- This topic is empty.
-
Posts
-
dougongs may be the missing somethings
NOVA had a documentary,
“Secrets of the Forbidden City,”
built in Beijing during the reign of Emperor Yongle
(1420).
How did 400 temples survive many 7 plus earthquakes?
dougongs
and tall wooden columns (nanmu trees weighing 40 tons.)
The columns were free standing on rounds of granite,
not rooted like Tai Chi posits.
The dougongs rested freely on top of the nanmu columns.
dougongs are blocks of wood fitted together like Rubik’s magic cubes, but not fastened, which supported the 2,000 ton tile roofs.
When earthquakes destroyed whole cities nearby
( in 1976 a 7.8 quake killed 15,000 Chinese).
the columns swayed and the dougons pivoted and absorbed all the energy in the opposite direction.Modern scientists made a model of the Tai Miao Temple and subjected it to 10.1 forces;
only the non-supporting brick walls crumbled.dougongs look like the vertebrae of the human spine,
which support heavy brick-heads like me.dougongs, the tangible secret of Chinese architecture.
LOL! I remember that documentary. I don’t recall all of the details. The design was so strange, but amazing. I thhink there is certainly something to the balancing in the opposite directions. I started this many years ago working through Bend the Bow neigung. At that time I didn’t have direct access to the blood or CSF. However, later I worked most of the balance using the spinal cord and then more directly with the CSF. Now, I’m going back and working the organs.
I had found this work with the organs when I was going through the Hsing-I mastery program. I even posted a huge post that lays out the progression (unfortunately the formatting got all messed up when I posted it). In Hsing-I the premise was based on the large vascular and nerve trunks as you moved up the spine. Each just happened to correspond to the Five elements and associated organs. Too coincidental. Check out the posts on the Bagua postures. I’m seeing this material in a different light.
Thanks James! I’ll be looking out for your book.
Having the idea to have a discussion/investigation of principles is interesting but challenging, as evident here… this thread referenced prior comments that Twisting was mixed with opening-closing.. and now there are comments elsewhere that lengthening is opening-closting (or at least mixed with), as well as bend&stretch….
The focus is on clarity on what is being written (both by writers here, as well as saying why aren’t others telling? .. but if writers here comment about ideas, but not clear.. makes easier to by unclear (of what is meant).. -current postings circle back to this, and earlier, about whether these are questions being asked, or ideas being presented…___________
prior quote in the above, I wrote the following, which I think was a confusion, but a response seemed to say- my comment was understood, and yet it seems that that was/is confusion…. Anyway- in case there are any reading this forum that are seeking to learn and discuss, I hope your practicing is going well.“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 ….” (re distinctly different principles, ie ‘nei-gung component’… each then clearly combine, not blur, and then layer further… this being something that I believe is clumped as many parts, vs distinct modular-matrixing.. which allows free-neigung-action).[Just a thought that came up as this was a point I personally found of interest then, and it seems to be mentioned/questioned about in the TrainingCircle… but this may be seen differently be others, and perhaps the question relates to a different unclarity.]
-anyway- luck all
I agree this is challenging. The challenge is compounded by the learning process especially once you get past the jing phase – because the rate of learning accelerates considerably and you begin dropping the original ways of approaching the material to utilize more efficient paradigms. In other cases, you just realize you were wrong and abandon an approach altogether for a better organization of the material. And of course it is really difficult to describe a lot of this stuff. All of these can create “apparent” contradictions. That’s why it is so important to have a master like Bruce keeping you pointing in the right direction while you walk you own meandering path.
Let me give you a concrete example.
If you ask most of Bruce’s students, I’d guess that most would say they bring energy up the back and down the front. Think about it. Isn’t this how Bruce describes the big movement of “chi” in the body?
In the Mountain palm, I don’t do that. I bring energy down the back and up the front. It is the first palm change where I learned to do that. In the BMP Module 16, watch videos 20 and 21. I create the stability that Bruce describes using bend&stretch not the lower tan tien. What I do starts with the feet. This is Bagua afterall. In video 21, the turning out step that continues to close is a riddle: how do you turn out without opening?
You can do it by allowing the joints to continue to compress from gravity and continuing to close the joint, but you won’t engage the “energy of heaven and earth”. And, you won’t get as strong a closing as possible. Most people will close, open, close. They won’t close, close more, close even more. And they aren’t likely to learn what the “energy” of Mountain is about.
When I take each step, more energy goes down the back into the heel with each step (regardless of whether the foot turns inward or outward).
I’ll bet most people bring energy down the front with each step. Why? Because they never learned what bend&stretch is. They only learned the kindergarten version, bend and straighten. They may never learn how the Mountain Palm Change really works.
So, my point is if you only know the beginning material someone describing a more advanced technique may either be wrong or sound contradictory. How will you know which?
“Rebound” Revisited
Scott Meredith has recently put out a new CD and book
( “Peng” the CD and “Juice” the book)He has the courage to try to answer the “Rebound” question.
(He has a strong martial arts bio and has studied the work of Cheng Man-ching)His vocabulary is a bit different, but he bases it on the Tai Chi classics.
(for example, he says the weighted leg is the “substantial” strong leg, is bent and carries yin Qi down to the foot and carries yang Qi up that weighted leg.)
Bruce thinks differently.
( he has said that the back, unweighted leg is “Full,” —full of Qi—.)Contradictions!
But so what?
Meredith has tried to answer “something” others have not.
I respect that. I’m unfamiliar with Scott Meredith’s work. I’ve seen his books and videos around but dismissed them based on his vocabulary. He may have something, but I can’t learn from him. That doesn’t mean someone else can’t.
The contradiction in Tangora’s book that you mentioned earlier in this thread is pretty blatant. It is the flaw of giving a fixed structure to something that has a more fundamental than the structure than the explanation you are using. I do this all the time in my posts. I’m just describing ways to put neigung into the forms (it doesn’t matter if the movement is cloud hands, Hsing-I fists, or Bagua palm changes). This is fundamentally flawed because the reality is that any movement is yang, yin, both yin and yang, and neither yin nor yang – all at the same time. That’s a mind bender.
At some point someone is going to start understanding this material in western terms based on modern science – not chi. It may be one of Bruce’s students or someone who studied with Cheng Man-ching.
I may come off like an arrogant asshole, but I think I’ve done it. My explanation may have contradictions and or inconsistencies but I think it will make these amazing arts make more sense and help all practitioners make better decisions about why, how, and what to train.
Bob, if you want to discuss the rebound, I’d suggest you start another thread just about it. If I were to guess, it is nothing more than stretching the tissue and using the natural return to its standing state to power whatever you are trying to achieve. You can do this in a lot of ways depending on your access to various tissue and your ability to stretch it.
I wrote in another post about my understanding being that Meredith’s teachings aren’t (explicitly) about rebound (there is a rebound, but it isn’t WuChiTao weight-shift rebound), but anyway
[it through me off when I saw this post a while back- a ‘new book’? Peng and Surge were a good-few-yrs back? but new being opposed to back in the 90s or such?)
– just to insert that if one is seeking a parallel, I’d say that the teachings of intrinsic-force in ChengHsin (Peter Ralston’s system) have this compression-rebound (and stretch-rebound).. which isn’t the end-all of his system only one-building-block (as has been taught for yrs)
I only mention if looking for a system that has taught about this (as well as a few other books on Hsing-I and TaiChiChuan bks back 90s or 2000s)
………..
I propose a testing format- which is what I learned way back, and have been working with- I’d be curious your thoughts (I’ll post that in the general martial-arts section of this forum).Good luck in each of your practice and formulations.
Taokua B,
I don’t know how you will take this but it is intended to be genuine and constructive.
As I read your posts, I realize how much time, effort, and thought you’ve put into your studies. I always think: this guy is super intelligent and could teach me a ton. Then I think, but what value is there in trivia?
Thomas Edison, when queried by a reporter about failures and incredible difficulties associated with his work on the lightbulb rebutted, “I have not failed 700 times. I’ve succeeded in proving 700 ways how not to build a lightbulb.”
Your studies focus on the 700 ways not to do what Bruce is trying to teach. That’s appropriate when no one on the planet knows how to make a light bulb. But if someone knows how to make one, why study the 700 ways that don’t work? Stop trying to learn from people who don’t know. They all do something interesting, but few if any know the whole system. Less than 1 in 100 million people on the planet know.
Bruce learned how to make the proverbial light bulb from Liu Hung Chieh. My advice is to concentrate on what he is teaching. So far, he is the only person I’ve met that knows. That’s why I’ve spent almost 30 years trying to figure out what the hell he is talking about.
In the end I’ve found that the intellectual information isn’t nearly as important as the practice. The tai chi space is embodied. As is wu ji.
Focus Danielson.
After reading Bruce’s blog, Taoist Yoga – Man in the Suitcase, I’m starting to think my friend was right.
I appreciate your response, I have been learning/working primarily with what Bruce is teaching- other comments/posts were about other instructors (Robert Tangora, etc.),
You write, “Your studies focus on the 700 ways not to do what Bruce is trying to teach” which is interesting interpretation; having familiarity with other related systems, even if only to compare/contrast…but this arose from your posts- noone can describe this how, not even Bruce’s teachings (per your prior posts) [Intell info vs practice.. writing may be informed by practice, but isn’t ever practice itself, to just practice, one wouldn’t post on a forum..]
I see the “intellectual distraction” actually as the focus upon “explaining” what is the physics-story to describe how (pseudo-science), vs actual how-to steps… which are not the same [ref: re post on gazing, the physio-basis of “wuji”.. etc] different views.
anyways- thx for your words, you backhand write you don’t want to learn from what I write, that’s ok; I actually am not solely writing for you to read, but assuming there are those that are reading this forum, and seeking to learn Bruce’s material, which could be mislead by what is written on this forum, and not have those learning/readers not get off-track. (which is my motivation for tuning-in and responding on this forum, in response to what I’ve learned from Bruce re neigung, etc).[your signoff is to sound like you’re Miyagi? -to find and be taught-directly by a teacher like Daniel in that film, puts one in a very different position. <I wonder how they basically did the same movie in the 'remake'' and yet it didn't have the depth of the original
>Anyway- the issue of what is core-essence of what path one is following (Earts teachings, in this case; for another, it may be a different person/system… but even what Bruce has taught, isn’t wrapped into to one distinct method: the different Neigung sets ~6… meditation, neigung components… are like a bunch of Lego pieces… and how to assemble them, and what order to sequence them (the same units can be combined differently, and a very different end results)- in some teachings he’s laid out what that is… but in others there are pointers, that then need to be worked out…..
and thus your writings and apparent seekings of your reinterpreting what is meant (and the other teachers/methods you’ve brought up previously)…
…………..
So just to any reading this, the issue James brought up about reexamining what one is doing (are you on-track, or scattered? Who are you following, and what is it that they are teaching? -I wrote posts in the past about that particular issue, and how to consider what one is focusing on, etc). Anyway- I’d agree that is a good pointWhat is core teaching? what is a missing piece….?
(do you want to learn, what you ‘already know’? or is something new- different, or even just trivia?)Luck to those reading in their practicing (if any wish to share what they are experiencing/finding personally…. ?)
In qigong session 11 of month 7 of EATC Opening and Closings, Bruce defines the missing piece. The difference is I not only know how I found it and how the 16 part neigung is supposed to work to help you find it. I also know the physiological basis for it.
After almost 36 years of training and searching in the martial arts world I have discovered that many martial arts instructors who claim inner vision or abilities cannot prove it. The good thing about the “hard schools” that don’t even mention chi/ ki is that it either works to take someone down or it does not. A lifetime of training can become “DO”(the way) with refinement of skill and polishing of character.
Too many times bad actors start believing their own delusions of grandeur. If that’s not bad enough others that seek knowledge and want to believe follow and play part in this delusion. To say that I can see green dragons and you cannot because you are not sensitive enough is a form of manipulation.
One two occasions I encountered an aikidoka that claimed to be able to throw people with his Ki. No touch atemi. It was interesting that when asked to do this to anyone but their students they claimed that I or my associates were not sensitive enough.
I hope that the mugger in the street is sensitive for their sake.
I have learned to give others the benefit doubt as long as they don’t start pushing books or programs for the sake of money. I have found value here with the energy arts group based on how what I have assimilated has made me a better person as well as healthier. I also have a wealth of other knowledge that I have experienced in tai chi and chi gung and when I started here a lot of things clicked because of clarification and the systematic methods involved.
One thing Bruce does is prove what he says. Again this is at the most organic level with opening closing of his cranial plates and his Fa Jing. At a certain point we either believe in shin gung or not.
I have encountered some gifted practitioners, some had the ability to put things together well so I can see the draw to say “I see it or I have it and I know it and no one else does”. I guess I have heard that once too often for my liking.
The proof then James …. let’s see the proof. Post some videos I’m not buying a book that has been advertised on someone else’s web form without their referral.
I would be glad to include you as someone I have studied. We are all here to learn and absorb knowledge.
I agree – it really does come down this.
This is an archived forum (read only). Go to our active forum where you can post and discuss in real time.