Weapons & fajin

[aden]

Hello all,

 

 

Just wanted to ask a question about weapon and force production.

 

So as chinese martial arts practitioners train under internal principles, such as meditation and neigong, many of them (at least genuine ones) learn to produce and utilize various types of forces - namely fajin. 

 

From what I gather, fajin can be used and projected in numerous ways; they can be more of a non-lethal pushing force, while others can be much more destructive in nature (i.e. used for breaking objects, sometimes through objects - striking the internals directly without leaving external marks, or breaking a bottom brick without harming the ones on top)

 

Can the same principle be applied for weapons? Such as sword or saber.

 

For instance, how would a intermediate or above level skilled IMA practitioner fight with a sword or saber - against opponents with heavy plate, brigandine, or lamellar armor?

 

Well-made full suit of armor often made bladed weapons ineffective, and historical European warfare often resorted to prolonged wrestling to attack the weak points of the armor. However, this often made them vulnerable to multiple attackers, and usually put bigger and stronger people at an advantage.

 

Or is it somehow possible for IMA practitioners to strike their opponents bypassing the armor with weapons? Or even enhance the cutting power and resilience of their swords/sabers?

 

 

Weapons isn't something that seems to be talked about frequently, so I wanted to ask.

Edited April 2, 2017 by aden

[Taomeow]

Good question.

 

The way I'm being trained in Chen jian is pretty much identical to the rest of the training, with all the same taiji principles applied, the difference being that you need to be able to "internalize" the jian, make it an extension of your body, and then treat it as you would any other body part for taiji purposes.  So, sending fajin through your sword -- doable, with three prerequisites:  mastery of fajin, mastery of the weaponized version of your body (it's a different body in a sense, with an extra "limb"), and the ability to "extend" the fajin farther when releasing it and to "sustain" it for a while after. 

 

This skill is first mastered in empty handed practice.  A taiji punch, e.g., that can penetrate into the internal organs without damaging the exterior of the body (or the armor for that matter), may also involve a "weapon" of sorts, an invisible extension of your fist -- the jin keeps going beyond where your fist ends...  hard to explain, a lot is going on in such a punch, but the "punch line" is, once you have made the weapon the extension of your hand, it sort of blends with this "invisible" extension if you already have it, and can take it farther still, and then you can extend the "invisible' part of the sword beyond the sword.  

 

We're talking realistic-to-acquire but pretty high level skill, so I doubt an average soldier on a historical battlefield ever had a chance to train like that and master it.  But there's many legends, I know some Chinese and Japanese ones, about the "spiritual" sword that had this kind of jin in it due to cultivation (yes, the master cultivated not just himself or herself but his or her weapon!)  Not just swords, but acupuncture needles (some of which, historically, were shaped as mini-swords, mini-halberds, etc.) in the hands of a true master could become "spirited," and the healing, not just the killing, could be done without damaging the outside of the body.        

[aden]

We're talking realistic-to-acquire but pretty high level skill, so I doubt an average soldier on a historical battlefield ever had a chance to train like that and master it.  But there's many legends, I know some Chinese and Japanese ones, about the "spiritual" sword that had this kind of jin in it due to cultivation (yes, the master cultivated not just himself or herself but his or her weapon!)  Not just swords, but acupuncture needles (some of which, historically, were shaped as mini-swords, mini-halberds, etc.) in the hands of a true master could become "spirited," and the healing, not just the killing, could be done without damaging the outside of the body.        

 

That actually reminds me of several stereotypical tales of wuxia and Japanese swordsmen - who were capable of  chopping through the most durable armor, and kill demons and dragons with one stroke. However, the principle behind it sounds pretty amazing to be honest. 

 

You did mention mini-swords and mini-halberds. 

So do certain objects (or maybe even the concept of those objects) allow easier "internalization"? 

 

Also,how does a saber compare to a straight sword in terms of internalization? 

 

Good question.

 

The way I'm being trained in Chen jian is pretty much identical to the rest of the training, with all the same taiji principles applied, the difference being that you need to be able to "internalize" the jian, make it an extension of your body, and then treat it as you would any other body part for taiji purposes.  So, sending fajin through your sword -- doable, with three prerequisites:  mastery of fajin, mastery of the weaponized version of your body (it's a different body in a sense, with an extra "limb"), and the ability to "extend" the fajin farther when releasing it and to "sustain" it for a while after. 

 

This skill is first mastered in empty handed practice.  A taiji punch, e.g., that can penetrate into the internal organs without damaging the exterior of the body (or the armor for that matter), may also involve a "weapon" of sorts, an invisible extension of your fist -- the jin keeps going beyond where your fist ends...  hard to explain, a lot is going on in such a punch, but the "punch line" is, once you have made the weapon the extension of your hand, it sort of blends with this "invisible" extension if you already have it, and can take it farther still, and then you can extend the "invisible' part of the sword beyond the sword.  

 

Looking at it that way, I can see why chinese martial arts focus on bare hand forms first, and weapons second.

 

Was it the same way historically? Since swords/knives and polearms were heavily involved in self defense of pre-modern day East Asia, wouldn't have people emphasized training weapons more compared to bare hand combat? Or did people still focus on mastering bare hand forms to a degree before progressing to weapons, albeit not as much as today?

Edited April 3, 2017 by aden

[dwai]

Hello all,

 

 

Just wanted to ask a question about weapon and force production.

 

So as chinese martial arts practitioners train under internal principles, such as meditation and neigong, many of them (at least genuine ones) learn to produce and utilize various types of forces - namely fajin.

 

From what I gather, fajin can be used and projected in numerous ways; they can be more of a non-lethal pushing force, while others can be much more destructive in nature (i.e. used for breaking objects, sometimes through objects - striking the internals directly without leaving external marks, or breaking a bottom brick without harming the ones on top)

 

Can the same principle be applied for weapons? Such as sword or saber.

 

For instance, how would a intermediate or above level skilled IMA practitioner fight with a sword or saber - against opponents with heavy plate, brigandine, or lamellar armor?

 

Well-made full suit of armor often made bladed weapons ineffective, and historical European warfare often resorted to prolonged wrestling to attack the weak points of the armor. However, this often made them vulnerable to multiple attackers, and usually put bigger and stronger people at an advantage.

 

Or is it somehow possible for IMA practitioners to strike their opponents bypassing the armor with weapons? Or even enhance the cutting power and resilience of their swords/sabers?

 

 

Weapons isn't something that seems to be talked about frequently, so I wanted to ask.

Just speculation....

 

 

With heavy armors I think the more effective would be to attack the head/neck. Also a short power strike (can be empty hand or with a staff/broadsword) to the body would end up with the same effect as being in a car wreck. I think a shoulder stroke would be most effective. One would have to get in close though.

[aden]

On 4/4/2017 at 8:31 PM, dwai said:

With heavy armors I think the more effective would be to attack the head/neck. Also a short power strike (can be empty hand or with a staff/broadsword) to the body would end up with the same effect as being in a car wreck. I think a shoulder stroke would be most effective. One would have to get in close though.

 

Wouldn't that damage the blade? If you meant striking with or strengthening the sword with internal force, I guess it won't, though, and certainly would affect the opponent. 

 

 

 

 

Edit: So another question just popped up in my mind:

 

If it's possible to attack the opponent bypassing the armor, is it possible to just damage the exterior armor using internal force? Just as an IMA would concentrate on breaking the top brick only, in a stack of bricks. 

 

Even if it were possible, though, I can imagine it didn't happen a whole lot, as it was cost ineffective in subduing the armored opponent. (opposed to directly striking them or bouncing them away)

Edited June 21, 2017 by aden

[dwai]

Wouldn't that damage the blade? If you meant striking with internal force, I guess it won't, though, and certainly would affect the opponent. 

 

 

 

 

Edit: So another question just popped up in my mind:

 

If it's possible to attack the opponent bypassing the armor, is it possible to just damage the exterior armor using internal force? Just as an IMA would concentrate on breaking the top brick only, in a stack of bricks. 

 

Even if it were possible, though, I can imagine it didn't happen a whole lot, as it was cost ineffective in subduing the armored opponent. (opposed to directly striking them or bouncing them away)

 

I think the impact should transfer into the body of the wearer. Whether it affects the armor itself is inconsequential if the power transfers through into the wearer's body. Again, i'm purely speculating here and could be completely wrong

[Taomeow]

Most importantly, different weapons were used to overcome different kinds of armor.  A sword was not asked to do what a guandao was asked to do. 

 

 Beginning around 3:10 

 

We had a workshop with a taiji master from China a few years ago who was teaching a particular qigong, but at some point it was revealed that he is a famous guandao practitioner, and he was asked to demo the form.  Wow.  I'd never seen it live and up close until then, and it was mesmerizing. A very fast, aggressive, totally intimidating form, like a steel tornado!  The weapon, however, was borrowed from a local MA place where it was sitting in the corner for decoration purposes, and even though it looked legit, it promptly revealed its cheap modern design -- at some point the blade flew off the handle.  Very fortunate it didn't lop any heads off.    

[aden]

Most importantly, different weapons were used to overcome different kinds of armor.  A sword was not asked to do what a guandao was asked to do. 

 

Thanks for the input. It's just that I am inspired by the versatility of swords/sabers, and would like to master it just like I would with empty hand forms. 

 

And the lineage I learn from specializes in saber & staff. Maybe it's military oriented? (Many MA instructors teaching soldiers during the late Qing - Republican period started focusing on sword/saber + bayonets).

 

 

 

Anyways, the description of MAists mastering weapons to the degree of spiriting and cultivating their own swords gives me some real inspiration. If it is possible, it certainly is a goal to work up to.

 

Meanwhile, I'll work on Tan Tui.  

[Michael Sternbach]

Looking at it that way, I can see why chinese martial arts focus on bare hand forms first, and weapons second.

 

Was it the same way historically? Since swords/knives and polearms were heavily involved in self defense of pre-modern day East Asia, wouldn't have people emphasized training weapons more compared to bare hand combat? Or did people still focus on mastering bare hand forms to a degree before progressing to weapons, albeit not as much as today?

Interestingly, Filipino arts (which tend to use the same movements for both armed and unarmed applications) often teach weapons first.

 

I think the impact should transfer into the body of the wearer. Whether it affects the armor itself is inconsequential if the power transfers through into the wearer's body. Again, i'm purely speculating here and could be completely wrong

You're right on. Developing that kind of armour penetrating 'shock wave' strike is indeed a goal in certain styles.

[dwai]

Interestingly, Filipino arts (which tend to use the same movements for both armed and unarmed applications) often teach weapons first.

 

 

You're right on. Developing that kind of armour penetrating 'shock wave' strike is indeed a goal in certain styles.

 

This is true of Indian martial arts too. In systems like Kalaripayyat and silambam, they work with weapons first (similar to FMA). And then move on to empty hand training. 

[Taomeow]

In Mongolia kids used to learn to ride a horse before they learned to walk.  And in some cultures, they learned to swim before they learned to walk.  So, a Mongolian warrior never had to practice the "horseback riding stance," and a Japanese pearl huntress didn't do any "breathing exercises." 

 

I think peculiarities of a particular group's lifestyle might make certain skills available for acquisition the way a child acquires (not "learns") her native tongue, with no step-by-step linear learning involved.  Whereas another group that never had such exposure would have to "learn" the skill, and the method would be different from just "acquiring" it by sheer immersion.  Ancient "weaponized" arts may well be in that category.  I've read about uncontacted hunter-gatherer tribes in South America that rely on the bow and arrows as their primary tool for procuring food, and children are allowed to handle this weapon beginning at the age of two.  At first a small (but not "toy" -- they have no toys and no concept of toys) version typically made by an older brother or father.  Four- or five-year-olds spend most of their day in an unsupervised group, practicing shooting.  When they are old enough to walk fast enough to keep up with a group of adults going on a hunt, they join them -- no one encourages or discourages them, they decide when they are ready.  No one teaches them, they observe and learn.  Accidents are exceedingly rare, and lack of skill in adults, nonexistent. 

 

Seen a two-year-old in our own culture doing things with an Ipad I wouldn't know how.