Who trains neijia primarily for self-defense? [Archive]

Daredevil

01-07-2002, 12:51 PM

"Funny but practicing kung fu was desingined for those things and combat benifiets ARE the side effect."

I can't find myself agreeing with that. As with many things, it may be true in some instances, but it is not the rule. Martial arts sprung out of warfare (though also merging with other disciplines).

Yes, I practise martials arts for self defense. It's doubtful I'll be attacked (or my loved ones), but I want to be on the safe side. I want to be able to give of myself capably and effectively in this respect (just as in others), if the need arises.

I wouldn' mind competing as well, but that would be just to test myself and drive myself ****her -- it would be a product, not the goal, of training. Or perhaps a training tool.

However, all that's not really the point as martial skill can be learned in an art more wholly dedicated to only that (MMA, perhaps). Sure, I'd search for these other effects in other disciplies. Now, I can group them under one practise which is excellent. My martial intent then also serves so many other purposes and becomes something else. My practise of the martial arts becomes something far greater than "the sum of its parts", so to speak. This way I maintain can maintain a life-long interest in the art, my needs and expectations changing and finding new ways of fulfillment, with the art always following me and me following it.

Ah hell, I find it very difficult to answer the question "why do you do martial arts?" It's such a big, impressive and deep thing. My point here is that self-defense is certainly a large part of it.

taijiquan_student

01-07-2002, 01:17 PM

This is a hard question.

I practice taiji with martial intent, with practicality and effectiveness while sticking with the taiji principles being a big thing in my training.
But the health side is also there. If I didn't do neigong and taiji I wouldn't have as much stamina and wind as I do to play the saxophone.
If I am practicing regularly (i.e. everyday) which I almost always am then my body feels strong and my qi is full (not that I have massive amounts of qi or anything). If I miss practice for more than about a day, I feel weaker.
Practicing taiji for me is also a self-healing thing, where if I have an injury or feel weak taiji will regain that strength or speed up the recovery process.
However, the primary intent and focus of my taiji is self-defense and martial practice. Without that intent, I would say you're not getting half of what the art is about. That being said, and not be a CMC classics-quoting hippy, the Yang Family classics do say that the right balance of the martial and the civil is necessary. I'd venture to say the Yang family knew their stuff, too.

count

01-07-2002, 01:45 PM

I started martial arts so that I could live into my 100's and still perform. (That includes sex with young girls and martial practice. :D I would say "self preservation" requires health, stress management, cultural understanding (if not appreciation), enlightenment, etc., etc... While the direction in my training has followed many roads including fighting to philosophy I picked a taoist internal style so I could have the best mix of it all. I hope you all took the time to vote in my thread, Setting Goals in Martial Arts (http://forum.kungfumagazine.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=8230) down below. ;)

bamboo_ leaf

01-07-2002, 01:52 PM

“That being said, and not be a CMC classics-quoting hippie”

Interesting statement, can you talk of what is a CMC classic quoting hippie. :)

As to the topic. This is what I have found.
Some of the more noted TC people org. learned TC to correct some health problem. As they got deeper into the art the combative aspects became available through "correct practice." Some are known for their ability to really use softness to defeat their opponents.

I feel that it is very hard to teach or even think of TC if your mind is filled with trying to fight or knock the others head off. If I become one with your movement and help you to lose your balance is this the same as fighting with you?

Even the postures if you look one way i.e. with what some call MA intent they can be used very differently then those that see them as a way or result of another’s actions.

Lets take the dreaded “fa jing” that many talk of.

One way to look at it is you use your structure and bounce someone out with it, according to what I read on this forum.

Another way of looking at it is to release your mind intent along the same path / direction as the other.
Both look like the same thing but are very different in applacation.

I don’t think i fit into the TC martial intent/ I look at it more along the lines of maintaining inner and out balance.

Softness can be the hardest thing to really learn, but I think the most effective thing to deal with unbalanced movement of others or ideas that come into ones life.

Ky-Fi

01-07-2002, 02:12 PM

Some good points made.

At one seminar a couple years ago, my teacher asked everyone "How many people here think Taiji is practical for self-defense?" A few people raised their hands, and he said to them "Are you crazy? Didn't you see Raiders of the Lost Ark? That guy spent his whole life practicing the sword, and Indiana Jones just shot him!" :)

When I'm studying Taiji saber, and I'm learning to draw the sharpest part of the blade across the length of the stomach so it cuts it open, instead of just bluntly striking square-on with the blade---that's not really a skill I'm likely to use in real life. Sure, some of the principles can be transferred to an umbrella or cane, or what have you----but if I really needed to use an umbrella on the street for self defense, then I should train umbrella, and not waste my time with a saber.
Things like qigong, meditation, traditional weapons----those things aren't really necessary if you want to become a good fighter in a short time.

Do I think Taiji is a very effective martial art? Yes. Do I think that people should be fully exploring the depth of combat applications an art contains? Yes I do, because that's the nature of learning a martial art, and without that you'll never reach a deep understanding of the art. Do I think Taiji is a PRACTICAL way to learn to defend yourself? No.

I'm interested in the whole art. Combat is part of it, but not all of it.

taijiquan_student

01-07-2002, 03:32 PM

"Interesting statement, can you talk of what is a CMC classic quoting hippie."

:) That was said ina joking way.:) (I notice you do CMC style. That is one of the forms I do, too.)

Although, there is a serious side to this topic. Many students in the CMC lineage, especially a lot of the NYC students and 2nd generation and onward students, really don't have much. They like to talk of softness, quote the classics a lot, and say that it takes years and years to get anything(softness is one of the keys to success in taiji, the classics are full of great advice and wisdom, and you don't become a master overnight, but many of these guys take it to the extreme)--or worse yet, say stuff like after 10 years, you'll be good enough to know you know nothing. But in reality, most of them have no juice. This isn't true with everyone, but sadly this is the state of most taiji today, especially in this lineage. But don't get me wrong, I have nothing against CMC himself. He was a great taiji guy, great martial artist (although some debate this), and is probably best known in Mainland and Taiwan for his painting/calligraphy, too. It's just some people in his lineage don't have any real skill, but like to talk a lot. Oh, and also, a lot of people make CMC out to be some sort of god or something, which isn't cool. Sorry for going on and on--you get the point.

Don't take it personally or anything, though. Like I said, I do Cheng's form, too.

Waidan

01-07-2002, 04:25 PM

I definitely started (and continue) with fighting application in mind. All of the health benefits, and other areas of growth associated with IMA can't be overlooked, but learning to fight very well was and is my primary goal.

bamboo_ leaf

01-07-2002, 04:43 PM

A little off topic:

Sorry TS,

Just wondering :)

I think for many he was teaching far above their level of understanding and usage.

I only know directly a couple of people in his lineage. Notably, Ben Lo. “ Tai Chi is a martial art”
He used to express this also “ Tai Chi is like a machine gun it takes awhile to learn how to use it”

My ideas are expressed a little differently but the main point is demonstrable usage. If Ben said “be straight” he meant be straight, if he said relax he really meant relax. His classes where very hard.

If you had a chance to met him or maybe some of the others I don’t see how one could say some things that have been said about the CMC style.

I guess I need to get out more, most of the TC people that I see here are very into usage. The question then becomes who really expresses the real TC principles, this is most often talked about with some people that I know. When I say expresses this is usually done through the medium of free style push hands.

Any comments that I make regarding the CMC style or TC viewpoints are mine alone, they should be taken as my thoughts not of other people or org. that many be in the CMC lineage.

taijiquan_student

01-07-2002, 05:02 PM

Bamboo,

I think Ben Lo is great. My teacher has met him a few times, and has nothing but good things to say. Like I said, not everyone in the CMC camp are into the new-age, dance, health-oriented version of taiji, but most are, and probably the most famous student to write about CMC and his teachings (who I won't name but I'm sure you can guess;) ) has carried this on.
The thing about CMC's american students is that when he was teaching in NYC, he was teaching to an audience. He was primarily teaching young, liberal guys with long beards who smoked pot a bunch, and were into the softness and yielding of taiji and the relaxation benefits. They didn't need to be taught 10 different ways to close someones windpipe. There was no reason for CMC to give away that stuff to the NY students.
Look at William Chen, who is a great fighter, and won a full contact fighting tournament (I can't remember which one). Ben Lo also has the stuff, and another Taiwan student I can't remember is also radically different in style than the NYC guys.

:)

EARTH DRAGON

01-07-2002, 05:07 PM

You say that you cant agree with what I said, but if I may it is known fact that martial arts were designed by monks and hermits whose religion of taoism, buddahism and confusuism forbid them of inflicting harm upon any living creature. Thus fighting and or combat was not a factor in the birth of kung fu but a secondary effect.
So where you said that.....
Martial arts sprung out of warfare (though also merging with other disciplines). I would have to say no.

Water Dragon

01-07-2002, 05:47 PM

Ben Lo also has the stuff, and another Taiwan student I can't remember is also radically different in style than the NYC guys.

That would be Dr. Tao Ping-Siang. At age 82, he is probably the scariest person I have seen yet.

http://www.chineseboxing.com/media/TaoSemMa999.jpg

taijiquan_student

01-07-2002, 08:30 PM

Awesome picture! :D

Yeah, I'm pretty sure that's who I meant.

Chris McKinley

01-08-2002, 12:11 AM

Wow, I didn't think this thread would take off so fast. Nice to know people are interested in responding to it.

Earth Dragon,

You wrote " Allow me to ask you guys why you would be interested in focusing mainly on the combat side? do you plan on fighting in the near future? or defending your life? or is it just the combat side is more fun to practice?". I don't currently plan to ever fight anyone. However, as my own past experiences have shown, our plans often have nothing to do with it. Instead, what I am planning is to be as prepared as possible to defend both my family and myself should the need arise.

RE: "...if I may it is known fact that martial arts were designed by monks and hermits whose religion of taoism, buddahism and confusuism forbid them of inflicting harm upon any living creature. Thus fighting and or combat was not a factor in the birth of kung fu but a secondary effect.". As a sweeping generalization, this is neither "known" nor a "fact". While it is true of certain styles, even certain families of styles, it is by no means true of all or even most of the fighting methods of China's history.

Perhaps I'm reading you in a moment of weakness or something, but surely you are aware that while Buddhism preaches a generally non-violent lifestyle, neither Taoism nor Confucianism hold such a prohibition.

Also, RE: "Martial arts sprung out of warfare (though also merging with other disciplines). I would have to say no.". Especially if we are talking about martial arts in general rather than specifically CMA, by saying no you would most certainly be in error. Again, I'm puzzled by your response here, given what I've read of you in the past both here and at your own website. Oh well, no harm done, just simple disagreement.

bamboo leaf,

Your insight into your lineage's namesake is admirable. You wrote "I think for many he was teaching far above their level of understanding and usage.". That is more than likely true, especially given the climate of the culture to which he was teaching. Namely, 60's era San Franciscan young people, most of whom were by and large part of a cultural backlash movement which often rejected wholesale the institutionalized beliefs of its culture and just as indiscriminately (and superficially) embraced all manner of exotic and foreign cultural influences. The level at which CMC taught might go a long way toward explaining the tendency of many if not most of his lineage's American adherents' reputation for low-caliber fighting skill.

While CMC would not be the first Chinese teacher to fail to pass on his knowledge and skills due to a lack of students he found worthy, he would also just as importantly not be the first Chinese teacher to hold back essential information from, or even to purposefully mislead, students of non-Chinese ethnic origin.

I would not hold him solely accountable for what happened, however. The lackadaisical "good times & rock n' roll" attitude of the Americans he encountered goes at least as far in explaining the situation.

You wrote regarding the generally known fighting ability of students of CMC lineage, "I guess I need to get out more, most of the TC people that I see here are very into usage.". I would respectfully agree with you here regarding the usefulness of a bit of exposure. It is not clear whether you have done similarly or not, but I have travelled quite a bit here in the U.S., and the consistent pattern of those Taiji students of YCF/CMC lineage is that they are generally significantly nicer and more interesting people to meet than the average and that they generally can't fight to a degree even worth mentioning, relative to practitioners of other martial art styles. While I am open to considering that this is merely my own experience and doesn't necessarily reflect the situation at large, I would suggest based on the opinions I've encountered that you would find my assessment more common than not among other practitioners. Indeed, the popularity of that opinion is such that it has become somewhat of a stereotype regarding YCF/CMC practitioners, whether entirely deserved or not.

taijiquan_student followed your post with as succinct and, I believe, correct an explanation for it as one could want, the one wherein he talks about CMC teaching to an audience.

EARTH DRAGON

01-08-2002, 10:15 AM

As my training has lead me to be lucky enough to train under 2 chinese masters I have learned quite alot about the reasons for the introduction of kung fu. And I can assure you that the original reason for the invention of such skills did not have combat in mind. (Mind you I am speaking of the introduction not what came many years after). It was merly a side effect or bonus reason that one aquired when practicing. I have known many people to say that kung fu masters learned martial or combat techniques first. However this is not true for true mastery of kung fu focuses first and formost on health and the regeneration of health. I am talking medically not just personally.It is a masters first trining that encompasses the anatomy, chi flow, meridan locations and herbology. Not how to fight for fighting can be dine by anbyone with fists and considered barbarick in a religious mind weather that mind is buddahist or taoist. It was da mo who observed the monks in great diffecientcy both physically and mentally. And it was the reason for the YIN GIN CHING and the SHII SOEI CHING intorduction to them. It was not until many years later around 530 A.D that the lohan excersises were introduced that the abbott realized that if trianed at full speed could be used to defend the monks and the temple, however at the introduction of lohan 530 A.D china was not at a fudel time so combat was NOT the main reason for the practice. I am not saying that all matial arts felt this way but we are talking abouut the introduction and internal right?

So just to touch back on what you said
"While it is true of certain styles, even certain families of styles, it is by no means true of all or even most of the fighting methods of China's history"

I am not talking about all of china's history, nor all the martial arts that came out of it but just the "introduction" of martial arts was what I orignally said was first and foremost for medical and a side benifiet was combat effectiveness..........

bamboo_ leaf

01-08-2002, 10:32 AM

Thanks Chris,

Interesting. :)

I guess I just haven’t met any of these people yet or maybe they belong to a different time.

All I know is that among the TC people that I have met in AL, OK, HI, CA, it seemed that most where into the usage part of the art.

We may disagree on what TC usage is but I tend to view it more as a matter of level then something incorrect.

For me usage is key in demonstrating understanding of any art. Having come from other arts into TC I feel that the mind set is completely different. In the other arts that I have come from the idea was “ I will hurt you” in TC, I feel the idea is “ I will help you to hurt your self” very different.

this is why i speak in terms of balance reather then fighting.

good topic, many interesting views :)

taijiquan_student

01-08-2002, 12:58 PM

Earth Dragon...

I think what you are talking about is the qigong excercises Da Mo supposedly introduced to the Shaolin temple, and not the martial arts. These excercises were practiced so the monks would have more energy and stamina for meditation, and were not martial at all. That came later.
While you are right in the sense that the introduction of the seeds for the Shaolin martial arts were for medical and health purposes, I don't think that warrants the statement:
"fighting and or combat was not a factor in the birth of kung fu but a secondary effect."

EARTH DRAGON

01-08-2002, 01:36 PM

I am simply going along the lines of the thread in that who trains neijia primarily for self defense. And some one earlier said that combat was the main reason for the invention of internal arts. Thats when I said that the actual purpose was for health and the secondary benifiet was martial that was my point. not to say that it was the only reason or it was the only aspect but it was the main purpose. thats all I meant but maybe I did not explain myself correctly or did a por job trying to convey my thoughts or perhaps their was misunderstanding on the part of the readers but whatever the case I think that I cleared up my point and hopefully did a better job explaining myself but who knows? I am still knew to this typing my thoughts thing..... LOL have a great day your freind E.D

Braden

01-08-2002, 02:49 PM

If the neijia were not invented to be primarily martial arts, why do the CLASSICS of baguazhang describe what to do against attackers with knives, how to fight in the dark, how to fight on slippery footing, how to fight multiple attackers, and how to fight in general, but never once mention how to reach enlightenment, nor what to do when you are sick?

Sam Wiley

01-08-2002, 06:25 PM

On the subject of Buddhism prohibiting violence...while I remember reading this in the Dhammapada, I also remember reading a passage dealing with what happens when one purposely deals out violence. It says that those who deal out violence will soon find themselves the victim of one of ten specific conditions. A few of them sound like the result of other people defending themselves. So I think there are provisions.

I frankly do not see what the problem is, and find no conflict between Buddhism and any martial art. Maybe people need to expand their definitions of "compassion" and "humane" to understand that perhaps the most humane, compassionate thing to do when physically attacked is to beat someone down or to kill them if it is that serious of a situation. Sometimes the best thing is to have no mercy. Of course, sometimes having no mercy may be the most merciful thing as well. There could be many reasons for this. For instance, by stopping the person from perpetrating any more wrongdoing on yourself or possibly on others in the future, you might be saving them from the consequences of those actions later on down the line. Or perhaps they are suffering from some inner pain that only death or a good beating will cure. Or perhaps they are masochists and the most humane thing to do would be to administer a beating since the most sadistic thing to do to a masochist when they ask for a beating is to NOT beat them.

Also, I personally train my body to react without thought during an attack so that my mind and spirit are not burdened by my actions. Now some people may have an aversion to making this happen with them, but I think it is ideal. If it is my body that does something and not my mind or spirit, then the karmic consequences are lessened if there are any at all.

In any case, while certain martial artists might be influenced by certain religions the martial art itself is not and should be taught that way.

maoshan

01-08-2002, 09:55 PM

Peace all

Earth Dragon,

I totally disagree with you.
If you follow the origin of of the three main Internal arts, All of the inventers had martial use on thier minds. In truth None of them had thier actual origins in the Taoist Religous aspects at all,
just the Qi-Gong aspects.
Concentrating on the health aspects is primarary as a foundation being that if the body is not prepared the training can damage and even kill the practitioner.

[ it is known fact that martial arts were designed by monks and hermits whose religion of taoism, buddahism and confusuism forbid them of inflicting harm upon any living creature. Thus fighting and or combat was not a factor in the birth of kung fu but a secondary effect.]

The question was "who trains the Nei chia primarily for fighting?"
The men who created these systems were not devout priest or monks. Two were Generals and one was a pure martial artist who got a job teaching his skill to the royal court. this had nothing to do with the points you point out. While this may be true of earlier times, it doesn't apply to the question.
besides it is a fact that if you don't practice with full intent( I mean all aspects) you won't gain the full benifits of the health.
case and point: take Shaolin, The monks skill were known to be phanominal . How could this be if they didn't train with intent on fighting? Even with the no kill mind set, usage had to hold a high place among every thing else.

I train for all it has to offer. I focus on fighting. In that, I push to the max. Through that I'll gain all. Passive training Just for health
slows progress.
Another sapect to be considered, It wasn't until Sun Lu tang wrote his books that this health aspect even began. Prior to the 20's it was Martial art not health art. Not to say that the masters were not aware of the health aspects but IT was the side effect, not the other way around.
My research has found these things to be true.

To all the old crew.
Sam
Chris
Braden

Good to hear from you Guys.

Peace
Maoshan

dubj

01-08-2002, 10:02 PM

I think that the taoists balanced out their lives by practicing a balanced art. The internal arts are knowledge that naturally fused. Taoists like to master things as much as possible so they created their medicine and qigong from their extensive knowledge on physiology in order to try and master their health. Martial arts were a very worthwhile endeavor for them at the time because there were no bombs or guns so it was more realistic to try and master any hostile threat to yourself. If you train harder and more advanced than any soldier at the time, then a fool trying to rob you or even an animal attack would be something you could handle. Therefore if you don't go looking for trouble you shouldn't have much to worry about besides illness or the weather. It makes since then that they balanced out both important aspects into one practice that is a little different that most other martial arts because of the taoist input of knowledge on physics, phisiology, philosophy, and medicine. Depending on how you live is what will determine which aspect is more important. Basically my point is that I don't think that internal styles are a type of qigong that was turned into a martial art or a martial art that somehow has qigong qualities. I think it is a culmination of hard work by people that knew of existing practices that could be combined to create something great.

01-08-2002, 10:30 PM

When it comes down to it, I want to be able to DEFEND MYSELF if somebody attacks me.

This remains my primary goal of practicing kung fu and always will be.

At least that's the way my sifu taught me - and I practice a "Nei Jia" style.

Sam Wiley

01-08-2002, 11:13 PM

How's it going Maoshan? Good to hear from you, man.

I agree about the founders of the arts. Yang Lu-chan was definitely not a monk. The guy loved to fight. Actually, I read a story about him killing a Shaolin monk one time, though I don't know if it's true.

Myself, although I like Buddhist philosophy, I am no monk, either. I think a lot of people have been influenced too much by that stupid Kung Fu television program, where Kwai Chang Caine was taught the lessons about excessive force and always tried to avoid fighting and all that. I think that kind of thing gives martial arts a bad name. I also think David Carradine played a better cowboy and villain than he did a Shaolin monk. For some reason, people have a train of thought that seems to go "kung fu...Shaolin...monk...monastery..." and of course after that, they get to philosophy and religion.

My own train of thought, when thinking about the internal arts, does not even include Wudang. In fact, I tend to associate the internal arts with much more dangerous and ferocious things than monks and tree huggers. "Xingyi...Panzer tank...Bagua...rabid grizzly bear...Taiji...den of rattlesnakes...," that kind of thing.

The funny thing is that, although I associate them with these things, their practice tends to make me feel more at peace and more compassionate towards others. And I guess that is, as Dubj mentioned, the balance factor within them. On the one hand, they make you extremely violent, brutal and savage when you have to be, but the rest of the time, you are a little more compassionate and at peace. There is a Classic saying in Taiji that mentions a great river, and when most people think of this, they tend to think of a gently flowing river, but not all rivers are like that. Having been white water rafting, it is rivers that have both smooth and violent parts that I think of when I read that passage. And my main form that I practice is like that, slow and flowing in some parts, and explosive and violent in others. So, yeah, I think there is definitely a balance there.

Tang

01-09-2002, 10:50 AM

I started Tai Chi after practicing JKD for a year because my body was to stiff. Tai Chi Form, is perfect for teaching people how to move properly and to understand how to transfer your weight for better balance . Tai Chi has helped me in JKD but I don't know anything yet of the martial aspects of Tai Chi. My teacher told me that he teaches the forms first then after you learn them he teaches you the martial application.

Nexus

01-09-2002, 11:09 AM

Tang, it is good to hear that you have a teacher who takes his time and that you have the patience to continue with the tai chi. Ta'i Chi takes precission, and you are learning to ensure that you do not make mistakes, and if someone makes a mistake while fighting you, you make them hurt for it.

EARTH DRAGON

01-09-2002, 11:15 AM

I still think you guys are a little confused or possible I have not explained that I am talking about the birth and creation of kung fu not what happened many many years later as all of you have said from your posts

Maoshan you are talking about sun lu tang 1860-1932 form ba gua? I am speaking about 1000 years before him again the birth of kung fu so what you said about prior to the 20's is far out of context. in my point

Braden you spoke of why isnt it in ba gua classics? com on now no one even knows who created ba gua in fact it was in the Qing dynasty 1644 -190? that the first written history was even compiled so ba gua shouldnt even be included in the conversation. again I am speaking about pre 525 AD

Sam with all due respect I hope that you did not have me in mind when you spoke of people getting their knowledge from the TV show kung fu. I would hope my years of learning from the chinese here and in china would be reference enough. you spoke of Yang Lu Chan , Chen Chang Xings student? I am speaking of the birth of kung fu not the birth of Yang style! nor the birth of Chen Wang Ting ...

As it is said a real master is a doctor first and a shfru second for fighting is only a small part of the art and not to be placed above the understanding of ones self or the functions of the body but obviously with many people not fully exploring their art to the fullist have selttled on only learnng fighting and have not even begun to sratch the surface of thier art. Just ask you local chinese master not american chinese but chinese. they will tell you that all the great masters in their history were medicinal in knowledge first for anyone with 2 fists can fight that it easy.....

Paul

01-09-2002, 11:36 AM

My sifu is Chinese, been in the US about 5 years. Sorry, but I don't think he would agree with your assement that martial arts were created as meditation first. I'm pretty sure my sifu would say that martial arts were developed for fighting, I have had a discussion with him about that topic before. At my school the focus is on fighting.

Tang

01-09-2002, 11:36 AM

Nexus,

You've been practicing Tai Chi for quite some time. Do you know anything about Fu Style? Im thinking of taking a trip next month to see Masters of different styles, for demonstrations and maybe some training. Do you think this is a good idea at my early stage?

Braden

01-09-2002, 11:41 AM

I didn't know bagua was invented in the 1600s, and certainly not in pre 500s. Accepted history doesn't 'know' this either.

Moreover, if I'm suffering from the same delusions Dong Hai Chuan is, then I'll consider myself in good company - especially considering that no one who knows The Truth in your view has ever written, said, or taught anything worthwhile enough to have survived culturally.

Moreover still, if DHC _did_ recieve a heritage of nonviolent nonmartial physical practice, he clearly changed it dramatically - and it is the product of that change that contemporary bagua practitioners practice. What validity would such a practitioner hold in claiming what they practice has the qualities of the tradition pre-DHC? Would the practices even be comparable?

And to the meat of the argument - there is clearly substantial evidence of a robust martial tradition in these practices. What evidence do you submit in defense of your viewpoint?

Nexus

01-09-2002, 01:15 PM

Tang, I have little to no experience with Fu style, but that does mean anything. Before you study any style of tai chi, I would recommend that you put a considerable amount of time learning as much as you can about it before paying for classes/signing up. The reason I say this is because once you start a style, you want to be comfortable knowing that it is the style you will be practicing the next year, or two years, without hesitation and less disonfirmation.

I would recommend only from personal experience that you seek out a Yang or Chen style tai chi teacher, and even better if they know both. Wu style should be alright also if it is what is most easily available, as those three styles carry on the mainstream tai chi principles. Yang style is more structure oriented in the beginning and Chen style is more fluid and full of moves asking for flexibility and loose/relaxed body. That is why where I study students are taught Yang first, to get the body comfortable with t'ai chi postures and such before they move to Chen style. Check out http://www.google.com and search for Yang Style Tai Chi to get an idea of what it is all about and many of the great health benefits it has as well.

More important than the style is the teacher though, and this kungfu forum is an excellent source for asking for names of teachers near where you live in areas that are qualified in the style you are looking to approach.

Sam Wiley

01-09-2002, 01:24 PM

Earth Dragon,
No I didn't have you in mind when I wrote that. I simply come across a lot of people who have no other conception of Gung Fu in general.

Personally, I do not buy the story of the evolution of Gung Fu from meditative discipline. There were war arts separate from meditation as far as I know, and later on they may have merged a bit, but I just don't buy the story about Gung Fu evolving from meditation or exercise. Monks may have started drilling military or martial art techniques because they wanted to stay fit, that I could buy.

There are three uses for martial arts: self-healing, martial, and medical or healing others. First, your practice must heal you from the inside. Then you learn to deal with every kind of harmful outside influence there is. Then you learn to apply both of those types of knowledge to others to heal them. And in the process you learn about yourself. So yes, while healing is roughly about two-thirds of the equation, the medical part where you get to play Gung Fu doctor only reaches its height of effectiveness after you learn to fight well. I agree that a real master is a doctor first and a sifu second, but he only gets that way after the martial arts training. Skipping the middle step, he may be able to heal, but not as well as he could have. I have seen fights between people who didn't know how to fight...and they were all ridiculous. In fact, there's a video clip you can probably find on Morpheus now of a fight between two bicyclists. They simply can't fight. One guy throws punches, wild ones, all over the place, and one after another, and never hits the guy except on accident! Anyone might be able to fight, whether they win or lose, but not everyone KNOWS HOW to fight, and there's a difference, at least according to the Taiji Classics.

bamboo_ leaf

01-09-2002, 02:04 PM

Nexus,

“. That is why where I study students are taught Yang first, to get the body comfortable with t'ai chi postures and such before they move to Chen style”

Interesting

In the (dao of Taijiquan )“Jou, Tsung Hwa recommends the opposite.
I believe the Chen has a set that is learned before cannon fist is learned.

His reasoning being that he felt the yang expression to be a higher form of TC. oops (not new age :) )

In many of my post I seem to be against the IMA people (tai chi is for fighting) actually I like to think of myself as saying the same things coming form a different view point.

My viewpoint is that the skills are very hard to really acquire, in the beginning learning the combative aspects with out the skills tends to lead to incorrect understanding and usage.

it is said that people in the old days taught it as single postures.
must have been very, very hard.

In Tangs, case sometimes much has to be unlearned.
I do agree that learning a more widely known style of TC might be better in terms of information and comparisons.

With some styles it might be a little harder to pick up the basic ideas of how it works notabley the Wu style is said to be very hard and high level hard to pick up.

Tang, you mentioned correct movement. can you share what was differnt between what you learned in JKD and now. might be good for another thread. ;)

:)

EARTH DRAGON

01-09-2002, 02:37 PM

Braden,
I never said that ba gua was invented in the 1600's I simply said that thats when actual written documentaion started. You speak of dong hai chuan I am talking many years before, since he was born in 179? something, even with his teacher dong meng lin he taught to understand ones self first and the secondary benifeit was learning to defend ones self then do it with understanding of how to defeat your opponent by way of knowing how to move the chi around your body with minimal external movment as in fa jin, so you must first understand yourself before you can learn how to defeat others. I will not even get into hou tian gua pre heaven and post heaven influence. Even though we have had our differences in the past I do admire you and your knowledge and look foreward to your opinons in the future. But lets admitt that fighting is the lowest and simplest way of conveing your reason of the creatioin of your art.

Sam,
I aplogize for insinuating that you were speaking of me in the generalization of kung fu. I have spent most of my life trying to understand the way, from not 1 but 2 masters who were humble enough to have taught me a lot so with so many years of training I am beginng to learn a little. I too laugh at some of the threads and posts from people on these boards that have recieved their knowledge from TV or video games but I have to believe my teachers for they are old school and have only knowledge to share and although most people dont understand the essence of thier arts I have tried to dig as deep as I can about the reasons behind the assumtions, and speak of only which I know or lead to believe so agin I may be wrong but I still have only what I have been taught to go by. your freind E.D

Sam Wiley

01-09-2002, 02:59 PM

No prob, Earth Dragon.:)

I have a question, though, about Dong Meng-lin. Has there been some new evidence found in recent years that proves he existed and taught Tung Hai-chuan? I have only ever read speculation on the subject.

Braden

01-09-2002, 03:25 PM

Earth Dragon -

Thank you for the kind words; I extend the same attitude towards you.

Although I am still very much a beginner, fighting for me serves as a 'touchstone' in my practice. This is what I have been taught by my teacher and also others who I trust that I've spoken to; it's also what seems right from my own experience. By touchstone I mean that it grounds out the practice, it unifies everything, it lays down some rigorous standards which should be upheld. Thus, even if you're primarily interested in self-healing, for example, your practice should be guided by the martial principles - and understanding them will be essential to developping self-healing skills. It's also very easy to 'get lost' if you place the highest priority upon ideas like chi cultivation, which can have many elaborate and often contradictory theories, and can be difficult to judge. However, it's not so difficult to judge if you are progressing properly according to martial guidelines. What I'm stumbling over trying to describe is that I see these as taoist arts - they are holistic in the sense that you if you try to seperate out one chunk (ie. self-healing or martial) then you won't get anywhere; and also that they are martial arts - not in that they teach us to go out and get in fights, but that at their core is a martial methodology to guiding the student. That said, I do agree with your important points. One, that it's generally disfavorable to get into fights in the first place, even if (or, ESPECIALLY if, depending on your perspective) you're a practitioner of the taoist martial arts. Secondly, that if you concern yourself obsessively in practice with "getting martial skill," that you probably won't. In this sense, I agree with your suggestion that martial skill flows spontaneously out of proper practice (although spontaneously here has a tricky meaning, and does not mean just doing qigong or forms will grant martial proficiency). However, I would add that the same statements can and should be made about self-healing and any other aspect of your practice - If you 'unhealthily try' to get self-healing, you may not get that far; and similarly, self-healing flows spontaneously out of proper practice.

Or at least that's what I've been told, and how it seems to me. :) I haven't been doing this as long as many of you.

bamboo_ leaf

01-09-2002, 04:24 PM

well said :)

EARTH DRAGON

01-09-2002, 04:42 PM

Sam,
As I am no authoirty on ba gua zhang my knowledge is limited. I only have researched it due to its involvement of the footwork within my art 8 step praying mantis. So I do know that he did indeed exsist but I am only aware of a couple of Dong Meng Lins students, Li Zhen Qing, Ba hua Xia and Dong Hai Chuan. I have no other knowledge of Dong Mengs teachings but he may have taught many students for his temple was in the mountains in Anhui were many famous masters turned hermits and never shared enough of their knowledge for someone to become proficent in the art to reach mastery level. But again I am not really the guy to ask for my knowledge lies more in medical qigong and praying mantis than that of Ba Gua zhang.

Braden,
again my point was not to demean the martial aspect of kung fu becuse of coarse as you said one cannot exsist without the other. But with out getting to far off the subject In the beginning of this thread I said in funny how kung fu was desingned to to train thyself and secondly learn to defend thyself when some one said I dis agree with you, which is fine we all cant agree but if you study the culture of china you will realize the the creation of medical qigong came about 2000 years before that of martial qigong and it wasnt until damo 502 -557 AD during the liang dynasty that the monks of shaolin realized that by practicing the muscle/tendon changing excercises they realized the martial ability and used it movemtns to design a fighting or martial technique or set of movements to defend the temple or themselves from either the governemnt or the thieves and beggars.
So my whole point that I have voiced is simply that nejia was created with health first and martial second. but somehow it took a lot to explain my rather simple comment. no harm done for I enjoy sharing my knowledge and experience with others, I think thats why I enjoy teaching so much. And by the way compared to past masters we are all beginners.............

GreyMystik

01-09-2002, 05:09 PM

anyone here ever read "the sword polisher's record" by adam hsu? he approaches the topic pretty well in my opinion...

topic of "which came first" ;)

Paul

01-09-2002, 05:45 PM

the creation of medical qigong came about 2000 years before that of martial qigong and it wasnt until damo 502 -557 AD during the liang dynasty that the monks of shaolin realized that by practicing the muscle/tendon changing excercises they realized the martial ability and used it movemtns to design a fighting or martial technique or set of movements

So basically what you are saying is that nobody knew how to fight or trained in fighting skills before this time? OK, I don't buy that one for some reason.

EARTH DRAGON

01-09-2002, 09:35 PM

No that is not what I am saying at all, please re read my posts. thanks E.D.
It is impossible to pull out part of my entire point and make an assumtion with a sentance or two. My posts are about the primary to secondary reason or should I say purpose of the training of combat applications vs non combative applications.

The reason we invented airplanes was not to have means of protecting the skies for war, but to expand our growth as a explorers. In turn we did have the ability to protect our country in flight, but that was not the mind set for the invention.

maoshan

01-09-2002, 10:35 PM

I, don't have access to all my old notes and books, so i'm going to wing this with the best of my memory.

Dong meng Lin Did not exist.
You say you know for a fact that he did. How?
My thing is Ba-Gua, All aspects including history. Dong Hai Chuan
is the sole inventor. You know, you've inspired me to complete an article I never finished on the origin of Ba-Gua.

As to Martial arts history, I still disagree with you.
According to a book written by Kang Ge Wu called(I think)" The Spring and Autume period of martial arts". Shows cronologicly the development of martial arts in china. It Shows(Again from my Memory) that for example that martial arts were being used at lest 2000yrs before the birth of Da Mo. The styles had no connection with or to any religous, meditational or health aspects.

I'm writting this with out any referances because by the time I can view my notes this thread will be long over with. but I know what I know.
The same author (Kang) did the most Intense investigation on Ba-Gua known, being he Him self is a Ba-Gua practitioner. And we've had a lot of coorspondance over the years. and I'm Convinced with his findings.

Now I think you've been mis-understood on your point because your point had nothing to do with the Question. Weather or not these art began with religous or meditational or what ever.
the question was (paraphrased) " Who trained thier art for self defense?" The origins of these arts had nothing to do with the question. No disrespect intended here, at all.

Please answer the Dong meng lin question. How did you conferm his existance?

Maoshan

EARTH DRAGON

01-09-2002, 11:19 PM

you said Now I think you've been mis-understood on your point because your point had nothing to do with the Question. Weather or not these art began with religous or meditational or what ever.
the question was (paraphrased) " Who trained thier art for self defense?" The origins of these arts had nothing to do with the question. No disrespect intended here, at all.

trust me I know, my point was simply going by what some one said after the thread was posted about his response "thats the reason that internal martial arts were invented for combat" then I said funny how that got turned around and thats not the reson. it actully has nothing to do with the thread and I aplogize to the thread starter for vering way off the topic but my simple statement. soory guys

As for Dong Meng Lin he was a daoist monk who lived in the jiu hua mountains in anhui province near my teachers teachers home town. I cant remember the master before him but i can assure you that he did indeed exsist. he was called Huang Guan Dao Ren which means something like cape wearing monk. I know this becuse it is in our lineage of 8 step praying mantis named after 8 short and 8 long steps of ba gua and has been passed down both written and orally for 6 generations... i would ask you why you would think that he didnt exsist? how can you name someone who never exsisted?

Sam Wiley

01-10-2002, 12:02 AM

Earth Dragon,
I think he means that Dong Meng-lin was supposedly a fictional character. That's all I've ever heard of him being until now. He's sort of like Bagua's version of Taiji's Chang San-feng. Neither one was supposed to have existed, yet we have several styles today claiming to be descended from them. I'm not familiar with any of the mantis disciplines at all, so that's probably the reason I have never heard he existed for real. I'd love to read copies of the stories, though, as I love to read about "semi-mythical" figures.

I guess since I haven't answered the original question yet, I should go ahead and say that I practice for self-defence. Whew, that was hard.;)

Chris McKinley

01-10-2002, 12:03 AM

Hey maoshan, nice to hear from you on this.

Earth Dragon,

As others have made most of the arguments I would make already, I won't rehash. You seem both sincere and convinced in your opinions, and I believe that for certain points we will simply have to agree to disagree.

You did ask, however, "how can you name someone who never exsisted?
". The same way one might name any number of fictional characters from legend, myth, or undocumented rumor. Perhaps the greater point here is that Dong Hai Chuan is the first verifiably documented practitioner of Baguazhang, whether or not he was truly the first person to practice the art.

maoshan

01-10-2002, 01:19 AM

How are you Chris?

Earth Dragon

You just floored me with this. out side of ba-Gua I've never heard of Dong Meng Lin and now to associate his name with Mantis?????????

I don't have my Notes especially the ones from Kang Ge Wu But I'm going to try to write this from memory.
prior to a book written by Jen (it's all I can remember of his name)
called Yin Yang Pa Ban chang, pub. sometime in the 30's, Dong Meng lin's name is not found. at lest not with Ba-gua.
In fact it was discovered that this Pa pan version came from Dong Hai chuan's student Fan Zi Yong. Jen had concocted his story when writting his book. In could write more but the memories are starting to conflict and overlap other origin stories.

I'm going to get my notes and finish the article i wrote of previously. when I do I'm going to post it on my site.

While Dong meng lin may have indeed existed.
he has nothing to do with ba-Gua. Every Style of the system can be traced right back to Dong Hai Chauan. What is taught as part of the taoist tradition, was walking the circle with a change of direction using the tai Chi diagram while Chanting. Dong took this as his basis
and changed it accordingly. the various stepping methods were created by Dong.

I'm courious, If Wong Long created the mantis style, and I have charts as well, I've come across a total of (I think)18 variations of the mantis, (learned northern mantis for 4yrs). While that stuff is way in my past. In the lineage charts I can remember, I don't recall seeing his name. Where does he fit in with Wong? If mantis is about 300 yrs old from Shaolin, Dong a taoist A HIGH LEVEL ONE at that, Ba-Gua is about 150Yrs old. Look I'm not trying to cause nothing here but the math does not mesh could you please explain this?Maybe I'm missing something.

Maoshan

EARTH DRAGON

01-10-2002, 11:02 AM

Sam dont you want to add something to your last sentacne... LOL seems way to short :)

moeshan,
the reason for my mention of praying mantis was not from josi wong long but from our systems creator Jiang Hua Long, he created 8 step by replacing the monkey foot work with ba gua footowrk which was more effeicient and angular allowing one to move around his oppoent with less energy and more agility. Again my knowldge of lineage in ba gua is very limited but I do know that jiang hua long studied ba gua in the hebei province from Chen Ting Hua, and it is said that he was Dong Meng Lin's students sons. I dont not know of his connection or lineage for we were only interested in how and who jiang hua long learned ba gua from. Before or after I have no knowldge of, but I am sure that someone out here may have more, agin this is just what has been told to me through my shrfu shyun kwan long from taipei so It may be written or just oral translation but I have not seen anything else to prove me other wise. So therfore if his name is mentioned as so and so teacher I automatically assumed he exsisted, heck some peopl ethink robin hood never exsisted!!!!!!!!

maoshan

01-10-2002, 05:44 PM

Earth Dragon,

My info Is a Bit Different than yours.
Chiang hua Long exchanged tec's. with his two good friends
Wang chung chin a master of Tong Bei and Chen Sa Den an Expert in Ba-Gua. Through this relationship Did Chiang modify his long arm and stepping methods.

Cheng Ting Hua only taught in Beijing and the Cheng family Village
which is in Sheng County, Hebei provance. And he only taught his family. most of which came to beijing to learn from him. he returned home once a year on his mothers birthday and to make corrections.
now in order for chiang Hua long to make the modifications he made, it would take time for assimilation. the week long visits of Cheng Ting Hua once a year is not condusive for this.

[ Again my knowldge of lineage in ba gua is very limited but I do know that jiang hua long studied ba gua in the hebei province from Chen Ting Hua, and it is said that he was Dong Meng Lin's students sons. I dont not know of his connection or lineage for we were only interested in how and who jiang hua long learned ba gua from]

What student are you refering to? and if he were the son of one of Dong Meng Lin's student's, why would he have to learn from cheng ting hua? who was indeed a master of the system but did not recieve all of Dong hai Chuans system.(to explain this I would really have to go indeph in order for those not familiar with ba-Gua history).

oops I have to go. I would write more But I think it's enough.

Maoshan

EARTH DRAGON

01-10-2002, 09:40 PM

I am sure you have far more knowldge then me on the lineage for as I said I was not very interested in learning all the history of the addtions to mantis to create 8 step but just the basics, and if I can remember my teacher spoke of jiang hua long wanting to improve his stepping patterns turned to a ba gua master this master as far as I know was chen ting hua and that he had a glass business or factory in which jiang worked for repayment of the favor for teaching him. As far as the once a year thing went I do not know how or when it was and again all this is oral tradtion told to me 6 generations later so I am sure much is lost mentally as well as translation for my teacher speaks very broken english, but the only fact that I know is that 8 step is ba gua, how and when and who taught it I do not know for sure, I was not there He He but all I can go by is what has been passed down in our system from master to shrfu.... if you do have anyhting further I would love to hear please repond.. thanx your freind E.D

maoshan

01-11-2002, 01:56 PM

Earth Dragon

[Not to argue and with all due respect but I do speak mandarin]

If you do, what's the point in saying that your teacher speaks broken english, can't you converse with him? I know that there are different dialets but i'm sure that you could have thought of something.
I mean as a dedicated martial artist, you would have tried anything to get a better understanding of what was being conveyed to you. Including the history.

What are you talking about?
First, you claim that you don't care about the history of how the modifications were made. Alright I still have a problem with that but next.

[ all this is oral tradtion told to me 6 generations later]

The math does not fit.
Cheng Ting Hua was a second generation practioner I'm 6th generation practioner. There's a hundred years difference here.
Much too wide a gape.

{but the only fact that I know is that 8 step is ba gua}

8 step mantis is not Ba-Gua If it was I would know it.
Do you use the Mud step, Crain step, Lion step, Snake step, ETC...
NO you don't.
You know nothing about Ba-Gua, to try to compare it to mantis.
But I do know some mantis, and the only stepping method it could possibly use is the Kao Bu and Ba Bu step out of the 7 star stance. Now it may use the Bamboo step out of the Xing-I school to deliver some of the long range blows, but again that is still a far cry from Ba-Gua.
My brother and you got into a dispute a while back he informs me, because you insisted that there was no application with push hands. Stay with your mantis, the Internal is not what you know
and your research is less than what it should be.

Your approuch is two faced. Either you know or you don't know.
In one thread you know, in another you don't, don't play us.
there are some of use on the site that are truly dedicated to these arts.

Maoshan