxi.

-MG

[ripat]

Interesting! The above theory is almost the same as what Dan Docherty presents in his book Complete Tai Chi Chuan.

His explanation to the differences between Chen style lineage TCC and the TCC from Yang LuChan is that Chen style is TCC+"Pao Chui" and that what originaly came from YLC is TCC without any Pao Chui influence.

I have been thinking about posting a question about these theories for some time now. I think that what Dan writes about this in Complete TCC makes a lot of sense, but it would be good to hear what "the other side" (IE the Chen people) has to say about the facts he presents and the conclusions he makes. Does anyone know if this issue has been discussed somewhere else on the net before?

[Walter Joyce]

Just a thought, if YLC learned his taiji from the Chens, how much sense does that make?

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by Walter Joyce
Just a thought, if YLC learned his taiji from the Chens, how much sense does that make?

Some Yang stylists claim that he didn't study at the Chen Village but taught them.

We have very little actual verifiable Information about YLC's life, nor do we know exactly that his forms were or why he did thinks as he did since he left no written record (he was illiterate which was quiet common).

Some say he was already an experienced Shaolin practicioner prior to his study at the Chen village, others have him as a teen working there as a house servant and secretly observing classes(common tale in a few styles).
Some even say that he was allowed to learn after saving the Chen village from Intruders.(unlikely to me)

Some say he learned larger frame others that he learned small frame(which some reckon is a new twist to the story and a new addition to Chen TJQ).

Stories = plenty, facts = little.

Personally, I think that he studied at the Village for some time, after that he is reported to have travelled a lot through China and than being invited to the capital where he was offered to the teach the Bodyguards a modified system.
At the same time he is also said to have taught classes outside the palace and this style was closer to the forms he learned.

I think that during his travels he picked up some more styles/info and this influenced the art he created.

[GLW]

Actually, on Yang Luchan, there is a fairly accurate oral history. The original writings of Fu Zhongwen pre-1955 went into this.

Fu was a relative via marriage and close student of Yang Chengfu and had access to all of the family history.

In the original history, Yang Luchan was an indentured servant to the Chen family. Hibeing in Chen village was definitely NOT by choice.

In the later versions, his status was raised - and this has been officially supported more because of the widespread popularity of Yang's Taijiquan -

Folks like Tang Hao and Gu luxing went into these records fairly thoroughly.

Back about 400 years, the histories are fairly clear. The origins back beyond that are where things get muddy as all get out.

This is of course excluding things like the Wu Yuhsiang salt shop manuals and other extraneous writings.

Jiang Fa's existence has been questioned...his time of life questioned, as well as his involvement if any with Chen's Taijiquan...and if you go to zhao Bao village, they will maintain that Chen's Taijiquan came from their style...

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Originally posted by GLW
Jiang Fa's existence has been questioned...his time of life questioned, as well as his involvement if any with Chen's Taijiquan...and if you go to zhao Bao village, they will maintain that Chen's Taijiquan came from their style...

According to Members of the Chen Village they can show you the site where he was buried close to the Village and even where he trained.
Look for the interview on Jarek's site(I think this is where it was).

Zhaobao is a bit of a political issue.

Chen stylist see it as a sub-style of Chen TJQ.
Zhaobao stylist claim that theirs is a different system.

FWIW, first time I have heard the claim that Chen originated from within their village.

So far all the discussion I have seen if Zaobao should be recognised as a sub-style of Chen or as an independant style.

History of the style I heard is kinda similar to the Yang Kwang Ping system where one practicioner brought the system to the village after marrying a member of the village.

Personally, I think it is said that many practicioners now insist that what they do is seperate from the 5 mainstyles, just to stand out.

[ripat]

>Just a thought, if YLC learned his taiji from
> the Chens, how much sense does that make?

It makes sense if the mixing of TCC and Pao Chui didn't occur until after the time of Chen ChangXing (YLC's teacher).

[GLW]

And there are equally serious people that claim to know Zhang Sanfeng's irthday, where he lived....

My statement was that even though there are claims about Jiangfa..and some are from Chenjiagou, they tend to play out under close scrutiny.

His existence...maybe or maybe not...his involvement with Chen's Taijiquan...maybe...maybe not... Beyond 400 years, the history becomes murky....at best.

The 400 years DOES support a Ming general retiring to home...about the right time for the change from Ming to Qing....but beyond that...????

As for Zhao Bao...Personally, I can see how it DERIVED from Chen. Logically, each sucessive generation and style away from Chen has gotten softer, more fluid, and more in line with hiding the power rather than displaying it.

Yang, Wu, Wu, and Sun follow this pattern. Zhaobao is softer and more hidden in power than Chen...so it would fit as an offshoot of Chen...but there are those that reverse this. In Tai Chi magazine about a year or so ago, there was an article translated from China that did this... doubtful....

[Mo Ling]

I personally am involved with Chen Taijiquan and have been interested in its history. However, I consider this to be a rather political and fairly useless issue. It is basically forever perpetuated as various arguements simply to support different factions ego or political motivations.

I think that most people are not actually interested in the true history as much as the manufactured or tailored history that suits their needs.
If you really are interested in the true history, you will have to admit that their is not an adequate amount of credible information available. As you are actually interested in a credible truth, you will avoid specualive truths that cater to the lineage needs of your particular brach of martial arts. Accepting the objective truth in this case means the whole truth will not be known and what little is known must be accepted from valid sources whether or not it makes your own line look better.

If you really want to be objective about this the best you can really do is look at the available records from the families themselves as actual historical fact...which is basically :

The yang family history will tell that Yang spent 18 years of study in Chen village after serving as a servant there.
The Chen family will corroborate this as well.
Chen family history has Jiang Fa as a servant of Chen Wang Ting, and his painted portrait with Chen Wang Ting seated in front as teacher is really the only viewable record of him as far as I know.
Both Yang and Chen families considered (and still do) their art Taijiquan. Between those two families there has not been any debate in terms of only one of them is Taijiquan, both schools at least in the family lines consider the other a line of the same art.

To be clear about this you have to look at who is talking here.
Neither the Yang or the Chen family has tried to claim that taijiquan came from Jiang fa, or from wudang or from a dream or any of that. Plenty of PRACTITIONERS of one of those arts have tried to claim these ideas as truths, but not the direct families.

The people who try to state that yangs is the original and Chen is only pao chui etc...are not from the Yang family.
Everytime I hear this pao chui stuff it only shows how much is not understood about set #2 of Chen taijiquan. It does use expressive power, but the similarities to the first set are huge...it is to this day not much different from set #1 in terms of how it works, it is the same art.

If you want to know the truth accept what is recorded as fact by the families themselves, because that is really all one has to go on, then accept that that is the best you can do, it is not all available anymore. If you folow this method you can only accept that as far as we know by the nearest fact (not speculation) Chen taijiquan came from Chen wang ting, and was taught to Yang later on...before chen wang ting ...who knows really...it is not clear.

there is not enough fact to go on, the little that is there suggests the Chen Wang ting- taijiquan-Yang lu quan line etc... to advocate otherwise is pure speculation and not in accord with the actual family histories that are involved.


M


www.taijigongfu.com

[ripat]

Thanks for the good post Mo Ling.

I agree that it's a rather political issue and that there are too little information for us to ever be sure of what happened.

I'm not so sure that the available facts suggest the the "Chen Wang ting- taijiquan-Yang lu quan" line as you say however, but I admit that I don't really know enough to argue either way.

What I know of TCC history is mainly from Dan's books and from what I picked up on the internet and elsewhere. That's why I think it would be great to hear what the Chen people (and others) think about what Dan writes in "Complete TCC". It's certainly not unfounded speculation if that was a worry.

I also realise that it's quite unlikely that I ever find a Chen practitioner who both has much knowledge of TCC history and has read the book, and who is also willing to post his comments here. But I can always hope, right?

[jun_erh]

Just want to add:

there is really not much written info on Wudang history, at least here in the west. Not to the extent of Shaolin. S it's hard to say hw much or how little taoism and/or wudang affected the creation and evelopment of tai chi chuan. It may or may not be vital piece of the puzzle.

If I were to make the arguement for Wudang, I would point to the obvious similarities between taoist qigong and tai chi. Those excercises, the ones I have seen mainly from the book ancient way to keep fit, go back way before 1600's/ chen village etc.

[RAF]

Thank you Mo_Ling for summarizing what appears, at least in the West, to the best evidence we have to date.

I've read Dan Docherty's book and respect his art, especially with his take on basic training (square and round forms practice follows something I learned in baji---starting with squareness i.e. structure and roundness i.e. ability to deliver power. Also need a way to develop and generate power and I believe Dan answers that in his book) but, IMHO, I think his take on the history is more speculative than factual. But this doesn't take anything away from the art that Dan teaches or skill. Its just a disagreement over history which is interesting but less important than one would think.

Jarek's site has some debate but Jarek also has a translation of Xiao Jia, which for me, ends this Jiang Fa linkage to Wudang Shan.

The only thing I would add is that Daoism was practiced throughout China and I am not sure that Wudang Shan was necessarily its birth place.

Look at the arguments in bagua, Praying Mantis regarding styles and origins and Mo_Ling is pretty accurate that this all centers around ego and politics and the desire to legitimize someone's arts.

Its a no-win situation but you can clearly delineate specualtion from fact as Mo_Ling has presented.

[backbreaker]

I think I read in a book there are Shaolin, Emei, Wudang martial arts and that there is a shaolin temple on Emai mountain:confused:

[backbreaker]

:)

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

RAF & Mo-Ling great posts.

All we can do is collect as much information as possible and form our own conclussions.
Doing research in China is tough and often very frustrating.

If it truly mattered I think that any of the Families would have made a public statement proving or disproving certain statements.
That they haven't done so shows me that they consider the matter not that important.

To be honest I could ask my Sifu about the official viewpoint from Chen Village about these issues, but I don't think that it would be welcome nor that it would end the debates.

[backbreaker]

I 've seen demonstrations of Guang Ping style taiji because there is someone teaching it in my town. I saw a demonstration of it at a martial arts tournament .It looked like chen style.It started out with buddha's warrior pounds the mortar but then it went into something that looked like 3 brush knees. There was also a wave like force that went from the legs rippled up the hips and vertically up the body. I've never learned it but it looked like chen style alot.The Yang style I've learned is also the same as chen style.(moves like fist under elbow, repulse monkey,the kicks are all the same but slightly modified but the excact same,basically same form)It seems very similar to me to the first chen form.But I've only learnt the first form in both styles,I learned Yang style ta lu push hands. Actually the first Yang taiji I learnt had a short form and long form as well as 2 person forms,weird because my Chen teacher never mentioned a two person chen form and said most taiji styles other than chen have only the first form. I do beleive the principles of these arts ARE very, very old though,coming from Buddhist and Daoist systems.This is just my opinion and I don't know much compared to others here.

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Backbreaker.

AFAIK, the Yang 2-man form was created post Yang Chen-Fu and is a fairly new addition to Yang style, Chen does not have it.

I agree that Guang Ping looks very similar to Chen style, I think one of the posters on here might be able to shed a bit more light on this.
;)

The Taiji styles are not static and new forms and sub-styles are still being created and added.

Also many teachers are trying to advance the art and you will see great variances in their forms between their early and late studies.

How many forms there are truly in each style and similar I think is only known to the Families and really high-level practicioners.

[Fu-Pow]

I think that this thread has gotten a bit off of topic and into a Chen vs. Yang argument which was not my intention.

I don't think that anyone disputes that Chen has influence from some other external arts whether it is from Honan Shaolin Temple, General Qi Jiang, Tai Tzu Quan or somewhere else. The Chen Family had there own style of martial arts that was external in nature. It may have had influence from several external elements.

The other styles of Taiji seem to have lost these external elements over time. Chen seems to have lost them to some extent too ie the missing long fist set. But still retains them in the Pao Chui form, etc. Perhaps they are not crucial to understanding the internal elements?

The question remains as to where the Internal Elements of Taiji Chuan came from?

Wu Dang mountain? Jiang Fa? Zhang Sen Fang? '

It seems that internal "cultivation" arts existed before Chen Wang Ting so where did the influence come from into Chen village?

Doesn't have to be WuDang but then where?

[T'ai Ji Monkey]

Fu-Pow.

I don't think it really turned into a Chen vs Yang argument.
AFAIK, Chen TJQ has more unarmed sets than just the Yi-Lu & Er-Lu sets, like the 108 long form.

Personally, I think that the internal side came from a variety of sources, giving the location and position of Chen family boxing in the CMA world.
Many people went to the village to study boxing there and many Chen members during their travels and work came into contact with many other MA.

In the end I don't think it can only be attributed to only one person or maybe even one generation.

Just my thoughts.

[backbreaker]

If current Chen masters can catch a bird in their palm and prevent it from flying away , only then shall I beleive they posses the true Neidangong according to the Tai Chi classics.(:D I'mjoking,not serious)

[RAF]

I'll tell you what. If they catch that bird, I'll cook it and we can sit around taking shots of wu liang ye. After drinking a couple shots of that, we won't be thinking much about the origins of taijiquan, Jiang Fa etc. etc..

For sure we'll learn the true meaning of INTERNAL!

Gan Bei!:eek:

[Roll Back]

Hello, I have just started Wudang Zhao Bao Tai Chi Chuan a few weeks ago. The master’s name is Zhao Wiedong. His lineage traces directly to and past Jian Fa to Zhang Sanfeng. (I do not have the chart with me now but if anyone is interested I can post it later) In my second meeting/lesson with him he gave me his lineage and told me the story of Jian Fa and the transmission of Tai Chi to the Chen village.

Jain Fa was a rebel against the government and had to go into hiding. Chen Wang Ting took Jian Fa in and hid him for several years. This was at a great risk to Chen Wang Ting and his family. Because of this Jian Fa then taught the requirements to the Wudang internal style which was not called Tai Chuan at the time. It was at this time Chen Wang Ting added the principles of Wudang Tai Chi to his family’s “Cannon Fist”.

At first I just chalked this up to one of many stories I have heard about the origin and history of Tai Chi. Master Zhao did say that it was the oral history from the Zhao Bao village. I, and as most historians are, very suspect when it comes to any oral history for obvious reasons. But as I have gotten to know Master Zhao, Wudang Tai Chi, and how it is transmitted (taught), I am starting to give it more credibility as requirements for learning Wudang Tai Chi are very strict as it is handed down thru the generations, and it leaves no room for your own interpretation.

As for the form, IMOP it is defiantly different then the other Tai Chi styles even though some of the movements may look similar.

If anyone is interested I can post more. I have over 25 years in the Chinese martial arts with 10 in Tai Chi so I am not starting this as a novice. Though I feel excited as a novice, as I have found a really cool Tai Chi style.

[backbreaker]

I find it interesting that as you learn more and more , the story becomes more beleivable instead of the other way around. I've never seen any Zhao Bao taiji and know basically nothing about it . I do find it interesting to hear about Wudang and Chang San Feng . Alot has been said about how Chen family members in the past were great warriors or army generals , and it's probably true but it also seems obvious that Taiji has roots in things like Shaolin and Wudang also. I don't hear about archery being practiced anymore in taiji and it seems warfare without guns is obsolete now . But it probably shows that the founders of chen style dealt with serious business for whatever reasons Aso , what about the taiji classics?Are they fake?Were they written by who they say they were written by?They sound to me like the authors definately knew taiji well and were also somewhat excited about their skill. I have heard people say that taiji was developed by a regular peasant and is not related to wudang.It just seems to me though , that there is influence from both daoist and buddhist styles.

[Roll Back]

Originally posted by backbreaker
I find it interesting that as you learn more and more , the story becomes more beleivable instead of the other way around. I've never seen any Zhao Bao taiji and know basically nothing about it . I do find it interesting to hear about Wudang and Chang San Feng . Alot has been said about how Chen family members in the past were great warriors or army generals , and it's probably true but it also seems obvious that Taiji has roots in things like Shaolin and Wudang also. I don't hear about archery being practiced anymore in taiji and it seems warfare without guns is obsolete now . But it probably shows that the founders of chen style dealt with serious business for whatever reasons Aso , what about the taiji classics?Are they fake?Were they written by who they say they were written by?They sound to me like the authors definately knew taiji well and were also somewhat excited about their skill. I have heard people say that taiji was developed by a regular peasant and is not related to wudang.It just seems to me though , that there is influence from both daoist and buddhist styles.


It’s not that the story becomes more believable, it is the credibility of how the story got to me that has gained the credit.

Everything I have learned about the Wudang style so far is pure Taoist and does not seem to have any Shaolin influence. If the Wudang merged with the Chen style that is where the Shaolin influence would come into Tai Chi.

No I do not think the classics are fake. I think all the family styles are good Tai Chi. IMOP they all have their own requirements and method of developing their skills. Just as the Wudang style has its own requirements. What has caught my attention though, is the strictness of the Wudang requirements as in, “this has how its been done for generations and there is no deviation if there is a deviation it is not Wudang Tai Chi.” The deviation may be better but it is no longer Wudang Tai Chi. Thus it is with that mind set I give more weight to the fact that the oral transmissions were transmitted with out deviation.

So with my past experience I feel I can say that the Wudang Tai Chi is the same but different. I did the Chen style for about a year and I feel I can say that there is no Chen in the Wudang. Up until a few weeks ago I was doing the Yang style.

[Mo Ling]

In terms of ZhaoBao style taijiquan, Zhaobao village and those that practice taiji there also have their own political motivations for claiming the history that ROLLBACK is stating. It is however well known outside of as well as inside of zhaoboa village that the originator or "zhaobao" style taijiquan learned xiaojia from Chen village which is very near, then took it back to Zhaobao village. This is fairly common knowledge, that is why zhaobao is often noted as a branch of Chen taijiquan. There is little point to argue this stuff really, people believe and accept what they want to or have a reason to.

In terms of FU POW's question:
he said:
"The other styles of Taiji seem to have lost these external elements over time. Chen seems to have lost them to some extent too ie the missing long fist set. But still retains them in the Pao Chui form, etc. Perhaps they are not crucial to understanding the internal elements?

The question remains as to where the Internal Elements of Taiji Chuan came from?"

-----------

The problem with this question is that it is based on preconceptions that are inherently flawed in their view of the Chen family art and "internal" and "external." To assert that Taijiquan is "internal" and other arts such as chen paochui are "external" is skewed. The Chen art does not make that distinction, instead training a set #1 that is both hard and soft with more emphasis on soft and containing body training methods that made it known as internal. The Paochui set #2 is as well both hard and soft though with more emphasis on hard, and containing the same body training methods that made it known as internal.

Paochui, connon pounding in Chen taijiquan is equally as internal as the other forms and methods, it uses exactly the same body methods as the other forms, though with more specific intent towards hitting and expressing power, this power comes directly from the internal training of the other sets as well.

Have other branches have actually lost the element of power expression and striking with force that all martial arts including internal must have to actually fight a real opponent? I really dont know, but it is this interpretation of "internal" as meaning soft or unable to strike that is creating the confusion. If one wants to strike, they are going to need power, if one wants to change and use an opponents force against them they are going to need softness.
These two elements can be explained as a type of yin&yang cycle that really should and historically does exists in Taijiquan. However, neither one of thse elements is what defines this art as "internal," it is the UNION of these two elements and the body&breath method of Taijiquan that defines it as internal.

To separate the elments of yin and yang and then define the yang elements as "external" is to not clearly grasp the Yin&yang concept within Chen or really any taijiquan. Beyond that, to question beyond the limits of historical availablity only asks for speculation.
In the end it just does not matter, if you want to accept facts in their limited availablitiy you can form a basic opinion based on them, if you want a complete history, or one that suits your needs, you willl have to speculate and invent, which many people have no problem doing.

I personally would suggest to beginners and seekers that they accept what is available and practice hard, because neither historical fact, nor ego and speculative legend will give you gongfu, take what you read with a grain of salt and find a good teacher if you can and practice hard.


M

www.taijigongfu.com