Mastering internal arts

[unclaimed effort]

Many people seem to misunderstand when they hear the old quote, "It takes 5 years to master Hsing-I, 10 years to master Tai Chi, and even in an entire lifetime you can't master Bagua". They don't understand that 5 years of Hsing-I is only considered to put you in the mastery level when you actually practice hard. The same thing in Tai Chi and Bagua. If you don't practice hard, then the 5 and 10 years will become 10 and 20, 20 and 40 years.....People named these arts kung fu for a reason. And what does kung fu mean? "hard work". This is what I am thinking, please tell me if you think i am wrong, but if you are willing to say so tell me why.

I can be like one of those philosophers who hide everything in poems, but instead I can tell you the true secret of martial arts in one word:

PRACTICE!

[ELFdisciple]

In my opinion, it takes 10 years to master Ba Qua and you will never truely master Tai Chi, but you can certainly try. Hard work, yes. But 99% of the world doesn't know the meaning of the words anymore. The KF masters of ancient times were beyond comprehension physically because they had to work, it was a job. Just like in the military today, you have to have physical training, but even the military has gone soft. (but not the special forces). The point is, in todays age, people don't feel the need to be in shape. Cars take you where you want to go, machines do you're dishes, cook you're food, cut you're lawn. You buy food at the supermarket, not harvest and store it every year, protecting it from bandits and animals. The motivation isn't there, so the skill isn't there, simple as that.

ELFdisciple

Direct Disciple to the 37th Patriarch of Emperor's Long-Fist Kung-Fu

Practitioner of:
Internal Iron Palm
Genki Ryu Do Karate
White Crane and Spirit Dragon SCA combat

[shaolinboxer]

Perhaps we cannot hope to "master" any style because those styles are only tools to aid in the struggle for mastery of the self.

So in a sense, if your master a style, you actually fail to grasp the real goal.

[unclaimed effort]

I agree that we can't truly "master" a style. Yet, being a master is something different from being CALLED A MASTER. In a certain level of martial arts, everybody will start calling you master whether you feel like you are ready or not.

I can be like one of those philosophers who hide everything in poems, but instead I can tell you the true secret of martial arts in one word:

PRACTICE!

[denali]

ELFdisciple: I'm curious about why you believe that Taiji cannot be mastered, but Bagua can in ten years..How come the opposite of the quote?

[ELFdisciple]

Perhaps I haven't been exposed to enough Ba Qua to know how hard it truely is. Don't misunderstand me, its EXTREMELY difficult. But my art is composed of 50% Tai Chi, 25% Hsing Yi, and 25% Ba Qua. And I find that the Tai Chi is the hardest thing for people to master in a combat situation. Throwing someone across the room without using muscle and doing it gently is seen as impossible. Getting the mind to understand that its not is the problem. The Ba Qua seems to be easier to understand on a fundamental level. But I have to admit, understanding and doing ARE two different things.

ELFdisciple

Direct Disciple to the 37th Patriarch of Emperor's Long-Fist Kung-Fu

Practitioner of:
Internal Iron Palm
Genki Ryu Do Karate
White Crane and Spirit Dragon SCA combat

[JerryLove]

Time is releative on person, and "master" is extremely subjective.

That said, I would consider Pagua the most difficult of the Neijia arts. If you are finding otherwise, I would imagine that the Pagua you are learning is deficient. (apologies in advance for whomever takes offence).

As to the assertation that the millitary has "gone soft except for the special forces". I can only conclude that you have not been in the millitary. I don't find that modern millitaries are less "hard" than their counterparts. And from a martial standing, most SpecOps are not terribly in advance of the general force.

[Kaitain(UK)]

on what basis exactly?

this'll just end up as a typical my art is better/harder/more effective than yours argument

10 years to master Taiji? My Sifu has been training for 30 years and yet when he saw his Sifu Ip Tai Tak a month ago he was still learning, as Ip is still learning.

I think what needs to be asked is how long does it take to understand everything you need to work on? Surely it is dependent on the student and his ability to learn and work.

I don't know about Baqua or Hsing-I, but Taiji is a lifetime of study and refinement. I would think they are as well.

I agree with Lyles statements - if all we are studying is a system of combat then we've missed the point.

We have enough arguments with the MMA's without it starting with the internal styles - please let's try and avoid it

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"

[GLW]

Is there ANY style of Chinese Martial Art that is NOT a lifetime learning journey....

[ELFdisciple]

I wish no insult to the people who practice Ba Qua, I like the art and enjoy using it when sparring. Perhaps what I'm learning isn't everything Ba Qua is, it is only part of my art. I just find that Tai Chi seems to be more difficult, both to me and new students.

BTW, I spent four years in the military, its soft. Everything is 'PC' now, hell, they couldn't even cuss at us! I knew a Navy Seal, talk about going through hell for training!

ELFdisciple

Direct Disciple to the 37th Patriarch of Emperor's Long-Fist Kung-Fu

Practitioner of:
Internal Iron Palm
Genki Ryu Do Karate
White Crane and Spirit Dragon SCA combat

[unclaimed effort]

"this'll just end up as a typical my art is better/harder/more effective than yours argument"

Rolls only argues at the external forums.

"10 years to master Taiji? My Sifu has been training for 30 years and yet when he saw his Sifu Ip Tai Tak a month ago he was still learning, as Ip is still learning."

was it my quote? and 10 years is probably all you need to master Taichi. What you are talking about is life principles, and philosophy. The mastery of a neijia art is when you know all the forms, applications, fajing, and can use it in a real fight WELL. Particularly in tai chi, you need to be very very very relaxed and subdue your opponent without much effort.

I agree with Lyles statements - if all we are studying is a system of combat then we've missed the point.

I agree with both of you on this, but you must understand that in able to understand this martial art better you should be able to realize ALL aspects of it. Including the combat aspect, the forms, etc. Not just the philosophy.

I can be like one of those philosophers who hide everything in poems, but instead I can tell you the true secret of martial arts in one word:

PRACTICE!

[walkthecircle]

great article on elements of a complete system:

http://www.emptyflower.com/xingyiquan/crushing/journal/article01.html

[unclaimed effort]

i thought the site was bout Hsing-I, how come they use bagua as an example?

I can be like one of those philosophers who hide everything in poems, but instead I can tell you the true secret of martial arts in one word:

PRACTICE!

[honorisc]

Amoung people who were at the fore front in IOnternal Arts, perhaps this saying was a guide to what is involved with each Art.

Hsing-Iis upright with many hands and steppings. Of the three Internal Arts, it closest resembles untrained stand-up fighting. T'ai Ch'i Ch'uan is wierder. There areflowing motions in wcihc there are not only strikes but also throws(I No_Know Hsing-I to be well known for it's throws). And Pa Kua just...really strange. You move around your opponent (more than the sometimes circling in a fight. Hsing-I and T'ai Ch'i Ch'uan seem to be more face to face Arts when applied). The strike that might be akin to Hsing-I, cure at least a little, yet still hit. There is flowing movement yet not as direct perhaps as in T'ai Ch'i Ch'uan.

This is from poeple who lived the stuf an made it when it was thriving-ish. So that your comprehension finds you working hard. Do not be dismaied. You'll do fine aslong as you keep doing. They had their understandings; you have yours. The quote could be correct for the date from which it was quoted. This is a different date. Perhaps they would agree with you if they were at this Here and this Now.

Very some such,perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

[Kaitain(UK)]

I'm talking about the form and movement

If John Ding still feels he has a ton of stuff to learn, and if Ip Tai Tak feels the same then how can anyone else say they have mastered Taiji in 10 years? Especially in combat/application terms (Ip is recognised by the family as the top Yang family disciple when it comes to combat and applications)

If we're going to discuss combat aspects of styles then I'm surprised you don't cite Taiji as a style that involves circular motion arond the opponent OR circular motion of the opponent. Taiji also uses straight, direct motion. Both are equally emphasised and are meant to blend together according to needs.

note: I can see two points of view here and I'm personally going for number 2, but only after I went through the first argument

ARGUMENT 1:

So Taiji requires mastery of both circular and straight motion - Hsing-I and Baqua require mastery of one of those. Obviously the depth of understanding is going to be deeper for specialists, but:

If Hsing-I masters straight, direct motion and Taiji proclaims the same, then surely the Taiji practitioner should aim as high as the Hsing-I practitioner? (and therefore train as long in that motion)

Equally, if Baqua masters the circular, evasive and unexpected motion and Taiji proclaims the same, then surely the Taiji practioner needs to aspire to the same level in that area (else it is not mastered)

Finally - having mastered both of those elements, the Taiji practioner must then learn to use them both fluidly.

On that basis would it not take a long time to master?

ARGUMENT 2:

Taiji is it's own style - mastery of an individual aspect is irrelevant as it is the blend of the two aspects that counts. Consequently the time taken to 'master' is longer than that of Hsing-I as there is circular and evasive motion to be learned, yet shorter than the time for Baqua as there is linear and direct motion within the system as well.

This isn't a dismissal of Hsing-I as a style - it just makes sense that it is quicker to learn direct motion as it can be understood immediately. Whilst circular motion is a lot harder to get your head around and so takes a longer time to develop.

My strong belief is that the level of ability is the same - we are talking more about understanding and application of the system and how long that takes.

At first I took the thread to be a critique on the level of skill in each art - now I see it differently.

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"

[unclaimed effort]

Please get some experience in Bagua and Hsing-I beefore you say that it only focuses on one motion. As bagua is known for circle walking, many people who didn't practice it claim to believe that they only concentrate on circular motions. Because in bagua there are MANY exercises also to walk in a linear approach, this is not true. This linear walking is part of basics you don't have to try it long before you find this out. As for Hsing-I, the circular motion is hidden within HOW you perform the linear moves. You have to go a little deeper to find that out.

I can be like one of those philosophers who hide everything in poems, but instead I can tell you the true secret of martial arts in one word:

PRACTICE!

[Kaitain(UK)]

I do read a lot about these things actually

Excerpt from my favourite article on this topic:

"In Taijiquan, the high level fighting technique goal is Kong Dong (empty motion) or Kong Jin (empty force, though not to be confused with Lin Kong Jin, the idea of moving an opponent without touching), which is the most typical feature of Taiji fighting skill. It means to let the opponent feel something he thinks he can get, but cannot really get because it is empty. It should induce in the opponent a surprised and frightened feeling, like when one walks on the top of a high building and suddenly steps on an empty place. Usually the skill is described as "lure in and fill in emptiness." Here "lure in" is a key concept, it is not "force in." The feeling is just like to suddenly appear and/or disappear. One lets the opponent feel something, but get nothing. All Taiji skills should meet this goal. It should follow the basic Taiji principle as Yin and Yang supplement each other and exchange. The technical foundation of Kong Jin is Zhan (adhere up), Nian (stick to), Lian (link), and Sui (follow). If one does not exhibit these attributes, one is not considered to practice Taiji in the right way. In application, changes of Yin-Yang happen on the inside of the touching point between your opponent and you, but your physical body may just show really small even invisible movement.

In Baguazhang, the high level fighting technique goal is Bian Dong (change motion) or Bian Jin (change force), which is the most typical feature of Bagua fighting skill. It means change should happen at any time and anywhere and without the opponent feeling it. Anytime one makes contact with the opponent, change must be done continually until you win.

The change should not let the opponent feel before it really happens. It should induce in the opponent an unsure feeling. The description of Bian Jin is "move then change, change then evolve (turn into), evolution to evolution, never stop." The idea is to use quick and continuous changes to make the opponent lose his concentration and then beat him from his weakness point. Never oppose the opponent’s force with one’s own force directly. One should always change when one’s force meets the opponent’s force. All Bagua skills should meet this goal. It should follow the basic Bagua principle of change. The technical foundation of Bian Jin is Zou (go away), Chuan (pass through), Ning (twisting), and Fan (turn over). Without these attributes, one is not really doing Bagua. In application, a lot of visible changes are made. These changes should be continuous and smooth. Do not let the opponent to feel any change until the changes really happen. The physical changes should follow internal changes.

In Xingyiquan, the high level fighting technique goal is Zhi Dong (straight motion) or Zhi Jin (straight force), which is the most typical feature of Xingyi fighting skill. It means when contact is made with an opponent, use a straight force to cross the opponent’s force and suddenly increase one’s own force. It means to attack the opponent at his weakness point (with proper positioning, timing, and direction), or to use a big and strong power to attack his weakness point directly. One should let the opponent feel one’s power is so strong that he is unable to defend against it. One should never use one’s power to oppose the opponent’s force directly.

Sometimes the outside movement may appear to directly oppose the opponent’s force, but in fact inside one should make a simple change to cut across the opponent’s force. With this change, one will be much stronger than the opponent along this particular force vector. The description of Zhi Jin is "Heng (side to side) defense Shun (straight); and Shun defense Heng." All Xingyi skills should meet this goal and should follow 5 elements principles of creation and destruction. The technical foundation of Zhi Jin is Ci (stamp), Pu (spring on), Guo (wrap up), Shu (tie or bind), Jie (decisive). Without these attributes, one is not really doing Xingyi. In application, the break points of physical movements may be visible but internal change should be smooth. Also, the physical movement changes usually are different from the internal changes. It is called "looks like diagonal but is straight inside; and looks like straight but is diagonal."

The article is at http://www.geocities.com/ycgf/arti_TBX.htm

It is an excellent piece on the three sisters.

Please note - I was not trying to be dismissive of ANY of the internal arts in my earlier post.

"If ignorance is bliss, why aren't more people happy?"

[les paul]

Xingyiquan seems "almost" to be thought of as a simplistic art and easly mastered according to some on this thread. Xingyiquan on the contrary, in it's complete form is just as complex and complete as Bagua or Taiji. Never underestimate an art or it's complexity, this will lead to underestimating the practioner at hand and only a fool does this.

By even saying an Internal art could be mastered in such and such time, we have errored greatly.
All internal arts are hard to become proficient at, let alone mastering.

All Internal arts are the same. These arts in question lead to the same location. They just take different paths. As far as mastering any internal art, it truly can not be done. There are levels upon levels, as soon as you reach one, another appears on the horizon. This is true no matter who your talking about (Even if we are talking about the old masters).


If you believe you have mastered an art you have only quit learning and your fooling yourself.
If you believe you are proficient in your art you are fooling yourself again. Being proficient is only relative to the one's around you. Someone will come along and reveal your inferiority if you believe yourself proficient. (sooner than later if your the type to go looking for them)

Paul
Michigan

[JerryLove]

"Mastering any internal art cannot be done.... even if you are talking about the old masters"

OK. If they didn't "master" the art they are hardly "old masters".

I think we are going to have to come to a consensus on what "mastering" an art is.

Referring to webster, I think the following 3 definitions are best....

"a worker or artisan qualified to teach apprentices" (this would be a master blacksmith or master carpenter).

"an artist, performer, or player of consummate skill" (master pianist, master composer)

"a great figure of the past (as in science or art) whose work serves as a model or ideal" (master of mathematics).

I think that in martial circles the first definition is used for anything from a junior-instructor to a teacher (sifu), so is insufficient for master.

The third can only refer to dead people (of the past) and certainly has some odd requirements (their work must serve as a model or ideal) that my make this a poor choice.

Leaving us with the middle, if somewhat nebulous definition.

[unclaimed effort]

I remember once what bruce lee had said in his book, not in the exact words: "before martial arts training a punch to me was a punch, when i got into martial arts i thought that a punch wasn't as simple as a punch, and now a punch is a punch to me." He means that you shouldn't take things too deep when you don't need to. (I think)

I can be like one of those philosophers who hide everything in poems, but instead I can tell you the true secret of martial arts in one word:

PRACTICE!

[JerryLove]

I know you are misquoting and think you are misinterpreting.

Bruce talks about how, before training, punching and kicking are just techniques. Then as you start to train, you find more in the punches and kicks than simple weapons. There is a good deal of sophistication.

Finally, you come to a point where the punching and kicking is, again, just punching and kicking. The fighting occurs through a different mechanism (which I could discuss, but would be presuming on what Bruce actually said) and the punches and kicks are again just tools, as they were in the beginning.

[wujidude]

Bruce Lee read a lot about philosophy when he was an undergraduate at the University of Washington. That doesn't mean he understood everything he read (particularly with English as his second language). Lee's metaphor was borrowed from a Zen Buddhist phrase which in turn came from Dogen's writings of the 1200s.

The Zen phrase can be applied to meditation on anything (a flower, your girlfriend), and simply refers to the process of deconstruction and insight that good Zen meditation aims at.