notice someting about bagua?

[Esteban]

Hi Wujidude,

maybe I agree with much of your argument: that bagua fighting came before philosophy. When you say that it was "originally" developed as a fighting art, I think you're right, but I think it's more complicated than that. "Fighting", after all, and certainly the use of piercing palms and smashing fists, predate bagua. It has to be said that, bagua, taiji, and xingyi are all derived from forms of combat at least as old as traditional Shaolin, and probably older. Bagua is just one of the family of Chinese martial arts. It's a relatively new art, but it has taken the best aspects from arts that preceded it. However, imo, the things that separate taiji and bagua from other CMAs are 1)their training techniques, and 2) their application of specific philosophies to their fighting strategies. Without the emphasis on constatnt "change," it's not bagua. Anyway, if you're saying that none of the developers of bagua as we know it tried to apply a fighting art to an esoteric philosophy, I agree. What I think might have happened, imho, is that a certan group of high-level martial artists saw how their world-views coincided with their martial arts. Bagua and Taiji are simply descriptions of how the universe works. It's the same as a student of physics studying martial arts and developine the best ways to apply what he knows to his discipline. No, he didn't start with physics and develop a martial art; he started with a martial art, and then applied his knowledge of physics. Once an expert applies this knowledge, he may start to see connections that are not obvious to someone with less experience. So, many people would suggest that the beginning student not try to understand Sun Lutang's bagua book. Maybe, just maybe, if one can approach Sun's understanding of bagua, then one can understand his references to the I Ching. Personally, I don't think it works the other way around, though. No amount of knowledge of the I Ching will help one understand the bagua. I guess I'm also implying that it's unreasonable for us to discount what something --obvoiusly significant because it uses the name-- might mean to someone who is an expert. Hey, they say it was an apple falling that led Newton to figure out the laws of gravity. To me, it would have been a chance for applesauce. As far as I Ching and bagua is concerned then, I guess YMMV.

Best,
Esteban

[This message was edited by Esteban on 03-20-01 at 10:49 PM.]

[Waidan]

It's killing me. YMMV?

[wujidude]

I think you're basically right, Esteban. This is getting to be a tired topic for me. There are different paths to the top of the mountain, and different ways of understanding the martial art of baguazhang. Your take on the historical development of the art seems right to me. I don't know how much philosophy Dong Haichuan brought to his original development of baguazhang, which he apparently originally referred to as zhuan zhang, rotating/turning palm. In his later days, after he left active service as an Imperial Palace bodyguard, he began to talk about the Bagua of the Yi Jing in connection with the martial art he had been teaching (according to the Imperial Palace scholar Tseng's manuscript). Too much time with the opium-smoking scholars and fellow eunuchs of the palace? I don't know.

If the philosophy of the Yi Jing adds effectiveness and enrichment to anyone's practice of baguazhang, more power to them.

[Esteban]

Hi Wujidude,

fwiw, I agree with you, Maoshan, and others who complain about people who think the philosophy can be substituted for the practice. IMHO, it is not possible to understand baguazhang by reading the I Ching. Actually, it would be easier to learn how to ride a bike by reading a manual. But, I just don't go so far as to say that bagua has nothing to do with the I Ching. I doubt I'll ever have even a basic understanding of the I Ching. So, I can't afford to think it's necessary.

Best,
Esteban