Yang Ban Hou's long form

Discuss Taijiquan or other soft styles. Theory, practice and applications. Please stay on topic.

Moderators: nyang, Dvivid, Inga, taiqiman

Postby Syd » Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:45 am

Dvivid wrote:Very compelling - I agree with your tracing of the Chen/Yang lineages. The 'first road' of Chen style (75 form) looks quite dissimilar from the Yang 108 form.

BUT - What, then, is the story with Wudang?


Well the lineage and influence is pretty clearly back through Jiang Fa or whoever correctly fills his place in the teaching of both Chen Chang Xin AND Chen Qing Ping - there is also the reference of Internal Boxing School influence of Hua Chuan ( Flower Fist Boxing ) which was a blend of Internal and External arts through the Monk Kan Feng Chi - this was explored in my previous long post.

Is it possible there IS a thread of truth in the written history of Wudang in which the ancient Daoist internal arts (Dao Yin) were somehow related to, involved in, or perhaps even the inspiration for the evolution of Yang's slow form? Or do you believe that Yang simply created the slow form of Taijiquan that we know today, period?


Once again, if you go back and re-read the interview with Ma Yueliang I posted he states clearly that before Yang Cheng Fu there was only the Fast Form and I agree with this ... this isn't to say that there were no Qigong or slow cultivation exercises but that the form itself was never performed at a slow pace before Yang Cheng Fu. All of the evidence I have come across clearly supports the idea that all Yang Forms were fast and explosive with leaps and kicks until Yang Cheng Fu changed it to the slow form.

This isn't to say that Wudang didn't have an influence on the arts that Yang Luchan, Chen Chang Xin and Chen Qing Ping all practiced, learned and taught. Perhaps after my last LONG post I should have summarized the basic points in order to make it more clear. I will try here.

1 - Chen Chang Xin was taught an art that came from outside Chen Village by someone reported to be named Jiang Fa.

2 - The art that Jiang Fa was to have taught was not a family art but was rather a Teacher to Pupil based art.

3 - It was said that this style of boxing was an Internal style which mixed both External and Internal styles - it is this style that was taught to yang Luchan and Chen Qing Ping. It is this style that was said to have Taoist/Wudang influence and was originally taught by a wandering Taoist Priest.

4 - Wu Yuxiang also learned this art from Chen Qing Ping when he stayed at Zhaobao Village after being told to go there by Chen Chang Xin who was now too old to teach it.

5 - Yang Luchan stated that while he was taught his art by Chen Chang Xin at Chenjiagou he honed this craft with Chen Qing Ping at Zhaobao Town.

6 - The bottom line is that Chen Village Gongfu was a different art from what Chen Chang Xin taught Yang Luchan. It is this art that Chen Qing Ping was also taught and this is the art that had a mixture of Internal and External boxing styles. This is also why both Yang Style, Wu Style and Zhaobao Style all have Dianmai as a skill set and Chen Style does not.

7 - Yang Luchan then synthesized this art and boiled it down into Yang Style but he also taught many different frames and versions of things he learned at Chen village and Zhaobao according to the nature of his students - this is another likely reason as to why there are so many varying versions also.

8 - As Ma said in the interview ... there was no slow form before Yang Cheng Fu. An Internal Boxing style does not mean the forms had to be slow ... it just means there is some form of internal cultivation in the practice somewhere ... I would say more than likely Qigong was practiced whilst holding fixed postures and THIS was the method ... then the entire set would be performed at fast speed.

Dao Yin exercises and Taiji theory are over 5,000 years old...not Taijiquan theory, but Taiji philosophy...THIS is where I think there is more research needed.


I agree ... the philosophy is ancient but this has no bearing one way or the other as to what was taught to Yang Luchan ... it has been made clear that it was a mixture of Internal Boxing and External schools. All kinds of Boxing Systems have names and influences based on Taoist philosophy and Esoteric Ritual but these are often a broad church in application and practice.

As I understand, Zhang San Feng was an ex-Shaolin, wandering Daoist, who travelled widely teaching Dao Yin (qigong), meditation, and Taiji philosophy. And I don't find it hard to believe that he was involved in the choice of calling this new Yang slow form "TAIJIquan". After all - Yang was a martial artist who just studied Chen Long Fist...


There is no real evidence of Zhang San Feng existing and absolutely zero evidence to support him ever giving the name Taijiquan to a form of boxing that did not yet exist ... it was invented by Yang Luchan and the name was given to Yang's art by the court poet already mentioned in previous posts - this is the earliest record of the name Taijiquan being applied to any art let along Yang's art ... which it was given for. Go back to my previous posts and re-read it ... I feel you might yet grasp the essence of what I have been saying through the research supplied.

I am reading a lot of contradictory stuff regarding Wudang and Zhang Sen Feng, and will be contacting Livia Kohn, a Wudang researcher in the US, in order to get my facts as straight as possible - as I am gearing up to produce a Wudang Arts DVD series...

(Im not talking about the silly wikipeda legends of Zhang San Feng as a 7-foot tall immortal with laser eyes...but of the historical records of his travels and teaching)


The more research you do the better but try and remain open minded and objective while you are at it and try not to have a desired outcome one way or the other but just keep questioning and ask yourself and others if the data really is supported by facts or at the very least a weight of evidence that points in the direction of something akin to facts.

Frankly the most solid sources we have for what Yang, Wu and Chen Qing Ping were taught is through Jiang Fa and there is also the influence of Kan Feng Chi who was a Shaolin Master said to be the one who created an Internal Boxing that found it's way to Chen Village also. I would leave any notions of Zhang San Feng where they currently reside ... in the mists of myth.
Syd
Forum Contributor
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Sydney OZ

Postby lilman » Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:07 am

hmmm... Sounds reasonable to me that if the style was passed by the Chen family and a Chen family member in Zhao Bao, if someone else made it famous they would want a piece of the pie...

This conversation reminds me of a previous conversation I had previously with a Chen sylist that stated Chen style has no basis in thoery or applications from Taoism. This would kinda explain what he meant.

I am now studying Chen style as my current teacher teaches Yang, Sun, Wu, Wu-Hao, Chen, and Wudang. When I study Chen style, I see less an emphasis on the 8 trigrams and more emphasis on Chan Su Ching, Even in the newer short forms. Yang style is basically just variations of the 8 trigrams and 5 style steps throughout the whole forms, with some, but less emphasis on Chan Su Ching...

They both practice neutralization, sticking and adhering and some slow movements in both forms. Chen also does practice sung as well, so I believe, even in the case you explained, it can be considered a "Taijiquan" as a classification, even if it wasnt originally.

It was not uncommon for martial artists to take parts of other martial arts that worked and added it to their own, and modified to fit their own theory to strengthen their own art. So the Chen "secret style" could've originally had soft slow movements, Fa Jing, concepts of Shaolin, and the other boxing styles you mentioned. That couldve been passed to Yang Lu Chan, and he couldve learned the Wudang aspects later and definately made a completely different art. My teacher tells me that Chen style was originally created to defend against Shaolin and Wudang styles, so why not add flavor from both? So I do not disagree with anything you wrote.

I have not got on the subject of history with my teacher yet. Maybe I will soon, and maybe add another opinion on here. But it definately is interesting. If I had the time and resources I would definately look further into the history.
lilman
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:50 pm
Location: El Paso, Tx

Postby yeniseri » Tue Jun 24, 2008 10:16 am

Syd,

Excellent work! I wish all students would be as pointed in their own individual research.
There are individual points we share in the big picture and small ones that are not quite there yet but it all good if we can share and practice.

1. I do acknowledge the art known today is called taijiquan (modern naming reference) and that Chen family art is the ONE and that they borrowed arts from their surrounding villages to synthesize the village art.
2. I also acknowledge that Yang and Wu (Quanyu and Yuxian) learnt other arts and that influenced their specific styles.

Great research!
yeniseri
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: USA

Postby Dvivid » Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:14 am

I do "grasp the essence" of your posts, thanks.

Henning reads as a bit arrogant and biased, in my HUMBLE opinion. He tends to lean toward the military and away from the religious, and I am from a background of Buddhist study and Qigong.

I have read similar such Westernized research, and it serves its purpose.

You may well be correct re:Zhang, but for now Im going to stay in the gray area where I find the truth usually resides, rather than in the rigid black and white we tend to clutch so firmly. I'll let you know if I find anything else pertaining to the myth of Zhang, which for me is my area of interest presently, and which I wont be so quick to abandon just yet.

Meanwhile, I suggest returning this thread to the topic of Yang, Ban-Hou.
"Avoid Prejudice, Be Objective in Your Judgement, Be Scientific, Be Logical and Make Sense, Do Not Ignore Prior Experience." - Dr. Yang

http://www.ymaa.com/publishing
Dvivid
Forum God
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:48 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Syd » Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:21 am

lilman wrote:hmmm... Sounds reasonable to me that if the style was passed by the Chen family and a Chen family member in Zhao Bao, if someone else made it famous they would want a piece of the pie...


What Yang made famous was not the same though as what he learned from Chen Chang Xin and honed in Zhaobao ... he went beyond that and created a NEW style ... Yang Style which is Taijiquan. But yes ... later the Chen Family realized what a gem Chen Chang Xin had passed to Yang and decided after the fact to try to reconstruct it in the NEW Chen Style but by then Chen Chang Xin was long gone and Zhaobao was the only reference point left besides Yangs art so they blended Yang Taiji with OLD Chen. All the evidence points to this reality.

It was not uncommon for martial artists to take parts of other martial arts that worked and added it to their own, and modified to fit their own theory to strengthen their own art. So the Chen "secret style" could've originally had soft slow movements, Fa Jing, concepts of Shaolin, and the other boxing styles you mentioned.


I have stated as much in the previous research presented ... but let's again get things straight. There was NO Chen Secret Style ... the art that was taught to Chen Chang Xin by Jiang Fa, the same art that was taught to Chen Qing Ping of Zhaobao that also contained Dianmai ( As did Yang Style ) was NOT a Chen Family art ... it was an art from outside the Village ... calling it Chen Secret Style is not correct ... it was an outside art that was based on a Teacher to Student system and NOT a Family system. It just so happened that the art was passed to a member of the Chen Village but it was NOT a Chen Art. There is no evidence to suggest that what Chen Chang Xin taught had slow forms and movements ... this is not supported by the Yang Family Transmissions or by documented interviews coming from the Wu's etc who were so close to the Yangs.

Once again ... Ma Yueliang clearly states that there was NO Slow Form before Yang Cheng Fu ... this is also supported by Douglas Wile in Taiji Touchstones if you read it closely. There are clear descriptions of the Taijiquan of Yang Luchans sons and Grandsons and it is not slow form. Yang Cheng Fu openly admitted that he had radically altered his fathers and grandfathers form and stated that this was as much as it could be changed without heading into ruin!

There seems to be some desire for people to believe in this idea that there was a slow form before Yang Cheng Fu so that it might lend more credence to the Taoist origins of Taijiquan. It is a false economy to wish for something that was not so. It is also unnecessary because it is fundamentally flawed logic in regard to what Yang Luchan and Chen Qing Ping were taught ... it has already been made clear that they were taught was an art that was a MIXTURE of Internal AND External Boxing ... so the concept of a fast form with soft technique is not at odds with the result and the likely reality of what is seen today in Zhaobao Style and fast frame Yang Style Taijiquan as well as Wu.

There is an assumption that anything Wudang or Taoist must be all slow ... the basic nature of Taiji is a balance of soft AND hard ... it is the balancing of opposites and NOT an extreme of softness ONLY. It seems to me that what was taught to Yang and Ping was a very pure representation of Taoist concepts in martial art ... soft and hard together ... not just ALL soft or ALL hard. This is also what the Shaolin Monk Kan Feng Chi brought to the Chen village through his own Internal Boxing also ... his style was a soft and hard style of the internal school. The facts speak for themselves and do not require any help from us ... it is up to us to sift the evidence and to interpret the message clearly without adding our own secret desires and or prejudices to the result. It is what it is ... not more, not less.


That couldve been passed to Yang Lu Chan, and he couldve learned the Wudang aspects later and definately made a completely different art.


This is supposition though and is not supported by the evidence provided in the research and reliable documents from key witnesses of the time. Yang did not learn Wudang elements later ... the evidence shows from various sources that both Yang and Chen Qing Ping were taught an outside art that had Taoist/Wudang origins ... even Chen Village Gonfu was influenced earlier by the Shaolin Internal school of the Monk Kan Feng Chi ... why do we need to rearrange the evidence to provide a result that stands contrary to the obvious data already extent? There's just no point and it serves no purpose at all. It is what it is ... not more, not less.

I know there is a great deal of information provided earlier ... I would suggest re-reading the information several times to get the big picture as clear as possible ... it's not an overly complex thesis but there are a few players and threads to gather in. 8)
Syd
Forum Contributor
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Sydney OZ

Postby Syd » Tue Jun 24, 2008 11:44 am

Dvivid wrote:I do "grasp the essence" of your posts, thanks.

Henning reads as a bit arrogant and biased, in my HUMBLE opinion. He tends to lean toward the military and away from the religious, and I am from a background of Buddhist study and Qigong.


So you too have your bias? ;)

Take it from a guy who spent his formative years working for the Theosophical Society writing book reviews on Comparative Religion and being a buyer and seller of such ... I started my journey some years ago with a blind acceptance that Zhang San Feng was more than a myth and held firm to the belief that he was a real person who had been shrouded in a fog of time ... I woke up after doing some homework however. Henning may seem bellicose but his research is sound, one thing should not preclude your acceptance of the other.

Let me be clear, I am not Mr Science ... I could hardly be called such having just returned from a Buddhist Pilgrimage in Japan of the 88 Temples on the island of Shikoku ... a journey I traveled on foot whilst staying at Buddhist temples along the way ... but! I also understand that while there is a place in our imaginations for myths and magic we must also temper this with a cool dose of diamond like clarity lest we become lost in Maya and illusion. ( Usually our own! )

Be sure when searching for facts not to search with your heart first ... objectivity will leave you wanting with your own reflection.

Meanwhile, I suggest returning this thread to the topic of Yang, Ban-Hou.


As soon as somebody contributes something on this subject I'm certain the topic will get there all by itself. :wink:
Syd
Forum Contributor
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Sydney OZ

Postby yeniseri » Wed Jun 25, 2008 9:56 am

Syd proclaimed
What Yang made famous was not the same though as what he learned from Chen Chang Xin and honed in Zhaobao ... he went beyond that and created a NEW style ... Yang Style which is Taijiquan. But yes ... later the Chen Family realized what a gem Chen Chang Xin had passed to Yang and decided after the fact to try to reconstruct it in the NEW Chen Style but by then Chen Chang Xin was long gone and Zhaobao was the only reference point left besides Yangs art so they blended Yang Taiji with OLD Chen. All the evidence points to this reality.
but as a Yang and Chen style practitioner, I see that the choreography may be different (if that is what is meant by NEW STYLE) but the patterns are similar.

In Chen shi taijiquan, whether Chenjiagou or X'ian, the expression is the same while saying Laojia (less obvious in showing some pattern of application and understanding) and Xinjia, more obvious and 'larger' movements perhaps to mimic a Yang like similiarity (my dubious understanding having nothing to do with reality).
Additionally, Xinjia, though useful and practical, appear to have reached the external show of modern taijiquan health impetus and exposure.
yeniseri
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: USA

Postby Syd » Wed Jun 25, 2008 10:21 am

yeniseri wrote:... but as a Yang and Chen style practitioner, I see that the choreography may be different (if that is what is meant by NEW STYLE) but the patterns are similar.

In Chen shi taijiquan, whether Chenjiagou or X'ian, the expression is the same while saying Laojia (less obvious in showing some pattern of application and understanding) and Xinjia, more obvious and 'larger' movements perhaps to mimic a Yang like similiarity (my dubious understanding having nothing to do with reality). Additionally, Xinjia, though useful and practical, appear to have reached the external show of modern taijiquan health impetus and exposure.


I can only refer you back to the comments of Ma Yueliang when he says that Modern Chen is a mixture of Taiji and Chen Family Gongfu ... I think it is only natural that the progression of various sets will vary between styles and so will the expression. If I may venture a theory of my own that may further extrapolate what might be happening here ... the Chen Village would have later become aware that what Chen Qing Ping and what Yang Luchan were taught respectively were a mixture of External and Internal arts ... I believe they knew that the basis of those arts was likely Shaolin and Wudang in origin. Knowing this but not having the original teaching they blended Yang Taiji back into their own Old Chen Fast form to attempt some kind of posthumous facsimile of what Chen Chang Xin likely taught ... keep in mind they also had the Zhaobao Style of Chen Qing Ping to look to also. Beyond this we just don't know but the arrows tend to point on a certain direction, from which we might deduce further possibilities.

The bottom line is read all extant documentation ... read interviews and all works of reference and then look at the forms of the styles and break down the movements and expressions ... then have a look at the Shaolin Arts of the day and see what they were doing also. It's a fascinating story but there are definite signs on the path as to where the story goes.
Syd
Forum Contributor
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Sydney OZ

Postby lilman » Fri Jun 27, 2008 10:15 am

I have read a slightly different version of this story. Its on Chang Naizhou, titled Scholar Boxer. Chang actually wrote a "classicl" wich sounds like its on Taijiquan as well, just wasnt calling it Taiji. He also studied Monkey pole and drunken boxing. He was around before Jiang Fa. You should read it, its pretty interesting.

It also tries to disprove the theory of Chang San Feng as the creator, and explores Taijiquan theory before the Chen family, and the theory of Jiang Fa passing down the art. The author travelled to China to research the book, just came up with a lil different info.

Its also hard to make judgements based on someone else's research. Not saying any of the info you provided was wrong, But some of the stuff I dont believe can be proven at this time. History wasnt always written at that time and a lot was passed by word of mouth. Do you know if mr. Hennning leaves a list of references where he got that info? I would like to do my own research. I also believe inside Kung fu isnt a 100% credible source. I can read you 3 other documents from there on the history of Taiji, both completely different from what you wrote, and from each other, even one from Chen Xiaowang.
lilman
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:50 pm
Location: El Paso, Tx

Postby Syd » Fri Jun 27, 2008 12:52 pm

Lilman,

I have read a slightly different version of this story. Its on Chang Naizhou, titled Scholar Boxer. Chang actually wrote a "classicl" wich sounds like its on Taijiquan as well, just wasnt calling it Taiji. He also studied Monkey pole and drunken boxing. He was around before Jiang Fa. You should read it, its pretty interesting.


Sounds like a good read though I am confident there isn't any Monkey Pole or Drunken Style in Taijiquan or Chen Style ... the truth is that the styles from which both Chen and what became Yang Style Taijiquan originate are already known and exist in plain sight. Apart from the nuance and internal vs external expression of these styles and the substitution and synthesis of certain movements, the CORE upon which all of these styles is based is all the same ... I mean literally the same.

Here's the mystery totally laid bare once and for all ...

Chen postures match exactly the Shaolin 32 posture Tai Tzu Chang Chuan. Taijiquan in all it's permutations going back to Chen are built on the Shaolin Tai Tzu system ( Tai Tzu Chang Chuan, Lao Hong Chuan, Da Hong Chuan and several secondary sets). Go and study any of these Shaolin systems and compare the postures ... this is the original engine of all these systems and schools it's just expressed with slight differences and with emphasis on different techniques.

As somebody else I was discussing this with noted ...

What you are seeing is that Shaolin Hong Quan, Tai Zu Quan, TJQ, et al, AND Mei Hua Quan ALL use the 13 gong (5 elements / 8 trigrams) and as such all draw from the same original source of this 13 Gong: the Shaolin Rou Quan system (soft boxing), which has the Luohan 13 Gong, which is the same as the Qianzai Temple 13 tong Bei Gong, which is the same as the TJQ 13 Gong.

The postures all come from the same source.


Exactly ... there is no great mystery about the origins, there was no Zhang San Feng to create the system ... it was already created in Shaolin ... all that happened was the expression of the basic Tai Tzu Quan was modified for an internal expression which could easily have come direct from Shaolin rather than Wudang since Tai Tzu Chuan is a Shaolin not Wudang system in the first place ... Hua Chuan and Xintai Mei were Shaolin systems also with a blend of Internal and External.

The bottom line is it is fast becoming recognized that the engine of all Taiji systems is the 13 Gong of Shaolin ... all the main postures flow from this and this alone.

Do you know if mr. Hennning leaves a list of references where he got that info?


Henning is an academic researcher ... my wife is a Phd ... in any type of academic writing you MUST supply references and a bibliography. Henning would most certainly have referenced sources and I trust that he does and that the information in the article is correct and solid; no Military Journal or otherwise would allow him to print without his facts being straight ... it doesn't work any other way.

I would like to do my own research. I also believe inside Kung fu isnt a 100% credible source..


I have not referenced Inside Kung Fu for any information at all ... I quoted Tai Chi Magazine however which has many interviews with Chinese Masters and teachers of good repute and some legendary ... I would agree about Inside Kung Fu however! You should do your own research and reach your own conclusions ... I have recommended as much in my previous posts. I am presenting the case as I see it given the research I have done and from my own informed opinion based on interviews and historical accounts that are supported better than most others.

I can read you 3 other documents from there on the history of Taiji, both completely different from what you wrote, and from each other, even one from Chen Xiaowang


I'm sure you can ... I have sifted to my own satisfaction as I said and I have reached the most logical conclusion based on all the data so far. The bottom line is it's no mystery ... all Taijiquan is based on the original Shaolin 13 Gong of Tai Tzu Chuan and it's variants ... everything after that is just different expressions of the 13 Gong framework.

Best.
Syd
Forum Contributor
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Sydney OZ

Postby lilman » Sat Jun 28, 2008 9:57 am

:) Yea, I agree there is no mokey pole or drunken boxing in Taiji. He studied those styles and had them mixxed with the taiji Theory. The book was comparing his teachings and history with that of Taiji. :)

So your saying Tai Tzu Chang Chuan is the root of Chen Taiji? That and Zhao Bao, or just Tai Tzu Cheng Chuan?...

As far as mr. Henning's research, do you know if he leaves references so we could do our own research? Like, do you have any access to any of his references? If you do, could you share them on here so we can go back, and make our own deductions? I think that would be beneficial for getting your point across, and then we can do the research and have our own opinions on the matter and references to share the experience with others. Its just hard to take the word of someone, when theres 100s of different people stating they done research and discovered this, this isnt true bucause this guy modified history to benefit this, and so on and so forth. the author of that book I mentioned, last name wells, was in a Taiji and CHang Naizhou research society, and has a different story than you. Some points similar, some completely different.

Do you agree that the theory behind Taiji is based of the I Ching and the Tao te ching?
lilman
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:50 pm
Location: El Paso, Tx

Postby Syd » Sat Jun 28, 2008 11:45 am

The engine of all Taijiquan ... Zhaobao, Yang, Chen ... all of them is Shaolin 13 Gong Tai Tzu - it's plain as day if you look at the history and the actual postures themselves; these are the original 13 Gong from which all other Gong sprang.

You will have to research Henning for yourself, just use any search engine and go from there - I know his research is impeccable and have done this stuff a long time ago. The thing that Wudang likely provided was point striking and the various Dianmai that fused with Zhaobao and Yang Style ... the rest I believe is pure Shaolin Tai Tzu with internal/external soft boxing influence.

As for other researchers ... yeah, there are plenty of people who claim to BE researchers but they aren't; they don't have any academic background or qualifications/experience in that type of research and they don't have the pedigree in being able to cull and vet that type of info as well as correctly notate and support it. Most people are amateur researchers at best voicing an opinion that may or may not be biased toward a result they seek to find. You have to be very logical and objective with this type of information ... I fear most people in Internal Arts are totally tainted by their own desire to validate their own beliefs regardless of the facts.

The information I have provided through interview, Peter Lim, Henning, Ma Yueliang, Douglas Wile etc are the pick of the crop of the best known evidence out there ... if you can find information better supported or recognized in text then good luck to you ... I have answered the question of Zhang San Feng and the origins of Taijiquan for myself already.

Enjoy. 8)
Syd
Forum Contributor
 
Posts: 30
Joined: Thu Jun 12, 2008 8:59 am
Location: Sydney OZ

Postby lilman » Sun Jun 29, 2008 9:50 am

:) ok, I will do my research on this and reply back on here with whatever I find. :) Thank you Syd.
lilman
Forum Guru
 
Posts: 293
Joined: Thu Jan 17, 2008 2:50 pm
Location: El Paso, Tx

Postby yeniseri » Mon Jun 30, 2008 1:55 pm

I found that the best way to ascertain accuracy is to corroborate with other taijiquan masters of the day!
I have seen some Wu style (Jianquan and Yuxian) that makes things clearer because Wu stylists tended to be 'Intellectuals" and Government officials and therefore add certain things that Yang or Chen did not mention.
Some recent accounts of the Li Family (Chen's other relatives) also elaborate on points that other do not mention or were not privy to!
yeniseri
Forum ÜberGuru
 
Posts: 511
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2005 3:18 pm
Location: USA

Postby clairvoyager » Mon Jul 14, 2008 9:21 am

First, I would like to thank everyone in this thread for sharing their research and try to back up their claims with references, especially Syd. I have found this thread compelling and thought-provoking, albeit hard to read at some points.

I would like to add some new info to the mix. This comes from Dan Docherty, master of the Practical Taichichuan style, also called Wudang style (not to be confused with “other” Wudang style).
Dan Docherty short bio and lineage info: http://www.taichichuan.co.uk/informatio ... i_chi.html

Dan Docherty is known for his not conforming attitude and for not being afraid to stand his ground with whatever he feels should be said, which has caused him a lot of critics. I have found his teachings and his research to be wholeheartedly honest. I think it is also important when interpreting ancient Chinese info to have: (i) sufficient technical knowledge of the art, (ii) possess cultural background, and (iii) perform independent translation from the Chinese. Dan accomplishes these 3 points.

The previous is to provide some background info about the author and his capabilities, not to “sell” him to all of you. I’m sure all of us have our own agendas and sources we trust and don’t trust. Syd has already said he has answered his own questions, and some others will have their own ideas (or bias). I repeat this is just to add something interesting to the mix, and hopefully provide more food for thought.

Dan conducted his own research and included it in his book “Complete tai chi chuan”. The chapter for “History of Tai Chi Chuan” is the longest in the book with 32 pages, and by itself is worth the book, if you like discussions on the history of our art.
Next, I quote some excerpts from the book, mainly from the history chapter.

About the inscription of Huang Zong-xi on the tombstone of Wang Zheng-nan:

The epitaph: “Shaolin boxing is famous in the world and concentrates on attacking the opponent’s weak points. People can therefore take advantage of this. In the so-called Nei Jia, stillness is used to control movement; when the opponent attacks, then he is countered. So Shaolin is called Wai Jia. The origins (of Nei Jia) are mainly from Chang San-Feng. San-feng was a Wudang Taoist. The Emperor Hui Zong (1101-25 AD) sent for him, but though he arrived, he did not succeed in meeting the Emperor. In a dream Chang was taught boxing by the Emperor Yudan Di and the next day he killed more than a hundred bandits by himself.”

“Despite the absurdity of the last sentence, the inscription is notable because it shows that the concept of Nei Jia Chuan already existed at the time of the Chuan Ching, and that even then Chang San-feng was believed to the be founder. Mention of the Emperor Hui Zong sending for Chang is strange, because his heyday seems to have been from the mid-fourteenth to the early fifteenth century (although it is possible that there was more than one Chang San-feng and/or that one or more of these records is wrong).”


About Chang San-Feng:

“Wong Shiu-hon in his paper “On the Cult of Chang San-feng” deduced that Chang lived in the Ming dynasty between the Yen Yu period (1314-20) and the seventeenth year of Yung Lo (1419). Wong and others have researched the date of 1247 AD given for Chang’s birth by some historians, and have suggested that this earlier data is probably a result of confusion over the identity of Chang’s father. From the fifteenth century onwards Chang was rather conveniently identified with a whole range of Taoists and eccentrics, some of whom datae back as early as the twelfth century.”

[...]

“The scholar and mystic Wang Shi-zhen (1634-1711) refers, in the “Complete Recors of Chang San-Feng” to Chang as being a practitioner of Nei Jia Chuan, corroborating the inscription of Huang Zong-xi written on Wang Zheng-nan’s gravestone.”

[...]

“... it is possible that there was more than one Chang San-Feng. I believe on the available evidence that there was one Chang San-Feng who in the mid-fourteenth century became famous as a Taoist. Earlier dates are likely to be due to carelessness, or to confusing him with others, or to give him greater antiquity as befits a sage.”

“Academics have suggested that Chang San-feng was selected as the founder of Tai Chi Chuan and other Taoist arts because of his connection with Zhen Wu on Wudang Mountain, and also to give these arts the same kudos that Shaolin Boxing possessed by having the Indian monk Bodhidharma (fifth century AD) as the founder. However, Taoist martial arts and Taoist health practices existed for centuries before Chang, so why was a relatively obscure and more recent figure such as Chang selected as founder? Why not go back a thousand years before Bodhidharma to Lao Tzu or Chuang Tzu, both of whom wrote on many of the concepts which we use in Tai Chi Chuan today?”

[...]

“Also, when I went to the Golden Pavilion Temple at Bao Ji in 1995, Mr Ma Jian, a superb artist who has been the caretaker since the 1950s, told me that there had been a martial tradition at the temple up to the time of the Cultural Revolution with monks practising Tai Chi Chuan handed down by Chang Sang-feng.”

“This raises a strong possibility that Yang lineage systems are correct in claiming that Chang was involved in the creation of the art we now call Tai Chi Chuan. This art has all the elements of Taoistic practice, including physiological alchemy, ritual initiation, oral formulas and tradition, Taoistic terminology, and a theoretical and symbolical element drawn largely, though not exclusively, from Taoist philosophy and religion. All these elements exist in Tai Chi Chuan and existed in the heyday of Chang San-feng. Finally, the oral tradition from teacher to teacher is that Chang was the founder, and this is why the Bai Shi ceremony is done in front of his portrait.”


About Chen style, after visiting the village in 1995:

“We have seen not only inconsitencies, but a large-scale rewriting of history by the Chens, mixing one Chen Wang-ting with another and removing all the old gravestones. The evidence for Chen Wang-ting as the founder of Tai Chi Chuan is almost entirely based on the writings of Chen Xin, the earliest verifiable writer on Chen style, and his collaborators.[...] In content, theory and method of practice, the Chen system differs vastly from the Yang lineage.”

[...]

“Finally, members of the Chen clan served with the Red Army and their village was used as a base by the Red Army during the Revolution. The Communist Party orthodoxy could not accept that Tai Chi Chuan was founded by Chang San-feng, so until the downfall of the Gang of Four, they supported the Chen line that Chen Wang-ting was the founder and linked him to the more famous general with a similar name.”

“The evidence suggests that Tai Chi Chuan was passed on from Wang Zong-yue in Kaifeng to Jiang Fa, and from the latter to Chen Chang-xing. Wang and Jiang may have taught other Chen clansmen, but there are no records of this in any of the lineage histories.”


About the fast form:

(Talking about Tai Chi Nei Kung) “It is my contention that it is a search for this very martial quality that has led to the development of sudden “Fa Jin” movements within hand forms, to the development of fast forms, and to Tai Chi practitioners dabbling in so-called “harder” styles to give them the Kung training which their own system lacks. Clearly, when he taught Tai Chi Chuan to the Imperial Guard, Yang Lu-chan had some effective Kung method. However, after the overthrow of the Ching dynasty and the sudden growth in popularity of Tai Chi Chuan, it would seem that some members of famous Tai Chi families either did not, or could not, pass on an effective Kung method to their students.”

[...]

“In the recent past, the great masters were not mystic sages; many of them were not good men by either Christian or Chinese standards, and in some cases couldn’t even write their own names. And yet many of them employed strategic semantics: when the Ching dynasty was overthrown at the turn of the century, the old order was destroyed and with it the position occupied in it by master of the martial arts, and so these masters had to market their art to make it attractive and accessible to the rich men of their day. This is why, over the years, there has been “small frame” Tai Chi Chuan, “fast form” Tai Chi Chuan, “simplified” Tai Chi Chuan, and so forth.”


I think it is very unlikely that the slow form did not exist before Yang Cheng-fu and Wu Jian-quan. We are talking about the late 19th century, not so far back. Although most of the tai chi styles practiced today come from Yang Cheng-fu or Wu Jian-quan, there are schools that claim other lineages ( YMAA for instance). All of them without exception perform the form slowly. In some styles, the form is then learnt fast, but the “standard” way to perform is slow. This has proven an invaluable tool for developing the multiple internal components needed for proficient Tai Chi Chuan. It is very unlikely that such a good method of practice went unnoticed for the earlier masters, like Yang Lu-chan.

Funnily enough, Dan Docherty seems to claim the opposite: the fast form is a “modern” invention, partly developed to compensate for the lack of good methods to develop martial qualities, partly to market the art for the modern times.
clairvoyager
Forum Contributor
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 10:21 am

Postby Dvivid » Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:57 pm

Great post, great thread...

Long live Zhang Sen Feng...

All very interesting...

http://www.egreenway.com/taichichuan/chang1.htm
"Avoid Prejudice, Be Objective in Your Judgement, Be Scientific, Be Logical and Make Sense, Do Not Ignore Prior Experience." - Dr. Yang

http://www.ymaa.com/publishing
Dvivid
Forum God
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:48 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby clairvoyager » Mon Jul 21, 2008 4:27 am

interview with Grand Master. MA of Wu style TAIJIQUAN

Q & A's with Master Ma Yueliang.
Interview by Patrick A Kelly



Could you please tell us of the history of the evolution of Taijiquan as he you have witnessed it this century?


"Before Yang Cheng-Fu and Wu Jianquan", he stated clearly, "the slow form did not exist. Yang Lu-Chan learnt the Fast Form from the Chen family and it was passed through Yang Cheng-Fu's father and uncle to Yang Cheng-Fu. It was passed through Wu Jianquan's father to Wu Jianquan. This is not the same as the present Chen Style form which is a mixture of Taiji and Chen family style Gongfu. Together Yang Cheng-Fu and Wu Jianquan created each their own Slow Form from their understanding of the Taiji principles.


I have looked up in youtube and I found some videos of Ma YuehLiang's "fast" form:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TrEgivmDaM8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=58ixSfxg ... re=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XJ8nMcqKN9s

You will find that it is "fast" in the sense that it takes him about 5 minutes to complete rather than 15-20, typical of a "slow" long form performance. However, for most people this would not be "fast" in the sense of "application speed".

He does speeds up at some points, to what could be regarded as "application speed" but that is also the case for some techniques in "slow" performances, typically with kicks.

In the last clip I link here, it takes below 4 minutes, but it could also be that the framerate is messed up because it is an old video, so I think it runs faster than realtime.

Maybe, what Ma was telling by saying that the original was the fast form could be understood more like "at first the form took about 5 minutes to performs rather than 15 minutes".
clairvoyager
Forum Contributor
 
Posts: 38
Joined: Mon May 28, 2007 10:21 am

Postby Dvivid » Wed Nov 26, 2008 7:56 am

There were many many many slow internal arts forms pre-1600.

Furthermore, Jiang Fa was a disciple of Zhang, San-Feng. This is sometimes argued purely out of defense for the Chen lineage, but it is pointless. Taijiquan pre-exists them both.

This discussion a couple months back prompted me to research (and research and research) to learn more.

There are many other teachers, not widely known or discussed in English, who passed on early versions of Taijiquan long before Chen and Zhang:

Liang Dynasty (502-557): Han, Gong-Yue (Cheng, Ling-Xi)
Tang Dynasty (618 - 900): Xu, Xuan-Ping, Li, Dao-Zhi, Yin, Li-Peng. These teachers passed on the 37 postures and internal arts theory that came to known as Taijiquan.

This is not in any way to distract from the brilliant unbroken lineage of Chen Taijiquan, but to shine a light on this early era which is often overlooked in the endless Chen vs Zhang debacle.

http://www.ymaa.com/articles/origin-of-taijiquan
"Avoid Prejudice, Be Objective in Your Judgement, Be Scientific, Be Logical and Make Sense, Do Not Ignore Prior Experience." - Dr. Yang

http://www.ymaa.com/publishing
Dvivid
Forum God
 
Posts: 1736
Joined: Mon Jul 28, 2003 9:48 am
Location: Boston, MA

Postby Chen Haiyang » Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:02 pm

These are the same type of forum debates that were going on 10 years ago. After having practiced Yang and Chen rather extensively and an extensive comparison of masters across many styles but especially within the branches of there own style, I see practically no difference in the principle. I see only personal preferences, body type adaptation, and small variations in training the same principles.

The Tai chi is not the form the Tai Chi is the principle that gives life to the form.
Chen Haiyang
Forum Newbie
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:55 pm

Postby Chen Haiyang » Wed Nov 26, 2008 8:07 pm

Master Ma is of course entitled to his opinion.
Chen Haiyang
Forum Newbie
 
Posts: 5
Joined: Tue Nov 18, 2008 2:55 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Taijiquan / Tai Chi Chuan

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests

cron