The 3 major internal arts: really related??

Nei Jia: the Qigong and Taijiquan Forum Taijiquan and the Internal Martial Arts
1

I read one of Wujidude’s post here and realized that he sounded very antagonistic towards the idea that Taiji, Bagua and Xingyi could be united in the neijia family due to their similar principles…apparently from what I understood of his post he seemed to believe that they are so different it was some kind of heresy to link them in a single family, which heresy had only been developped by Sun Lu Tang really trying to puts the pieces of the puzzle together and making them fit by force…
Now, it is not an attack towards Wujidude, and by no mean I want this post to become a “Wujidude rocks, Wujidude sucks” post…it is just that his particular post struck me to thee point that I came up with this topic.
So after this long introduction, here it is: what do you believe? Can internal arts really be related to one single family thanks to common principles, or is this gathering something that has been forced and that didn’t really existed in the first place?

I’ll start: my own sifu says that in the end, all three arts share the same roots however different they might feel, just like three different brothers can have the same parents…he learnt his bagua from Jiang Rong Qiao, his xingyi from Chu Gui Ting and his taiji from..uuhhh…I never asked him that in fact hahahaha.
All I want to say is that I am a humble bagua beginner so I have only my sifu’s words on that, how could I not trust him (his curriculum is more than elegant)??
What are your personal thoughts on that, or your sifu’s???

2

Hhhmm

I think its fair comment to say that all 3 arts DO have relatively the same source. Many classics claim that they have had their art originate from the works of Chang Sang-feng, or more in general from Taoist practices. I think there are rooted core principles which are the same. I know the acual postures in the forms may be different but then its the internal similarities which count I suppose at the end of the day. Brothers are related by blood first and foremaot, not really if they physically look the same.

3

Pretty much all good CMA are similar. I think that then, as now, there was some good stuff and a lot of bad. Sun found 3 good teachers among the bad. If he went to Southern China, maybe Hsing Yi, Southern Mantis, and Bak Mei would be the big 3.

4

internal arts related

yea they are related, but… there are many differnces in training and what weapons are developed. For instance the stepping is differnt in all three depending on which teachers you studied from. Also it is believed hsing i is leading with the hands, ba gua with the feet and tai chi with the waist. I guess in the end the qusetion you need to ask yourself is…Is my gong fu basics good, if yes well then you have more than most if not then you will never be able to even begin to internalize anything for fighting applications that is. i guess another common belief is that tai chi tends to take a bit longer to develop for actual combat applications, and hsing i a bit quicker and ba gua in the middle somewhere. All this being said it is not which system you study it is how hard you train as long as what you are learning is legit.

5

Wujidude sux . . .

Crimson Phoenix wrote:

>I read one of Wujidude’s post here and realized that he sounded very antagonistic towards the idea that Taiji, Bagua and Xingyi could be united in the neijia family due to their similar principles…<

What I’m antagonistic towards is the cliche that xingyi, bagua and taiji are one family based on (a) historical origins and/or (more importantly) (b) “core principles”.

I’m not going to deal in-depth with the idea of shared historical origins here, other than to say that there simply is no good historical evidence of common sources before the cross-training of Cheng Tinghua and his buddies ca. 1894. Yes, you have the claims of Taoist ancestry, but those seem to be much more of a late-developing overlay to give these violent arts a veneer of respectability as an increasing number of students were drawn from the literati, the Manchu nobility, and the scions of wealthy merchants.

Sun Lutang was playing to this trend when he wrote his books beginning in 1916. I think Sun was qualified to write about the internal principles of xingyiquan, but much less so with baguazhang. And he only studied taijiquan for 3 months with Hao Weizhen, so how much of an understanding of the taijiquan classics and taiji’s internal principles did he have? His exposition of these principles is so opaque in translation, and Mandarin-speaking martial artists cum philosophers have assured me of the opacity of his writing even in the original.

I’ve never seen a clear statement of the SPECIFIC principles which these arts have in common, that is, where principles are stated with sufficient specificity to have much real-life value in training. Nor have I seen principles stated for xingyi, bagua and taiji “internal” training that are could not also be applied to other martial arts–undercutting the notion that xingyi, bagua and taiji are uniquely “neijia”.

>apparently from what I understood of his post he seemed to believe that they are so different it was some kind of heresy to link them in a single family, which heresy had only been developped by Sun Lu Tang really trying to puts the pieces of the puzzle together and making them fit by force…<

Actually, I think it is more correct to say that it is heresy to suggest that bagua, taiji and xingyi are NOT some kind of fundamentally unique “neijia” family.

>Now, it is not an attack towards Wujidude, and by no mean I want this post to become a “Wujidude rocks, Wujidude sucks” post…it is just that his particular post struck me to thee point that I came up with this topic.<

Well, I already told you what I think . . . ;- )

>So after this long introduction, here it is: what do you believe? Can internal arts really be related to one single family thanks to common principles, or is this gathering something that has been forced and that didn’t really existed in the first place?<

You know what I think.

>I’ll start: my own sifu says that in the end, all three arts share the same roots however different they might feel, just like three different brothers can have the same parents…he learnt his bagua from Jiang Rong Qiao, his xingyi from Chu Gui Ting and his taiji from..uuhhh…I never asked him that in fact hahahaha.
All I want to say is that I am a humble bagua beginner so I have only my sifu’s words on that, how could I not trust him (his curriculum is more than elegant)??<

What I’m looking for is something a little more profound than “my Sifu says so.” A clear statement of specific principles held in common that can be applied to training and manifest themselves in the strategy and execution of techniques in fighting.

Look, I’m neither a stellar martial artist nor a profound philosopher. I’ve just looked a lot for the commonalities, and I’m still looking. I’d love to be corrected on this point.

My rant had nothing to do with the validity of these martial arts or the desirability of training in them. I’ve just seen enough examples of the “internal” elements in Chinese martial arts other than the neijia Big Three, even in the early phases of training, that I question whether they (or Liuhebafa, for that matter) are uniquely “internal”.

Hope everyone enjoys a delicious Thanksgiving.

6

Great discussion.

Fu-Pow

http://www.geocities.com/fu_pow/vmrc-halloween-3.jpg

7

Thanks for correcting me on the points I misunderstood…
Anyway, wuji, here is why I go “my sifu says”:
I can witness everyday that people talk most of the time about things they do not know…I’m a beginner in bagua…it is xingyi bagua, so there are some xingyi stuffs in it, but I have never done xingyi per se…I also never done any taiji (well, I can tell Chen from Yang, from Wu, but my body never tasted taiji).
So there it goes: 1) I’m a beginner in bagua 2) I never done any taiji nor xingyi…so who would I be to go “well, they are related cause’” or “no, you can’t say that cause’”…you know? That would be talking about things I do not know…so all I can say is “my sifu says” because he at least had an indepth practice of these arts and can talk about it…as for myself, I am an ignorant, but I’m wise enough not to open my ignorant mouth about this topic :smiley:

8

..

a quote from cheng tinghua in xing-yi quan xue:

"sun took notes on all that cheng told him and this formed the basis of his later writing on baguazhang. after studying with cheng for three years sun was proficient in bagua bare hand methods, bagua sword, and bagua spear. cheng told him he had learned quickly because of his background and natural ability and gave sun the nickname “more clever than an active monkey”. after sun had finished his three years of study with cheng, cheng told him that staying there longer was not going to help him much. cheng said,“i have instructed over one hundred people. none of my other students are as intelligent or have practiced as hard as sun. i have passed to him all of my skills and now his skill is invincible in this world.”

a quote from chen weiming in the same book:

“master sun’s knowledge and understanding was the highest among people in the martial arts and it was seldom seen among scholars.”

and about sun’s taijiquan:

“sun became very well known for his taijiquan method and his ability to apply it. he was so well known that word of his skill had reached japan.”

9

This isn’t a debate about Sun’s martial skills, but rather the usefulness of what he wrote . . .

Plastic Squirrel wrote:

>a quote from cheng tinghua in xing-yi quan xue:
"sun took notes on all that cheng told him and this formed the basis of his later writing on baguazhang. after studying with cheng for three years sun was proficient in bagua bare hand methods, bagua sword, and bagua spear. cheng told him he had learned quickly because of his background and natural ability and gave sun the nickname “more clever than an active monkey”. after sun had finished his three years of study with cheng, cheng told him that staying there longer was not going to help him much. cheng said,“i have instructed over one hundred people. none of my other students are as intelligent or have practiced as hard as sun. i have passed to him all of my skills and now his skill is invincible in this world.”<

First of all, this is not a quote from Cheng Tinghua, but an excerpt from the preface to Albert Liu’s English translation of Sun’s book on xingyiquan. It should be noted that the quote attributed to Cheng Tinghua is in fact attributed by someone who never studied with Cheng and may in fact never have met him (considering when he wrote it–1915 or so–and that Cheng was killed in 1900). Was it Sun himself who reported that Cheng said this? In any event, it’s very common in prefaces to Chinese books of this time for the preface or foreword writer to laud the virtues and skills of the author–hell, it’s the reason they are asked to write the preface or foreword in the first place. It’s good marketing.

>a quote from chen weiming in the same book:

“master sun’s knowledge and understanding was the highest among people in the martial arts and it was seldom seen among scholars.”<

Same caveat as above with respect to the traditional courtesies (not always truths) extended in prefaces and forewords and dedications–particularly given that Chen Weiming was a bagua and xingyi student of Sun’s. I mean, what student is going to put down his master? More importantly, though, Chen Weiming never specified WHAT knowledge and understanding of Master Sun’s was the highest among people in the martial arts and seldom seen among scholars. I’m pretty sure from the context of the remarks that he was referring to Sun’s literary studies and philosophical investigations and “understanding”–but that is a far cry from skill and understanding of the martial arts and their usages. With all due respect, Chen Weiming was a scholar and is remembered not for his martial skills but for the fact that he was among the most literate of Sun’s students as well as Yang Cheng-fu’s (he wrote the text and organized the first book on taijiquan associated with the illiterate Cheng-fu). As a scholar himself, Chen Weiming is qualified to render an assessment of Sun Lutang’s literary and philosophical understanding, but not of Sun’s martial skills or understanding.

>and about sun’s taijiquan:

“sun became very well known for his taijiquan method and his ability to apply it. he was so well known that word of his skill had reached japan.”<

Sun’s taijiquan is mostly xingyiquan. Sun’s own daughter says that. Sun’s applications ability was based on internal strength and techniques derived from xingyiquan.

With respect to baguazhang, Sun’s bagua is based in large part on his xingyiquan skills. It is very different from the baguazhang of, say, Chen Youlong, who as direct family of Cheng Tinghua studied longer with his father and may have been more privy to key insights of Cheng Tinghua than Sun Lutang.

As for taijiquan–again, Sun studied with Hao Weizhen for three months. Taijiquan is sufficiently different from xingyi or bagua that I seriously question Sun’s ability to truly learn and express taiji.

But listen–all of this is really irrelevant to my rant, which is simply that I have yet to see a clear, coherent statement of specific principles that can be applied to one’s training that is unique to the Neijia Big 3 arts but is not found in other Chinese martial arts.

I’m going to be gone for awhile and won’t know when I’ll be posting here again. You guys are great to even entertain my eccentric meanderings. Hope everyone enjoys Thanksgiving or whatever else they may be engaged in.

10

I agree

I have to agree with wujidude on this.

I think there are similarities between most internal arts, but that doesn’t mean they are of the same family.

I had a long time Chen practioner quuestion my internalism because I didn’t move according to the Chen style taiji principles. I’m a xingyi man and although their are some things done the same (some fa-jing etc) let’s face it Hubei style xingyi is a different than Chen style taiji in applications and movements. ( don

I find Xingyiquan closer to Praying mantis or Wing Chun that to Chen Taijiquan.

However, there is still the issue of “Nei Gong.” If they have anything in common I believe it is here that we must look. Not in applications or movements, jings or fighting strategy.

Still there is no real proof that the three arts are related.

Spanky

11

Sun stated that the reason they were the same is that when he practiced their forms he felt empty as if the whole world disappeared in the beginning and at the end.

I think it was BK Frantzis who wrote that the reason they are classified together is that all three forms use Taoist yoga as opposed to the shaolin method of using the muscles to lead the energy.

“When I fought the foreign boxer in Kyoto, I jumped up and punched him in the face. This is effective against people who are taller than you.” – Motobu Choki

12

..

that is true that it was off the topic.

i wouldn’t doubt sun’s taijiquan, but i would say that it does not follow the opponent as much as, say, yang. i don’t doubt that sun had softness, and he was reputed for small, light movements, but he didn’t sound like much of a “sticking” sort of guy. his style is probably a lot different from even hao style, but i would still call it taijiquan because the philosophy and basic principles are still the same. it’s sort of an odd style because each of the three styles he practiced is so deeply ingrained in his taijiquan.

for the record, though, i thoroughly agree with you about the “three internal styles” thing. if sun had stuck with shaolin, he would have entered that same state. the only division there should be, in my mind, is the division between northern and southern styles. everything seems to be very different, and i think that they should stay somewhat separate to preserve their unique features. really, even though i have the highest respect for sun, i think that the whole “internal” and “external” thing is quite ridiculous. it made sense to sun, and probably to a lot of other people, but now we have a big overview of other styles, and can see differences in methods, but similarities in the final skills of practitioners. i have as much respect for someone who practices tanglang or tantui as for one who practices taijiquan.

13

Hsing-Yi matched with Pa Kua. There was a story that two masters of these shared students because they found value in each’s skills (even though one did win decisively~). But no stories of competeing with T’ai Chi Ch’uan by either of the others. Recent stories don’t count, as not so goods might get counted. There are no Older Days stories that I recall. T’ai Chi Ch’uan neutralizes, hits, off-balances and redirects. Hsing-I is short steps like in combat (single or crowd) and fists. Pa Kua uses rounded stepping and palms. All three can go together effortlessly, but either could defeat the others by timing so only masters are not defeated easily They will all use absorbtion methods to win. This is usually associated with T’ai Chi Ch’uan, it seems but any overextension gets exploited and you would lose. There are few principles. These three show several of the practical applications of these principles. but they might only be a vehicle to grasp the principles. Once grasped, the movement is appropriate and as required even though perhaps not conciously. And these moves could resemble even match any of the techniques from any of these three Ways.

Very some such, perhaps might have been, likely say some, some not.

14

..

i think that xingyiquan and baguazhang should still be considered to be very close to eachother, though. many of the principles are the same, but a few of them throw them off so they look a lot different. there has always been a closeness between the two styles. they have the same sort of power usage and spiralling and they both have difficult footwork.

taijiquan has never been associated with other styles, but liuhebafa is quite similar (albeit probably having been created recently from partly taijiquan).

personally, i don’t like seeing taijiquan along with xingyiquan and baguazhang. taijiquan is like a misfit when it is put in with the others.

15

It’s all Wudang

I’ll cast a vote for the (minority, apparently) view that all three sisters are related. I would count myself as a beginner in the internal arts, but it seems to me that absolute beginners are open to the idea that all xingyi, bagua and taiji are closely related. After a while, we get to know our styles better and see the differences more clearly, so we find this notion repugnant. But it seems to me that the truly advanced students are usually of the view that all three are related.

My main motivation, I’ll admit, is simply that my teacher is of this opinion, so I’ll defer to his expertise. A typical example: he demonstrated some sword forms this week. After one he said, “That’s xingyi sword.” Then he did another form with some similar elements. Someone asked, “Is that xingyi also?”, to which he said, “No, taiji. But it’s all the same. All Wudang.”

That’s all very nice you say: you still want a logical argument. OK, I’ll give you one, but I hasten to add that it is quite speculative.

Perhaps there is one force that is cultivated in a variety of different ways. At the beginning stage of cultivation, the force manifests as a very physical phenomenon, one without much mental control. At the intermediate stages, the mental aspect plays an increasingly greater role. And at the highest level it is all mental.

Perhaps at this highest level, the unity of this force is readily apparent, stripped of the superficial differences engendered by the different methods of cultivation. At the highest level, the internal artist can be penetrating like xingyi, elusive like bagua, and accommodating like taiji. Perhaps at the highest level the manifestation of this force is purely a matter of intent.

16

..

shaolin would also be internal then. that, along with just about every other style out there. few people have really good shaolin, though, mostly because during the 1800’s when this division was being formed, shaolin was either burning or rubble, with maybe a few exceptions of 5 years here and there. :wink:

17

Of course, everyone is entitled to their own opinion, and there is probably some evidence for at least a few of the arguments.

But…

 I find that the 3 internal arts of taiji, bagua, and xingyi, are not historically related. There might be better evidence that their principles are related, but even with this, the way the arts develop and use the body is very different. The three internal arts are not, I don't think, all from Wudang shan. In fact, I doubt any of them are. 
 Taiji was not invented by Chang san-feng--at least that's what the evidence suggests. Chinese, unlike most Americans want some tried and true, not new and improved. Many systems claim to have been invented by mystical daoist immortals, or from dreams, or from watching animals fight. This gives the art a sort of credibility. If you wanted to learn an art, what sounds better: it was created by an immortal on a daoist mountain, or by a general/fighter who put his experience into making a new style? Now, the latter is fine, but it isn't as appealing as someone watching a fight between animals, going into a period of intense study, and emerging unbeatable. Taiji was most likely created by Chen Wang-Ting, or some early Chen family ancestor(no, I'm not just promoting the Chen style's argument--I do yang style). He was a former general, and at least a few of the postures from his form created are exactly like those from a manual of another famous general(might be Gen. Qi Ji Guan. If anyone is dying to know, I can check this out more.) There is no evidence whatsoever that taiji is from wudang shan, or Chang San Feng.

Bagua was developed by daoists, most accept that, but they weren’t from wudang shan.
Xingyi Quan was either created by Gen Yueh Fei, or more likely, Ji Long Feng(Ji Ji Ke) who was a spear master and who modified Yueh Fei’s teachings to create xingyi.
In principle, the arts are different too, although I’m sure there are at least a few similarities people can point out. For one the mind-set of xingyi is very different than the mind-set of taiji. In a basic sense, xingyi’s strategy is more aggressive and “straight forward”, attacking the enemy and crushing him. Taiji, in general, waits for the duifang(literally means opposite, and refers to the other party invloved) to attack, and deflects and capture’s their energy and their center and “returns” it to them, often in the form of a strike, kick, throw, etc. Unlike the attitude often seen in xingyi(not a bad one, just different than taiji), there is no “enemy”, no aggression. You let what they give you dissipate, putting them in a bad position.
Bagua, I don’t know so much about. sorry.
Sorry about ranting like this, but I do not believe the three “internal” arts are very much related, either historically or in application. Of course, people will disagree with me, but that’s just fine, and it doesn’t really matter. This is a place where we can discuss, debate, and voice our opinion, and we’re bound to have different views on things. Sorry about the long-winded post, guys.
Respectfully,
–t.s.

(p.s. boy_analog-- what did you mean by “accommodating like taiji”? I don’t intend to sound challenging, I just don’t think I understand what you mean. thanks.)

“Duifang jing zhi meng ji, wo fang tui zhi ce fang xi zhi.”

18

SWF seeks accommodation with taiji player :slight_smile:

By describing taiji as “accommodating” I was just attempting to describe the general taiji counter-attacking strategy in a single word. Your own description was far more lucid than anything I would have been able to write on the topic.

19

Hi boy-analog,

fwiw, I think your take on the subject is the clearest because at least it describes a principle. You wrote:

“Perhaps at the highest level the manifestation of this force is purely a matter of intent.”

People may disagree, but tjq has a few relevant sayings like “no set form, no set function” or “formlessness”, and “like water, like steam, like ice.” Arguing about what “shape” or “form” can be misleading. Even “xing yi” can be translated as “form of the mind.” Good XY, imho, gets “there”; and it doesn’t matter which “form” (or “fist”) is used. Bagua’s connection to tjq is at least as deep and close as its name implies. But, that’s just “theory” and might not satisfy everyone. So, I agree with you; bagua is basically a type of “training.” Call what it trains whatever you want (body, mind, spirit, jing, qi, shen, yi). Clearly, as the art bsed on the principle of “change,” bagua is also quite “formless” -or ideally, it should be infinitely changing. Of course, some will say, “These things are sought by all CMAs.” This is true; the question is the process and emphasis of training. All martial artists in the old days trained for exactly the same thing. But, they all didn’t train the same way. That’s one reason why General Yueh Fei is famous. Maybe it’s worth mentioning that he is sometimes considered as the founder of oth “Eagle claw” and “Xingyi.” Anyway, my point is only that, though the “end” might be the same --which is, afaik, the traditional way to look at CMA-- the “means” are different. No one, in any serious martial conflict, gives up the right to do whatever his mind can conceive as a goal. For example, though bagua trains by circle walking, xy and tjq both have kou bu and bai bu. Look, for example, at Fair Lady Works Shuttles. Anyway, it’s obviously true that these arts have differences in the way they are practiced, and different specific strategies. Lots of difficult stance work, it’s true, has been omitted from much of the tjq that is done. This hasn’t happened with bagua or xingyi, ymmv. But, the potential for using what is developed in any one of the sisters is present in any of the others. It is a matter of the practitioner’s intent. Oh well, just my opinion, apologies for the rant.

Esteban

20

I would say that the statement of all the arts ending up in the same place, only using different means to get there, is only half true.
It is true in the sense that a xingyi master will have good health, good fighting skills, a clear and calm mind, a strong body, etc. just as much as a taiji master will. Both paths end up fulfilling these goals and accomplishing these skills.
But, the two masters might have different “kinds” of bodies, or different qualities, and may have very different methods of power generation and think different ways in terms of combat. So yes, both end up with combat skills and health, but the qualities of these states in each person will most likely differ.

“Duifang jing zhi meng ji, wo fang tui zhi ce fang xi zhi.”