Myths & Misconceptions

[寒月 Hanyue]

This is as true as another truth can be, but also has its limitations. Too strict definitions lose their usefulness. There is a back to the front. Too strict is the back of not strict enough. There's "too far" for both directions.

 

Everything has a back and a front.

 

I think the main thing that I zoomed in on with the "precision" thing is that first it was said that qigong is not thousands of years old. If we want to be specific about its current incarnation, and when use of the term began, then this is probably true. However, this conflicts with the statement about the idea that westerners did not have something analogous to qigong.

 

What this says to me, that in order to prove a point, qigong is used in a stricter sense to say how long it hasn't been around, then a broader sense to include things analogous to qigong. If things analogous were also included in the first statement, it loses its power, because things that are analogous to qiogong have been around for an extremely long time. So to me this is semantics and flipflopping the view.

 

Wow,

 

OF COURSE THEY ARE "FLIP-FLOPPING", but they are not semantic arguments, no-one is arguing or saying anything about the definitions of a word. You may see that in what has been posted, but apart from someone posting about a misconception that has occured due to translation issues, there is nothing based on definitions and word play.

 

No one said ANY of the statements were to be taken as a collective whole

 

They are stand alone. And each is meant to be the tip of an iceberg that reflects the fact that each area is a murkier water than many want to tread, hence the gray. There are no absolute statements being made, THAT IS THE POINT.

 

There are always multiple versions, that is what this thread is about, particulalry the versions that tend to get ignored and left by the wayside. You may not realise it but you are in fact arguing for the same thing this thread is about, you may just not agree with the words people have chosen to express it, that is fine, I don't expect everyone to read what I write the same way.

 

So please, you are trying to trip up and argument that only exists in your mind and not mine How about sharing your own revelations of interest for others instead of just nit picking on what others have posted which is not what this thread is for.

 

PLEASE, THIS THREAD IS TO SHARE ANY MIS-CONCEPTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE DISCOVERED.

 

Best,

Edited April 13, 2011 by snowmonki

[寒月 Hanyue]

Hello Snowmonki,

 

I wasn't actually trying to cause a drift towards discussing other mythologies, I'm not sure where you got that from. My point was that your question, whether using the colloquial or literal definition of Myth was a bit ambiguous.

 

In regards to your question, why is any of this important? Does it really matter if Tai Chi originated with Taoism, or if the I-Ching was a Taoist text? I'm not saying this to be difficult, because at one time I did think it was important, but now I see it more as a means of trying to define authenticity, when in fact authenticity is very much a subjective measure.

 

I think 90% of the people on this board can answer your questions, but perhaps the answer doesn't matter, what matters is whether or not these texts and ideas hold merit today. Anyways, I'll leave you to your discussion and I hope you find your answers.

 

Aaron

 

I know you weren't. Your post just highlighted to me that such thread drift was likely to occur. So I posted.

 

Yes it was amigbuous, intentionally. I don't think everything should always be put on a plate and spelled out. That said, you then have to expect the unexpected, especially when dealing with forums and e-mail formats.

 

So please take this as me saying I only have myself to blame for starting an amiguous(ish) thread and then having people post that don't get what the thread was intended to be about. Let me try to clarify, at least a little

 

Important? no one said it was. Simply put and no offense meant, if you don't think it is important or 'fun' (I did mention the for fun bit didn't I?,) then browse elsewhere in the forum for something that suits your tastes.

 

Importance I think lies with the individual, and it is up to them what they assign it to at any given time. Same with fun.

 

Authenticity, yes it does run in to this, but in actuality authenticity is a fallacy and does not exist.

 

Ha ha I have asked no questions!!! and I am NOT trying to discover THE TRUTH

 

I HAVE POSTED SOME MISCONCEPTIONS AS A BIT OF FUN AND SIMPLY ASKED IF ANYONE ELSE WOULD LIKE TO SHARE.

 

IT IS THAT SIMPLE. IF YOU DON'T WANT TO JOIN IN, THATS COOL, IF YOU DO, THATS COOL TOO, IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND WHAT THE F' THIS THREAD IS ABOUT OR DOING ON TAOBUMS THEN THATS COOL AS WELL

 

Some appear to be taking this thread as a serious academic excursion into trying to define/explore truth, history, myth, authenticity etc IT AIN'T MEANT TO BE THAT DEEP

 

I did mention the FOR FUN no?

 

Best,

Edited April 13, 2011 by snowmonki

[寒月 Hanyue]

Thank you for this clarification. I could never quite understand all the emphasis on getting away from 'suffering'. But change? That makes perfect sense now. Life is fluid and we must realize it as so. Not so easy to do, because our ego seems to like to ride on our opinions.

 

THIS IS WHY I STARTED THIS THREAD!!!!!

 

Best,

Edited April 13, 2011 by snowmonki

[寒月 Hanyue]

I am very confused

 

Perhaps it would be best to format it this way-

 

Myth: something

 

My understanding: something else.

 

I take it all back, you were right I was wrong, and I should have listened

[RobB]

ukemi = breakfalls

 

Cheers

 

Rob

[Otis]

Authenticity, yes it does run in to this, but in actuality authenticity is a fallacy and does not exist.

OK, if you're calling out "authenticity" as a myth, can you explain why?

[寒月 Hanyue]

ukemi = breakfalls

 

Cheers

 

Rob

 

Thanks Rob

 

Learning that ukemi literally means to receive with the body and not 'breakfall' was a big eye opener for me, and one of the things that led me to appreciate looking past the surface explanations that get thrown around about this stuff.

 

Sometimes it even goes beyond the simple 6 blind men and elephant story, and you realise it's not an elephant its a giraffe!!

 

Best,

[寒月 Hanyue]

OK, if you're calling out "authenticity" as a myth, can you explain why?

 

Yes, I can.

 

First I should say that this thread is meant for fun, and while I stand by what I say I am allowing a more mischievous aspect of my nature in the way I am saying it.

 

I also don't really want to take the thread in the direction of debating such things. That said, I will give an explanation of my POV as you asked nicely. However if you want to debate and discuss I would greatly appreciate it if you would start a thread to specifically allow and address such banter on "authenticity", and I will gladly participate, or if you would rather PM me and chat that is also fine. I just ask that it is not done in this thread.

 

Authenticity (for me) is relative, simple as that. Without context it means nothing, it is an assigned value that has no objective reality. Therefore there is no 'substance' to it other than the importance attached to it and subsequently projected on to things by individuals. What is "authentic" for one individual is not for another, what measuring stick is there?, and whose should be used? and why? who is right who is wrong? usually both.

 

It as a separate 'thing', as many try to treat it (and many other such things), is simply a fallacy. It is one of many such constructs that we all use daily to help process information, but when you stop and look at it, well its more of a slippery fish. Many get and understand this, many do not. I see this a LOT on the web, and I see it a LOT in academia as well. Only rhetoric? maybe.

 

The hill does not move, but the sun and the shade do. You see many things suddenly become "authentic" or "inauthentic" simply because someone moves the yardstick, the thing itself doesn't change but the apparent authenticity does and the ascribed attitudes to authenticity. So where is 'it', where does 'it' lie, nowhere but in the eyes that are there to see it (or not).

 

Actually in regards to Cultivation I think this is one of the MAIN reasons why a good teacher is worth their weight in gold. Of course, as Shakitmamma says, it's unfortunate that the ones who need the eyes to see, are the ones that don't have them.

 

Anyway, I have answered as you asked. It is only ONE WAY of looking at things, I do not expect everyone to view things in the same way I do (god the world would be boring), I am also not trying to prosetylse, feel free to disagree. Please if anyone really feels the need to debate about "authenticity" and what it is or is not for them, please do so either in PM or by starting its own thread. Thanking you kindly.

 

Best,

Edited April 13, 2011 by snowmonki

[Otis]

Authenticity (for me) is relative, simple as that. Without context it means nothing, it is an assigned value that has no objective reality. Therefore there is no 'substance' to it other than the importance attached to it and subsequently projected on to things by individuals. What is "authentic" for one individual is not for another, what measuring stick is there?, and whose should be used? and why? who is right who is wrong? usually both.

 

It as a separate 'thing', as many try to treat it (and many other such things), is simply a fallacy. It is one of many such constructs that we all use daily to help process information, but when you stop and look at it, well its more of a slippery fish. Many get and understand this, many do not. I see this a LOT on the web, and I see it a LOT in academia as well. Only rhetoric? maybe.

 

The hill does not move, but the sun and the shade do. You see many things suddenly become "authentic" or "inauthentic" simply because someone moves the yardstick, the thing itself doesn't change but the apparent authenticity does and the ascribed attitudes to authenticity. So where is 'it', where does 'it' lie, nowhere but in the eyes that are there to see it (or not).

Good response.

 

I find authenticity as a relative thing still useful, in terms of considering my practice, but I agree: there is no standard, yardstick or fixed bearing.

[Otis]

Sometimes it even goes beyond the simple 6 blind men and elephant story, and you realise it's not an elephant its a giraffe!!

Nice image/parable.

[Aaron]

Hello Snowmonki,

 

Authenticity exists just as facts, falsehoods, and everything in between exists and doesn't exist. See the problem is that simply saying "such and such doesn't exist" doesn't make it so. The mere fact that I am discussing the matter of authenticity with you means it exists. If you want to debate whether or not it is relative, now that's something else entirely, but I can assure you that it does exist, regardless of whether you believe it does or not. It's sort of like the man who didn't believe France existed because he'd never been there.

 

Anyways, I would like to remind you that capitals are most often used in forums and in general chat as a sign that one person is yelling at another. The general rule is that when you want to place extra emphasis on something you use bold print to show that.

 

Anyways, I do find you responses interesting and I'm positive you're on the right track.

 

Aaron

Edited April 14, 2011 by Twinner

[aridus]

OF COURSE THEY ARE "FLIP-FLOPPING", but they are not semantic arguments, no-one is arguing or saying anything about the definitions of a word.

Oh. Ok. I'm not arguing either.

 

You may see that in what has been posted, but apart from someone posting about a misconception that has occured due to translation issues, there is nothing based on definitions and word play.

Well translation relies on definition, otherwise there is no translation.

 

No one said ANY of the statements were to be taken as a collective whole

Nor did I say that I thought anyone did.

 

They are stand alone. And each is meant to be the tip of an iceberg that reflects the fact that each area is a murkier water than many want to tread, hence the gray. There are no absolute statements being made, THAT IS THE POINT.

That was the point of my posts too. Nice to see that we agree.

 

There are always multiple versions, that is what this thread is about, particulalry the versions that tend to get ignored and left by the wayside. You may not realise it but you are in fact arguing for the same thing this thread is about, you may just not agree with the words people have chosen to express it, that is fine, I don't expect everyone to read what I write the same way.

I do realize I was saying the same thing that the thread was about. That is why I said it. On topic, yes?

 

So please, you are trying to trip up and argument that only exists in your mind and not mine

No. It doesn't exist in my mind since I'm not arguing.

 

How about sharing your own revelations of interest for others instead of just nit picking on what others have posted which is not what this thread is for.

That's what I did.

 

PLEASE, THIS THREAD IS TO SHARE ANY MIS-CONCEPTIONS THAT YOU MAY HAVE DISCOVERED.

That's what I did. Or so I thought, at least.

[Gerard]

Taijiquan is a martial art with Daoist origins.

 

Who told you that this is a myth. The same goes with Bagua...Dong Haichuan neither created the Art, nor humans did.

[寒月 Hanyue]

Good response.

 

I find authenticity as a relative thing still useful, in terms of considering my practice, but I agree: there is no standard, yardstick or fixed bearing.

 

Hey Otis

 

I completely agree. I think plasticty is best, too many think in terms of static and fixed positions and then attach to them. Being able to shift between paradigms and points of views is valuable. I think the hard part is knowing how, and when to be able to shift. Look at Zhuang Zi and the Ch'an tradition

 

Nice image/parable.

 

Thanks, not sure where it came from but it seemed appropriate.

[寒月 Hanyue]

Hello Snowmonki,

 

Authenticity exists just as facts, falsehoods, and everything in between exists and doesn't exist.....

 

Anyways, I do find you responses interesting and I'm positive you're on the right track.

 

Aaron

 

Thank you, I think, I'm glad you feel I'm "on the right track", do I get a badge with your seal of approval (that is a joke, I'm aware these things do not always translate on forums)

 

Mmm, I thought I was clear and fair when I wrote;

 

I also don't really want to take the thread in the direction of debating such things....However if you want to debate and discuss I would greatly appreciate it if you would start a thread to specifically allow and address such banter on "authenticity", and I will gladly participate, or if you would rather PM me and chat that is also fine. I just ask that it is not done in this thread.

 

It is only ONE WAY of looking at things, I do not expect everyone to view things in the same way I do (god the world would be boring), I am also not trying to prosetylse, feel free to disagree. Please if anyone really feels the need to debate about "authenticity" and what it is or is not for them, please do so either in PM or by starting its own thread. Thanking you kindly.

 

Best,

 

I will PM you later.

 

See highlighted in BOLD, just the way you like it

Edited April 14, 2011 by snowmonki

[寒月 Hanyue]

Who told you that this is a myth. The same goes with Bagua...Dong Haichuan neither created the Art, nor humans did.

 

Are you going to tell me it was founded by Zhang San-Feng? after watching a crane and snake

 

Taijiquan does not originate from Daoists, sorry to break it to you. Given the information we have of its history, the most logical and accepted understanding is that it is a composite martial art (only acquired the name "taiji" later on, much later on) that has become associated with Daoism most heavily over the last 150 years or so. Sun Lu Tang played a large part in this, with the grouping of the 'three' internal arts under neijia and with his projection of Daoist cosmology over IMA in his popular and publicly released books.

 

The Daoist connection was most heavily adopted by the Yang stylists (funny the Chen stylists never really went there) for cultural and sociological reasons far more than anything else. And it was through their perpetuation, not only of the Zhang San-Feng myth but of the Daoist connection as well, that has established it so solidly in peoples minds.

 

Many people project backwards using a mentality akin to 'retrogressive diagnosis', it is like the Western qigong people who think what they do is the same as cultivation practitioners thousands of years ago! and who read translated texts and think that if they read a word they have a definition for today, then the author was writing of the same thing hundreds or thousands of years ago! There is also a big culture in China of re-writing history and using history.

 

Taijiquan is NOT a Daoist art, can it be used by Daoists as a vehicle? of course it can, but so can walking down the road, eating breakfast and doing pretty much anything. Is it a great system for maintaining the body, of course it is, and as such can compliment long periods of sitting meditation practice. But it was NOT founded or created by Daoists. Do Daoist concepts fit with taijiquan? of course, but then most 'Daoist' concepts in many peoples minds are not Daoist as much as simply Chinese. And I can understand many things in my life through Daoist principles (they'd be a bit crap if I couldn't).

 

Now, there have been SOME Daoists, who did taiji, some left it as a martial art, others used it as a vehicle and poured cultivation aspects into it. This is different, but is also very rare and while many would have you believe this is more common, my understanding is that it is not. This is also a relatively recent development, and has nothing to do with where taijiquan comes from.

 

Daoist temples today also teach taiji, this is due to the government cashing in on tourism and expectation based on the misconceptions and the form are usually yang sometimes chen. Sometimes they are honest about the origin of their forms other times they are not. Many Daoist temples these days and pretty much like a resort health and fitness spa so, I suppose going to gym and taking a yoga class can also be Daoist is we copy the Chinese temples.

 

Don't believe me, no skin off my nose, but have a look, seriously do some research and see for yourself. I mean take a look behind the curtain don't skim or you'll just get the myths. I you get stuck PM me I'll be happy to point you in certain directions, but if you look you should do just fine

 

Best,