So What’s Missing?

[Anonymous]

My last series of posts hopefully gave you a sense of how it all comes together. But, something is still missing.

Before I go any further, let me be very clear. I could not have understood any of this without the mastery programs or more to the point without Bruce’s teaching. Anything I say is with deep respect for everything that Bruce has taught and accomplished. I could not have done what he did and I’m deeply grateful that he has shared so much with us.

But that said, something is missing. Bruce has students that have been with him for almost 40 years and I respectfully don’t believe they’ve pieced this together. The reason is because something is missing.

What is missing is the main topic of my book. I found the missing material. More importantly I found the physiological basis of it. If I am correct, I’ve found the physiological basis for enlightenment. I can explain it in Western terms. It’s not about force and momentum like so many have tried to explain it. Explanations like this miss the mark. Terms like yi, li, chi, and shen only mask it further, add to the confusion, and allow ignorance to perpetuate. In fact, the art is dying precisely because this material isn’t understood.

I suspect the reason why it isn’t in any of Bruce’s books or in any of the mastery programs is because Bruce categorizes it as external. Regardless of what you call it or how you categorize it, I think it is vital and missing.

So, what’s missing?

[Anonymous]

something

[Anonymous]

Something

I’m serious.

What’s missing?
“something” is “what”

“What more is needed,” Liu Hung Chieh asked
rhetorically.
(See #7)

It can be found solely through practicing the Single Palm Change OR by sitting quietly in meditation (Liu’s #6)

(I find “something” in the Release in Tai Chi)

Maybe “SPC” stands for
(Something Palm Change)!

Gayasata asked,
What tinkles?
the bell?
the air?
the mind?

Teacher Samghanandi approved that
it is the mind–
neither the bell
nor the air–tinkles

Monk Dogen (1200-1253) maintained that
mind is not only the totality of the psycho-physical universe, but also “something” more.

(Liu’s #7,
What is not under Heaven?
What is not part of Heaven”)

All the factors are EMPTY (dependent origination–nothing originates by itself)

the “tinkle of the mind” is empty
the “tinkle of the air” is empty
the “tinkle of the bell” is empty
the “tinkle of tinkle” is empty

So, what’s missing?

something

Sometimes the “something” is your finger.
In the SPC there is only one finger,
just as there is only one universe,
just as there is only one Tao.
(Liu’s #7)

I think Liu has answered your question.

Can you go beyond this?

Yes.

[Anonymous]

Yeah, what is? And when and where can we find and get this book?

[Anonymous]

Nice layers…

>>> In the SPC there is only one finger,
just as there is only one universe,
just as there is only one Tao.
(Liu’s #7)

I think Liu has answered your question.

Can you go beyond this? <<<

“Something (fullness) Palm Change” .. only one finger [pointing @?]
=============
Receiving what is ‘hinted’ (encapsulated/transmitted) from those that attained seems to be the only way to “boil it down/simplify it to a catch-phrase/sum-it-up-in one sentence” which is the v-meme currently…

but if a bunch can be said in a few sentences a) wouldn’t they? -although modern terminology/breakthroughs.. b) then instead of the art being only that few sentences (which books/blog-articles/video-ramble-speeches say it is all xyz, and then elaborate on for a while…)
but if any teacher could summarize the art in a few sentences, or even a few classes, got it- done, that was the secret…
If that was so, then is there an overall structure of the method? and thus “other-simplifications” also.. (thus the next generation would have a full teaching, and be trying to summarize all that up)

(rather than the next step and then from there.. that’s the thing about Horizons.. go as far as you can see, even to the Edge, and then you can see further?)

---

I appreciate part of the gist.. boil down to the missing piece, perhaps one might jump to a conclusion, incorrectly perhaps, that not only could the teachings be said without all the time and details others use, that many don’t have 100proof (as Bruce phrases), but only part of the whole, but further that the missing piece is a phrase, or explanation…..

-it could be either (both): a quality/skill (not just understand this ___, but just as a gymnast needs to develop a type of reflex balancing, and “mat sense” ie down, as well as capacity to nerve fire more quickly-intensely.. these can be said, but that doesn’t do much, they need to be developed (like telling someone to exude-emit-radiate Ji energy from a pt on the forearm (there- touch it, vs over there..)… can one? then intensity and duration (as well as engagement.. 3 factors… then do that, from the rear-side of your hip, radiate from there? (can you feel, can another feel? can you affect them.. etc..)

These are building blocks, but with that step can go further…

[that being the second]- the assumption of “confusing” unclear terminology is trendy, but it doesn’t mean it “makes more sense” or is logical… it means, it is, or isn’t, part of our conversational knowledge.. if the person on the street, general understanding, doesn’t have a possibility (like abc skill is something that might be hard to do, but makes sense ” I can see that, per how we view the world ” .. or a step away..
The point of teaching is to progress in that area of experience- over time, each stretch “making sense from the last” -although likely distinct from the starting-pt (the outsider view-pt
………………
I understand that writing a post, and questioning as a challenge (no one knows this but me, or else prove it… ) gives the opportunity to reject, even if integrating what else you find out (not need to request other ideas that way, and surely it isn’t teaching.. just other opinions), so just as one that is seeking to write/print (& distribute) a book might do with making a good impression and then seeking guidance form those that have published similar books themselves..
Or- one can reinvent the wheel-book and figure out how, or just grab the first ideas, or perhaps find some that have published/written/sold books and tell them, if you know how, prove it and tell me… (but that last way is part of our current culture as well, so it may work well, and I regret if I give an impression from my writing-describing it)

Whether one is self pub (print and store in basement/garage.. after pay the first run… or “ondemand” setup) or via a house (agent) & the layout printing (editing to not look like so many books, that seem photocopied/padded out pages/ misspelling [if doing via a House, they’d help with that.. otherwise, its test and try, adjust repeat…

Which sounds a bit like self-study struggle-gungfu..

one key is on a walk-march across the vast expanse towards the Horizon, if you aim for the wrong landmark on the Edge you go way-off-course (off by and inch, off by a mile.. “the” journey of a 1K miles begins with a single-step…)
a specific step needed.. so many translated/fortune-cookied/that as “any journey” and “any first step” just get started….? Not that something actual was meant there, and then wonder what happened…

---

I find what you mention interesting, and the book also, but I hope it is more than basic opening-closing (by basic I don’t mean to diminish as developed on its own that neigung component, before being combined/layered with others…. is not just synovial-jt capsule movement.. even in some posts whether it was said- not just opening-closing this is about twisting.. (and then only mentions a twist to drive a Kai&He.. -which is ultimately a sphere… both changing and still).. vs involving actually twisting E…
.. so just the three concepts of lengthening (and the related undulating pulse-wave), actual Twisting, and basic (complete) Kai-He.. then combine to a building-block… but that’s not what is missing (as those are core to what Bruce has presented)… but also from that platform of experience there are some next-steps… (as well as taking the time, and having the energy-capacity to train the heck out of hrs a day and sustain, injuries are bunk.. but an injury is better than practicing and perhaps thinking you aren’t just mindless repeating.. and then find you have been doing more-so than developing….

To speak of #7 is after having achieved #6.. and to know your essence, not just as well as, but more solidly than you know your own name, your Phone# (perhaps- that can be forgotten), to know what your current house looks like (vs stumbling into someone else house….).. not as an I get it, as if you get a whiff of perhaps-essence and think you have it, you can’t Work with that (let alone work-from that)…
but that is like many get a whiff- of chi flow, and then say they have it, and then others ask: why don’t they seem to have it? (apples&oranges).. likewise a whiff- of nei-jing (like structure, or flow-momentum, or both: even if it is hydraulic-pressure structure, or if it is CTS tensegrity.. but neijing “Suchness” (not this “something” but perhaps a physical aspect of the personal version.. )
If you, or another practitioner, has a whiff of nei-jing, then to ask why they don’t have it solid(?) -but beyond “results” challenged.. the key being, is what is developed/understood/explained really what you think it is?

(again loops that what is that suchness/something? Fullness as counter-pt to Emptiness)– and if the finger points @.. just as words aren’t themselves used (often), they are used to indicate, to point at.. (Pictures on the menu aren’t food, the map is not the territory)— further common ideas, and ones Bruce has used before.
===========
-It would be nice if there was discussion developed on this.

[Anonymous]

This missing piece is part of step#1 of Liu’s overview. That’s why no one is progressing. They are missing a key element of the most basic material. Everyone is trying to leapfrog to step #7 without working through the previous steps.

Bruce’s teaching adds to the problem. 95% of what Bruce teaches is way beyond most people’s skill level. I only found this basic foundation because I dis-engaged from the madness. I went back to the very beginning and started asking what I am doing, and why? I stumbled and fumbled and came up with a lot of crap before I finally found an answer that matched scientific reality and simple physiology.

15 years later I’m still working on steps #4 and #5. I believe this training is setting the stage for step #6, but I have no idea what step #6 really is. I’d guess you have less than a one in a million chance to understand #6 with training and probably more like a one in a billion chance without properly going through the progression.

Think about it. Dong’s top 4 students were likely the most talented martial artists in a country of billions and they didn’t get to step #7 and probably didn’t get to step #6 either.

[Anonymous]

Taokua, as always there are lots of valid points and criticism in your post, but I politely point out that I have no obligation to teach this to anyone.

There is one simple reason why I won’t just come out is say what it is and this may be the same reason why Bruce doesn’t tell you — I want to cash in. I stole the recipe for Coca-Cola!

[Anonymous]

That is fully understandable Just a thought that other “teachers” might have the same view [thus whoever they are, won’t just come out and say it themselves.. thus the question, why is the Coca-Cola recipe not out there?]
.. but also in regards to what I see more “students” (even causal readers, video watchers) thinking.
[in regards to “I have no obligation to teach this to anyone” -of course, I regret if I misunderstood, I thought I read a few times that you were considering not just writing a book, but perhaps even directly teaching it to people.. or perhaps you just meant not here, even if you plan to later- vs you don’t plan to at all.]

Either way, not sure why I myself poured out some thoughts in those posts, just puzzle-pieces (I’ve been reconsidering recently if I will consider whether I ever have an obligation to pass it along either, reconsidering.) -luck

[Anonymous]

Thanks to both James and Taokua.

On the one hand I like the simple.
On the other hand I like the complex.

It’s a paradox.
Contradictory views can be plainly stated.
But in the paradox the unstated contains the real hidden missing meaning.

The first view mentions only things that somehow refer to themselves, never mentioning unstated things.
(for example: power is generated in the legs—of the self;
no mention of Suchness)

The second view only mentions the unstated, missing meaning, never mentioning things clearly mentioned in the first view.
(for example: Suchness is mentioned, but where power is generated is never mentioned.)

In the second view, how do we know what the first view is talking about? It never mentions any of the things mentioned in the first view.

This approximates the Russell paradox where R is the set of all sets which are not members of themselves.

Is set R a member of itself or is it not?

Realism or Idealism?

Practice or Realization?

Or the unstated “something?”

[Anonymous]

I’ve debated the same question about why it isn’t out there?

Whatever the case may be (either they don’t know or aren’t telling), you are in the same place. They know. You don’t. I think Bruce is the only person I’ve met that knows. One of my friends doesn’t even believe that Bruce knows. We both agree that Bruce can do it better than anyone we’ve met, but he doesn’t think Bruce understands it in western terms. I don’t know what the case is. All I know is Bruce doesn’t need to. He has it.

If even Bruce doesn’t know and I do, do you realize how rare my knowledge is?

I do have every intention of writing my book and sharing this with anyone who is interested. I also plan to teach, but I have no obligation.

[Anonymous]

maybe it’s a matter of definition

I seem to be hung up on the definition of “missing”

However,
there is a difference between saying:
1. There is no “missing” material
and
2. The “missing” material is empty

Mathematicians after Russell found ways around the contradictions of the Naive Russell Paradox by creating more flexible definitions of “definition.”
They showed that no “set” contains everything.

A simple example of their “logic” is the Barber’s Paradox.

Suppose there is barber who shaves all men who do not shave themselves and only men who do not shave themselves. When one thinks about whether the barber should shave himself or not, the paradox begins to emerge.

But maybe problem is that the definition of “barber” is too restrictive.
The “barber” could be a woman who doesn’t shave.

So,
1. Maybe there is no such “barber”
or
2. The concept of what a “barber” is, is empty

What I’m getting to is that:
1. Maybe there can be no “missing” material
or
2. The concept of “What’s missing” is empty

[Anonymous]

Dick, I’ve got 78 pages of the first draft already completed not including illustrations. My son is a graphic artist. He is working on the cover art and the overall design. I don’t have a lot of time so I wouldn’t expect to have it ready for at least another year. If I had a good editor, I could probably complete the book in a month. I wish I could get it out there sooner, I really think it has the potential to change the whole industry.

[Anonymous]

I was watching Dan Kleiman’s interview of Bob Tangora (search Youtube for “Robert Tangora on The Internal Structure of Cloud Hands”). Bob is a perfect example of someone who has real skills but doesn’t understand how it really works. He understands way more than most. Bob is super smart, articulate, and one of the best Tai Chi players I’ve met over the years. Everything he describes is accurate enough but go to 12 minutes into the interview and you’ll see where his understanding is stretched to its limit and the whole explanation devolves into “energetic things” and then further devolves and they start talking about chi. I know exactly what he is talking about and more importantly what its physiological basis is. Like many martial artists, he eventually found the more advanced material without understanding what is really going on. Earlier in the interview he even describes the dilemma very accurately but something is still missing.

[Anonymous]

5 years ago I thought the missing “something” was the “bounce.”
So, I bought Tangora’s book “The INTERNAL Structure of Cloud Hands”
wherein he refers to “the rebound of the bounce.”
In doing so in the first paragraph of a section he refers to
“an” as (top open, bottom closed).
In the third paragraph he refers again to “an” but this time he reverses the parenthetical to (top closing, and bottom opening).
Bewildered by this key inconsistency, I mentioned this in a review of his book on amazon.com
No response from author Tangora.
One of his loyal students defended Bob as being very good at tai chi.

So much for understanding “bounce.”

One lesson: if you write a book, edit it carefully.
If someone criticizes your thesis, defend it.

Bruce doesn’t emphasize “bounce.”
But he does have a pretty solid explanation of the internal energies “peng, lui, ji, an” of Cloud Hands in his on-line course, Old Style Tai Chi Edition.
Bruce even incorporates breathing in his explanation; Tangora did not.
Bruce gives an even better explanation of energies and breathing in explaining Lifting Hands and Shoulder Stroke.
(He relates each move to the compression or expansion of the Lower Dantien.)

However, one thing Bruce often emphasizes in bagua-stepping is pushing off the heel of the back leg (empty leg), which creates a simultaneous wave of energy rising up that leg filling the Lower Dantien.
Maybe this is what Tangora thinks creates the “bounce?”
At one point in his book Tangora says that the rebounding energy bounces off the WEIGHTED foot.
But I think the empty back left must be UNWEIGHTED.
And doesn’t Qi flow through an empty, relaxed things?

I hope your missing “something” is not a mysterious “bounce.”

Today I ordered Paul Cavel’s new book;
it’s title has “The Tai Chi Space” in it.
You have talked about “the Tai Chi Space,” too.
Could you make that the missing “something?” with scientific and physiological proof?
I’ll buy your book anyway.

My hopes are not high because I believe that Russell and Godel are right—no well-defined set can be complete.
There is no set that contains everything.
Theorum of Incompleteness.
“Something” is always going to be “”missing.”

[Anonymous]

Bob, Your post has me thinking that it would be really valuable to start working with some long-time practitioners who have a lot of background to “test” my explanations. I’ll give this some more consideration. I can’t do it on this forum: the response rate is way too slow with all the approval still being necessary after all these years.

For now, you might have noticed a theme in my latest posts: I’ve been trying to establish how little is really understood by even the best practitioners and teachers. So, even if my crap is equally flawed at least I’ve established that chi is a bullshit dodge and no one understands. I don’t think this is going to happen, but I do anticipate an huge backlash. All of the Harry Potter set are going to be pissed off when they find out magic doesn’t exist. And the charlatans are going to be obvious, exposed and incredibly uncomfortable.

P.S. On a humorous note, I just noticed that one of the better Tai Chi sites has chosen the same symbol as Harry Potter minus the wand. Too funny.

[Author]

Posts