- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
I’ve been posting on this forum since December of 2010. That’s almost 7 years. When I started I intentionally wanted to document all of the mistakes, misconceptions, fumbling and bumbling of the learning process. In retrospect, that stupidity isn’t my fault. I’ve been studying with Bruce for almost 30 years and I can now say that I’ve never met a single student that understands how internal power works. Not one.
That should scare you and piss you off. Not my claim. The fact that no one knows what these arts are. Many, many people know many, many things, but no one understands the most fundamental components that make these arts internal. This foundation is what everything that Bruce teaches is based on. Without it, you can study and keep practicing the same way you have been practicing for years and years and you’ll likely never get it.
I’m working on a Bagua book that I believe will be the first book ever written that lays it right out in the open. It is so simple when you hear it, you won’t believe it.
Flame away.
I wish you sucess on your book. It is true you do talk and write in a incredible amout on these fourms. I’m betting some BGM practitioners do appreciate it.
In my experience most of my fellow practice partners understand internial energy very well. People shoud not be upset and confused. Like you I have studied for 30 years. My teachers were masters in Xing-Yi, Taiji, and Bagua.
It is very hard to find a traditional master in the big three internial styles who dont hold back and are genuinely interested in passing on the traditional arts.
In your book dont forget to thank all your martial brothers and sisters who helped you along the way. Do give credit to your teachers and any other master’s who taught you.
Regards,
Paul Pitzel
Vancouver, Canada
Thank you for your polite reply.
I’ve also met many very good practitioners along the way who are very capable martial artists. Some of them have internal skills. Most have just used awareness to hone their skill of using Li. The few that have the real thing don’t understand what they are doing. They can do it. They may even do it very, very well. But, they don’t really understand. Some of the best practitioners I’ve met have written books and (IMO) they completely missed the mark.
There is a very clear demarcation between what is internal and external. If someone knows, they can tell you in one sentence.
If not, they either don’t know or aren’t telling. Both are useless.
Take anything, say peng, ask how they create peng. If they can tell you in one simple sentence, they might know. Doubt it though.
Let me know. I’m interested. If there are a bunch of people out there who know, the premise of my book is all wrong and it is a waste of my time.
Take care.
I haven’t heard from anyone. For now, I’ll assume that no one has gotten a good answer for the most basic, underlying principle of all of the internal arts.
Since my last post, I did find a perfect example of what I am purporting. This is from a Tai Chi teacher who looks like he has very high-level skills and illustrates the exact problem I believe I’ve solved and intend to write about. When asked what qi was this is his response:
“Every single person I have ever met who can produce the high level skills of taijiquan has used the traditional jargon of the art, Shen, Yi and qi are the fundamental “substances” we use in the cultivation of taijiquan skills. it is best just to leave these terms in the original Chinese and pass on the transmission as it was passed on to us. The traditional way generates the traditional results.”
I totally disagree with this statement and think it is vital to take the internal arts out of this imprecise language that further obscures and delays the learning process. The only people who really understand and benefit from what they are talking about have acquired the skill already. It doesn’t help the student who doesn’t know.
My answer in one word:
nondualistic
Bob
Flaming away:
Bagua and Tai Chi are NOT just “internal” martial arts.
Your premise
(“There is a very clear demarcation between what is internal and external”) is wrong.In the Water Palm (Module 15. Video Lesson 1) Bruce’s opening statement can be misleading in saying that the traditional way of teaching bagua is called “outer and inner.” (V.L. 1 at 46 sec.)
He then makes it clear that this is just the teaching paradigm, not the real deal.
He says the first 4 palm changes are initially taught as being external; then 5, 6, 7 and 8 are taught as internal.
But it is really a continuous loop.Life, as well as bagua, is nondualistic.
It is NOT “outer AND inner.”
It is outer-inner.
Unfortunately the “AND” linguistically separates the essence of bagua, making it confusing to students, who struggle to identify whether something is “inner” OR “outer.”There is, however, no tangible demarcation between what is “internal and external.”
It is internal-external.Of course, I personally practice tai chi as a Zen Buddhist.
Tai Chi and bagua, however, sprung out of Taoism.
So I have to alter the facts a bit.
Zen is clearly nondualistic, springing out of Bodhidarma’s Indian Buddhism.
I really don’t know that much about Taoism,
but my experience confirms that “form IS emptiness.”
It is not that there is form AND emptiness.Historically,
Monk Dogen (1200-1253), a Buddhist, didn’t have a solid understanding of Taoism either.
Nevertheless, without a clear understanding of Taoism, Dogen severely criticized its doctrines (probably for political reasons).
He argued that the “shallow-minded in the country of Sung do not understand” Buddhism’s doctrine of nondualism. “They study the doctrines of Lao-tzu” maintaining that they are the same as Buddhism.At 2:06 Bruce concludes by saying that “outside and inside combine.” Bruce understands.
How does this work out in practice?
In the Water Palm Change (“change” is another linguistically misleading word–it implies that one state exists and then becomes another state)
the nature of water is nondualistic.
Water flows both from the outside to the inside, as well as, from the inside to the outside, simultaneously,
the nature of the water retains its nondualistic essence.The hands are switching positions (4:12).
Energy is hypothetically locked in that receiving arm while the other arm sends additional Qi into the receiving (locked) arm,
which recirculates that energy back up the locked arm to the other side of the body–the locked arm is combining yin-yang energy both ways–nondualistically.
There really is no outside nor inside, up or down.How do you teach that?
By meditating.
The breath has the same nondualistic nature as water.
Inhale-Exhale.
Be aware (buddha) of its circularity–also a fundamental tai chi principle–
without gaps or glitches–
everything is circular.Taoism and Buddhism combine.
Breathing is simple.
Do it in your sleep.
Do it while driving.
Do it while doing tai chi or bagua.
If you’re breathing, you’re doing tai chi.
Just flaming away.
Bob
Hi Bob,
Thanks for giving some real thought to your reply. It always takes me a while to digest the depths of your posts. They are rarely light and frivolous. This one is no exception.
I don’t disagree with you. In fact, I don’t disagree with anything you wrote.
I’ll just say this: the road looks different from the start than from the finish unless you’ve walked in a circle.
Take care. I hope your arm is healing.
Bob,
Watch Module 15 video 10 from 0:30sec to 1:48. “That’s kind of like the first thing.”
My definition of external differs from Bruce’s. I’m much clearer about the demarcation than he is. That doesn’t make one of us right and the other wrong. It is just a difference in categorization, not content. If you understand what Bruce is talking about in that small section, it is the key to what almost everyone is missing. IMO, without it, you won’t go far. In fact, I’d argue that you are not even in the game.
I had to “figure out” all of the steps that Bruce is referring to. Because I learned in a very particular way, I’ve also retained the method and material in a way that I think very, very, very few have ever got it. The later material, the material that Bruce calls internal, the material that he immediately begins teaching is what most people retain and focus on. That later material tends to literally wipe out the earlier “external” foundation.
I’ve pieced together not only the steps, methods, and process – I’ve connected it with the physiology. I can construct the whole system using the Bagua palms and show exactly how the physiology is built up to find the later material that Bruce calls “internal”.
In fact, I’ve finally understood how Tai Chi is organized and have replaced my disdain for Tai Chi with an appreciation for its method which I think has advantages over Bagua until you get to the end.
If I ever finish my book, this post will make a lot more sense.
So, it’s a question of perspective. I’m looking at it from the beginning, Bruce was speaking from the middle perspective, and you are coming from the theoretical end goal.
Remember the question is “How do you create peng?”.
Answer #1: nondualistic
Anyone else?
Hello just to add to this point (with the title’s comment) I link to a comment on another thread (among many) on this forum… it is in regards to TaiChiChuan being useful (or not-useful) as the comment states, but could relate to BaguaZhang…(?)
Also I have still a interest-caution of ideas impact, as after studying for years, feeling bits of “other-types” of “internal” movement.. and training specifically in HsingI say (a little) with Bruce and some others… I saw/read a book (on Amazon, by one ‘explaining it’) showing how the bones line-up, and centre of mass is moving, etc.. in other words, what HsingI really is (likewise TaiChi) is mechanical alignments.. and the psychological-confidence (not this chi-stuff)…
Even with my viewpt and prior exper, I could feel how reading that it weakened and changed my understanding.. like the influence of the collective thoughts seeped in.. (let alone one seeking to learn, even with some experience) -was just curious and interesting.. (to me)
or many BaguaZhang demos are done using the movement spirals, and arcing vectors (which are great, just as the use of angles and leverage, and rapidly changing size-shape of sphere is a part of the forms, doesn’t mean that is all it is), but so many just swing their arms..
—at most what they call Fa-Jin, is really a type of Shaking-jin (not from the core, either a whipping of the tip, or move into and slam behind ~spearing-jab.. -thus the two staff mehods.. or even a structural fixing (in position, or moving)..
all three are good (external) gungfy (which I’d say is more than external athletics.. but isn’t the same quality of internal gungfu.. and may be better not that int’l is good by definition, just make sure it is what one calls it). (why many insist to use TaiChi shapes while hop-dancing like a kickboxer, or bearing down to blast out a boxing-power hit, instead of just doing those other arts, not sure. name-recognition).
Not sure, this just came to mind, not just as it was a prior question, but those involved weren’t really interested in the question- it was wrong, and they knew it, so an answer was not worthwhile.. Thus the issue, how present these internal methods (or external gungfu either), as distinct from the athleticism, and ways of connecting and jolting and shifting the body, and choreography. etc…
(ie in terms of presenting one’s thoughts to others, what is the viewpt of those that are likely to say read a book? what is their likely mind-set?)http://www.energyarts.com/forum/tai-chi-vs-mma#comment-21795
hope this isn’t a rant or diversion.. things churning/bubbling (getting close to crux-pt of change for me) -luck
This is an archived forum (read only). Go to our active forum where you can post and discuss in real time.