The Tyranny of the Physicalist

[dwai]

I've been reading posts and commentary on Facebook in the "Taiji Martial artists" and "The Fa Jin project" groups. And I must say I am shocked at how few people who claim to practice Taiji Chuan actually believe in Qi and Jin as being energy and it's expressed power.

 

I had an exchange with a person who is apparently a well known author of Taiji Quan (from the UK) and has been practicing Taiji Chuan for more than 40 years now. I'm skeptical about his taiji skills.

 

What do the Bums think? Is it possible to be good at Internal Martial Arts if one doesn't accept the "internal aspect" of it (i.e. Qi, Jin, etc)?

 

[Mal]

I find internal/external a bit of a problematic divide and think a holistic approach is better that either or

i.e.an external stylist should still have internal components e.g. boxing is very physical but many boxers employ visualization and Internal stylists should have physical skills eg correct structure.

 

But I agree that there does seem to be more people that seem focused more on the external aspects of Tai Chi eg

 

P.s my vote is much more like I just practice and hope one day the truth will become evident to me.

[Starjumper]

I voted for the first.

 

The problem with people, like the Bozo in the video above, is that those who just learn the external will 'graduate' themselves much faster to the level of teacher, which would lead to the proliferation of even more Bozos.

 

Of course a tai chi application done in a hard style can still be effective against a typical non sensitive opponent or a student =)

 

Here in Southern Ecuador I had an Asian feller visit me after my Chen tai chi class, and he asked to see my Yang form. After showing some of that he said basically I was doing it all wrong, that there should be no sinking and rising, no coiling and uncoiling, no flowing, etc. Of course I was schooled for decades to do just these kinds of things by two world famous grand masters, and a couple of other masters who were top level students of other world famous grandmasters.

 

Therefore, obviously, this idiot doesn't know shit, and it's just this kind of idiot that will tell a master that he is doing it all wrong. Can we say ego.

 

Well, six months later, just the other day, I found out that this guy teaches tai chi around here too. So the question then arises, is he telling people in this little gossip ridden town that I'm doing tai chi all wrong?

Edited November 22, 2013 by Starjumper

[baiqi]

I voted for the first, but I have to say:

 

- you can absolutely practice internal martial arts without paying too much attention to qi. This is especially true if you just learn it for fighting.

- in this case, only focusing on biomechanical aspects is enough. You'll also need to focus (later) on mental aspects.

- Well, if you focus on both biomechanical and mental aspects, you will probably develop qi without knowing it!

 

 

The guy of the video is indeed quite bad, even from an "external" perspective.

[dwai]

I voted for the first, but I have to say:

 

- you can absolutely practice internal martial arts without paying too much attention to qi. This is especially true if you just learn it for fighting.

- in this case, only focusing on biomechanical aspects is enough. You'll also need to focus (later) on mental aspects.

- Well, if you focus on both biomechanical and mental aspects, you will probably develop qi without knowing it!

 

 

The guy of the video is indeed quite bad, even from an "external" perspective.

There has to be a certain degree of relaxation (Sung) for Qi and power to manifest. Most people involved in physical/external aspect of the IMA miss the point and deal with muscle/strength/alignments/leverage etc.

 

In order to be able to get to "all parts move as one", there has to be integration via Qi awareness.

 

The guy I mentioned (the 4-decade long practitioner of Taiji Quan with a book under his belt) said he doesn't believe in Qi but does Microcosmic Orbit and other "Daoist" meditations. When asked what does he "move" in his MCO meditations, he said, it is good for stress relief and an exercise for the mind, no QI moves.

 

These "experts" teach there is no "Dan Tians or Qi or Jin or meridians". It's all a great insider joke of the IMA masters of yore and a lack of scientific terminology of the Eastern masters. What on earth do they teach and what do they know?

 

I can use my Goju Ryu and Aikido background to fight, using principles of Taiji (all parts connected as one, all parts move as one, etc) but that doesn't make it taiji. It doesn't develop Ting Jin, Dong Jin, Peng, Lu, An, Ji etc. Does it?

 

What do these jokers think Peng is then? What is Lu? What is "clearly maintaining/separating the Yin and Yang?" How do they deal with double-weightedness? Do they even know that double-weighted has nothing to do with weight?

 

The blind leading the blind I tell you...

[Starjumper]

In order to be able to get to "all parts move as one", there has to be integration via Qi awareness.

 

I agree with your sentiments and statements above except for this one detail. I was able to learn the forms well enough after less than two years to impress a well known grandmaster of tai chi (a teacher's teacher) and at that time I was not able to feel chi (that I knew of) I think I was able to move all parts as one simply because my teacher was so good at explaining the details of movement so well.

[baiqi]

I agree with you too, dwai, but on the other hand, there are many teachers who emphasize the qi aspects, without having any proper structure, nor ability to fight (which is a problem only if you want the martial side). And more often than not, their supposed qi developement isn't that great either.

 

I think it's better to start with the most obvious, and then go to the more subtle.

[dwai]

I agree with you too, dwai, but on the other hand, there are many teachers who emphasize the qi aspects, without having any proper structure, nor ability to fight (which is a problem only if you want the martial side). And more often than not, their supposed qi developement isn't that great either.

 

I think it's better to start with the most obvious, and then go to the more subtle.

I too agree...when we started learning, we learnt the physical form first. My teacher often tells us, that things progress like this:

 

formless (novice) -> form (seasoned cultivator) -> formless (daoist)

 

 

But its a good idea to start with a system where they clearly can teach the energetic aspect of it. Otherwise people will run the risk of becoming wannabe meatheads (or worse, meatheads)

 

My other serious concern is with people trying to use "scientific" terminology and "methods" to teach and learn internal systems like taiji. When will people understand that Science is a different framework from Taiji (which has it's own rules, syntax etc). I mean, how hard is it really to learn and adopt the natural/native syntax (need not be the chinese terms, but the essence of the words, etc)?

Edited November 22, 2013 by dwai

[Brian]

I too agree...when we started learning, we learnt the physical form first. My teacher often tells us, that things progress like this:

 

formless (novice) -> form (seasoned cultivator) -> formless (daoist)

 

 

But its a good idea to start with a system where they clearly can teach the energetic aspect of it. Otherwise people will run the risk of becoming wannabe meatheads (or worse, meatheads)

 

My other serious concern is with people trying to use "scientific" terminology and "methods" to teach and learn internal systems like taiji. When will people understand that Science is a different framework from Taiji (which has it's own rules, syntax etc). I mean, how hard is it really to learn and adopt the natural/native syntax (need not be the chinese terms, but the essence of the words, etc)?

[Marblehead]

The guy of the video is indeed quite bad, even from an "external" perspective.

Well, I did like his Arabic swords on the wall.

[baiqi]

Well, I did like his Arabic swords on the wall.

These are Chinese swords! Like them too.

[Bearded Dragon]

I find internal/external a bit of a problematic divide and think a holistic approach is better that either or

i.e.an external stylist should still have internal components e.g. boxing is very physical but many boxers employ visualization and Internal stylists should have physical skills eg correct structure.

 

But I agree that there does seem to be more people that seem focused more on the external aspects of Tai Chi eg

 

P.s my vote is much more like I just practice and hope one day the truth will become evident to me.

 

That's 4 minutes of my life I'll never get back. I think it's misleading to say that he's showing the external aspects. Anyone who is reading this and is wondering if that is externally what tai chi is, please know that everything he was showing is wrong. Ward off is not a movement where you block in the most inefficient way and blindside yourself. Far out.

 

Aaaanyway, in response to the poll I would just say that the only thing not real about chi is some crazy definitions that people make up in their heads. I tend to think of it as the energy that allows other things to happen, because you tend to not feel chi but rather the side effects of flowing it such as expansion, pulsing, etc.

[Starjumper]

Yes, it's not just external, like you said, it isn't tai chi either.

 

I saw that Bozo's video on youtube before it showed up here and I saw that he brags about having been trained in one of the Chinese mountain hermitages, so I think that his teachers mislead him on purpose because they know a Bozo when they see one?

 

... Or, he's one of those guys who goes to a class in China for a month and then comes back and claims to be a master of some art. He should have chosen Hungar instead

 

I'm friends of a local Indian sorcerer here, a Don Juan (Castaneda) type, who I am teaching the most deadly art to (he already could do some Jedi stuff anyway). He said that two guys, on two separate occasions, came here to be his students. He started showing them some secret meditations but then they left after less than a month and opened big training centers for this Inca type shamanism, one in the US and one in Germany. They never mention to their students who their teacher was and they never send any money down to him to help him out although they are making big bucks with their lies. So here are some other Bozos who don't know shit, claiming to be experts.

 

This shaman told me to NEVER teach anything secret to anyone unless they've stuck around for awhile

 

~ edited for typo

Edited November 24, 2013 by Starjumper

[dawei]

I agree with your sentiments and statements above except for this one detail. I was able to learn the forms well enough after less than two years to impress a well known grandmaster of tai chi (a teacher's teacher) and at that time I was not able to feel chi (that I knew of) I think I was able to move all parts as one simply because my teacher was so good at explaining the details of movement so well.

 

I would think now, you would say there is a clear difference between what you did then and what you can do now, yes? What is that difference but integration to the internal?

[flowing hands]

Here's my penny worth,

 

The guy demonstrating has trained in external arts he only uses external energy. Internal arts develop a different body and the force comes from within. One first rule of martial art he has broken; never cover your own eyes with your own hand for obvious reasons, never use one bone to block, only if it is rolling onto two, for obvious reasons. never block inside leaving your opponent with a free hand; a very bad technique and the wrong application of the form.

[Starjumper]

I would think now, you would say there is a clear difference between what you did then and what you can do now, yes? What is that difference but integration to the internal?

 

Well yes, but you know, it's kind of hard to put my finger on exactly what that is =) I flow much better now, and since I've had some training in the applications that has helped focus the intent of movements too. I kind of dropped tai chi for a long time while I focused on my nei kung. The nei kung taught a great deal about proper movement in the internal martial arts in addition to all the other stuff.

[doc benway]

I've been reading posts and commentary on Facebook in the "Taiji Martial artists" and "The Fa Jin project" groups. And I must say I am shocked at how few people who claim to practice Taiji Chuan actually believe in Qi and Jin as being energy and it's expressed power.

 

I had an exchange with a person who is apparently a well known author of Taiji Quan (from the UK) and has been practicing Taiji Chuan for more than 40 years now. I'm skeptical about his taiji skills.

 

What do the Bums think? Is it possible to be good at Internal Martial Arts if one doesn't accept the "internal aspect" of it (i.e. Qi, Jin, etc)?

 

I think that the way the question is posed presumes that we would agree on the definition of things like Qi and Jin.

I'm not sure that this is the case.

 

I would wager that my way of understanding Qi, Jin, and other similar concepts is different than most. I have developed a certain perspective based on my own experience, knowledge, and biases (as do we all). My view doesn't happen to be in agreement with most of what I hear or read about others' perspectives and yet I've developed some degree of competence in CIMA's and other Daoist methods based on trust in my teacher and following his guidance as accurately as possible.

 

To become skillfull in the Taijiquan martial system requires one to cultivate skills like Ting Jin (listening), Fa Jin (issuing), Song (relaxed structure), Zhan Nian Lian Sui Bu Diu Ding (stick, adhere, connect, follow, don't separate or go against). These skills clearly require attention to and cultivation of the internal environment. That said, I don't think that one needs to adopt any specific sort of believe system to do this. It's similar with Bagua and Xingyi.

 

If we are specific and clear with our definitions, then words like Qi and Jin can be a useful tool for communication. But I don't think any particular belief system is necessary. One certianly does need to do internal work to develop skill in the CIMA's but it really doesn't matter whether or not you overlay that with a belief paradigm.

[dwai]

I think that the way the question is posed presumes that we would agree on the definition of things like Qi and Jin.

I'm not sure that this is the case.

 

I would wager that my way of understanding Qi, Jin, and other similar concepts is different than most. I have developed a certain perspective based on my own experience, knowledge, and biases (as do we all). My view doesn't happen to be in agreement with most of what I hear or read about others' perspectives and yet I've developed some degree of competence in CIMA's and other Daoist methods based on trust in my teacher and following his guidance as accurately as possible.

 

To become skillfull in the Taijiquan martial system requires one to cultivate skills like Ting Jin (listening), Fa Jin (issuing), Song (relaxed structure), Zhan Nian Lian Sui Bu Diu Ding (stick, adhere, connect, follow, don't separate or go against). These skills clearly require attention to and cultivation of the internal environment. That said, I don't think that one needs to adopt any specific sort of believe system to do this. It's similar with Bagua and Xingyi.

 

If we are specific and clear with our definitions, then words like Qi and Jin can be a useful tool for communication. But I don't think any particular belief system is necessary. One certianly does need to do internal work to develop skill in the CIMA's but it really doesn't matter whether or not you overlay that with a belief paradigm.

Agreed that we could leave it without a commonly accepted label. But each of us who experience it will still label it, because that's what we do - we label, categorize and file. So, what's the harm in using the terms already created by those who traveled this path before us?

 

Here's an interesting blog post/video by Rick Barrett.

 

http://www.taichialchemy.com/meeting-bones-at-tca

 

I too found that looking into the skeletal structure during push hands gives valuable insights about the partner,

[doc benway]

Agreed that we could leave it without a commonly accepted label. But each of us who experience it will still label it, because that's what we do - we label, categorize and file. So, what's the harm in using the terms already created by those who traveled this path before us?

No harm in using them at all. I guess my point is that the terminology is inconsistent and has the potential to be misunderstood and misleading when not used by "each of us who experience it" and "those who traveled this path before us." The other point is that each of us can practice the same thing and become skillful and yet have a very different intellectual idea of what's going on.

[dwai]

No harm in using them at all. I guess my point is that the terminology is inconsistent and has the potential to be misunderstood and misleading when not used by "each of us who experience it" and "those who traveled this path before us." The other point is that each of us can practice the same thing and become skillful and yet have a very different intellectual idea of what's going on.

Is the inconsistency in the terminology or the understanding of these/interpretations thereof?

Once we feel Qi and Jin, what would remain as inconsistent? An intellectual interpretation (the story we tell ourselves to put things into "perspective), right?

 

I am very skeptical about how skillful one can be at issuing Fa Jin or moving Qi if they don't believe there is something there. Kind of like this guy I mentioned, who does MCO without believing in Qi. I don't think he can get any significant benefit from it and/or his practice is wrong. Since if he had the right approach/practice, he would become sensitive to Qi flow (which is not imaginary at all....it is very tangible).

[doc benway]

Is the inconsistency in the terminology or the understanding of these/interpretations thereof?

Once we feel Qi and Jin, what would remain as inconsistent? An intellectual interpretation (the story we tell ourselves to put things into "perspective), right?

Exactly. Once the experience is there, the words are simply pointers.

 

 

I am very skeptical about how skillful one can be at issuing Fa Jin or moving Qi if they don't believe there is something there. Kind of like this guy I mentioned, who does MCO without believing in Qi. I don't think he can get any significant benefit from it and/or his practice is wrong. Since if he had the right approach/practice, he would become sensitive to Qi flow (which is not imaginary at all....it is very tangible).

When it comes to Qi, I don't necessarily"believe there is something there."

(Nor do I mean to necessarily imply that there is 'nothing' there).

 

I don't look at or experience Qi as "something" or as nothing.

 

I don't think one needs to add anything beyond body and mind - direct physical experience and awareness.

Something occurs between body and mind, between awareness and manifestation.

Whatever that something is, it has not yet been isolated, measured, or proven.

And yet it is certainly there.

To me that something is inseparable from body and mind, just as body and mind are inseparable.

It is more of a relationship, an interaction, a process, a doing rather than "something."

 

And I feel no compulsion to try and explain or understand it much anymore.

The words and concepts simply don't do all that much for me from a practical point of view.

 

In fact, when I was teaching actively, I didn't use theoretical concepts and terminology much at all, except to answer questions mostly. I primarily referred to and described use of the attention (awareness/mind of intent) and the physical body and found it to work very well. I found that there was no need to use the theory and terminology much at all from a practical perspective. And some of my students are forms and pushing hands champions and are quite accomplished in the internal arts and meditation (don't mean to sound arrogant but just want to make the point that my teacher's method works).

[dwai]

Exactly. Once the experience is there, the words are simply pointers.

 

 

When it comes to Qi, I don't necessarily"believe there is something there."

(Nor do I mean to necessarily imply that there is 'nothing' there).

 

I don't look at or experience Qi as "something" or as nothing.

 

I don't think one needs to add anything beyond body and mind - direct physical experience and awareness.

Something occurs between body and mind, between awareness and manifestation.

Whatever that something is, it has not yet been isolated, measured, or proven.

And yet it is certainly there.

To me that something is inseparable from body and mind, just as body and mind are inseparable.

It is more of a relationship, an interaction, a process, a doing rather than "something."

 

And I feel no compulsion to try and explain or understand it much anymore.

The words and concepts simply don't do all that much for me from a practical point of view.

 

In fact, when I was teaching actively, I didn't use theoretical concepts and terminology much at all, except to answer questions mostly. I primarily referred to and described use of the attention (awareness/mind of intent) and the physical body and found it to work very well. I found that there was no need to use the theory and terminology much at all from a practical perspective. And some of my students are forms and pushing hands champions and are quite accomplished in the internal arts and meditation (don't mean to sound arrogant but just want to make the point that my teacher's method works).

I see your point Steve. However, I must state this wrt:

 

Whatever that something is, it has not yet been isolated, measured, or proven.

And yet it is certainly there.

 

Is there a need to measure, isolate and prove? By what framework will this be done? If it is a Western/Modern Scientific framework, I don't think either are mature enough to go beyond an "either/or, black/white" proposition (of course that is my humble opinion as a person of science). There is neither the humility or the openness to inquire into Qi and accept it as "real".

 

I am glad to know that your teacher's method works. My teacher is kind of like that too...he doesn't use too many words, definitions etc...a very pragmatic/practical approach. It is perhaps my relatively neophyte nature that frustrates me with the kind who can't keep an open mind regarding the esoterica.

 

 

[dwai]

A wonderful articulation - here rubber meets the road....

 

[doc benway]

I see your point Steve. However, I must state this wrt:

.......

 

Is there a need to measure, isolate and prove?

For me?

No.

For many, apparently so.

 

By what framework will this be done? If it is a Western/Modern Scientific framework, I don't think either are mature enough to go beyond an "either/or, black/white" proposition (of course that is my humble opinion as a person of science). There is neither the humility or the openness to inquire into Qi and accept it as "real".

 

 

No idea - no interest. Have not yet seen anyone come close nor do I feel much drive to be concerned with it.

The methods speak for themselves and if we do not have a passion for the practice, the words are meaningless anyway.

I hope this doesn't sound confrontational (that's not my intent) but I don't understand why people are so prone to turn questions regarding their experiential practices into criticism of those who choose to work within a different paradigm. I've got one foot in the experiential camp and one in the scientific camp and I would agree with the scientific community that there is little support for certain concepts and assertions from a rigorous scientific perspective. That's OK with me. I'd prefer it that way over trying to validate all sorts of soft science and mixed paradigms. So far, I find it better for me to simply practice as much as possible. That said, the results certainly have been validated in both the Daoist and scientific communities.

 

This question is a nice illustration of the differences between belief and faith. I can have faith in the method without necessarily adopting a particular belief. I think an integral part of the practice, in fact, depends on letting go of beliefs and being open to direct experience. I think this is important in the experiential arts but, ironically, equally important in the scientific community.

 

[dwai]

For me? No. For many, apparently so. No idea - no interest. Have not yet seen anyone come close nor do I feel much drive to be concerned with it. The methods speak for themselves and if we do not have a passion for the practice, the words are meaningless anyway. I hope this doesn't sound confrontational (that's not my intent) but I don't understand why people are so prone to turn questions regarding their experiential practices into criticism of those who choose to work within a different paradigm. I've got one foot in the experiential camp and one in the scientific camp and I would agree with the scientific community that there is little support for certain concepts and assertions from a rigorous scientific perspective. That's OK with me. I'd prefer it that way over trying to validate all sorts of soft science and mixed paradigms. So far, I find it better for me to simply practice as much as possible. That said, the results certainly have been validated in both the Daoist and scientific communities. This question is a nice illustration of the differences between belief and faith. I can have faith in the method without necessarily adopting a particular belief. I think an integral part of the practice, in fact, depends on letting go of beliefs and being open to direct experience. I think this is important in the experiential arts but, ironically, equally important in the scientific community.

 

the problem is with what passes off as science. I am an engineer by training and profession. One of my regular practice partners has a PhD and post-doctorate from Cornell in Quantum Chemistry. Another is an Engineer too and works on designing telecommunications equipment. Most real scientists i know are relatively open minded. Those who tout the "scientific method" (aka the vociferous skeptics) usually don't have any business or credentials to tout the scientific method. I take issue with that kind of science.