Peng Jing
David Williams
lim...@singnet.com.sg wrote:
>
> Please note that what Mike [Sigman] describes as Peng Jing is usually referred to
> as Zheng Jing (cf Li I Yu's Five Word Song Formula). This means to have
> efficient structure to focus the jing through alignment, this jing path
> is what is normally called by Mike as the Peng Path. Traditionally, peng
> jing does not have this meaning, since as Mah Yue Liang says in his book
> on push hands that in peng 'you must never hold up against him' which is
> the normal way Mike prescribes to test what he defines as Peng.
>
> Gu Liu Xin and Shen Jia Ren (in 1963) were the first to link the Ba Men
> Jing (8 Gates Jing - traditionally coming from the Yang related
> lineages, meaning: Peng Jing, Lu Jing, Ji Jing, An Jing, T'sai Jing,
> Lieh Jing, Chou Jing, Kao Jing) with Chen Taijiquan's Chan Si Jing.
>
> Note that in the early works of Chen Xin, the Ba Men Jing are not
> mentioned and that in both the works of Chen Xin and Chen Ji Pu (both
> published in the 1930s) mention that it is Chan Si Jing that is
> considered Nei Jing (Internal Jing) in Chen Taijiquan.
>
> Peng (the technique/jing) is something that comes from Taijiquan and
> usually does not apply to other internal martial arts. However, internal
> martial arts do place importance on the efficient generation of power
> through body alignment so that the force has a grounded base and an
> efficient path to the point of focus. This coordinated, efficient path
> is usually called Zheng Jing ('neat' Jing) which describes its quality.
> How it is utilised then classifies it under different names
>
> Just a short note. Please continue to enjoy yourselves.
One of my Wing Chun sihings sent me the following information as
well....
Sun Lu Tang's book on The Study of Form-Mind Boxing
edited by Dan Miller?
In the introduction, he explains where the word
internal (neijia) for taiji, baqua, and hsing-yi comes from
historically...:
"The first known grouping of these arts under the name 'internal
family' occurred in 1894. Ba Gua Zhang master Cheng Ting Hua...and his
friends Liu De Kuan..., Li Cun Yi..., and Liu Wei Xiang...came together
to
form an organization of martial artists in order to improve the level of
their arts, increase harmony within the martial arts circles, and raise
the
skill level of their students. This 'brotherhood' consisted of Cheng
Ting
Hua [the very famous student of Dong Hai-chuan 'founder of baqua']
representing the Ba Gua school, Liu de Guan representing the Tai Ji
school,
and Li Cun Yi and Liu Wei Xiang representing the Xing Yi school. These
teachers joined together and agreed that any students who studied with
one
of them, could freely study with the others. Through their
collaboration
these instructors improved their instructional techniques and decided
that
the three arts, although each having their own special points, were of
the
same 'family.'
"In order to provide this martial arts family with a name, the
group originally called it NEI JIA QUAN (...Internal Family Boxing).
Later, after it was discovered that there had previously been an art
called
NEI JIA QUAN, the name was changed to NEI GONG QUAN (...Internal Skill
Boxing), however it was too late, the name NEI JIA QUAN had stuck. this
is
how the arts of Ba Gua Zhang, Xing Yi Quan, and TaiJi Quan became
grouped
together in the same family and why they are know as 'internal' styles.
The first publicly published works which referred to these arts being
'internal' and of the same family were the books published by Sun Lu
Tang
... in the early part of this century.
"In the past, the arts of Ba Gua Zhang, Xing Yi Quan and Tai Ji
Quan have also been grouped under the name 'Wu Dang ... Boxing.' This
name
has falsely led people to believe that these arts could trace their
origins
to the Daoists of Wu Dang mountain. The truth is that the origination
of
each of these arts can be clearly traced to places other than Wu Dang
and,
of the three, Ba Gua Zhang is the only one which evolved directly from
specific Daoist practices. So, one might ask, where did the name 'Wu
Dang'
come in?
"During the Ming Dynasty there was a martial arts practitioner
named Sun Shi San ... who practiced a boxing style which he called NEI
JIA
QUAN. The first written record of this style appeared towards the end
of
the Ming Dynasty. A practitioner of NEI JIA QUAN named Wang Zheng Nan
...
had a student, Hang Bai Jia ... who was the son of a famous shcolar,
Huang
Zong Xi .... When Wang Zheng Nan died, Huang Zong Xi wrote a eulogy for
him which spoke of his boxing style and the events of his life. Huang
Bai
Jia subsequently took what his father had written about his teacher's
boxing and published it in a book which he called NEI JIA QUAN. In this
book, which was published sometime during the late Ming or early Qing
period, Huang Bai Jia wrote that this art had originated with the Daoist
Zhang San Feng ... on Wu Dang mountain. Since the Chinese love to
accredit
famous historical and mythical figures with the origination of cultural
arts and philosophy, Zhang San Feng is a questionable source for the
origination of NEI JIA QUAN. No clear lineage is given between Zhang
San
Feng and Wang Zheng Nan, so it is still unknown where the NEI JIA QUAN
of
Wang's book originated.
"In 1894 when Cheng Ting Hua's group began associating the arts
of
Ba Gua Zhang, Xing Yi Quan, and Tai Ji Quan with the name NEI JIA QUAN,
people falsely assumed that these arts had some direct connection with
the
NEI JIA QUAN of Huang Bai Jia's book. They further falsely assumed that
these arts could trace their origins to the Daoists on Wu Dang mountain.
the title "Wu Dang Boxing" was further lodged into the minds of
practitioners when the Central Martial Arts Academy of Nanjing
categorized
these arts as "Wu Dang" styles in 1928 to distinguish them from the
other
styles which were of Shaolin ... origin. As mentioned above, the first
individual who actually published material which connec ted the
'internal'
arts with Daoist principles was Sun Lu Tang. Others had undoubtedly
made
these connections, however, Sun was the first to write about it."
(pages
2-4)
NOTE: (the ... replace chinese characters in the book).
And that doesn't even get into "Old Wu/Hao style" Taiji which apparently
does not use the concept of Peng.
--
David Williams
mailto:d...@wingchun.com
http://www.wingchun.com/
lim...@singnet.com.sg
Please note that what Mike describes as Peng Jing is usually referred to
as Zheng Jing (cf Li I Yu's Five Word Song Formula). This means to have
efficient structure to focus the jing through alignment, this jing path
is what is normally called by Mike as the Peng Path. Traditionally, peng
jing does not have this meaning, since as Mah Yue Liang says in his book
on push hands that in peng 'you must never hold up against him' which is
the normal way Mike prescribes to test what he defines as Peng.
Gu Liu Xin and Shen Jia Ren (in 1963) were the first to link the Ba Men
Jing (8 Gates Jing - traditionally coming from the Yang related
lineages, meaning: Peng Jing, Lu Jing, Ji Jing, An Jing, T'sai Jing,
Lieh Jing, Chou Jing, Kao Jing) with Chen Taijiquan's Chan Si Jing.
Note that in the early works of Chen Xin, the Ba Men Jing are not
mentioned and that in both the works of Chen Xin and Chen Ji Pu (both
published in the 1930s) mention that it is Chan Si Jing that is
considered Nei Jing (Internal Jing) in Chen Taijiquan.
Peng (the technique/jing) is something that comes from Taijiquan and
usually does not apply to other internal martial arts. However, internal
martial arts do place importance on the efficient generation of power
through body alignment so that the force has a grounded base and an
efficient path to the point of focus. This coordinated, efficient path
is usually called Zheng Jing ('neat' Jing) which describes its quality.
How it is utilised then classifies it under different names
Just a short note. Please continue to enjoy yourselves.
Best
Peter
Mike Sigman
David Williams (wing...@best.com) wrote:
: One of my Wing Chun sihings sent me the following information as
: well....
: Sun Lu Tang's book on The Study of Form-Mind Boxing
: edited by Dan Miller?
: In the introduction, he explains where the word
: internal (neijia) for taiji, baqua, and hsing-yi comes from
: historically...:
[[snip]]
David, this is *one* of the historical scenarios that attempts to unravel
what really happened in the "naming" of "internal", etc. Nobody knows for
sure all the background. If you want to use that level of source
material, then the same level of source material states unequivocally that
Wing Chun is a simple Southen Shaolin external martial art. So logically
you defeat the point that you're trying to make.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
--
Mike Sigman
lim...@singnet.com.sg wrote:
: Please note that what Mike describes as Peng Jing is usually referred to
: as Zheng Jing (cf Li I Yu's Five Word Song Formula).
[[snip rest of discussion]]
Let me make 2 brief comments.
If you examine the FAQ that I posted in the "Internal/external", you will
see quotes from various expert sources. The jing to which we're referring
has already been translated into the term "peng jing", not by me, but by
the translators of unquestionable experts in the field. In other words,
what you need to say is "Please not that what Yang Zhen Duo describes as
Peng Jing" or what "ChenXiao Wang describes", or what "Jou Tsung Hwa
describes", etc., etc. So we have a problem..... a number of expert
translations have already used the term "Peng Jing" and these
translations are of the words of experts.
Should I drop the conventional term because you don't like it?
Secondly, I understand that the term is not entirely accurate..... but I
have confirmed with several real experts, including Chen Xiao Wang, that
I know exactly what they are talking about in regard to the use of this
skill. I am not aware of the same corroboration on your part, so there
may be some question that boils down to "perhaps you don't quite
understand the exact function". If you did understand exactly what was
happening, perhaps you would be slower to question the number of
recognized experts who are using the term.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
--
David Williams
Mike Sigman (msi...@netcom.com) wrote:
: David Williams (wing...@best.com) wrote:
: : One of my Wing Chun sihings sent me the following information as
: : well....
: : Sun Lu Tang's book on The Study of Form-Mind Boxing
: : edited by Dan Miller?
: : In the introduction, he explains where the word
: : internal (neijia) for taiji, baqua, and hsing-yi comes from
: : historically...:
: [[snip]]
: David, this is *one* of the historical scenarios that attempts to unravel
: what really happened in the "naming" of "internal", etc. Nobody knows for
: sure all the background. If you want to use that level of source
: material, then the same level of source material states unequivocally that
: Wing Chun is a simple Southen Shaolin external martial art. So logically
: you defeat the point that you're trying to make.
I'm not trying to make a "point" here on this thread, I'm only passing on
an additional set of information. So, Sun Lu Tang's book discusses Wing Chun?
Or are you saying that other reference material with the same degree of
acknowledged credibility make reference to Wing Chun?
In fact, I'd be interested in a general bibliography on this topic area,
my library in this area is woefully deficient. I do have:
The T'ai Chi Boxing Chronicle by Kuo Lien-Ying
Robert W Smith's books on Hsing-I and Pa Kua
Kenichi Sawai's book on Taiki-Ken
Wolfe Lowenthal's "Gateway to the Miraculous"
"Tai Chi Ruler" by Terry Dunn
"Opening the Energy Gates of Your Body" by Kumar Frantzis
So...What are the books I should be on the lookout for?
Are any of the above worthwhile in your opinion?
regards,
David Williams
Mike Sigman
David Williams (wing...@nntp.best.com) wrote:
: I'm not trying to make a "point" here on this thread, I'm only passing on
: an additional set of information. So, Sun Lu Tang's book discusses Wing Chun?
No.
: Or are you saying that other reference material with the same degree of
: acknowledged credibility make reference to Wing Chun?
No..... the "history" that you printed is one of several versions, the
problem being that no one really knows for sure. Same as many
"histories" of WC.... no one knows for sure, so I find it best to stay
out of that morass. So if it's uncertain, it's best to not quote just
the side that agrees with your preconceptions because all that happens is
that someone else quotes other preconceptions back at you. :^)
: In fact, I'd be interested in a general bibliography on this topic area,
: my library in this area is woefully deficient. I do have:
: The T'ai Chi Boxing Chronicle by Kuo Lien-Ying
: Robert W Smith's books on Hsing-I and Pa Kua
: Kenichi Sawai's book on Taiki-Ken
: Wolfe Lowenthal's "Gateway to the Miraculous"
: "Tai Chi Ruler" by Terry Dunn
: "Opening the Energy Gates of Your Body" by Kumar Frantzis
: So...What are the books I should be on the lookout for?
: Are any of the above worthwhile in your opinion?
My approach to a lot of these books is that they can at best provide
occasional nuggets of background information. Still, I keep the
"occasional nugget" type books, also. In that sense, I would suggest
that you keep Kuo's book and Robert Smith's books.... Smith's books tend
to be interesting for background and "sayings", but I haven't been
impressed with the "how-to" parts.
I like a lot of the books that are available through Dan Miller's "Pa Kua
Journal", since there is meat in a lot of them.
I like Douglas Wile's new book on "Lost Taiji Classics" and I like his
"Tai Chi Touchstones"...... he provides good translations of old and bona
fide material.
There are some others, but books really add very little to your working
knowledge, so I'd say read a lot, keep only a few.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
--
SzaboJohnB
Mike Sigman & Peter Lim write:
>
> lim...@singnet.com.sg wrote:
> : Please note that what Mike describes as Peng Jing is usually referred
to
> : as Zheng Jing (cf Li I Yu's Five Word Song Formula).
>
Do you want me to post it here? BTW also, translations from
experts may be mistranslations of meaning since the translator may not
be expert, either in the language or in the meaning of the term as used
in the art.
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
Please stop it! This is why I unsubscribed to the kung fu list,
listening to the 2 of you. Sigman, please drop it -- most people already
know that Lim is a blowhard, but you never pass up a chance to argue , do
you? Peter, almost everyone recognizes you're in this for Peter and
you'll never stop either, will you? Why did you even bring it up?
Both of you guys. Please go to private email and fight it out.
John Szabo
Mike Sigman
lim...@singnet.com.sg wrote:
: >
: Please note that peng jing is a ligitimate term but what you define as
: peng jing is not be what they mean, you took Mah's quote out of context.
In a way I did, but on the whole it's in context. The others, which you
don't single out, are certainly in context.
: I will download the FAQ you refer and do a cross reference and post it
: up.
: Do you want me to post it here? BTW also, translations from
: experts may be mistranslations of meaning since the translator may not
: be expert, either in the language or in the meaning of the term as used
: in the art.
Precisely my second point below. Before you start posting your
"corrections", perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain why you feel that
you are expert, as you indicate in your sentence above, in the art of
Taiji. I have heard from some people on Singapore that you are more of a
student level and they have given me instances to support that view. Are
you then, as you indicate above, an "expert" in Taiji that you know
exactly what these people meant, or are you a translator with incomplete
knowledge?
: Having talked to Xiao Wang, you might want to check again. Whilst he
: holds peng as important, Chan Si Jing is the neijing of Chen Taijiquan.
And if you understood what I was talking about, you'd know that what I'm
referring to as "peng jing" is the core of the Chan Ssu Jing. Chan Ssu
Jing is the "core strength" of the Chen Style and is commonly known as
such. However, the conversation was not about the Chen-style Taijiquan
but about internal arts in general.
: Since you have admitted to not knowing how to read Chinese, I think a
: Chinese speaking person should be able to determine what was said in the
: first place and whether the translation is accurate. From your misquote
: of Mah, I would say that you may not quite understand the exact
: function.
Millions of people speak Chinese..... does that mean they are all experts
in Taiji, then? Actually, since I easily understood why you consider
Mah's quote a "misquote" (see above), you might try to understand that,
based on my experience, I have considered a great number of things you
have said as indicative that while you talk a lot about Taiji and your
expertise (and you provide a nice service with some of your too literal
translations of the classics), you yourself may need to continue to work
a bit more before you label yourself as an expert.
: But its nice to talk to you again. I've missed our little tiffs. As
: always, if you want references, I'll provide them in full and all the
: people can go and check them out for themselves and determine their own
: opinion of the matter. Its nice to see that you still fear me enough to
: have to answer to the initial post. Have fun Mike, I intend to enjoy
: myself.
Actually, since you are well known for never conceding an error if you can
avoid it, I don't plan on continuing this conversation very far. As one
of your fellow Singaporeans indicates, you will fudge the truth in order
to make yourself look good, since that seems to be the main reason you
post. I'm not interested in conversations that stray from reality....
particularly just to have a "tiff" or to give you a chance to strut about
the numerous arts you are expert in while not yet even 30.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
--
lim...@singnet.com.sg
> : as Zheng Jing (cf Li I Yu's Five Word Song Formula).
>
>
> Let me make 2 brief comments.
>
> If you examine the FAQ that I posted in the "Internal/external", you will
> see quotes from various expert sources. The jing to which we're referring
> has already been translated into the term "peng jing", not by me, but by
> the translators of unquestionable experts in the field. In other words,
> what you need to say is "Please not that what Yang Zhen Duo describes as
> Peng Jing" or what "ChenXiao Wang describes", or what "Jou Tsung Hwa
> describes", etc., etc. So we have a problem..... a number of expert
> translations have already used the term "Peng Jing" and these
> translations are of the words of experts.
Please note that peng jing is a ligitimate term but what you define as
peng jing is not be what they mean, you took Mah's quote out of context.
I will download the FAQ you refer and do a cross reference and post it
up. One was already done for the Peng Jing FAQ which was posted up to
the TaiChiChuan list. BTW, some of the stuff you quote in it is out of
context. Do you want me to post it here? BTW also, translations from
experts may be mistranslations of meaning since the translator may not
be expert, either in the language or in the meaning of the term as used
in the art.
>
> Should I drop the conventional term because you don't like it?
No, just don't ascribe a meaning that isn't in the conventional term. In
doing so, you change its meaning and so the interpretation in in the
classical texts.
>
> Secondly, I understand that the term is not entirely accurate..... but I
> have confirmed with several real experts, including Chen Xiao Wang, that
> I know exactly what they are talking about in regard to the use of this
> skill. I am not aware of the same corroboration on your part, so there
Having talked to Xiao Wang, you might want to check again. Whilst he
holds peng as important, Chan Si Jing is the neijing of Chen Taijiquan.
The term did not originate from Chen Taijiquan BTW, so your reference to
Xiao Wang may be inappropriate. The Ba Men Jing are not in the early
Chen literature. I have also confirmed with several real experts, for
example, Fu Zhong Wen (on his last visit to Johor, Malaysia), Zhao Bin,
Yap Boh Lim (disciple of Tung Ying Kit) and others. Please note that
though the Chinese masters use the term, they may not mean the same
thing that you regard as peng.
> may be some question that boils down to "perhaps you don't quite
> understand the exact function". If you did understand exactly what was
> happening, perhaps you would be slower to question the number of
> recognized experts who are using the term.
Since you have admitted to not knowing how to read Chinese, I think a
Chinese speaking person should be able to determine what was said in the
first place and whether the translation is accurate. From your misquote
of Mah, I would say that you may not quite understand the exact
function.
But its nice to talk to you again. I've missed our little tiffs. As
always, if you want references, I'll provide them in full and all the
people can go and check them out for themselves and determine their own
opinion of the matter. Its nice to see that you still fear me enough to
have to answer to the initial post. Have fun Mike, I intend to enjoy
myself.
Best,
Peter
lim...@singnet.com.sg
> : peng jing is not be what they mean, you took Mah's quote out of context.
>
> don't single out, are certainly in context.
Ah...still haven't figured out how to the trap works in 'attracting into
emptines' yet? If it isn't in context, it isn't in context. Mah was
talking about the 13 kinetic movements not jings. Also you said the Fu
Shen Yuen shared the same view of peng jing (we are of course assuming
that he means peng jing as you define it, which is the point here)? Its
certainly not in any of his written material...BTW we do have his views
about it, he has a branch of the Yun Nien TCC Association in Johor,
Malaysia, just across the causeway, peng jing (as defined in the
traditional way) is the first to be learned and it is important to get
that right first before moving on to the other jings which are more
difficult but it is hardly the core jing. Want me to go on?
>
> : I will download the FAQ you refer and do a cross reference and post it
> : up.
>
> : Do you want me to post it here? BTW also, translations from
> : experts may be mistranslations of meaning since the translator may not
> : be expert, either in the language or in the meaning of the term as used
> : in the art.
>
> Precisely my second point below. Before you start posting your
> "corrections", perhaps you'd be kind enough to explain why you feel that
> you are expert, as you indicate in your sentence above, in the art of
> Taiji. I have heard from some people on Singapore that you are more of a
> student level and they have given me instances to support that view. Are
> you then, as you indicate above, an "expert" in Taiji that you know
> exactly what these people meant, or are you a translator with incomplete
> knowledge?
Again jumping to conclusions Mike, its a nasty habit, I used the works
of acknowledged masters to cross reference the work. Go talk to them.
ByTW, you're changing the subject again, another not so good habit. I
grew up speaking, reading and writing Chinese in a Chinese culture, I
think that qualifies me to be at least conversant enough to know what
I'm reading. Besides I took my exams in the Chinese Language up to
college level.:-) Nothing qualifies you, language-wise, to say that the
translations you refer to are accurate. Secondly, no one can claim
complete knowledge, neither can you, but at least I have trained enough
to be authorised by my teachers to teach and acknowledged by the older
generation teachers as teacher in my own right (letters of references
from lineage holders can be gotten if you want). That at the very least
indicates that the information that I hold is in line with their
teachings. But then you're just changing the subject again, once more
into the breech, the point is: is your definition of peng jing correct?
>
> : Having talked to Xiao Wang, you might want to check again. Whilst he
> : holds peng as important, Chan Si Jing is the neijing of Chen Taijiquan.
>
> And if you understood what I was talking about, you'd know that what I'm
> referring to as "peng jing" is the core of the Chan Ssu Jing. Chan Ssu
> Jing is the "core strength" of the Chen Style and is commonly known as
> such. However, the conversation was not about the Chen-style Taijiquan
> but about internal arts in general.
Chen Xin would turn in his grave, as would Chen Ji Pu and Chen Zhi
Ming.:-) To them the core strength IS Chan Si Jing not peng jing, as
your Peng Jing FAQ noted, prior to 1963, there was no mention of Peng
Jing as the core jing. So it would seem that the notion is that of Shen
Jia Ren and Gu Liu Xin rather than that of the Chen family. And for your
information, the other internal arts don't have peng jing in their
writings, even Gu Liu Xin did not use the term in the context of other
internal arts. You are assuming that they are all the same system with
the same ideas, the masters of the 3 different neijia arts would
disagree with you. There are similarities but they are different systems
with different terminologies, some which overlap and some which do not,
peng jing is not one of them.
>
> : Since you have admitted to not knowing how to read Chinese, I think a
> : Chinese speaking person should be able to determine what was said in the
> : first place and whether the translation is accurate. From your misquote
> : of Mah, I would say that you may not quite understand the exact
> : function.
>
> Millions of people speak Chinese..... does that mean they are all experts
> in Taiji, then? Actually, since I easily understood why you consider
No, but at least they can read for themselves what the early references
wrote, BTW Tang Hao also tried this approach on the Taijiquan list,
limited repetoire of approaches, you need to expand it. They would at
least be able to read that it is Chan Si Jing that is the Nei Jing in
Chen Taijiquan rather than to mistakenly call peng jing as the nei jing
in Chen Taijiquan.
> Mah's quote a "misquote" (see above), you might try to understand that,
> based on my experience, I have considered a great number of things you
> have said as indicative that while you talk a lot about Taiji and your
> expertise (and you provide a nice service with some of your too literal
> translations of the classics), you yourself may need to continue to work
> a bit more before you label yourself as an expert.
Better literal than inserting one's meaning into it by paraphrasing.
BTW, my translation principles are derived from scriptural studies and I
use methods in hermaneutics to determine how I translate. I've never
labelled myself an expert, not the way you seem to be promoting
yourself. Internal Strength in Chen Taijiquan is Chen Si Jing, not peng
jing, the works of the early Chen masters attest to that.
>
> : But its nice to talk to you again. I've missed our little tiffs. As
> : always, if you want references, I'll provide them in full and all the
> : people can go and check them out for themselves and determine their own
> : opinion of the matter. Its nice to see that you still fear me enough to
> : have to answer to the initial post. Have fun Mike, I intend to enjoy
> : myself.
>
> Actually, since you are well known for never conceding an error if you can
> avoid it, I don't plan on continuing this conversation very far. As one
> of your fellow Singaporeans indicates, you will fudge the truth in order
Same tactic again Mike, doesn't it get boring? If you can't win a point,
try smudging the guy's character? That hardly proves you're right, it is
in fact showing that you need to do it because you have already lost the
point. A distraction at best, lets stick to your definition and why you
think it is right. I always provide references when asked for so they
can check for themselves if I've fudged the content which I have used.
You seem to forget that I always use them to support my points and that
I don't hide my references, they are there for all to verify. Last time
we met on the Kungfu list Ted Knight who has relevant qualifications in
Chinese studies checked them out and confirmed that they were accurate.
> to make yourself look good, since that seems to be the main reason you
> post. I'm not interested in conversations that stray from reality....
Nah...its just to share information, and if I look good, its because my
information is accurate right?:-) No amount of rhetoric will change the
accuracy of the references and isn't that way more important
irregardless of my intent. I started to post such information because
you asked me to remember? :-) You made a very good point when you said I
should not horde my information but share it with those who have similar
interestes. Why do you post Mike?
> particularly just to have a "tiff" or to give you a chance to strut about
> the numerous arts you are expert in while not yet even 30.
It is not the years of life that determine one's depth of knowledge in a
subject but the years of training in it. I have 20 years of it in a
traditional environment. You can thank Yew Mun for providing you with
that information but then he only knew me for a very short while. You
can always ask those that know me longer like those in the Dong family
lineage here like Master Loh, or ex-national Judo coach who also
practices Taijiquan, Mr Ang Teck Bee, Mr Ooi Kean Seng (disciple of Fu
Sheng Yuen), etc. Tang Hao tried this approach on the Taijiquan list,
didn't work, I have my credentials well in place thank you. Its good
that you try though, you do try to be thorough.:-) Du Xin Wu also taught
when he was very young, YCF taught students that were older then
himself. What has age got to do with the correctness of the information?
Try to lose gracefully Mike, attacking the character to cover up a loss
is quite unbecoming. And for your information, I have conceded points
before.:-)
Best,
Peter
Mike Sigman
lim...@singnet.com.sg wrote:
: > I have heard from some people on Singapore that you are more of a
: > student level and they have given me instances to support that view. Are
: > you then, as you indicate above, an "expert" in Taiji that you know
: > exactly what these people meant, or are you a translator with incomplete
: > knowledge?
: Again jumping to conclusions Mike, its a nasty habit, I used the works
: of acknowledged masters to cross reference the work. Go talk to them.
I'm afraid that I can't talk to acknowledged masters about whether you are
an expert. None of them know that you are, unfortunately. Now, as you
posited, it takes an expert to understand what acknowledged masters meant
by their words (you can't "cross-reference" to know what they meant)
...... are you then an "expert", as you indicate by your statement?? ...
and in what martial styles are you an expert?
Mike Sigman
--
lim...@singnet.com.sg
Mike Sigman wrote:
> I'm afraid that I can't talk to acknowledged masters about whether you are
> an expert. None of them know that you are, unfortunately. Now, as you
Referrals are easily gotten, would you like them? Fortunately they do
know who I am, at least in my part of the world. If you're talking about
only the States then I'm afraid my lack of physical presence there would
hamper their knowledge of me, not that I'm all that important mind you
the correctness of the discussion material is far more important. Should
I assume you know all the experts in the world? Stick to the point of
the thread Mike, this post has not mentioned anything about Peng Jing.
> posited, it takes an expert to understand what acknowledged masters meant
> by their words (you can't "cross-reference" to know what they meant)
> ...... are you then an "expert", as you indicate by your statement?? ...
> and in what martial styles are you an expert?
Good to see your skills in verbal push hands has not diminished. For
one, the language in which the references were written are in plain
Chinese so anybody who knows the language can read them. Secondly, the
point is that you do not have the pre-requisites to assess the accuracy
of a translation. Figured you'd drop the peng jing discussion like a hot
potatoe and focus in on me instead. Try not to change the subject...
That's a nice trap you know, any way I answer it would trap me.
Fortunately, I've never claimed to be an expert and I defer to the works
of acknowledged masters instead which is why I always reference the
material. To bring it back to the topic at hand, what your material that
supports your view that Peng Jing is the internal jing (at least in Chen
Taijiquan) when the early masters of Chen style all posit that Chan Si
Jing is the neijing (internal strength) of Chen Taijiquan?
Best,
Peter
lim...@singnet.com.sg
> Please stop it! This is why I unsubscribed to the kung fu list,
> listening to the 2 of you. Sigman, please drop it -- most people already
> know that Lim is a blowhard, but you never pass up a chance to argue , do
> you? Peter, almost everyone recognizes you're in this for Peter and
> you'll never stop either, will you? Why did you even bring it up?
Actually I did, its just his guys won't let it die. Sorry if your
impression of me is that of a blow hard. As this is your view, then I
consider it very fortunate to have friends on the net, and will value
them even more. What I fail understand is your condoning when Mike
slimes other peoples character without basis and misrepresents the arts.
I'm in it for the accuracy, which should be pretty clear by now. Don't
bother about me, bother about what the references actually say. That is
what is important. The message is far more important than the messenger.
I'm not in it to look good or to please everyone, I'm sorry you
misunderstand and apologise for any aggrevation caused. It was not my
intention to cause you any. Please do go back to the Kungfu list, its a
pretty good one and I'm really that active there in any case, though I
really aught to be.
>
> Both of you guys. Please go to private email and fight it out.
>
When I did that Mike emailed my postmaster to try to get me kicked off
my service provider by saying that he had already warned me 3 times to
stop posting directly to him. Fortunately, I keep my mailboxes for some
time on the server and the postmaster was able to determine that this
did not occur. But in order to not aggrevate the matter further, I have
not posted to him directly since. I don't think he would want to
character assinate in private, it would do no good. Once again,
apologies for the aggrevation.
Best,
Peter
Mike Sigman
lim...@singnet.com.sg wrote:
: >
: Again jumping to conclusions Mike, its a nasty habit, I used the works
: of acknowledged masters to cross reference the work. Go talk to them.
So Peter, the 2 issues are whether you are an expert, which you
apparently can't prove (BTW, since when did Loh become a disciple of
Tung?) and the idea of your references.
As you indicated to me once before, your whole "history" of Taiji, which
you presented to "non-Chinese speaking westerner" , hinges on your
statement that the Yin Fu Spear manual proved the existence of Wang Tsung
Yueh and you used all sorts of references. Now here you hid behind the
fact that few westerners would check out your references.
So now, Douglas Wile's book is available to westerners ("Lost Tai Chi
Chronicles") to cross-reference, just as you have invited.
Unfortunately, with all of your "references", it turns out that you only
used information that supported your own views. So much for your
references. And your reputation. And the reputation of the westerners
who were not skilled enough to see they were being had, so they supported
you.
Mike Sigman
--
Peter Lim
Since Mike obviously hasn't read this, I'm posting it for his benefit.
Also, it is quite common for researchers to differ on opinions with
the same evidence at hand. I enjoy Doug's work and I certainly respect
it. In fact, I think that it is a landmark work and recommend it
highly to all to read. It does not disprove the existance of Wang (see
pages 11-114) but does note that the material is probably authentic
but the name of the author cannot be determined to be authentic or not
authentic. You'll note that I have not used the Yin Fu Spear Manual as
a basis in the section about Wang. Also, though this part has been
updated, I'm postiting its original form for Mike's benefit. His focus
on the Yang related material shows its importance to Taijiquan, after
all, Taijiquan became well known because of 'Yang the Invincible' and
his descendents with their Yang style Taijiquan. I highly commend Doug
on his translation of the old handwritten Yang manual, it will
certainly benefit all those who practice Taijiquan. No Peng Jing is
the core Jing stuff in them though.
The Latest Research On The Origins And Historical Development Of
Tai Ch'i Chuan
Part I
The Origin Theories
What this series attempts to do is simply to present the latest
research on the origins of Tai Ch'i Chuan, letting the sources
speak for themselves.
The main forms of TCC practiced today all trace their origins
back to the Chen Village in Wen County, Henan. It is only
reasonable to begin our search for the origins of Tai Ch'i Chuan
there and the early records from there and those that learnt the
art from there.
The Earliest Reference To The Origin
The written works on Tai Ch'i Chuan were not from the Chen vil-
lage or its members. The earliest being the Tai Ch'i Chuan Clas-
sic by Wang Tsung Yueh. The earliest verifiable manual on Tai
Ch'i Chuan that we have is from Li I-Yu who compiled the 3 manu-
als which are known as the '3 old manuals' in Yung Nien today.
Li learnt the art from his uncle Wu Yu Xiang who in turn learnt
the major part of his art from Yang Lu Chan, the founder of the
most popular Yang style of Tai Ch'i Chuan, and spent a month
learning the 'Xiao Jia' from Chen Ching Ping. In these old
manuals he recorded the Tai Ch'i Chuan Classics, works of his
uncle on the art and his own writings on the art. In his 'Brief
Preface To Tai Ch'i Chuan' he wrote that the creator of the art
was Chang San Feng and that Wang Tsung Yueh was skilled in it
and that it was later transmitted to the Chen village. Later, Li
I Yu rewrote the first sentence of his Introduction to say that
the founder was unknown. This could very well be due to a a
differring origin theories in the post-Chen Ching Ping period.
This is the earliest record we have on the origins of Tai Ch'i
Chuan.
The Chang San Feng Theory
This is the theory of origins adopted by most of the major
styles of Tai Ch'i Chuan and was first put forth by the Yang
style. The Yang style traces its origins back to Chen Chang Xin
who was taught by Jiang Fa who was in turn taught by Wang Tsung
Yueh. Wang Tsung Yueh was supposed to be a student of Chang Sung
Chi a noted practitioner of the Internal Boxing of the Wudang
Temple. The Wudang Temple certainly exists and their Internal
Boxing certainly existed and does share certain characteristics
like controling the person with calmness. The creator of this
Internal Boxing was Chang San Feng, a Taoist on Wudang Mountain.
The Wudang martial arts bear little resemblance to the Tai Ch'i
Chuan we have today even though they share some of the same
characteristics.
The Wudang Temple is still exists and there are still Taoist
sages managing the temple and they still teach Wudang martial
arts there. It is interesting to note that there is a form
called Wudang Tai Ch'i Chuan practiced there. Its postures bear
little resemblance to the main styles practiced today even
though it has many common characteristics of the major styles.
The last head of the Wudang Temple, Taoist Xu Ben Shan (1860-
1932) was skilled in it and taught it to his disciples together
with other Wudang arts. Xu spent most of his life in the Wudang
Temple having entered the temple when young. It is unlikely that
his art came from the outside since his life is quite well
documented. But whether Wudang Tai Ch'i Chuan is the seminal
form of all the others cannot be concluded since there is no
firm link between the practitioners of the Wudang arts and Wang
Tsung Yueh who is the earliest common personage of the the early
styles of modern Tai Ch'i Chuan. But it should be noted that
there are common theorems between the Wudang Internal Boxing and
Tai Ch'i Chuan.
The Zhao Bao style of Tai Ch'i Chuan also traces their art back
to Jiang Fa and Wang Tsung Yueh and ultimately to Chang San
Feng. Gu Liu Xin, the noted Tai Ch'i Chuan historian, posits
based on the writings of Chen Xin that Chen Ching Ping created
the Zhao Bao style. Chen Ching Ping was a student of Chen You
Pen who created the 'new style' (xin jia) of Chen Tai Ch'i Chuan
which was also known as the 'high style' (gao jia) and 'small
style' (xiao jia). Wu Yu Xiang who learnt from Chen Ching Ping
retained this high standing characteristic in the style he
passed down.
The present Zhao Bao style is relatively low standing and is
performed in a slow manner without fa-jing except in kicks, in
a manner common to the Yang and Wu Yu Xiang styles and those
that developed from them. It does not resemble the 'high style'
but more the 'old style' (lao jia) in postures. This would
indicate another influence other than Chen Ching Ping.
This theory can not be reliably proven, all that we can
ascertain is that the art came down from Wang Tsung Yueh and
Jiang Fa to the Chen village and Zhao Bao villiage.
The Chen Pu Theory
This was the theory put out by Chen Xin, the first to write a
book on the Chen style of Tai Ch'i Chuan. He attributed the
creation of the art to Chen Pu, this was echoed later by Chen Ji
Pu in his later book on the art. Chen Xin records that Chen Pu
taught his descendents a way to digest food, and Chen Xin claims
this to be Tai Ch'i Chuan. Chen Pu's grave has nothing to in-
dicate that he was skilled in martial arts or to have created
Tai Ch'i Chuan, a very significant piece of evidence since the
Chen Family was famous for its boxing for genrations, gaining
the name 'Pao Chui Chen Family'. So this theory has been proven
to be false.
The Chen Wang Ting Theory
This theory was first posited by Tang Hao. He based his theory
on the side note in the Chen Family Manual (Chen Si Jia Pu) that
Chen Wang Ting was the creator of the Chen Fist, broadsword and
spear arts, and on the assumption that the Chen family did not
learn arts from outside the Chen family.
The theory was further elaborated upon by Gu Liu Xin, Tang Hao's
good friend. He brought in a poem attributed to Chen Wang Ting
that stated that Chen Wang Ting 'created boxing when bored' and
a Boxing Song Formula attributed to Chen Wang Ting as proof of
the theory.
We need to note that the references to boxing in the Chen Family
are in the side notes and are not in the main text. Since the
Chen family was famous for its boxing, it seems a gross
ommission that such an important article of information as Chen
Wang Ting creating the Chen family arts is not included in the
main text but is in a side note. What more, the earliest
published works by the Chen family on their art does not
attribute the creation of the art to Chen Wang Ting. The last
line of the Chen Family Manual says clearly that the side notes
were the work of Chen Xin and so it is not an ancient reference
at all. Yet Chen Xin does not posit that Chen Wang Ting is the
creator, but instead Chen Pu.
The Boxing Song Formula attributed to Chen Wang Ting is taken
from the Liang Yi Tang Ben manual of Chen martial arts, it is
also the only old manual that records a form called the 13 pos-
tures. Its content is mainly an addition on the content of
another old Chen martial art manual called the Wen Yi Tang Ben
which does not record any form called the 13 postures. So it is
possible that the Liang Yi Tang Ben is a later manual with
additions not found in the original Chen transmission. The poem
attributed to Chen Wang Ting is found in Chen Xin's book and
there is no external evidence to authenticate it.
Another early Chen family writer is Chen Tze Ming. It was he who
accompanied Tang Hao and Gu Liu Xin on their trip down to Chen
Jia Gou for investigations into the origins. His work is thus as
important as theirs in terms of evidence for the early Chen
arts. In his book on the Chen family arts he quotes from the old
manuals and records old song formulas, many of which are
revealing such as:
That there are 5 routines of Pao Chui (Cannon Pounding) which
included 'First set fist form', 'fourth set fist postures'
'fifth set pounding fist', 'Cannon Pounding set has fifteen red
and fifteen cannon walking fist heart usage' and 'boxing posture
combined song of one hundred and eight postures', of which the
'second and third pounding sets are lost'. These quotes are
taken from the the Wen Yi Tang Ben which is the earliest record
of Chen family martial arts.
The Liang Yi Tang Ben manual also records that the Chen family
practiced 'four small Red Fists', Red Fist is a Shaolin derived
form of martial art. It also records in a song formula that 'Tai
Zhu stances are the strongest, tumbling and diagonal moving,
even ghosts are busy getting out of the way' and 'If you want to
know where this boxing comes from, the name is Tai Zhu which
comes down to the South during the Tang'. The Wen Yi Tang Ben
records a song formula that says 'Seven star fist, hands and
feet care for each other, Pat Horse Fist comes down from Tai
Zhu'. Tai Zhu Quan, also known as Sung Tai Zhu Chang Quan is a
southern external boxing that is extent in many parts of China.
Its relation to Chen family arts is further discussed in part 2
of this series of articles.
As for the Chen family weapons forms, Chen Tze Ming's book
records several song formulas. The '24 spear song formula' con-
tains the following line: 'If you ask this spear's name and
family: Yang family flower spear 24'. (We need to note that this
Yang family is no relation to Yang Lu Chan, the founder of the
Yang style of Tai Ch'i Chuan though he was also famous for his
skill with the spear. This Yang family spear could very well be
the one mentioned in General Qi's book as being one of the
extent forms.)
The 'Sitting Arhat Pole Formula' contains the following line:
'Old temple is the Shaolin Temple, the halls had 500 monks...if
you want to know where this pole came from, Sitting Arhats
transmitted it to Shaolin'. This is not surprising since the
Chen village is quite close to the Shaolin Temple.
Chen Xin also authored the 'Three Three Boxing Manual' (San San
Quan Pu) which uses Tai Chi Boxing theories to complement Hsing-
I theories. It contains 3 of the 10 thesis of Hsing-I.
From the above evidence, it is quite clear that the Chen family
did learn and practice arts from outside the Chen village. Based
on this, the theory of Chen Wang Ting creating Tai Ch'i Chuan
cannot be supported.
The Four Old Schools Of Tai Ch'i Chuan In the Sung Manual
The manual was first given to Wu Tu Nan by a friend of his,
later when Sung Si Ming came to Beijing to teach Tai Ch'i Chuan,
Wu had the opportunity to compare the manual he had with Sung Si
Ming's manual and they agreed in content. In the manual it lists
four old schools of Tai Ch'i Chuan, namely Hsu, Yu, Cheng and
Yin. The postures delinated in the manual have names similar to
Yang Tai Ch'i and the form and sword form postures are almost
identical to the Yang style, it is obvious that the Sung style
of Tai Ch'i came from the Yang style so the historical data in
the manual is suspect and cannot be regarded as factual.
That Jiang Fa Transmitted It To The Chen Village
The early sources all record the existance of this personage and
that he was skilled in the art of Tai Ch'i Chuan. Zhao Bao style
traces their lineage to him and even Chen Xin's book has a song
formula of his which Jiang apparent got from his teacher from
Shanxi (which in the context of Tai Ch'i Chuan would be Wang
Tsung Yueh). So even in Chen Xin's book, there is a reference to
Jiang as being a teacher of the art.
This song formula comes down from Du Yu Wan, whom Wu Tu Nan had
met during his investigative visit to the Chen Villiage. Shi
himself wrote a book which was published only once in 1935. The
original handwritten manual is traced to now being in the Zhao
Bao viliage though it has not been made public. It states that
Jiang was the teacher of Du's art and was taught by Wang. The
title of the book indicates that Du considered his Tai Ch'i
Chuan as coming from the Wu Dang boxing transmission.
The Yang family tradition also records that it was Jiang who
taught Chen Chang Xin the art. Wu Tu Nan's book records his
encounter with Chen Xin on the matter. Chen Xin admitted that
Chen Chang Xin had learnt the art from Jiang Fa after Jiang had
defeated Chen Chang Xin and that because of that, Chen Chang Xin
was not allowed to teach Pao Chui. (author's note: this may very
well be the reason why Chen Chang Xin conducted his classes in
secret in the backyard and at night. This is where Yang Lu Chan
found him teaching his art and subsequently learnt a great deal
from spying on these secret nocturnal classes)
The Chen Tai Ch'i Chuan proponents have also said that Jiang was
a student of Chen Wang Ting, pointing to a painting of Chen Wang
Ting and a man surnamed Jiang as proof of the matter. The
painting needs to be dated to verify it as a early source but it
doesn't really need to be done because the name given the man is
Jiang Pu and not Jiang Fa. This incorrect attribution has led to
the placing of Jiang Fa as a Ming dynasty personage, affecting
also the Zhao Bao dating. But the writings of Chen Xin indicate
that Chen Wang Ting was a Ming Dynasty personage and Jiang Fa
was a Ching Dynasty, Chien Loong Era personage. So their
assertion is baseless.
Given the evidence above of the nature of the early Chen family
arts, Jiang Fa could indeed have been the person who 'softened'
the existing art to the present day Tai Ch'i Chuan and input the
13 postures into the art. The 13 postures consists of the 8
different Jings and the Five directions of movement. It is
interesting to note that the early Chen documents record
different names for the 8 jings than the conventionally accepted
ones which are in the Tai Ch'i Chuan Classics. (Another article
will deal with this)
Jiang Fa's Teacher: Wang Tsung Yueh
The song formula at the very back of Chen Xin's book indicates
that Jiang Fa's teacher was from Shanxi, in the context of Tai
Ch'i Chuan that would indicate Wang Tsung Yueh and the contents
of the song formula is almost identical in every way to the Tai
Ch'i Chuan Treatise (Taijiquan Lun) which is attributed to Wu Yu
Xiang (this attribution originates from Tang Hao, who assumed
because Wu Yu Xiang compiled the sayings on 'Hitting Hands' of
which this was one section, that it was Wu Yu Xiang who wrote
it. This is to differentiate it with Wang Tsung Yueh's Tai Ch'i
Chuan Classic of the same name). This would mean that Wu Yu
Xiang did have access to Wang's teachings and that the Chen
family does acknowledge his existance and that he taught Jiang
Fa.
Zhao Bao also records him in their lineage and he is an
important figure in the Yang lineage as well. The Tai Ch'i Chuan
Classic of his is probably the most profound work on the nature
and function of the art of Tai Ch'i Chuan. Some have cast doubts
on it, saying that it was the work of Wu Yu Xiang and attributed
to Wang Tsung Yueh. We have no evidence of this and Wu Yu Xiang
did not hesitate to record his own name as the author of other
works, what makes this one so special then.
Tang Hao and Gu Liu Xin have written that Wang had learnt his
art from the Chen family but one must note that this is pure
conjecture as there is no evidence to suggest that this is so.
In documents pertaining to Wang's life, there is no mention that
he learnt his art from the Chen family.
There has been some speculation about his existance but all the
early lineages record him and accept him as having existed. This
speculation is based on the fact that there are no original
documents available for his works. But one needs also to note
that there is no original documents pertaining to Chen Wang
Ting's works either. But the consensus of the early evidence
does suggest that they all believe he existed and they do record
his teachings.
Bibliography
'Chen Shi Tai Ch'i Chuan Tu Shuo' by Chen Xin, published in 1933
'Chen Shi Chuan Xie Hui Pian' by Chen Tze Ming, published in
1935
'Chen Shi Tai Ch'i Chuan Hui Chong' by Chen Ji Pu, published in
1935
'Tai Ch'i Chuan Shu' by Gu Liu Xin, published in 1982 by the
Shanghai Educational Press
'Zhong Guo Wushu Shi' by Xi Yun Tai, published in 1985 by the
People's Physical Education Press
'Zhao Bao Tai Ch'i Chuan Tu Pu' by Song Yun Hua, published in
1991 by the Shanxi Scientific Technology Press, ISBN 7-5369-
0914-4
'Wu Dang Zhao Bao Chuan Tong San He Yi Tai Ch'i Chuan' by Liu
Hui Shi, published in 1991 by the Shanxi Scientific Technology
Press, ISBN 7-5369-0796-6
'Ji Xiao Xin Shu' by General Qi Ji Kwang, published in 1561
'Chuan Jing' by various authors, published in 1918 by Da Sheng
Book Shop.
'Wu Dang Jue Ji' edited by Li Tian Ji, published in 1988 by the
Gu Lin Scientific Technology Press, ISBN 7-5384-1059-8
'Wu Dang Wu Gong' edited by Pei Xi Song and Li Chun Shen, pub-
lished in 1984 by the Hunan Scientific Technology Press
'Tai Ch'i Chuan Zhong Si Wang Tsung Yueh Kao' by Tang Hao, pub-
lished in 1969 by Unicorn Press
'Tai Ch'i Chuan Yan Jiu' by Tang Hao and Gu Liu Xin, published
in 1992 by the People's Physical Education Press, ISBN 7-5009-
0774-5
'Tai Ch'i Ming Jia Tan Zhen Di' various authors, published in
1992 by the China Television Press, ISBN 7-5043-2032-3
'Yang Shi Tai Ch'i Chuan Zhen Zhong' by Zhao Bin, Zhao Aou Bin
and Lu You Ming, published in 1992 by San Tai Publications, ISBN
7-80546-379-4
'Tai Ch'i Chuan Zhi Yan Jiu' edited by Mah You Ching, published
in 1984 by Trading Publication House, ISBN 962-07-5024-1
'Chen Style Taijiquan' compiled by the Zhao Hua Publishing
House, published in 1984 by Hai Feng Publishing Company, ISBN
962-238-016-6
'Complete Tai-Chi' by Alfred Huang, published in 1993 by Charles
E. Tuttle Publishing Co., Inc., ISBN 0-8048-1897-5
'Fundamentals Of Tai Chi Chuan' by Wen-Shan Huang, published in
1973 by South Sky Book Company
'On Tai Chi Chuan' by T Y Pang, published in 1987 by Azalea
Press, ISBN 0-9612070-1-9
'Chinese Boxing - Masters And Methods' by Robert W. Smith, pub-
lished in 1974, 1990 by North Atlantic Books, ISBN 1-55643-085-x
'Comprehensive Asian Fighting Arts' by Donn F. Draeger and
Robert W. Smith, published in 1980 by Kodansha, ISBN 0-87011-
436-0
Peter Lim
Typo error notice:
The historicity of Wang Tsung Yueh is discussed in pages 111-114 of
Doug's new book. Go get a copy! Its really a good book!
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
On Wed, 18 Sep 1996 17:35:57 GMT, you wrote:
>lim...@singnet.com.sg wrote:
>: >
>: Again jumping to conclusions Mike, its a nasty habit, I used the works
>: of acknowledged masters to cross reference the work. Go talk to them.
>So Peter, the 2 issues are whether you are an expert, which you
>apparently can't prove (BTW, since when did Loh become a disciple of
>Tung?) and the idea of your references.
Lets see, that would have been quite some years ago, give Alex Dong a
call in Honolulu, he could probably tell you. Are you an expert Mike?
I'm simply quoting from recognised masters such as Chen Xin, Chen Ji
Pu and Chen Zhi Ming. I take it then that you don't consider them
experts either. It doesn't take an expert to read their books and
understand the plain Chinese. Expertise is never something that one
conveys on oneself, you can always give my references a call and ask
them if they think I am one. You'd make a good politician, when you
lose a point, you just change the subject and carry on ranting. Again
nothing about Peng Jing in this post, too embaressed to carry on with
it eh?
>As you indicated to me once before, your whole "history" of Taiji, which
>you presented to "non-Chinese speaking westerner" , hinges on your
>statement that the Yin Fu Spear manual proved the existence of Wang Tsung
>Yueh and you used all sorts of references. Now here you hid behind the
>fact that few westerners would check out your references.
Mike, you've obviously never really read the material have you. You
can find it in Alex Franz's web page on Taijiquan. You'll find that it
doesn't hinge on the Yin Fu Spear Manual at all. As I recall, the
conversation we were having about this was about whether Wang existed
or not, not whether he was central to Taijiquan's history. And Wang
Tsung Yueh isn't really a cornerstone to the history of Taijiquan,
since Chen Xin has his material in his book, the question of whether
Chen style had any information from him seems rather moot. Also I've
always encouraged people to go find out for themselves, which means
also that they should read the historical series I posted, which I
recommend you do before you make an absolute fool out of yourself.
There is but one section on Wang specifically and it is a rather short
one at that, historicity was questioned but I concluded that section
saying that he is generally accepted as having existed. Even if you
discredit his existance, it does not detract from the excellence of
the works attributed to him. The founder of Taijiquan certainly wasn't
him and we can safely discredit Chen Wang Ting, so we are left with
the same conclusion as in the series, we have information that seems
to indicated some sort of link but there is no conclusion on who the
founder is. Changing the topic again Mike? Please read the material
before you jump to conclusions or need I remind you of how you misread
Prof Kang's material on Ba Gua Zhang and how you had to eat crow
because you insisted that his research showed that there was noTaoist
link but in fact actual fact he attributed the circling walking to a
Taoist sect.
Stick to the point of the thread Mike, even if you manage to discredit
me, which I'm not worried since I really have nothing to hide, it
would not change the fact that Chen Xin, Chen Ji Pu and Chen Zhi Ming
all regarded Chan Si Jing as the Nei Jing in Chen Taijiquan and not
Peng Jing.
>So now, Douglas Wile's book is available to westerners ("Lost Tai Chi
>Chronicles") to cross-reference, just as you have invited.
>Unfortunately, with all of your "references", it turns out that you only
>used information that supported your own views. So much for your
>references. And your reputation. And the reputation of the westerners
>who were not skilled enough to see they were being had, so they supported
>you.
Actually, I enjoyed his book and will be reviewing it for the journal.
His material in no way contradicts mine, he and I both reached the
conclusion that there is no firm evidence to posit absolutely that he
existed but notes that everybody seemed to acknowledge his existance
at the time. If you'd even bothered to read my work you'd realise
that. Also, it certainly doesn't support your wrong view on Peng Jing.
My reputation is based on my eastern friends who all have recognised
lineages and who are quite willing to support me, I'm certainly not
based on westerners who have not seen me or who have only briefly met
me. I didn't realise that I had a reputation, never sought one, just
wanted to share my material. Reputation is not important to me,
accuracy is. BTW I think I will post that part on Wang on this thread
since you obviousy haven't read it yet. I have made no exceptions to
the material, please state where I have and I promise I will
definitely give you a reply. Don't just insinuate without proof, shows
you are simply sulking. Not to mention its bad form, scholastically
and morally.
One more time Mike, don't change the topic, you are wrong on Peng
Jing, just admit it. You were wrong on internal strength in Chen
Taijiquan, admit it as well. You can discredit me till I'm six feet
under and it still won't change what the early Chen masters wrote.
Best,
Peter
Mike Sigman
ingnet.com.sg>:
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: Mike, you've obviously never really read the material have you. You
: can find it in Alex Franz's web page on Taijiquan. You'll find that it
: doesn't hinge on the Yin Fu Spear Manual at all. As I recall, the
So Peter, you're saying that you have not written biased histories
supporting the "southern transmission" theory. You now deny that you
"staked your reputation" on the existence of Wang Tsung Yueh at one time
based on the forward in the Yin Fu Spear Manual. I knew you would
politely forget any negative truth.... it is your hallmark. :^)
We considered posting the changes you have made in your stories as you
have gone along over the years. However it is not worth it.
In terms of your reputation, don't start beating your breast about how
you're being smeared. You know quite well that a number of your
credential claims are not what you have tried to infer.... that fault is
yours, not the person who questions it.
: Stick to the point of the thread Mike, even if you manage to discredit
: me, which I'm not worried since I really have nothing to hide, it
: would not change the fact that Chen Xin, Chen Ji Pu and Chen Zhi Ming
: all regarded Chan Si Jing as the Nei Jing in Chen Taijiquan and not
: Peng Jing.
So how do you reconcile the quotes from the Peng FAQ, Peter? If you
really understood what Chen Fa Ke, etc., etc., were saying, you'd realize
that the core of the chan ssu jing strength (which is the core strength
of the Chen-style Taiji) is indeed this same peng jing or so many people
would not have mentioned it. The fact that you don't know or understand
that (and keep going back to book references) is why you stand exposed as
not an expert in Taiji.
Yet, after those quotes, which should be setting off alarm bells in your
head, you try to hide behind the idea that only an expert can understand
what they meant. How is is that you are an expert? I have never posted
pages of gushing tributes to myself and claimed to be an expert, so let's
just deal with your claims.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
--
Rick Shank
In article <51rqsq$3...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>,
Historicity?
Rick
--
Disclaimer: Not only are these NOT necessarily the opinions of the great company
I work for - AMD, they may not even be the opinions of this author. If you are
smart, you will take this post as the scribblings of a madman and ignore it.
"I know NUSSING, absolutely nussing." Sgt. Schultz
Mike Sigman
Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: This theory can not be reliably proven, all that we can
: ascertain is that the art came down from Wang Tsung Yueh and
: Jiang Fa to the Chen village and Zhao Bao villiage.
How do you "ascertain" ("to find out or learn with certainty") the above
fact and yet say that you "agree" in your findings with Wile?
--
Mike Sigman
Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: it. In fact, I think that it is a landmark work and recommend it
: highly to all to read. It does not disprove the existance of Wang (see
: pages 11-114) but does note that the material is probably authentic
: but the name of the author cannot be determined to be authentic or not
: authentic.
Precisely the point of the whole Wang Tsung Yueh controversy ..... the
story is told by Yang afficionados and rather than saying "but we can't
prove this odd story ever happened" you wind up saying "nobody can prove
this odd story we're telling *didn't* happen".
So the whole thing relies on making the other side prove a negative.
Poor form.
That's exactly what I meant. Wile was being careful not to tread on the
Yang style toes, but his work completely destroys the props that have
been presented to support this weird story.
In fact, if you want to look at the reverse of the story, there is equal
or more proof that Wu Yu Xiang and others deliberately forged/fabricated
the story..... however, your "history" does little to examine those
details.
That's why it is biased.
Mike Sigman
--
LinTsuYu
Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: This theory can not be reliably proven, all that we can
: ascertain is that the art came down from Wang Tsung Yueh and
: Jiang Fa to the Chen village and Zhao Bao villiage.
Mike Sigman (msi...@netcom.com) replied:
How do you "ascertain" ("to find out or learn with certainty") the above
fact and yet say that you "agree" in your findings with Wile?
Are you guys going to fight this old battle? Of course nobody knows for
sure and maybe some of it is fake and some of it is real, but it doesn't
matter any more. <g>
Bill Lin
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>ingnet.com.sg>:
>Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
>Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
>: Mike, you've obviously never really read the material have you. You
>: can find it in Alex Franz's web page on Taijiquan. You'll find that it
>: doesn't hinge on the Yin Fu Spear Manual at all. As I recall, the
>So Peter, you're saying that you have not written biased histories
>supporting the "southern transmission" theory. You now deny that you
>"staked your reputation" on the existence of Wang Tsung Yueh at one time
>based on the forward in the Yin Fu Spear Manual. I knew you would
>politely forget any negative truth.... it is your hallmark. :^)
I simply said that the Yin Fu Spear Manual was regarded as being an
autograph (in Doug's book he calls such texts, ur-text). I've also not
written anything to promote the 'southern transmission' theory, if
you'd read Part 1, I said that Chang San Feng probably didn't create
Taijiquan. The evidence from Zhang Song Chi and Gan Feng Chi is
brought in to see if there was a possible link only. Since you
obviously still haven't read part 1, I'd suggest that you do so. If
you want me to post the entire thread here, I'd be delighted to, since
you seem to have such a poor memory (I'd recommend Gingko). I knew
you would try to leave out the FACT that you got peng jing WRONG!!!
:-))))))))))) Man you really crack me up...;-)
>We considered posting the changes you have made in your stories as you
>have gone along over the years. However it is not worth it.
That is if you even have it in the first place since I haven't changed
anything. I could, if you want post all the time you got your points
wrong also and am quite willing to do it because of your poor memory.
Still to scared to post about peng jing I see...
>In terms of your reputation, don't start beating your breast about how
>you're being smeared. You know quite well that a number of your
>credential claims are not what you have tried to infer.... that fault is
>yours, not the person who questions it.
Since I'm the one that has offered several times on this thread
chances for you to verify my credential if you wanted to, I fail to
see the point in this. And to turn it back to you, is it my fault that
you refuse to verify my credentials? :-))) And since this thread is
about Peng Jing (did you forget, you really should see a memory
specialist) and the evidence provided is from the early Chen masters,
what has my credential got to do with the accuracy of their writings
(but you'd probably try to skip this point since you have no evidence
ot support this but must rely on attacking my character and person to
distract and hopefully discredit me but that certainly does not
discredit the material). Please carry on making everyone see just how
little support you have for your definition and how much you have to
rely on character assasination to win a point. Which by the way is
impossible since the point is taken from the early Chen masters, you'd
have to discredit them and not me to win it.
>: Stick to the point of the thread Mike, even if you manage to discredit
>: me, which I'm not worried since I really have nothing to hide, it
>: would not change the fact that Chen Xin, Chen Ji Pu and Chen Zhi Ming
>: all regarded Chan Si Jing as the Nei Jing in Chen Taijiquan and not
>: Peng Jing.
>So how do you reconcile the quotes from the Peng FAQ, Peter? If you
>really understood what Chen Fa Ke, etc., etc., were saying, you'd realize
>that the core of the chan ssu jing strength (which is the core strength
>of the Chen-style Taiji) is indeed this same peng jing or so many people
>would not have mentioned it. The fact that you don't know or understand
>that (and keep going back to book references) is why you stand exposed as
>not an expert in Taiji.
That I can do rather nicely actually, since you ask I might as well
post the Peng Jing FAQ cross reference with much detailed information
on how you are wrong. Chan Si Jing isn't the same as Peng Jing, only
starting from Gu Liu Xin's and Shen Jia Ren's book does the two terms
get linked together, are you saying that the Gu/Shen redaction is
better and more original than that of the early Chen masters? Oh I do
understand, its just that if I were to just put my understanding
without support from early references, I'd be in the same position you
are in, just positing my own view, blowing hot air and not having
anything to prove I'm right. Your Peng Jing FAQ is full of post
Gu/Shen material which probably got its influence from there, do you
have any early evidence to prove your definition? You don't, even the
Peng Jing FAQ admits to that. Also your definiton of peng jing is
different from that of early masters, so how can just simply quoting
instances where it is said to be important vindicate your definition?
>Yet, after those quotes, which should be setting off alarm bells in your
>head, you try to hide behind the idea that only an expert can understand
>what they meant. How is is that you are an expert? I have never posted
>pages of gushing tributes to myself and claimed to be an expert, so let's
>just deal with your claims.
And I've never posted pages of gushing tributes to myself either Mike,
;-)) And I suppose you are an expert then, perhaps the only one
capable of understanding what they meant? Even when you can't read
Chinese? Don't kid yourself Mike, you know that I am very willing to
post and fax the original Chinese material to any person that wants to
refer to it (its an open offer guys, please make full use of it). Your
ranting without putting up solid evidence other than late references
to the importance of Peng Jing and your wrong definition of Peng Jing
which are not in line with the early references, your misquotes which
mean that you are misleading, hardly help your case. Take some time to
study Chinese Mike, it will only help you understand Taijiquan better.
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
>: it. In fact, I think that it is a landmark work and recommend it
>: highly to all to read. It does not disprove the existance of Wang (see
>: pages 11-114) but does note that the material is probably authentic
>: but the name of the author cannot be determined to be authentic or not
>: authentic.
>Precisely the point of the whole Wang Tsung Yueh controversy ..... the
>story is told by Yang afficionados and rather than saying "but we can't
>prove this odd story ever happened" you wind up saying "nobody can prove
>this odd story we're telling *didn't* happen".
It also applies to Chen Wang Ting probably isn't the source of
Taijiquan. I guess you're going to slime Doug now since you can't make
use of his material huh... It is the Yang afficionados that brought
this investigation into the art in the first place (aka Li I Yu) and
even now are the ones (like Doug) who are continuing the research.
They far outnumber the Chen ones and are responsible for much of the
research.
>So the whole thing relies on making the other side prove a negative.
>Poor form.
And your form is much better?:-) You have to rely on discrediting me
and using very general statements rather than specific references to
prove your points. The whole thing is on you proving that I'm wrong,
I've already said you were wrong and have supplied my evidence, the
ball is in your court Mike.
>That's exactly what I meant. Wile was being careful not to tread on the
>Yang style toes, but his work completely destroys the props that have
>been presented to support this weird story.
How so? Yang style doesn't rely on its historical accuracy to be
famous, it relys on Yang the Invincible, Yang Lu Chan,who was never
beaten and his descendents who were great masters. Doug is being
honest in not jumping to conclusions when evidence is insufficient to
permit a conclusive answer. If Doug's book is inaccurate in this way,
then why were you touting it in the first place. Talk about a change
of story here...
>In fact, if you want to look at the reverse of the story, there is equal
>or more proof that Wu Yu Xiang and others deliberately forged/fabricated
>the story..... however, your "history" does little to examine those
>details.
You are so poor in your reading that I'm going to quote in verbatim
from Doug's book so that you can read it properly:
'The fact that all the Wu brothers' and Li I-Yu's writings read like
commentaries to the classics suggests that there really was a
manuscript find in Wu-yang. Shared language between the classics and
Chang Nai-chou suggests that the "core Wang material" was composed not
much before or after the Ch'ien-lung period; *differences between
Ch'ang and "Wang" suggest that Wu Yu Xiang probably did not just lift
portions of Ch'ang to mix them with Ch'en and Yang teachings and
market them under the brand name "Wang Tsung Yueh".* (note the passage
between the *, taken from age 114 of Doug's new book).
I'd very much like to see your proof, I suspect you're going to use T
Y Pang's material (too bad you don't read Chinese). His theory doesn't
stand unfortunately but you are free to try though. I welcome your
effort, maybe you'll learn something.
>That's why it is biased.
If you cannot produce evidence to show that I'm actually biased, then
it would seem that you are biased right? What an opportunity for you
to discredit yourself, please do take it up. I await eagerly.
Best,
Peter
Mike Sigman
Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: I simply said that the Yin Fu Spear Manual was regarded as being an
: autograph (in Doug's book he calls such texts, ur-text). I've also not
: written anything to promote the 'southern transmission' theory, if
Jiang Fa and Wang Tsung Yueh are used to link Taiji back to Chang San
Feng. You have supported that theory. On the Kung Fu list you said that
you would stake your reputation on the existence of Wang Tsung Yueh based
on the Yin Fu Spear Manual. What happened?
: >We considered posting the changes you have made in your stories as you
: >have gone along over the years. However it is not worth it.
: That is if you even have it in the first place since I haven't changed
: anything. I could, if you want post all the time you got your points
: wrong also and am quite willing to do it because of your poor memory.
: Still to scared to post about peng jing I see...
Since the last part of this article is about peng jing, I'm not sure what
you're saying. Something about my memory, I think.......
:-))) And since this thread is
: about Peng Jing (did you forget, you really should see a memory
: specialist)
[[[[[Suddenly he comes to the question about peng jing]]]]]
: That I can do rather nicely actually, since you ask I might as well
: post the Peng Jing FAQ cross reference with much detailed information
: on how you are wrong. Chan Si Jing isn't the same as Peng Jing,
Neither is Taiji completely peng jing, but that's its base. And don't
bother me with the Peng FAQ, I compiled it...... go to Yang Zhen Duo and
the rest of them and tell them they don't understand Taiji and that they
are wrong. It's their quotes.... do you think they were just passing time?
[[[snip the rest of the excited gabbling]]]
Still get excited easily, eh Pete? :^)
Mike Sigman
--
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
>: This theory can not be reliably proven, all that we can
>: ascertain is that the art came down from Wang Tsung Yueh and
>: Jiang Fa to the Chen village and Zhao Bao villiage.
>How do you "ascertain" ("to find out or learn with certainty") the above
>fact and yet say that you "agree" in your findings with Wile?
>--
From the song formula at the back of Chen Xin's book :-) I always keep
my work cross referenced Mike, you should know that by now. The song
formula is nearly identical to the song formula in the Yang Classics
as recorded by Li I Yu and is attributed to the teacher from Shanxi,
Wang. So it must have come down from there and as for Jiang Fa, we
know that he is from the Chien-lung era and from Chen Xin's material
coming from Wu Tu Nan (there is no reply from the Chen villiage saying
its wrong BTW), we know that Jiang Fa taught Chen Chang Xin. Doug
himself notes that the theory was popular in the Chen villiage, so
much so that in 1928, Chen Xin had to pen a note to tell his fellow
villiages not to repeat the story. What for? So that the Chen family
can be acknowledged as the sole originator of the art? Wouldn'tthat be
pretty obvious if it were the truth, why the need to pen the note? So
it would seem that Wu's interview did present the prevalent view in
the Chen villiage at the time of the interview. The new texts do not
disprove this and Doug does a good job of providing a balanced view
but he certainly doesn't say that my view is wrong. And he and I note
the same few references though our views on their interpretation might
differ, hard to tell since he's not written any conclusion to the
material beyond that it offers strengths to both sides of the
arguement. BTW, I should be faxing him some new stuff which post dates
the time he was working on the manuscript. Will post the results of
this.
What Doug doesn't note is the the family geneology has notes appended
by Chen Xin and it is from those notes that we have information that
Chen Chang Xin's father was a martial artist, so it is a late
reference and hardly bearing the same weight of evidence as the core
text which does not mention this. We cannot prove that Taijiquan
originated in the Chen villiage since the Chen villiage practiced many
martial arts and so there is no evidence to support the view that the
family only practiced Chen Taijiquan which is the basis from which
Tang Hao argues.
Its good to see you're reading, now that we've taken the first step,
you'll find the section on Wang a little further down... thats a good
boy, keep it up.:-)
Best,
Peter
Mike Sigman
tcom.com> <51ucar$l...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>:
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: You are so poor in your reading that I'm going to quote in verbatim
: from Doug's book so that you can read it properly:
: 'The fact that all the Wu brothers' and Li I-Yu's writings read like
: commentaries to the classics suggests that there really was a
: manuscript find in Wu-yang. Shared language between the classics and
: Chang Nai-chou suggests that the "core Wang material" was composed not
: much before or after the Ch'ien-lung period; *differences between
: Ch'ang and "Wang" suggest that Wu Yu Xiang probably did not just lift
: portions of Ch'ang to mix them with Ch'en and Yang teachings and
: market them under the brand name "Wang Tsung Yueh".* (note the passage
: between the *, taken from age 114 of Doug's new book).
Sure.... as usual, that's the quote that you feel might support your
views. And "suggests"..... why don't you quote the parts where he
mentions forgery as a valid consideration??
And back to your history....... tell me again how it is "ascertained"
about Wang Tsung Yueh, etc., as I asked earlier? Somehow you must have
missed that one.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
--
Quark
lim...@singnet.com.sg lim...@singnet.com.sg says...
>Please note that peng jing is a ligitimate term but what you define as
>peng jing is not be what they mean, you took Mah's quote out of context.
>the TaiChiChuan list. BTW, some of the stuff you quote in it is out of
>experts may be mistranslations of meaning since the translator may not
>be expert, either in the language or in the meaning of the term as used
>in the art.
That may be well and true, Peter, but we aren't really interested in
meanings of terms, we want an example of a training schedule. Here'e mine:
6 hours daily standing exercise
6 hours daily form work
4 hours daily fixed-step push-hands
4 hours daily moving push-hands
3.75 hours daily tae kwon do
10 minute supper of ramen noodles
5 minutes sleep
If one were to follow this schedule faithfully over a period of twenty
years, I believe the Peng Jing will naturally manifest in the correct
context, but if not, it is necessary to eliminate the ramen noodles and
sleep and keep practicing correctly-translated peng-jing passages.
Q. "getting just a little hungry after all these years"
Mike Sigman
tcom.com> <51ue4v$f...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>:
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: >: This theory can not be reliably proven, all that we can
: >: ascertain is that the art came down from Wang Tsung Yueh and
: >: Jiang Fa to the Chen village and Zhao Bao villiage.
: >How do you "ascertain" ("to find out or learn with certainty") the above
: >fact and yet say that you "agree" in your findings with Wile?
: >--
: Wang. So it must have come down from there and as for Jiang Fa, we
: know that he is from the Chien-lung era and from Chen Xin's material
: coming from Wu Tu Nan (there is no reply from the Chen villiage saying
: its wrong BTW), we know that Jiang Fa taught Chen Chang Xin.
The new texts do not
: disprove this and Doug does a good job of providing a balanced view
: but he certainly doesn't say that my view is wrong. And he and I note
: the same few references though our views on their interpretation might
: differ, hard to tell since he's not written any conclusion to the
: material beyond that it offers strengths to both sides of the
: arguement.
So how does your "interpretation" as you call it, "ascertain" (and that
still means "make certain") what you assert in your history. This is
what I am talking about, you posit your "interpretations" as "truth".
And that was the original discussion on the Kung Fu list.
Secondly, you're at it again with "the new texts do not disprove this".
Heck, we could posit that a Mrs. McGillicuddy was the actual founder of
Taiji and she was the secret lover of Chen Wang Ting..... the texts
"don't disprove" that either.
Wile talks about people like you who fill in the blanks with all sorts of
theories. I think that you prove his point, particularly when you
continue to rely on the phrase that your theories "are not disproved".
In other words, Peter, you have no proof.
I would suggest people just read Wile's book. They can evaluate for
themselves that it would be a gamble to believe any of the stories of
Wang Tsung Yueh and Jiang Fa.
One inescapable thing is that Yang LuChan, who was a simple bonded
servant in Chen Village, learned his art there. Because Chen Village
didn't keep a lot of written records, ISBN numbers, etc., it still
doesn't mean that their oral traditions about the Chen-style are false.
It's their art. Taiji comes from Chen Village. It would certainly seem
peculiar for some mythical figure to teach a village and never show
anyone else.... Taiji would have been found in other places and it wasn't.
So if you can't *prove* that Taiji came from somewhere else, you need to
stop with the theories.
If you're *certain*, that Jiang Fa and Wang Tsung Yueh did this, show us
the proof. If you don't have it, it's an undeserved slap in the face to
the village that gave Yang Lu Chan his art. However, that is not my
particular concern. I will pass your theories to Chen Xiao Wang so that
he will have read them the next time you brag about visiting him. What
hypocrisy.
Mike Sigman
--
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>tcom.com> <51ucar$l...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>:
>Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
>Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
>: You are so poor in your reading that I'm going to quote in verbatim
>: from Doug's book so that you can read it properly:
>: 'The fact that all the Wu brothers' and Li I-Yu's writings read like
>: commentaries to the classics suggests that there really was a
>: manuscript find in Wu-yang. Shared language between the classics and
>: Chang Nai-chou suggests that the "core Wang material" was composed not
>: much before or after the Ch'ien-lung period; *differences between
>: Ch'ang and "Wang" suggest that Wu Yu Xiang probably did not just lift
>: portions of Ch'ang to mix them with Ch'en and Yang teachings and
>: market them under the brand name "Wang Tsung Yueh".* (note the passage
>: between the *, taken from age 114 of Doug's new book).
>Sure.... as usual, that's the quote that you feel might support your
>views. And "suggests"..... why don't you quote the parts where he
>mentions forgery as a valid consideration??
Hey, you brought Doug's book up as a book that would show that I was
wrong. I think the passage I quoted adequately sums up what he thinks
since its at the last part of the section (page 111 to 114), would you
rather not have his conclusions?
>And back to your history....... tell me again how it is "ascertained"
>about Wang Tsung Yueh, etc., as I asked earlier? Somehow you must have
>missed that one.
Apparently you missed it. We can ascertain it from the song formula at
the back of Chen Xin's book which states it comes down from the
teacher from Shanxi which in the context of Taijiquan can only mean
Wang. Its content is almost identical to one in the Classics coming
down from the Yang related styles. You really should read your Chen
references, after all you are promoting it. So we have Wang's material
in the first published Chen manual. Even if it weren't his real name,
the teacher from Shanxi has material important to Taijiquan. The issue
here is external transmission ot the Chen villiage. Chen Xin's note in
the Wen Xiu Tang Ben makes it pretty clear that the prevalent view in
the Chen villiage at the time was that Jiang Fa taught the art to the
Chen family.
But then you are again trying to change the subject. Not so easy Mike,
I'm not that easily distracted. You still have to show me that your
definition of Peng Jing is the same as that of the Chinese masters and
you still have to show me that it is the Peng Jing and not Chan Si
Jing as stated by the early Chen masters that is the internal strength
in Chen Taijiquan.
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
Qu...@Nice.Guy.Pushed.Too.Far (Quark) wrote:
>lim...@singnet.com.sg lim...@singnet.com.sg says...
>>Please note that peng jing is a ligitimate term but what you define as
>>peng jing is not be what they mean, you took Mah's quote out of context.
>>I will download the FAQ you refer and do a cross reference and post it
>>up. One was already done for the Peng Jing FAQ which was posted up to
>>the TaiChiChuan list. BTW, some of the stuff you quote in it is out of
>>context. Do you want me to post it here? BTW also, translations from
>>experts may be mistranslations of meaning since the translator may not
>>be expert, either in the language or in the meaning of the term as used
>>in the art.
>That may be well and true, Peter, but we aren't really interested in
>meanings of terms, we want an example of a training schedule. Here'e mine:
A man who refuses to use his own name...please take some pride in it,
your parents gave it to you and you should not hide behind masks,
shaming them. Filial piety is a attribute that is highly valued in the
East and from early American history, one that is highly valued there
as well.
Still, it helps to know what you are training and what you are
training towards or its just blind practice that may not yield the
results you seek.
>6 hours daily standing exercise
>6 hours daily form work
>4 hours daily fixed-step push-hands
>4 hours daily moving push-hands
>3.75 hours daily tae kwon do
>10 minute supper of ramen noodles
>5 minutes sleep
Congratulations, would that we were all so well provided to be able to
devote so much time to the arts we love.
>If one were to follow this schedule faithfully over a period of twenty
>years, I believe the Peng Jing will naturally manifest in the correct
>context, but if not, it is necessary to eliminate the ramen noodles and
>sleep and keep practicing correctly-translated peng-jing passages.
It really depends on your definition of Peng Jing, I see no exercises
that stress relaxed coordinated movements that are the hallmark of all
Taijiquan jings, but then you do TKD. Gen Choi would not subscribe to
this term, please refer to his TKD encyclopedia, if you need the page
number and volume number, I'll be only too happy to provide it. Peng
Jing is native to Taijiquan and not TKD. So it could be that your
definition of Peng Jing is wrong. Reading correctly alone will not
bring proficiency in manifesting peng jing but it does give one an
idea of what to expect and what to look for. Eliminating that would
leave you with an even less clear idea of what you are working to
achieve, work hard yes, but more important to work smart. Eliminating
the ramen noodles would mean starving the body of the already meager
and unbalanced nutrition it receives from you schedule, greater
progress would result from a balanced diet and greater intake of
fluids to replace what was lost, one must of course take into
considerations the trace elements and minerals lost through sweat.
Sleep is important to rest the body and the mind to repair and build
it up, to prepare it for even greater achievements. It is an important
part of balanced training. Tiredness due to lack of sleep will affect
your coordination, strength and focus, depriving you of the benefits
of these when you train.
>Q. "getting just a little hungry after all these years"
Then eat, Taijiquan is a return to the natural state, when things in
nature are hungry, they eat.
Best,
Peter
>
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>tcom.com> <51ue4v$f...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>:
>Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
>Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
>: >: This theory can not be reliably proven, all that we can
>: >: ascertain is that the art came down from Wang Tsung Yueh and
>: >: Jiang Fa to the Chen village and Zhao Bao villiage.
>: >How do you "ascertain" ("to find out or learn with certainty") the above
>: >fact and yet say that you "agree" in your findings with Wile?
>: >--
>: Wang. So it must have come down from there and as for Jiang Fa, we
>: know that he is from the Chien-lung era and from Chen Xin's material
>: coming from Wu Tu Nan (there is no reply from the Chen villiage saying
>: its wrong BTW), we know that Jiang Fa taught Chen Chang Xin.
>The new texts do not
>: disprove this and Doug does a good job of providing a balanced view
>: but he certainly doesn't say that my view is wrong. And he and I note
>: the same few references though our views on their interpretation might
>: differ, hard to tell since he's not written any conclusion to the
>: material beyond that it offers strengths to both sides of the
>: arguement.
>So how does your "interpretation" as you call it, "ascertain" (and that
>still means "make certain") what you assert in your history. This is
>what I am talking about, you posit your "interpretations" as "truth".
>And that was the original discussion on the Kung Fu list.
Based on the available evidence, this is all that we can be sure was
believed at the time. Unfortunately, even you with your brilliant
intellect cannot produce the exact truth of the situation without a
time machine. Neither can any archeologist or historian, all they can
do is interpret the available evidence. Maybe you have some new
fangled technique far in advance of modern research methods. I'd like
to see them if you have.
>Secondly, you're at it again with "the new texts do not disprove this".
>Heck, we could posit that a Mrs. McGillicuddy was the actual founder of
>Taiji and she was the secret lover of Chen Wang Ting..... the texts
>"don't disprove" that either.
Except that the texts only include Chen Wang Ting, we are unable to
derive the name Mrs McGillicuddy (to anybody answering to that name, a
sincere apology for dragging you into this, no ill intentions are
directed in your direction, we are simply using the name as a token to
empahsize the point) and so it probably wouldn't stand scrutiny. The
absence of the name from the texts would exclude it as viable theory.
>Wile talks about people like you who fill in the blanks with all sorts of
>theories. I think that you prove his point, particularly when you
>continue to rely on the phrase that your theories "are not disproved".
>In other words, Peter, you have no proof.
Still avoiding Peng Jing I see, please see the subject heading for a
reminder. The texts that have come down to us are evidence to a
reality and are thus proof that something did happen and had left them
behind as relics of the event. This is proof that somebody did write
the classic works and Chen Xin's book is proof that it found its way
into the Chen family and that it originated in Shanxi. Doug talks
about people who invent evidence and not those that base their
research on the available evidence and let it point to a certain
direction. Whilst more than one possible interpretation is possible,
taking into context the cultural considerations of the time period in
question, we are left with an idea of what may be plausible and what
may be not.
>I would suggest people just read Wile's book. They can evaluate for
>themselves that it would be a gamble to believe any of the stories of
>Wang Tsung Yueh and Jiang Fa.
I'm all for that, and I've always encouraged them to check it out for
themselves. It does not however detract from the fact that somebody
wrote them and it wasn't Wu Yu Xiang. And that somebody name Jiang who
was highly skilled was around the Chen villiage and probably went down
on record because he contributed something to the arts there. You'll
find Doug to be most impartial and reserving in judgement. He leaves
it an open issue rather than a decided outcome as you seem to suggest.
His book is a good one and once again I recommend all to read it.
>One inescapable thing is that Yang LuChan, who was a simple bonded
>servant in Chen Village, learned his art there. Because Chen Village
>didn't keep a lot of written records, ISBN numbers, etc., it still
>doesn't mean that their oral traditions about the Chen-style are false.
>It's their art. Taiji comes from Chen Village. It would certainly seem
>peculiar for some mythical figure to teach a village and never show
>anyone else.... Taiji would have been found in other places and it wasn't.
No but the fact that a note had to be written by Chen Xin to suppress
the prevalent view of the time means that some cover up was being
done. Taiji came through the Chen villiage, since you could always say
the same for Pao Chui, Shaolin Red Fist, Yang family spear, Shaolin
Pole, Tai Zhu Quan, etc, which are all recorded as being practiced in
the Chen villiage and did not originate there. You'd think that such
an important event would have been recorded as a family achievement.
We don't have that but instead an attempt at changing the prevalent
view, martial arts annotations added to the family manual and notes
added to an old boxing manual. You have no proof that the Chen family
originated the art. The early Chen sources couldn't get their origin
theories right, Chen Xin credited Chen Pu for creating the Chen family
arts which may not have been Taijiquan since the Chen family was
famous for its Pao Chui. Only Tang Hao and Gu Liu Xin came up with
this theory of Chen Wang Ting outside of the Chen villiage so what
oral tradition are you talking about? Tang/Gu's or Chen Xin's or Chen
Zhi Ming's or Chen Ji Pu's?
One more time, this thread is about Peng Jing, trying to change the
subject just makes you look bad.
>So if you can't *prove* that Taiji came from somewhere else, you need to
>stop with the theories.
We can certainly show important influences which shaped the art and
that similar arts were practiced outside the Chen village so it is
possible that these techniques pre-date the Chen villiage transmission
to Yang Lu Chan.
>If you're *certain*, that Jiang Fa and Wang Tsung Yueh did this, show us
>the proof. If you don't have it, it's an undeserved slap in the face to
>the village that gave Yang Lu Chan his art. However, that is not my
>particular concern. I will pass your theories to Chen Xiao Wang so that
>he will have read them the next time you brag about visiting him. What
>hypocrisy.
It doesn't rely on Jiang Fa (which we can see was the prevalent view
of the Chen villiage at the time, why won't you accept the oral
tradition you keep referring to?) or on Wang. We know that material
attributed to Wang did not come from the Chen villiage and we know
that the art it describes is in line with Taijiquan as practiced
today. This is basis enough to posit for a possible external
transmission. Nobody said that Yang did not receive the art from the
Chen villiage, only that it may not have originated there. It is
because the Yangs admited it that the Chen art is held in the regard
it is today. Please do, I'm sending him a copy of the historical
series and having a friend translate it for him, you certainly don't
have a monopoly on him and he really isn't as intolerant as you are.
Stop painting him as such a stiff inflexible guy, he's a very nice,
gentle, soft spoken man who may disagree with me but will never say
that only his opinion is right.
BTW, your attempts at changing the subject are an admission that you
are wrong about Peng Jing and about Internal Strength in Chen
Taijiquan. I continue to humour you is to save you some face rather
than to pin you to the topic since your attempts at changing the
subject only highlight your silence on the topic of this thread.
Others are not blind Mike and I will not be distracted. Have fun :-)
Best,
Peter
David M. Union
>
> The new texts do not
> It's their art. Taiji comes from Chen Village. It would certainly seem
> peculiar for some mythical figure to teach a village and never show
> anyone else.... Taiji would have been found in other places and it wasn't.
> So if you can't *prove* that Taiji came from somewhere else, you need to
> stop with the theories.
If I recall, Chen Village is just outside Wudong temple, a very famous
shaolin-
style temple that is famous for its internal arts. With the similarities
to both the external shaolin-like training, which clearly spread between
temples in china, and the emphasis on internal martial arts at Wudong,
it
is not suprising to me at all that Chen Tai Chi Chuan started around
this temple - probably through a former monk or student of one of the
monks.
Too many coincidences make a pattern :)
Peter Lim
lim...@singnet.com.sg (Peter Lim) wrote:
>Qu...@Nice.Guy.Pushed.Too.Far (Quark) wrote:
>>That may be well and true, Peter, but we aren't really interested in
>>meanings of terms, we want an example of a training schedule. Here'e mine:
Oh yes, a training shedule. I'd recommend one that Wu Tu Nan, the
Taijiquan master who died at 105 years and who was a student of Wu
Jian Quan and Yang Shao Hou, recommended. His experience being greater
than mine in the art, so I defer to him on the subject. I shall quote
directly (taken from the book 'Wu style Taijiquan' by Wang Peisheng
and Zeng Weiqi, page 227-228):
'Wu: Well, yes. Though you are much younger than I, you are now
already sixty-six, and as enthusiastic as you are, it is all the more
necessary to be aware of over training. Anthing done in harmony with
the law of nature is liable to bring you good results, and aging is a
natural law. Don't take yourself as still young when you are already
old, or are becoming older. In my own case, I used to train not less
than three hours a day when a youth. The whole program was very
strenuous, including 'keeping pile-stance' (holding a fixed position
for a number of minutes a sort of isometric training) in several
different stances; kicking a foot high up forward, touching the back
of the head with the heel; doing a set of Taijiquan under a kind of
long rectangular table only a few inches higher than a dining table,
so as to make sure that I was taking a very tiring low stance, etc.
Then about 2 hours during my middle age. After sixty, about one hour
and a half. Over seventy, about an hour. Over eighty, less than an
hour. Over ninety, about 30 minutes. Now I do 15 minutes early every
morning and sometimes another 15 minutes before going to bed, and I
have kept myself all the time fit and healthy.
The second thing I want you to keep in mind is that the healthy and
strong body one has built up through long years of Taijiquan practice
or any other sports activity is not one that can stand limitless
abuses. Over-eating, over-smoking, over-drinking, over-indulgence in
sex, and working beyond a certain limit will surely ruin the mind and
the body'
I hope the above will be useful.
Best,
Peter
Mike Sigman
Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: Apparently you missed it. We can ascertain it from the song formula at
: the back of Chen Xin's book which states it comes down from the
: teacher from Shanxi which in the context of Taijiquan can only mean
: Wang.
That's discussed in Wile's book and he questions it quite openly. You
don't bother mentioning that.
: But then you are again trying to change the subject. Not so easy Mike,
: I'm not that easily distracted. You still have to show me that your
: definition of Peng Jing is the same as that of the Chinese masters and
: you still have to show me that it is the Peng Jing and not Chan Si
: Jing as stated by the early Chen masters that is the internal strength
: in Chen Taijiquan.
Stop it, Peter. You have, by your words, already told us that you don't
understand.
First, you tried to say that the use of the words "peng jing" was totally
wrong. Then, when you're faced with the rather embarrassing quotations
using "peng jing", you seem to forget your earlier statements. If you
can't be intellectually honest, let's forget it.
If you want to protest your honesty, sometime, I'll be glad to trot out
posts from other times, claims of credentials, etc.
Mike Sigman
--
Mike Sigman
Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
[In a feeble attempt to explain how his "interpretation" means the same
thing as knowing for certain"
: time machine. Neither can any archeologist or historian, all they can
: do is interpret the available evidence.
Obviously, you think everyone is buying this sort of argument. I think
not. We're going in circles.
: Still avoiding Peng Jing I see, please see the subject heading for a
I'm not at all. We've covered it. You are a Cheng Man Ching folower who
has access to some books. Your skill in Taiji is not very high, even on
Singapore. You didn't even know about the quotes, and now you're
saying, without having ever seen what I do, that I'm wrong.
Please. You can can puff and blow all you want. I'm recommending that
people read your "history" and read Doug Wile's book and decide for
themself what liberties you take with your views.
Enough. Stop. Give it up some time.
Mike Sigman
--
al...@starfire.utias.utoronto.ca
> In article <52698g$m...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>,
> Peter Lim <lim...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>>msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>>
>>So how does your "interpretation" as you call it, "ascertain" (and that
>>still means "make certain") what you assert in your history. This is
>>what I am talking about, you posit your "interpretations" as "truth".
>>And that was the original discussion on the Kung Fu list.
>
>Based on the available evidence, this is all that we can be sure was
>believed at the time. Unfortunately, even you with your brilliant
>intellect cannot produce the exact truth of the situation without a
>time machine. Neither can any archeologist or historian, all they can
>do is interpret the available evidence. Maybe you have some new
>fangled technique far in advance of modern research methods. I'd like
>to see them if you have.
Peter, I don't know where you were educated and where you learned your
"research" skills, but you need to separate between "interpretation/
opinion" and "ascertion/proof". If you can't be sure of the exact truth
then you should not use such language as "therefore we can ascertain
that.." or "because I think this is what happened, therefore it is proved
that...". There is full of this type of language throughout your
so-called "latest research". I have no problem with you holding your
opinion on the origion of taijiquan, because you are only voicing an old
opinion that's been around for a while (i.e. not original research in any
way), and there are really no concrete evidence to prove either way. I
do, however, have a problem with your method of conducting your "research"
(i.e. leaving out the information that does not go well with your theory)
and your method of presenting your interpretation and opinion as proof and
truth. Dispite your claim of attempting to be objective, the language
you've chosen to use betrayed a very obvious bias.
I remember in your early days in the Neijia list you tried to come across
as an "authority from the orient" by posting a long treatise on combat
using taijiquan principles "based on your personal experiences and
insight". What you've posted ended up being a cut-and-paste of various
phrases from various Chinese books that some of us have read long ago
(most of the stuff was even word-for-word translation). I guess you
didn't realize that there were other Chinese-reading persons on the list
that were equally well-read in the taijiquan literature.
Another incident that I remembered during that period was your attempt of
trying to pass a piece of your "interpretation" on the life of Wu YuXiang
as a "historical account". It was amazing how you were able to
"ascertain" the feeling and thoughts and ambition of Wu YuXiang from such
a small number of written material by him. After I pointed out to you
that you are probably a better novelist than you are a historian, you
immediatedly changed tune and claim that you *were* trying to write a
novel.
After you got the boot from the Neijia list after the Jane "kong-jing" H.
incident you tried the same thing on the kungfu list. It was indeed very
amusing when the word got out from local Singapore people that you are
bascially a TKD teacher that follows Cheng Man-Ching style taijiquan.
Since most of us do not have any intention of employing you in any way it
was never a necessity to ask for any written reference which you so
generously offered again and again. If you feel necessary why don't you
post the address and phone number of the various head of styles you
claimed to have association with so those who are interested can just call
them up and check.
Whatever happened to the claim that you've also learned the "original"
combat-oriented Bajiquan from the Wu family?
>I'm all for that, and I've always encouraged them to check it out for
>themselves. It does not however detract from the fact that somebody
>wrote them and it wasn't Wu Yu Xiang. And that somebody name Jiang who
>was highly skilled was around the Chen villiage and probably went down
>on record because he contributed something to the arts there. You'll
>find Doug to be most impartial and reserving in judgement. He leaves
>it an open issue rather than a decided outcome as you seem to suggest.
>His book is a good one and once again I recommend all to read it.
Since when are you and Wile on a first-name basis? Are you trying to
leave the impression that you are in the "in-circle" like you were trying
to do with various taichi masters? (Yeah, since when are you and Chen
XiaoWang on a first name basis? You've referred to him as "XiaoWang"
many times. Since I've never met Chen XiaoWang I can only assume base on
Chinese custom and the tone of your language that you and Chen were
old-time buddies.) You see how the simple use of certain language can
leave certain impression on people who don't know better? If you are
truly trying to present yourself as a serious impartial researcher please
be more rigorous in your writing and claims in the future.
>Others are not blind Mike and I will not be distracted. Have fun :-)
Indeed. Not all of us are blind.
Allen Chen
Peter Lim
"David M. Union" <dun...@tiac.net> wrote:
>>
>> The new texts do not
>Please reiterate the name of this text and where to get it. Thanks.
The new texts are translated in Doug Wile's new book
>> It's their art. Taiji comes from Chen Village. It would certainly seem
>> peculiar for some mythical figure to teach a village and never show
>> anyone else.... Taiji would have been found in other places and it wasn't.
That's not entirely true, we still have Zhao Bao remember? And also
Chang Sung Qi's Yin Yang Wu Xing Ba Gua Taiji Shou.
>
>> So if you can't *prove* that Taiji came from somewhere else, you need to
>> stop with the theories.
We can certainly prove that it probably had influence from outside.
Just take a look at the song formula at the back of Chen Xin's book.
Mike is the one that cannot prove that it originated with the Chen
villiage, no one denies it came through it though.
>If I recall, Chen Village is just outside Wudong temple, a very famous
>shaolin-
>style temple that is famous for its internal arts. With the similarities
>to both the external shaolin-like training, which clearly spread between
>temples in china, and the emphasis on internal martial arts at Wudong,
>it
>is not suprising to me at all that Chen Tai Chi Chuan started around
>this temple - probably through a former monk or student of one of the
>monks.
Actually, its closer to the Shaolin Temple. There are records that the
Chen villiagers practiced Shaolin martial arts.
>Too many coincidences make a pattern :)
When the Chen evidence contradicts his 'oral tradition', which BTW we
are still waiting to see which one he means since the early Chen
sources do not posit Chen Wang Ting as the creator, what can he do but
rely on smear tactics rather than evidence.
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
>[In a feeble attempt to explain how his "interpretation" means the same
>thing as knowing for certain"
>: time machine. Neither can any archeologist or historian, all they can
>: do is interpret the available evidence.
>Obviously, you think everyone is buying this sort of argument. I think
>not. We're going in circles.
Actually you are the one going in circles by simply refusing to
address the fact that your definition of Peng Jing is wrong and that
you are wrong about the internal strength in Chen Taijiquan.
Since you insist on making a fool out of yourself then I shall be
direct. In historical studies, it is an interpretation of available
evidence and records to determine what happened. There is no historian
that does not use both extent evidence physical or otherwise and
texts/records that have come down to us to reconstruct what most
likely took place. The evidence is there in this case, even in Doug's
book. Even your theories and those of Tang Hao, Gu Liu Xin is based on
interpretation of data. So what do you propose, go on an out of body
trip to travel back to time? You are the one with no evidence to
support your views, the evidence provided to support your so called
'oral tradition' has since been taken apart by modern scholars who
have shown that there is no evidence beyond that written by Chen Xin
into the Chen family manuals. Even you are interpreting the data since
no text outright says that the Chen family even created anything close
to Taijiquan. BTW, Chen Xin credit Chen Pu and Tang Hao credited Chen
Wang Ting, who do you believe? The ball is squarely in your court,
Mike, unless you can provide something besides your insistance on
'oral transmission', which by the way you have yet to tell us which
one from the Chen villiage you subscribe to, yours is a very shakey
case indeed.
>: Still avoiding Peng Jing I see, please see the subject heading for a
>I'm not at all. We've covered it. You are a Cheng Man Ching folower who
>has access to some books. Your skill in Taiji is not very high, even on
>Singapore. You didn't even know about the quotes, and now you're
>saying, without having ever seen what I do, that I'm wrong.
You seem to remember all the wrong things, Mike, my primary form has
always been that of the Old Yang form. That I know the 37 posture form
developed by CMC does not mean that it is my main form or from whence
my art derived. Your assumption that my level of skill is not high
comes from one WuY. whose real name is Ng Yew Mun, ask him directly
what my teacher told him when he asked for instruction, the reply was
'learn from Peter', that sorta puts him at the student level doesn't
it. Which is why he is saying it behind my back and not to my face
though he is present in the Kungfu list and the Taijiquan list. I have
offerred to provide you references from recognised lineage holders to
attest to at least some measure of worthy skill in their sight but
your refusal to do so simply shows that you don't want to know because
it will prove you wrong.
Your definitions alone are already wrong, what does that say about
your practice. You use holding up to show peng which is exactly what
Mah said shouldn't be done and you expect someone to consider that a
correct show of peng jing? Get real Mike. As for the quotes, I assume
that you mean Doug's book, I think I have shown that I have read far
more indepth into it than you and am able to quote from it at will.
You are the one simply implying without actually saying where they are
from in the book, which could imply that you are simply saying there
are there when they are not. Read pages 111-114 again Mike, his
conclusion which I quoted is quite clear. Wu did not pen Wang's work,
the core Wang material describes the art of the Yang related lineages
well and that things like avoiding double weightedness which is
important in Taijiquan probably didn't come from Chen style. I quote
this for your benefit (taken from page 119):
'Should we look, then to the Chen Villiage as the source of 'avoiding
double weightedness'? Chen documents from the late Ching are sparse
and inconclusive, but judging from the photographs of Chen Fake from
the 1930s and 40s and contemporary practitioners of Chen style, we may
say it is unlikely that this teaching had its origin in the Chen
villiage'
You know, you really have to go beyond the rather obvious tactic of
smothering the truth by changing the subject and attacking the person
rather than the material. Its pretty obvious and it certainly doesn't
do you any good when I point it out like this. It makes people think
that you need to win by force of personality and by sliming character
rather than by logical discourse and determining the admissability of
evidence. Get a book on transactional analysis or debating, it should
come in useful. One wins on the correctness of the material not on the
loudness of the denouncements without basis.
>Please. You can can puff and blow all you want. I'm recommending that
>people read your "history" and read Doug Wile's book and decide for
>themself what liberties you take with your views.
I'm not huffing or blowing Mike, I'm just putting out material. Sorry
that it shows that you are wrong and mistaken about many things, it
cannot be helped. You keep waving Doug's book in my face when in fact
it supports my research and supports the Yang related views. I hope
you keep doing it, it will certainly only help my cause to bring the
knowledge in China to those who do not read Chinese. You forget, Doug
regards Chang Nai Chou as being a possible source of ideas on
Taijiquan, external transmission is certainly a possibility. You have
not provided any evidence to show that mine is wrong beyond remarks
and hinting that they are in Doug's book, well they are not
unfortunately and encouraging them to read it, which I whole hearted
support, will allow them to see that for themselves. I like his book,
and am happy you are helping to promote it. At least he and I
reference our works and don't just base it blindly on arbitrary 'oral
traditions' (have you decided which one you want to support yet?)
>Enough. Stop. Give it up some time.
Backing out eh? Was wondering when you'd get embarressed enough.
Please let them read both, it can only support my views as Doug does
not make any firm conclusions, he also does not provide evidence to
support the view that Taijiquan came from the Chen villiage. Once
again, you have avoided the issue at hand and have had to rely on
trying to discredit the person instead. Strange way to prove one is
right, means that you have to rely on putting the person down rather
than the material, which shows you have a weak case. If you want to
stop, then please do so, I shall continue to share he results of
research by those on the mainland of China with all who are
interested. I simply posted a note, you are the one who wanted to
continue, so it is your right if you want to stop. You are welcome at
any time to take it up again if you want to. I'll always be here for
you (doesn't mean we're engaged or anything :-) ) Have fun Mike, come
back when you have your references in order. :-)
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
>: Apparently you missed it. We can ascertain it from the song formula at
>: the back of Chen Xin's book which states it comes down from the
>: teacher from Shanxi which in the context of Taijiquan can only mean
>: Wang.
>That's discussed in Wile's book and he questions it quite openly. You
>don't bother mentioning that.
Ah back again are we? Ok, lets take it from there then. The song is
certainly attributed to someone outside the Chen family which means
that it is an external transmission. He questions the existance of
Wang but not of his material which he treats as his ur-text, his core
Wang material, he holds that Wu didn't write it or did you miss that
section conveniently. Besides the content of the material is far more
important than whether his name is Wang or not. The parallels with the
works of Chang Nai Chou also seems to indicated a possible
transmission from there into the art, we really don't need to rely on
Wang's existance, the existance and authenticity of the material
attributed to him is far more important. You have no proof that Chen
Wang Ting created the art, even Chen Xin didn't think so, actually no
body thought so until Tang Hao came up with it. We can show that
external transmission is quite possible without recourse to Wang.:-)
>: But then you are again trying to change the subject. Not so easy Mike,
>: I'm not that easily distracted. You still have to show me that your
>: definition of Peng Jing is the same as that of the Chinese masters and
>: you still have to show me that it is the Peng Jing and not Chan Si
>: Jing as stated by the early Chen masters that is the internal strength
>: in Chen Taijiquan.
>Stop it, Peter. You have, by your words, already told us that you don't
>understand.
And by the words of the masters I have quoted, it is obvious that what
you are teaching and showing is not what they mean by Peng Jing and
that your definition of Internal Strength in Chen Taijiquan is not in
line with the early works of the Chen masters. You have yet to answer
that Mike, don't try to just brush it off with a ' you don't
understand', it doesn't cut it in the face of documentary evidence.
You have to explain why you are more correct than the early Chen
masters. Why should I stop telling people what the early Chen masters
wrote? Do you perchance have something to hide? Are you the only one
that understands? I didn't know you had a monopoly on Chen Taijiquan.
Might I remind you that I also know Chen Taijiquan? You who cannot
read Chinese, cannot understand what the masters say, claim to know
exactly what they mean? Even by merely showing what they have written
places you at variance with their words and understanding.
I don't recall ever saying that I didn't understand, only that you
probably didn't.:-) You memory is slipping again, better get those
memory booster tablets soon
.
>First, you tried to say that the use of the words "peng jing" was totally
>wrong. Then, when you're faced with the rather embarrassing quotations
>using "peng jing", you seem to forget your earlier statements. If you
>can't be intellectually honest, let's forget it.
Nope I didn't, the usage of peng jing according to your definition is
wrong. The term itself is a legitimate one but you have ascribed to it
a meaning not in the original Chinese and have used that false meaning
to interpret texts. This is changing the art. That has been my stand
from the very beginning. You are the one who should examine your
intellectual honesty, in the light of all the evidence that shows that
you have given a wrong meaning to the term. I have not forgotten my
earlier statements, and if you'd bothered to read them properly
instead of just trying to discredit me, then you might have picked up
on what I was trying to say. I'll repeat it again, your definition of
Peng Jing is wrong, the internal strength described by the early Chen
masters is Chan Si jing and not peng jing. The Ba Men Jing were not a
part of Chen Taijiquan until the 1963 redaction by Gu Liu Xin and Shen
Jia Ren, both of whom learnt the Ba Men Jing because they also
practiced Yang Taijiquan.
>If you want to protest your honesty, sometime, I'll be glad to trot out
>posts from other times, claims of credentials, etc.
Please do, idle threats don't worry me. I'm very willing to let
anybody check with the local masters here and am willing to provide
the contacts so that they can be verified. You are always free to do
so, your refusal is indicative. Besides, dear boy, what does my
credibillity got to do with what the early Chen masters wrote and what
other reputable masters wrote? Your logic needs work, Mike,
discrediting me won't make what they wrote go away. You need to
discredit them.
Still the same old tactic Mike? Boring isn't it. You don't bother to
support your claims, you don't provide references, only snide remarks,
you have to rely on discrediting the person rather than the material.
You claim that we have covered Peng Jing but how can we if you keep
changing the subject to avoid it. You say I don't understand when I
can prove with references that it is you who do not understand and who
has taken statements out of context to support your views when it is
obvious in the text that it is not what it means. The thread still
exists on the Usenet Mike, people can read for themselves and see for
themselves your attempts to change the subject to hide the fact that
you cannot produce references to support your definition of Peng Jing
and your view on Internal Strength. As you can see, I'm just trying
to carry on a decent thread on Peng Jing but you seem to be going
round in circles by trying to discredit me and changing the subject. I
have the centre ground, not changing and always pulling you back to
it, you are revolving around my points trying to avoid it and hoping
to break away from it by changing the subject. Zhong Ding is an
important principle in Taijiquan.
Best,
Peter
Chin Coon, Jeremy
Hello to all,
My name is Jeremy and I am from Singapore. I come from the Dong
lineage and happen to have met Mr. Peter Lim Tian Tek. I have seen him
push hands with the seniors in the art and do his form and I want to
say that he has quite a high level of accomplishment.
He is known to some of the masters here and is considered by them as
one of the next generation masters. I am posting this on the internet
because of the trouble caused by someone in Singapore who seems to
have a grudge against Mr Lim or who seems to be jealous of Mr Lim. I
want to correct that wrong view.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Chin
ei...@singnet.com.sg
Mike Sigman
Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: 'Should we look, then to the Chen Villiage as the source of 'avoiding
: double weightedness'? Chen documents from the late Ching are sparse
: and inconclusive, but judging from the photographs of Chen Fake from
: the 1930s and 40s and contemporary practitioners of Chen style, we may
: say it is unlikely that this teaching had its origin in the Chen
: villiage'
:^)))))) You really don't even know enough to know when you blow your
own cover, do you?? That statement will get a lot of people laughing,
and you don't even understand why. Let's just drop it, Peter. You
can't mask every lapse by writing pages and pages of BS.
Incidentally, some of us had a small bet about exactly how many pages of
long-winded coverup that you'd write. We all underestimated.
Now the bet is for how many pages in response to Allen Chen telling you
the blunt truth. My bet is at 4 pages.
Mike Sigman
--
Mike Sigman
Chin Coon, Jeremy (ei...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: My name is Jeremy and I am from Singapore. I come from the Dong
: lineage and happen to have met Mr. Peter Lim Tian Tek. I have seen him
: push hands with the seniors in the art and do his form and I want to
: say that he has quite a high level of accomplishment.
: He is known to some of the masters here and is considered by them as
: one of the next generation masters.
Hello Jeremy:
May I ask.... are you posting this on behalf of "some of the masters" and
you are telling us what they think, or are you writing this as a friend
of Peter's? Perhaps if we could get one of the "masters" to post what
they think, it would be more direct.
How many "masters" are there on Singapore, anyway? Unfortunately, I'm
not too familiar with world recognized "masters" on Singapore.
Regards,
Mike Sigman
--
Peter Lim
al...@starfire.utias.utoronto.ca () wrote:
>> In article <52698g$m...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>,
>Peter, I don't know where you were educated and where you learned your
>"research" skills, but you need to separate between "interpretation/
>opinion" and "ascertion/proof". If you can't be sure of the exact truth
>then you should not use such language as "therefore we can ascertain
>that.." or "because I think this is what happened, therefore it is proved
>that...". There is full of this type of language throughout your
>so-called "latest research". I have no problem with you holding your
>opinion on the origion of taijiquan, because you are only voicing an old
>opinion that's been around for a while (i.e. not original research in any
>way), and there are really no concrete evidence to prove either way. I
>do, however, have a problem with your method of conducting your "research"
>(i.e. leaving out the information that does not go well with your theory)
>and your method of presenting your interpretation and opinion as proof and
>truth. Dispite your claim of attempting to be objective, the language
>you've chosen to use betrayed a very obvious bias.
Hi Allen,
Long time no talk. Its a nice change to have you to talk with. Taking
over from Mike I see. You should know that you are also going round in
circles since some of the points you bring up have already been
addressed. But since you have joined this thread late, I'll answer
them again anyway.
Actually I've never said that it was new, only that it came from the
research newly published in mainland China. As for
interpretation/opinion, that is also what is used by Tang Hao and Gu
Liu Xin and yet you don't knock them because they agree with your
views (actually Tang created them). The evidence provided by the Chen
family does lend itself pretty conclusively to external transmission.
>I remember in your early days in the Neijia list you tried to come across
>as an "authority from the orient" by posting a long treatise on combat
>using taijiquan principles "based on your personal experiences and
>insight". What you've posted ended up being a cut-and-paste of various
>phrases from various Chinese books that some of us have read long ago
>(most of the stuff was even word-for-word translation). I guess you
>didn't realize that there were other Chinese-reading persons on the list
>that were equally well-read in the taijiquan literature.
If you're referring to my potshot series, they are based on my own
experiences and research. Did you expect anything new fangled?
Wouldn't that change the art. The one gripe you had at the time was
about Hua Na Da Fa, which you'll have a hard time showing it was from
books since traditionally and in the books only Hua Na Fa are listed.
You'll also find it hard to show that I have 'cut and paste' (what an
awful method to do things, if you'd read my potshots properly, you'd
note that personal explanations were provided and not taken from
books, books cannot convey the sense behind the movement. If I have
somehow used terminology from books, its because it represents the
point better. For a person who claims to be well read in Taijquan
literature, I'm surprised that you did not notice that. Also very
surprised that you seem to be ignorant about all the wrong definitions
provided by Mike.
Since you are so well read, how can you not know that Chen Xin, Chen
Ji Pu and Chen Zhi Ming all regarded Chan Si Jing and not Peng Jing as
the internal strength in Chen Taijiquan? How can you not know that the
Ba Men Jing did not become associated with Chan Si Jing until 1963?
>Another incident that I remembered during that period was your attempt of
>trying to pass a piece of your "interpretation" on the life of Wu YuXiang
>as a "historical account". It was amazing how you were able to
>"ascertain" the feeling and thoughts and ambition of Wu YuXiang from such
>a small number of written material by him. After I pointed out to you
>that you are probably a better novelist than you are a historian, you
>immediatedly changed tune and claim that you *were* trying to write a
>novel.
Your memory is slipping as well, does practicing Peng Jing according
to Mike's definition do that to people? It also seems to make them
very aggressive and hostile doesn't it. Ok, just to refresh your
memory. I put up a rather long post which gave a theory (certainly not
the only possible one) which seemed to fit into the available
historical evidence. It was certainly never pofferred as fact.
Somebody mentioned that it would make a good storyline for a novel and
I agreed saying that I might consider writing such a historical novel.
It in no way is related to my serious historical studies which are
presented in my historical series. Twisting the story to try to
discredit me doesn't do much good Allen, people like Lee and the
others were around at that time and I'm sure they can help you get the
story straight.
If you have the following symptoms in addition to increasingly bad
temper and intolerance, please go to a qualified qigong healer for
treatment as it would then indicate that you have a deviation in
training usually refered to as 'mislead the fire and enter the devil'
which can result in serious consequences: having lots of dreams,
inability to concentrate, numbness, headaches, back pain, nocturnal
emissions, etc.
>After you got the boot from the Neijia list after the Jane "kong-jing" H.
>incident you tried the same thing on the kungfu list. It was indeed very
>amusing when the word got out from local Singapore people that you are
>bascially a TKD teacher that follows Cheng Man-Ching style taijiquan.
>Since most of us do not have any intention of employing you in any way it
>was never a necessity to ask for any written reference which you so
>generously offered again and again. If you feel necessary why don't you
>post the address and phone number of the various head of styles you
>claimed to have association with so those who are interested can just call
>them up and check.
I didn't try anything similar on the Kungfu list, Mike pounced on me
first there. Go ask Sal, the resident historian on the Kungfu list. It
is very amusing that you would believe someone who obviously has a
grudge against me. I think somebody just posted from Singapore with
contrary views, I don't know him personally but I wish to extend my
thanks for the support he has provided. I find it amusing that you are
gullible enough to believe everthing you hear that suits your views
without first finding out if they are true in the first place. I've
never made it a secret that I know TKD and that I know the 37 posture
form. I've also made it abundently clear that my main form is the old
Yang form. And for your information, Mike was the one who want to
verify my credentials so I'm just responding to him. He seems to think
it is necessary in order to discredit the information of your friend
on the Neijia list WuY. I'm just helping him to believe the correct
thing. Though I don't feel it is necessary to put up the names and
addresses but since you have asked and seem to think that I am not
able to put them up then here is one for you to contact:
Master Loh Chong Chai
Blk 231, Bain Street, #02-03
Bras Basah Complex
Singapore 0718
Tel: 65 3371760
Fax: 65 338 3359
Master Loh is a disciple of Dong Ying Kit and a fellow disciple of the
head of the Dong lineage in Singapore, Master Yap Boh Lim. Over 70
years old, he is well regarded by all the leaders of the Chinese
Martial Arts here in Singapore. You can call him during office hours.
He was nice enough to have no qualms to vouch for my competance by
accepting calls and correspondance and I'd like to publicly thank him
for his support. BTW he speaks English also, so no problem with those
of you who do not speak Chinese.
Now Allen, what are your credentials? Since the sword cuts both ways,
lets see some of yours :-) How do we know you are well read in Chinese
Taiji literature, how do we know you even have the skill level to
comment on it?
I'm quite happily employed at the moment and have never considered
martial arts as a career option actually. I would appreciate your
insights on how else to show that the information from Wu Y. in
Singapore is wrong. Now that you have conflicting information from
Singapore, how would you reconcile it?
>Whatever happened to the claim that you've also learned the "original"
>combat-oriented Bajiquan from the Wu family?
You really need to work on that memory Allen. Fortunately James Guo
was involved in that particular discussion and you can go ask him to
refresh your memory. I learnt a small Baji set from my colleague form
China, I taught him Taiji Long Boxing as part of an exchange of
skills. I certainly did not say it came from the Wu family, actually
he didn't mention where it came from (mental note: gotta ask him the
next time I see him). I certainly also never said it was 'original'.
And as for combat oriented, Baji quan is famous for being so.
>Since when are you and Wile on a first-name basis? Are you trying to
>leave the impression that you are in the "in-circle" like you were trying
>to do with various taichi masters? (Yeah, since when are you and Chen
>XiaoWang on a first name basis? You've referred to him as "XiaoWang"
>many times. Since I've never met Chen XiaoWang I can only assume base on
>Chinese custom and the tone of your language that you and Chen were
>old-time buddies.) You see how the simple use of certain language can
Doug helped me with my first article in the JAMA and has my gratitude
for that. As for Chen Xiao Wang, his friends just call him that. I
guess I was just unconciously echoing what they use. He was in
Singapore and migrated from here to Australia. I certainly did not
paint him in a bad light, are you trying to say that I'm
misrepresenting him by saying that he is a really nice guy?
>leave certain impression on people who don't know better? If you are
>truly trying to present yourself as a serious impartial researcher please
>be more rigorous in your writing and claims in the future.
And you when acting as a critic should be more careful in your bias, I
don't see you going after Mike when he uses Chen Xiao Wang to beat
others on the head. My writing stands on its own merit and the
references underlying them speak for themselves and have been verified
by those who do read Chinese like Ted Knight.
>>Others are not blind Mike and I will not be distracted. Have fun :-)
>Indeed. Not all of us are blind.
Certainly not, that is what I'm counting on. I noticed that you didn't
even try to speak on Peng Jing. Only that you want to discredit me.
Doesn't do anything to the evidence I've presented here Allen. Though
I would say that you are a little blind since you fail to see the
topic of this thread, also failed to notice that you are going around
in circles since you repeat pretty much like a parrot what Mike has
already brought up. But its good to let Mike have a rest and you do
try to be more creative in your approach than he is. Still you need to
provide references for your claims or they have only have the
substance of morning dew which evaporates in the light of the newborn
day.(hey that ain't bad is it? gee, I guess there is a poet inside
:-))
Best,
Peter
al...@starfire.utias.utoronto.ca
I don't have the time nor the interest to further Peter Lim's ego-boosting
chest-beating fiasco by continuing the argument, thus this will be my last
post on this thread. I know Peter will not pass up any chance to build
his ego and will surely respond with an even longer post (last one was
over 12 KBytes, go figure)...but I really don't care. Sorry about the
length though.
In article <52c3eh$8...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>,
Peter Lim <lim...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>
>Taking over from Mike I see. You should know that you are also going
Please. I don't represent Mike Sigman nor anybody. My views do not
*completely* coincide with Mike's even though I highly respect his skills. I
speak for myself and have no need to claim friendship with other people to
further my ego.
>round in circles since some of the points you bring up have already been
>addressed. But since you have joined this thread late, I'll answer
>them again anyway.
Indeed...you really still don't get it and that's why it's going around in
circles. You are like someone who can't distinguish between "their" and
"there", or "your" and "you're". I will not insult your mental capacity
nor physical health like you do whenever people disagree with you, but I
do wish you would read my post carefully. I said I *don't* have a problem
with your theory. You have your theory and I have mine. The difference
is that I recognize mine as such. I only have a problem with your claim
of "truth and proof" when it's nothing more than an opinion. Even Gu used
phrases like "it is more possible that such and such happened because of
the evidence xxx"..instead of your "this is probably what happened,
therefore it can be conclusively shown that..." You need to beat this
into your skull if you ever want to be a serious researcher.
>If you're referring to my potshot series, they are based on my own
>experiences and research. Did you expect anything new fangled?
>Wouldn't that change the art. The one gripe you had at the time was
>about Hua Na Da Fa, which you'll have a hard time showing it was from
>books since traditionally and in the books only Hua Na Fa are listed.
>....
>somehow used terminology from books, its because it represents the
>point better.
That was only *one* of the problems...*all* of your stuff is like that.
First you try to pass it off as your own, then when people make challenges
you start making up excuses and changing tunes. BTW you need to read more
books if you have never read about hua-na-da-fa.
>Since you are so well read, how can you not know that Chen Xin, Chen
>Ji Pu and Chen Zhi Ming all regarded Chan Si Jing and not Peng Jing as
>the internal strength in Chen Taijiquan? How can you not know that the
>Ba Men Jing did not become associated with Chan Si Jing until 1963?
My stand on this issue is pretty clear in the FAQ. In case you didn't
realize, I was the one who pointed out that such reference to Peng didn't
make public before Shen and Gu (who's book was edited by Chen Zhou Kui, so
they didn't just make things up). I was also the one who pointed out that
Chen FaKe was the one who reconciled peng jing and chan si jing, and that
he differentiated peng jing the taijiquan neijing and peng technique in
the Ba Men techniques. There are people who are still alive that
remembers Chen FaKe's and Chen ZhouKui's skills, so I'd tend to believe
more what they've said rather than from old records...but I don't try to
pass myself as an "authority" so I don't favour either way, merely
presenting the facts.
>Your memory is slipping as well, does practicing Peng Jing according
>to Mike's definition do that to people? It also seems to make them
>very aggressive and hostile doesn't it. Ok, just to refresh your
>
>...<blah blah blah>
>
>If you have the following symptoms in addition to increasingly bad
>temper and intolerance, please go to a qualified qigong healer for
>treatment as it would then indicate that you have a deviation in
>training usually refered to as 'mislead the fire and enter the devil'
>which can result in serious consequences: having lots of dreams,
>inability to concentrate, numbness, headaches, back pain, nocturnal
>emissions, etc.
Please. Stop insulting people's intelligence, mental and physical
health just because people don't agree with you. You don't even know
what I practice. It's not hard to see who's aggressive and hostile here.
>I didn't try anything similar on the Kungfu list, Mike pounced on me
>first there. Go ask Sal, the resident historian on the Kungfu list. It
>is very amusing that you would believe someone who obviously has a
>grudge against me.
Everybody who doesn't agree with your ideas and ego-boosting have an
"obvious" grudge against you? I think you are flattering yourself. You
are really not that important.
>I think somebody just posted from Singapore with
>contrary views, I don't know him personally but I wish to extend my
>thanks for the support he has provided. I find it amusing that you are
>
>...<more blah blah blah>
>
>for his support. BTW he speaks English also, so no problem with those
>of you who do not speak Chinese.
Please, Peter. Spare us of the "oh-I-am-so-misunderstood-and-oh-thank-
you-for-all-your-support" ploy. You tried that once on Neijia list by
threatening to leave so you can fish out people's gratitude and support,
remember? I really don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys if you have
connections with the Overlord of the Galatic Empire. Anyone interested
can call up your teacher, the Dong family, or Chen XiaoWang to verify your
claims. As I have said before very clearly, I am simply not interested.
>Now Allen, what are your credentials? Since the sword cuts both ways,
>lets see some of yours :-) How do we know you are well read in Chinese
>Taiji literature, how do we know you even have the skill level to
>comment on it?
Wait a minute, I am not the one who is making all these public claims.
I've never offered myself as an "authority" nor do I claim friendship,
discipleship, and connection with various taiji masters. Well, you got
me, Peter. I confess I don't have credentials anywhere near yours. Maybe
in 30 years I'll have half of the credentials you claimed without shame.
>Singapore is wrong. Now that you have conflicting information from
>Singapore, how would you reconcile it?
As I said, I really don't care. I said I was simply amused.
>You really need to work on that memory Allen. Fortunately James Guo
>was involved in that particular discussion and you can go ask him to
I was simply asking you a question of a rumour I heard from several
places, as I was not on the kungfu list at the time. Now that you have
set that straight (as you have set "straight" so many people's failing
memory) I guess my question is answered. From what I've heard though, you
tried to present yourself as an authority in bajiquan as well. Why did
you never reply to Mr. Guo's private email inquiry about your claims?
>Doug helped me with my first article in the JAMA and has my gratitude
>for that.
Okay that answered my question of "since when", if you are indeed implying
you know him personally.
>As for Chen Xiao Wang, his friends just call him that. I
>guess I was just unconciously echoing what they use. He was in
>Singapore and migrated from here to Australia. I certainly did not
>paint him in a bad light, are you trying to say that I'm
>misrepresenting him by saying that he is a really nice guy?
I was simply questioning your attempt to give an impression that you and
Chen XiaoWang are "friends". Please, what does this have *anything* to do
with "painting Chen XiaoWang in a bad light??"
>And you when acting as a critic should be more careful in your bias, I
>don't see you going after Mike when he uses Chen Xiao Wang to beat
>others on the head.
Mike Sigman is not the one who go around referring to Mr. Chen by his
first name trying to leave an impression that he and Chen are good
buddies, even though he knows Mr. Chen personally. Don't confuse the
issue and don't drag in other people next time you are doing this
ego-puffing.
Have your fun with Mike Sigman, I'm off.
Allen "say no more" Chen
Quark
msi...@netcom.com Mike Sigman says...
Really. This is getting interesting. From the rambling way Peter tries to
describe simple concepts, I would guess myself he doens't understand some of
the basic skills very well. And Jeremy could be his next-door neighber, who
owes Peter about 100 dollars, for all we know.
Let's get a master on here. I always wanted to hear from a Singapore
master, and by golly we'd like to get our chance.
Q.
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
>:^)))))) You really don't even know enough to know when you blow your
>own cover, do you?? That statement will get a lot of people laughing,
>and you don't even understand why. Let's just drop it, Peter. You
>can't mask every lapse by writing pages and pages of BS.
You'd have to prove its BS in the first place Mike. :-)))))))))
And BTW, it was a quote from Doug's book.:-))))) Which you seem to
like and approve of.
Your reading skills are really deteriorating, much worse than our last
encounter. Are you feeling ok? If it is causing you health problems,
you might want to take a break from this. I'll wait.
>Incidentally, some of us had a small bet about exactly how many pages of
>long-winded coverup that you'd write. We all underestimated.
Considering that the new book I'm planning is about 200 pages, you'd
need to expand that to cover it. I'm glad that you're enjoying
yourselves at least.
>Now the bet is for how many pages in response to Allen Chen telling you
>the blunt truth. My bet is at 4 pages.
Oh its blunt alright, but it aint the truth :-))) Allen is a welcome
change and I enjoy his presence, it was getting boring with you trying
the same tactics all the time and BTW, you're still avoiding the topic
of Peng Jing. You still haven't told us which oral tradition you
subscribe to and still haven't provided material to support your wrong
definition of Peng Jing, it isn't the same as the one the Chinese
masters mean when the speak of Peng Jing. Also to show how you are
more correct than the old Chen masters, they view that Chan Si Jing is
the Internal Strength in Chen Taijiquan and not Peng Jing like you do.
4 pages is a little bit too little I think. Not wanting you to loose
your bet, recall our exchange about Taoist influence on Ba Gua Zhang,
it took more than 20 pages printed out letter size. Allen is a least
as resolute as you are and does try to be creative, I'd put it at
higher than that. Its nice to talk to you about other things like this
but I do hope you'll remember to stick to the topic in the next post,
at least in part.
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
Dear Mike,
I want to clarify something. When I asked if you were ok, no sarcasm
is meant. I'm genuinely concerned. No matter what our differences,
your well being is important to me. The Chinese have a saying 'swords
and spears have no eyes, fist and foot have no feelings <implied no
mercy>', much of this applies also to martial discourse. Please do
take care.
Best,
Peter
ps I had said that Allen had repeated points like a parrot, no
disrespect to parrots was meant (sorry Jing).
Peter Lim
Qu...@Nice.Guy.Pushed.Too.Far (Quark) wrote:
>Really. This is getting interesting. From the rambling way Peter tries to
>describe simple concepts, I would guess myself he doens't understand some of
>the basic skills very well. And Jeremy could be his next-door neighber, who
>owes Peter about 100 dollars, for all we know.
>Let's get a master on here. I always wanted to hear from a Singapore
>master, and by golly we'd like to get our chance.
>Q.
Actually, we can see that you are a follower of Mike, maybe even him
under an assumed ID since you refuse to use your own name. (If its you
Mike, hi again, do you have multiple personality disorder?)
Obviously you have not read my work, you'll find some of them on Alex
Franz's fine Taijiquan pages. I would posit that you don't understand
some of the basic skills since you don't even bother to write about
them and seem to agree with Mike's wrong definitions and wrong
understanding of Internal Strength in Chen Taijiquan. If you want the
original Chinese pages from Chen Xin's manual, etc, just let me know,
I'll send you a copy, you can get them translated. Nothing to hide
here, it just shows that Mike is wrong thats all. And if he gets even
these basic things wrong then how can he teach the advanced things.
As for Jeremy, he isn't my neighbour and his help was not solicited at
all, it came as pleasent surprise to me as well. I don't recall
meeting him unfortunately but then it could have just been that we did
not have a long meeting, there are several people present usually when
the group gets together, some observers who are not part of the group
are sometimes present, he could be just one of them.
It is unfortunate that instead of addressing the topic of the thread,
you find it necessary to cast doubt on any evidence contrary to your
views. Please call Master Loh and read my post to Mike on this thread.
You all seem to require verifable proof, I provided it. Also you all
seem to have a logic disorder since by trying to discredit me you show
that you have no material to back your views and that you fail to
understand that the material stands on its own, its what the early
Chen masters wrote. If you want to prove your views correct, you have
to discredit them, not me.
By the same token, our friend Y.Wu who has been supplying information
to Mike and you (it seems) could be Mike's old friend who asked by him
to post (except that I know this is not the case, he is either just
jealous <not uncommon> or has an ax to grind <which I don't understand
why>). Why don't you question his credentials and bias? Its because he
agrees with you right? So that makes you biased against me :-))))
Anyway with a training regime as unbalanced as yours, one cannot
expect you to think logically. Go eat and get some sleep, you'll think
better in the morning.
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>Hello Jeremy:
>May I ask.... are you posting this on behalf of "some of the masters" and
>you are telling us what they think, or are you writing this as a friend
>of Peter's? Perhaps if we could get one of the "masters" to post what
>they think, it would be more direct.
Mike, I've given you Master Loh's contact, why pick on Jeremy?
Verification is just a call away. If you want to check on Master Loh,
you can call Master Yap Boh Lim, the head of the Tung lineage here,
he's on Alex Dong's historical tape so he's acknowledged by them as a
master.
>How many "masters" are there on Singapore, anyway? Unfortunately, I'm
>not too familiar with world recognized "masters" on Singapore.
Not many, not nearly as many as you seem to need. Singapore is a small
island with a popluation of only 3 million, there are several masters
here that acknowledged world wide but you don't move around in Asian
martial arts circles but rather in those that are touring globally or
have established global schools. You are certainly not a recognised
'master' in any sense and you are unknown in Singapore, that certainly
doesn't make you world recognised but I believe in a local context,
you might be recognised by some.
If you want a list of the masters in Singapore recognised in at least
some countries in the world you can look up the San Cheen Do 22nd
Anniversary Celebration Souvenir Magazine, Master Loh is listed
inside. Those who wish to have the pages from there can let me know
and I'll fax/send them a copy. There are 25 masters listed as being
friends of the association. There are of course, more than that here,
considering that there is a recognised Shaolin Temple in Singapore
(listed in the Shaolin Encyclopedia put out by the Shaolin Temple).
Are you saying that only those who are highly marketed internationally
are recognised masters? Good marketing does not a good master make.
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
Clarification:
The term 'you all' used in my previous post refers to Mike and his
cohorts. It does not mean anybody else and should be viewed in the
context of a personal conversation with our friend Quark.
Best,
Peter
Peter Capell
While the combattants here may in fact have a lot of "head knowledge," they
most certainly also remind me of the dictum: Those who know don't speak, those
who speak don't know.
Why don't we just be quiet and learn?
David Williams
Well put Peter, as usual.
Onto learning....
Anyone have any critiques about the book:
T'ai Chi Classics
By Waysun Liao
Shambhala Publications
copyright 1977, 1990
ISBN 0-87773-531-X
The author studied T'ai Chi in central Taiwan before coming to the USA,
where he has taught the art for 20 years.
It has commentary, illustrations and instructions by the author plus his
translations of some Treatise on Taiji by:
Chang San-feng (ca. 1200 C.E.)
Wong Chung-yua (ca. 1600 C.E.)
Wu Yu-hsiang (1812-80)
The book refers to the translations as being the three core classics of
T'ai Chi, often considered the "T'ai Chi Bible".
Course no mention of Chan Si Jing or Peng Jing either as far as I can
tell. :(
It does refer to forms of Jing.
So, this guy any good? The book any good?
--
David Williams
http://www.wingchun.com/
Quark
lim...@singnet.com.sg Peter Lim says...
>Actually, we can see that you are a follower of Mike, maybe even him
>under an assumed ID since you refuse to use your own name. (If its you
>Mike, hi again, do you have multiple personality disorder?)
Got me, Pete, it's a tough question.
I'm kinda hoping YOU get an assumed name, it gets old seeing your sig
plastered over tons of posts trying to answer all your critics.
Why don't you just post something valuable? Then, you'd have no critics,
you wouldn't have to bore the rest of us with lengthy rebuttals, and the
world would just be a wonderful place.
>Obviously you have not read my work, you'll find some of them on Alex
>Franz's fine Taijiquan pages.
Nice fiction- when is the novel coming out?
>...If you want the
>original Chinese pages from Chen Xin's manual, etc, just let me know,
>I'll send you a copy, you can get them translated. Nothing to hide
>here, it just shows that Mike is wrong thats all. And if he gets even
>these basic things wrong then how can he teach the advanced things.
Pete, if you send everybody you've promised a copy of something, you'd be
at a copy machine till next month. Hmmm...not a bad idea...
Forget Chen Xin's manual- since you're on a first-name basis with guys like
"Xiao Wang", why don't you ask him to send me a few pages?
Here I am, waiting eagerly...
>As for Jeremy, he isn't my neighbour and his help was not solicited at
>all, it came as pleasent surprise to me as well. I don't recall
>meeting him unfortunately but then it could have just been that we did
>not have a long meeting, there are several people present usually when
>the group gets together, some observers who are not part of the group
>are sometimes present, he could be just one of them.
I understand. Those taekwondo groups really attract the 10 year olds, don't
they? Did you give them your training schedule? Maybe Jeremy thinks you're
a comedian and wants some good jokes.
>Anyway with a training regime as unbalanced as yours, one cannot
>expect you to think logically. Go eat and get some sleep, you'll think
>better in the morning.
Yeah? But the thing is, Pete, I copied my training schedule after yours.
Q. "not that it's humerous or anything"
Peter Lim
Hi David,
Peter's right, some just can't leave a simple note alone. But if Mike
wants to play, its only polite to give him a reply. Head knowledge
does help a little in training but it does not substitute actual
training and whilst it can give a theoretical base to combat
principles, it in no way gives you the ability to express them. The
best way to verify that you can actually apply them in a free fight
situation is by doing so in free fight situation.
I haven't had the time to look into his translation yet, I have been
using Ben Lo's one and it is pretty good.
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
p...@sei.cmu.edu (Peter Capell) wrote:
>While the combattants here may in fact have a lot of "head knowledge," they
>most certainly also remind me of the dictum: Those who know don't speak, those
>who speak don't know.
If those who know do not speak or in this case, write, then how can
the knowledge be passed on?
>Why don't we just be quiet and learn?
One needs to also listen and study to learn. Quietness is certainly a
condusive environmental factor but clarification through discourse
does require at least a minimal of 'noise' to convey information. The
points that have been put forth are clear enough, if there is no
response to them then there is no need for further 'noise'.
Best,
Peter
Mike Sigman
Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: does require at least a minimal of 'noise' to convey information. The
: points that have been put forth are clear enough, if there is no
: response to them then there is no need for further 'noise'.
Actually, Peter, it's more that you have talked enough so that interested
readers now understand you for what you are. And you need to get over
your misperception that if you spew enough words you have made a valid
point.
Other than your words, and your pal Jeremy (who seems to have
disappeared) we have no one supporting your view that you are an "expert".
And we're still at a stalemate in which you first claimed that I was
misusing the term "Peng Jing" and then it changed a bit when I posted all
the masters who also used the term "Peng Jing"..... now we're left with
you (the boastful TKD, Wing Chun, translator, scholar, house-cleaning
equipment, Baji, blah, blah, blah) saying that I now don't understand how
they mean it.
Little has changed except that you have a few more ignorant neophytes on
your side and a lot more educated people who see you for what you are.
Let me leave you with a quote, since you seem to like quotes so much:
"It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your
mouth and remove all doubt."
Enough of this thread.
Mike Sigman
--
Flrtr
In article <52ovu0$n...@news.sei.cmu.edu>, p...@sei.cmu.edu (Peter Capell)
writes:
>While the combattants here may in fact have a lot of "head knowledge,"
they
>most certainly also remind me of the dictum: Those who know don't speak,
>those
>who speak don't know.
>
>Why don't we just be quiet and learn?
YEAHHHHHHH!!!! What he said!!!!!8^)
John Vernacchio
Fl...@aol.com
The sound of your voice is like one hand clapping in the wind...
Mike Sigman
: Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: : does require at least a minimal of 'noise' to convey information. The
: : points that have been put forth are clear enough, if there is no
: : response to them then there is no need for further 'noise'.
Also, you seem to have missed this on another thread:
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
From: al...@starfire.utias.utoronto.ca ()
Subject: Re: Peng Jing..and Peter Lim's Chest-Beating
Date: 26 Sep 96 18:54:36 GMT
--
Stephen J. Goodson
Mr. Lim,
Thinking that the research approach of Max Freedom Long, researching the
Hawaiian mystics through their language, was exciting. I offer the
technique to you in case you do not know about it𡃇 find it most helpful
in the Chinese language studies. Long figured that the people built
their words out of other words and so he went about breaking down the
language into its root words. I tried to apply Long零 technique to those
hard to understand/undefinable Chinese words. A simple technique.
May I suggest you try it on the word Jing. I found it very...self
explanatory! Please let me know if you found this helpful. Thank you.
Cordially,
Stephen J. Goodson
Joseph Brown
In article <3250B2...@best.com> d...@wingchun.com writes:
>Peter Capell wrote:
>>
>> While the combattants here may in fact have a lot of "head knowledge," they
>> most certainly also remind me of the dictum: Those who know don't speak, those
>> who speak don't know.
>>
>> Why don't we just be quiet and learn?
>
>
>Anyone have any critiques about the book:
>
>T'ai Chi Classics
>By Waysun Liao
>Shambhala Publications
>copyright 1977, 1990
>ISBN 0-87773-531-X
>
>T'ai Chi, often considered the "T'ai Chi Bible".
>
>Course no mention of Chan Si Jing or Peng Jing either as far as I can
>tell. :(
>
>It does refer to forms of Jing.
>
>So, this guy any good? The book any good?
David,
You really stepped into it this time. Waysun Liao claims his style is
Temple style taijiquan, which he says is the oldest and most authentic.
But his form looks exactly like Cheng ManChing's derivation of Yang
style, which is derived from Chen style. And Chen style is the oldest
known taijiquan style in existence.
So how can this 'temple style' be the oldest when it looks like Cheng's
style and not Chen?
OK, so now that you know that, what do you make of the rest of Liao's
claims?
Joseph
P.S. The stuff about Liao's book not mentioning peng is getting old,
particularly when people like Ma Yueu liang, Chen Xiao Wang, and others
emphasize it. Are we going to believe Liao, who moved to the U.S. to
teach a false history of taijiquan, Peter Lim, who seems to be a legend
in his own mind, or are we to believe people who can walk the talk?
David Williams
Hello Joseph,
Long time no see/hear (since the Sigman seminar 2 years ago).
Joseph Brown (br...@psych.Stanford.EDU) wrote:
: In article <3250B2...@best.com> d...@wingchun.com writes:
: >Anyone have any critiques about the book:
: >
: >T'ai Chi Classics
: >By Waysun Liao
: >Shambhala Publications
: >copyright 1977, 1990
: >ISBN 0-87773-531-X
: >
: >The book refers to the translations as being the three core classics of
: >T'ai Chi, often considered the "T'ai Chi Bible".
: >
: >Course no mention of Chan Si Jing or Peng Jing either as far as I can
: >tell. :(
: >
: >It does refer to forms of Jing.
: >
: >So, this guy any good? The book any good?
: David,
: You really stepped into it this time. Waysun Liao claims his style is
: Temple style taijiquan, which he says is the oldest and most authentic.
Interesting. How does he back that claim up in terms of lineage?
: But his form looks exactly like Cheng ManChing's derivation of Yang
: style, which is derived from Chen style. And Chen style is the oldest
: known taijiquan style in existence.
: So how can this 'temple style' be the oldest when it looks like Cheng's
: style and not Chen?
: OK, so now that you know that, what do you make of the rest of Liao's
: claims?
Heh. Well I'm not looking at this from the standpoint of looking at
Peng etc. more if his credentials were in order and if the treatises he
translates were considered the "Bible" and core principles. Guess he goes
in the "suspect" bin eh? Well its only $15.
I'm reading for the sake of comparative study and general learning.
I'm a Wing Chun guy checking out a different road up the mountain.
I've met Mike, Chen Qing Zhou and Master Cai from Shanghai.
I missed out on Chen Xiao Wang when he was here most recently.
: P.S. The stuff about Liao's book not mentioning peng is getting old,
: particularly when people like Ma Yueu liang, Chen Xiao Wang, and others
: emphasize it. Are we going to believe Liao, who moved to the U.S. to
: teach a false history of taijiquan, Peter Lim, who seems to be a legend
: in his own mind, or are we to believe people who can walk the talk?
Well I certainly would defer to Chen Xiao Wang and Feng. I've just viewed
a tape of one of Master Chen's 10 year students here in the US on push hands.
His name escapes me at the moment(Ren ?), very interesting to view.
regards,
David
Roger Krueger
wing...@nntp.best.com (David Williams) writes,
: >T'ai Chi Classics
: >By Waysun Liao
: >Course no mention of Chan Si Jing or Peng Jing either as far as I can
: >tell. :(
The illustration and text would lead one to think it's just meeting force
with force, though.
I don't know enough to comment on all those other gee-whiz first-time-
revealed jings.
Since the author refers to Chen Man Ching in several places, the telling
critiques of the book might be from declared CMC practitioners.
> I'm reading for the sake of comparative study and general learning.
> I'm a Wing Chun guy checking out a different road up the mountain.
be a better source. It shows diagrams of people performing three different
styles (Chen, Yang, and Wu/Hao) so you can compare the different forms
after some close examination of the postures. It also has the "eight
gates" or principal techniques, and a larger set of "classics"
translations.
ISBN 0-8048-1357-4 about $20.
br...@psych.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brown) comments,
> ... Waysun Liao claims his style is
> Temple style taijiquan, which he says is the oldest and most authentic.
I'm not trying to defend the book, but this remark confuses me. The book
mentions "temples" only in the historical section (Chang San Feng and all
that), and in the remainder refers to Chen Man Ching several times.
Roger Krueger, a most dubious source of guidance rkru...@delphi.com
Rick Shank
In article <JzFwV4u....@delphi.com>,
Roger Krueger <rkru...@delphi.com> wrote:
>
>wing...@nntp.best.com (David Williams) writes,
>
>: >T'ai Chi Classics
>: >By Waysun Liao
>...
>: >Course no mention of Chan Si Jing or Peng Jing either as far as I can
>: >tell. :(
>
>"Peng Jing" <==> "Ward-off Power Transfer," the first he describes.
>The illustration and text would lead one to think it's just meeting force
>with force, though.
This is the problem with understanding from a book. The FAQ specifically
stated that it was not meeting force with force. It is meeting the opponent
with a soft springy forward force which allows you to feel their every move
and intention. You in no way resist their force with equal force. You sense
their force with a soft springy 'warding off force'. You do not change the
direction of the opponent's energy and you do not try to stop your opponents
energy. You accept it and use it to your advantage. Tai Chi (according to
the FAQ) senses with a spiraling motion. Wing chun senses with a linear
motion. The masters in the FAQ claim the spiral motion allows greater
sensitivity than the linear motion. They did not claim that linear was NOT
Peng Jing to my recollection.
How's that Mike Sigman?
Rick
--
Disclaimer: Not only are these NOT necessarily the opinions of the great company
I work for - AMD, they may not even be the opinions of this author. If you are
smart, you will take this post as the scribblings of a madman and ignore it.
"I know NUSSING, absolutely nussing." Sgt. Schultz
Peter Lim
br...@psych.Stanford.EDU (Joseph Brown) wrote:
>David,
>You really stepped into it this time. Waysun Liao claims his style is
>Temple style taijiquan, which he says is the oldest and most authentic.
>But his form looks exactly like Cheng ManChing's derivation of Yang
>style, which is derived from Chen style. And Chen style is the oldest
>known taijiquan style in existence.
Actually, that's disputable since we don't have any records showing
that the current Chen form is the one taught to Yang Lu Chan. Our
earliest record of it is from Chen Xin's works. As Doug Wile notes,
some characteristics found in the Yang related styles like stressing
on not double weighting does not seem to come from the Chen villiage.
>So how can this 'temple style' be the oldest when it looks like Cheng's
>style and not Chen?
Haven't seen his 'temple style' but agree that if it looks like
Cheng's very closely, then it should not be the oldest since Cheng's
own form is derived from the standard Yang large frame. It does not
resemble the Old Yang form.
>P.S. The stuff about Liao's book not mentioning peng is getting old,
>particularly when people like Ma Yueu liang, Chen Xiao Wang, and others
Actually, the 40 works of the Yang handwritten manual doesn't mention
it, neither does Chen Xin, Chen Ji Pu and Chen Zhi Ming, which are the
3 earliest recorders of Chen style. Peng Jing is not mentioned by
them. Ma emphasised Peng the technique (one of the 13) as being
important, not Peng jing, his description of Peng is at variance with
Mike's description since Mike uses 'holding up' to test it and Mah
says that in Peng, one should never hold up. Chen Xiao Wang's books do
not emphasize it BTW.
>emphasize it. Are we going to believe Liao, who moved to the U.S. to
>teach a false history of taijiquan, Peter Lim, who seems to be a legend
>in his own mind, or are we to believe people who can walk the talk?
Actually, I'm just a lowly researcher in my own mind. Just letting the
Chinese master's works speak for themselves. Actually, this is about
scholastics and so the references I provide should stand on their own.
As for walking the talk, verification is provided for you to check.
Please feel free to do so. Or are you saying the 3 early Chen masters
who wrote about their material cannot walk the talk? Was wondering
when you'd jump in to help Mike. Welcome.
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
wing...@nntp.best.com (David Williams) wrote:
>Heh. Well I'm not looking at this from the standpoint of looking at
>Peng etc. more if his credentials were in order and if the treatises he
>translates were considered the "Bible" and core principles. Guess he goes
>in the "suspect" bin eh? Well its only $15.
Actually, the original Chinese Classics are considered the 'bible' of
Taijiquan, not specific translations.
>I'm reading for the sake of comparative study and general learning.
>I'm a Wing Chun guy checking out a different road up the mountain.
>I've met Mike, Chen Qing Zhou and Master Cai from Shanghai.
>I missed out on Chen Xiao Wang when he was here most recently.
He might visit again. Better luck next time.
>Well I certainly would defer to Chen Xiao Wang and Feng. I've just viewed
>a tape of one of Master Chen's 10 year students here in the US on push hands.
>His name escapes me at the moment(Ren ?), very interesting to view.
Feng Zhi Qiang is big on Chan Si Jing, like the 3 early Chen masters,
its the internal strength of Chen Taijiquan. Chen Xiao Wang does not
stress Peng in his books. A good book by him is "Shi Chuan Chen Shi
Taijiquan", published by the Ren Ming Ti Yu Chu Ban She, 1985,
ISBN7-5009-0191-7/G.178
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>Peter Lim (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
>Actually, Peter, it's more that you have talked enough so that interested
>readers now understand you for what you are. And you need to get over
>your misperception that if you spew enough words you have made a valid
>point.
And you the misperception that trying to discredit me will show the
information provided by the Chen masters is wrong.
>Other than your words, and your pal Jeremy (who seems to have
>disappeared) we have no one supporting your view that you are an "expert".
Actually I don't know who Jeremy is but you can certainly call Master
Loh, you seem to have forgotten about him. As for being an expert,
I've never claimed to be. Are you claiming to be one Mike?
>And we're still at a stalemate in which you first claimed that I was
>misusing the term "Peng Jing" and then it changed a bit when I posted all
>the masters who also used the term "Peng Jing"..... now we're left with
>you (the boastful TKD, Wing Chun, translator, scholar, house-cleaning
Actually, their definition of Peng jing is different from yours Mike.
I don't dispute that the term is a legitimate one, only that your
definition of it is wrong. Your memory seems to be slipping again. As
for boastful, have you taken a look at yourself in the mirror lately?
If insisting that what the early Chen masters wrote is correct then
let it be so. I think that it is an injustice to them to keep quiet
when their art is being changed by someone who can't even read Chinese
to see what they have written. Now that you mention it, the house is
messy, I should clean it more often. As for the rest, TKD I definitely
know, also Wing Chun but my main art is TCC. Don't you also do other
martial arts? You're not Chen style from the very beginning if I'm not
wrong.
>equipment, Baji, blah, blah, blah) saying that I now don't understand how
>they mean it.
You certainly don't mean what they mean if your definition is at
variance with theirs right? You even got Mah's wrong.
>Little has changed except that you have a few more ignorant neophytes on
>your side and a lot more educated people who see you for what you are.
Educated people would go for references to support views, proper
definition of terms in line with the material. :-))) The above should
be more in line with your situation.:-)
>Let me leave you with a quote, since you seem to like quotes so much:
>"It's better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open your
>mouth and remove all doubt."
From your personal experience I suppose. Now a counter quote:
'A silent man who knows the truth and does not speak out is as guilty
as the crime'
>Enough of this thread.
So you 've said several times before. I do think you should keep your
word. You've proven enough times that you need to discredit a person
to win your points rather than provide material to support your views.
You may have put up references of people using the term Peng Jing, you
have yet to prove that your definition is the same as theirs. Since
yours is at variance with them, your should be wrong, which is my
point from the very beginning. Also about Chan Si Jing, it is the
internal strength of Chen Taijiquan, not Peng Jing. At least try to
get the last one right. After all, you're earning money from giving
your internal strength seminars, at least give them what is right.
What you teach is Zheng Jing, which is correct but is not Peng Jing
and so by using that wrong definition you cause them to misunderstand
the words and writings fo the masters.
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From: al...@starfire.utias.utoronto.ca ()
>Subject: Re: Peng Jing..and Peter Lim's Chest-Beating
>Date: 26 Sep 96 18:54:36 GMT
>I don't have the time nor the interest to further Peter Lim's ego-boosting
>chest-beating fiasco by continuing the argument, thus this will be my last
>post on this thread. I know Peter will not pass up any chance to build
>his ego and will surely respond with an even longer post (last one was
>over 12 KBytes, go figure)...but I really don't care. Sorry about the
>length though.
I guess he didn't want to face me directly. Too bad. I haven't been
boosting my ego. Just putting out what the early Chen masters wrote.
Actually he does care, or he wouldn't be writing this.:-)
>In article <52c3eh$8...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>,
>Peter Lim <lim...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>>
>>Taking over from Mike I see. You should know that you are also going
>Please. I don't represent Mike Sigman nor anybody. My views do not
>*completely* coincide with Mike's even though I highly respect his skills. I
>speak for myself and have no need to claim friendship with other people to
>further my ego.
Then why are you simply repeating the points he has brought up. This
isn't about ego, its about correct representation of the art. Please
don't worry about me, worry about the material or is it that you
cannot see beyond one's ego.
>>round in circles since some of the points you bring up have already been
>>addressed. But since you have joined this thread late, I'll answer
>>them again anyway.
>Indeed...you really still don't get it and that's why it's going around in
>circles. You are like someone who can't distinguish between "their" and
>"there", or "your" and "you're". I will not insult your mental capacity
>nor physical health like you do whenever people disagree with you, but I
>do wish you would read my post carefully. I said I *don't* have a problem
I sincerely doubt that you have read my posts properly actually.
Rather than smear your character by saying that you are simply
twisting the facts to suit you (you were wrong on quite a number of
points actually, I provided sources where you can get the story
right), I would rather think that your mind is fatigued by overwork
and you have simply made an honest mistake. Or would you rather the
other way round.
>with your theory. You have your theory and I have mine. The difference
>is that I recognize mine as such. I only have a problem with your claim
>of "truth and proof" when it's nothing more than an opinion. Even Gu used
>phrases like "it is more possible that such and such happened because of
>the evidence xxx"..instead of your "this is probably what happened,
>therefore it can be conclusively shown that..." You need to beat this
>into your skull if you ever want to be a serious researcher.
Actually, it isn't opinion, its clearly written in the books by Chen
Xin, Chen Zhi Ming and Chen Ji Pu. Gu also insisted he was right on
Chen Wang Ting:-) Ok using your mode of arguement, it is more possible
that Chen Wang Ting did not create Taijiquan since the evidence which
points to him is the work of Chen Xin and that curiously enough, Chen
Xin did not advocate him as the creator of Chen Taijiquan but instead
Chen Pu. It is more possible that Chen Pu did not create Taijiquan
since it was not recorded in any Chen manual till the late one edited
by Chen Xin and the evidence provided by Chen Zhi Ming shows that the
Chen family practiced Shaolin and other martial arts from outside the
Chen villiage. Now beat this into your skull, you need to have
references to support your views.
>That was only *one* of the problems...*all* of your stuff is like that.
>First you try to pass it off as your own, then when people make challenges
>you start making up excuses and changing tunes. BTW you need to read more
>books if you have never read about hua-na-da-fa.
I'd love to see you try to show that they are not my own since they
have material not found in any book. You'd need to which books show
hua-na-da-fa, the extent books that have such terminology on list
hua-na-fa. Lets have your references, please:-))))) There are others
who are also well read and have not brought this up, how curious...
>My stand on this issue is pretty clear in the FAQ. In case you didn't
>realize, I was the one who pointed out that such reference to Peng didn't
>make public before Shen and Gu (who's book was edited by Chen Zhou Kui, so
>they didn't just make things up). I was also the one who pointed out that
Yes I noted it.
>Chen FaKe was the one who reconciled peng jing and chan si jing, and that
>he differentiated peng jing the taijiquan neijing and peng technique in
>the Ba Men techniques. There are people who are still alive that
Nope, it can not be proven so. No references to support it. If it were
true then Chen Fa Ke would've changed Chen Taijiquan to make it
different from what was recorded by the early Chen masters.
>remembers Chen FaKe's and Chen ZhouKui's skills, so I'd tend to believe
>more what they've said rather than from old records...but I don't try to
>pass myself as an "authority" so I don't favour either way, merely
>presenting the facts.
Acutally, I don't pass myself off as an authority either, never said I
was one:-))) I'm also merely presenting the facts that it was not what
was recorded in the early Chen manuals. You'd think that such an
important aspect would've been recorded since it was Chen Ji Pu who
invited Chen Fa Ke to teach in Beijng and whose book was written when
Chen Fa Ke was still alive. You'd have trouble showing that their
ideas were not influenced by the writings of Gu and Shen.
>Please. Stop insulting people's intelligence, mental and physical
>health just because people don't agree with you. You don't even know
>what I practice. It's not hard to see who's aggressive and hostile here.
Actually, I was simply providing information to assess one's state in
training. It is a legitimate concern and the information was provided
out of sincere concern. This seems to be an alien concept to you, that
one can care for one who seems to hate you. I prefer to care for my
opponents and detractors, thank you, not hate them.
>Everybody who doesn't agree with your ideas and ego-boosting have an
>"obvious" grudge against you? I think you are flattering yourself. You
>are really not that important.
Never said I was that important:-))))) You guys seem to think so and
seem to feel a need to answer me as if I were:-)))) Go think on it.
>Please, Peter. Spare us of the "oh-I-am-so-misunderstood-and-oh-thank-
>you-for-all-your-support" ploy. You tried that once on Neijia list by
>threatening to leave so you can fish out people's gratitude and support,
>remember? I really don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys if you have
>connections with the Overlord of the Galatic Empire. Anyone interested
>can call up your teacher, the Dong family, or Chen XiaoWang to verify your
>claims. As I have said before very clearly, I am simply not interested.
Then why are you wasting your precious time replying this? You are
most emphatically interested. Just not interested in being shown you
are wrong thats all. I went quiet on the neijia list in order not to
cause more flame wars with Mike, out of concern for the well being of
the neijia list, please don't misconstrue it to be something else.
There are those who care about the others rather than trying always to
be press their own views. Apparently it doesn't work with some of you
so I'll take the other approach and be here to present the views
written in the material left behind by the early masters.
>Wait a minute, I am not the one who is making all these public claims.
>I've never offered myself as an "authority" nor do I claim friendship,
>discipleship, and connection with various taiji masters. Well, you got
>me, Peter. I confess I don't have credentials anywhere near yours. Maybe
>in 30 years I'll have half of the credentials you claimed without shame.
Oh yes, you are.:-))) You're going public right? You're writing down
your claims right?:-)))) I have never offerred myself as an authority
but I don't take it lightly when misinformation is being spread about
me either. Are you suggesting that I take the slander lying down?
Actually I haven't claimed any credentials beyond which forms I
practice and which arts I've practiced. You seem to be more interested
in credentials though since you need to rely on discrediting them to
try to show that the material provided is wrong. Wrong discrediting
though, the material was written by the early Chen masters, you need
to discredit them to discredit their points, not me.
>As I said, I really don't care. I said I was simply amused.
As am I:-))))))
>I was simply asking you a question of a rumour I heard from several
>places, as I was not on the kungfu list at the time. Now that you have
>set that straight (as you have set "straight" so many people's failing
>memory) I guess my question is answered. From what I've heard though, you
>tried to present yourself as an authority in bajiquan as well. Why did
>you never reply to Mr. Guo's private email inquiry about your claims?
Ah...hearsay evidence. Non-verifiable, how convenient actually.
Actually, I fully intend to answer James, he didn't question my
claims, he asked if I would introduce him to my colleague in China who
taught me the Baji set. I answered him on his queries on the specifics
of the set. Unfortunately, the email mailbox in eudora got corrupted
and I lost a good part of the mail during that period. If James still
wants that info, I'll need his email address, I'd appreciate it if you
would forward it to me.
>Okay that answered my question of "since when", if you are indeed implying
>you know him personally.
Both are involved in the Journal, a fine publication.
>Mike Sigman is not the one who go around referring to Mr. Chen by his
>first name trying to leave an impression that he and Chen are good
>buddies, even though he knows Mr. Chen personally. Don't confuse the
>issue and don't drag in other people next time you are doing this
>ego-puffing.
Chen Xiao Wang was in Singapore for a time, we simply called him that,
same as Chu Tian Chye who still visits often. Both have never insisted
that they be referred to as 'master' this or that, especially in the
presence of local masters, including those who are their seniors in
years and training. I'm sorry if my association with these people has
been a source of irritation to you. Sincere apologies.
>Have your fun with Mike Sigman, I'm off.
Are you sure you won't reconsider, I understand Mike has a bet going
on how long we'd last.:-)
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
>I'm not trying to defend the book, but this remark confuses me. The book
>mentions "temples" only in the historical section (Chang San Feng and all
>that), and in the remainder refers to Chen Man Ching several times.
Chang San Feng probably did not create Taijiquan as we have it today.
Whilst there might have been some influence from there, I don't think
we can credit him with the creation of the current styles of
Taijiquan. But then neither can we credit Chen Wang Ting or the
sources credited in the Sung manual (its probably a forgery).
Best,
Peter Lim
This author of this article is a student of Li Ya Xuan and a noted TCC
master. It deals with Jing in general as well as the question that
Peng Jing is the core jing. Enjoy!
Lun Jing (Discourse About Jing)
By Zhang Yi Zun
Because Taijiquan expands upon external boxing methods, researching
the
internal flow of jing, that's why there is the appearence of sticky
jing
(nien jing), neutralising jing (hua jing), holding jing (na jing),
emmitting jing (fa jing), peng jing, long jing (chang jing), short
jing
(duan jing), etc commonly known traditional names. There are always
some
people who like to do according to their will and create new names.
In Taijiquan, how many types of jing are there? So many its a mess.
And
even the explanation of each type of jing are not the same. Because
internal jing (nei jing) is a combination of many elements not all
visible, and training methods are mostly combined with movements, some
are really not easy to explain, and since every one's understanding
through practice is not exactly the same, its very hard to come to a
concensus.
For example: "what is peng jing?" is already hard to get a simple and
clear explanation. One day there will definitely be some hard working
compilers of a "Wushu Terms Dictionary". Some people explain it thus:
"Peng Jing is after long periods of sincere practice of Taijiquan and
push hands, resulting in a type of sung (no tension) yet not sung,
soft
but carrying in it hard, active but sunk and heavy, elastic and
pliable
type of jing, which includes sticking (nien), neutralising (hua),
bouyant (fu) and capable of trapping (kun) kind of jing, also called
internal jing (neijing)". Also we have from from myrid schools and
students who hold "Taiji is peng jing, movement goes in spirals
(luo xuan)" as the central maxim.
These two explanations, are all too much on the surface, not able to
grasp peng jing's reality. At the very least, with expert's peng jing,
its not exactly the same.
If we say "it is sung but not sung", "sunk and heavy" then it is peng
jing,
then when pushing with teacher Ya Xuan (here he refers to his teacher
Li
Ya Xuan who was a noted disciple of Yang Cheng Fu), he feels extremely
without tension, very soft, insubstantial, only lightly contacting
with
the skin. Is this kind of jing peng jing? Actually its does not really
feel
as if he has a pliable characteristic, much less "sunk and heavy".
He only feels insubstantial, empty and we can't feel his jing. Does
this
count as peng jing? If we say that he does not have peng jing, then
why is
it that we can't get him? Why is it that he always wins?
Saying "Taiji is peng jing, movement goes in spirals", is even less
accurate. How can Taijiquan be totally explained by peng jing! If we
say
that Taijiquan is sinking jing (chen jing), that is also a way to get
a
taste of it; if we way it is sticky jing (nien jing), we see that it
is
not necessary wrong either. Spiraling is specifically guided by a
continuous rounded shape, only if we say Taijiquan goes by different
kinds of curves, and also in straight lines, then we are closer to the
truth.
Another saying "the stronger nei jing is, during push hands you can
bully
your opponent more". This is the saying of beginning students who have
have only beginning push hands skills. When one attains the level
where
"people don't know me" then can one be considered an expert. "Using
four
ounces to deflect 1000 pounds, strength does not necessarily win" says
that great strength is not the correct way of Taijiquan. "Wonderous
way is
being able to borrow strength", being able to use and express our
agile
sensitivity, to control the opponent's movement of jing, using lesser
strength to beat a greater strength. Using soft and weak to beat hard
and
strong. This then is the direction we must work hard towards for those
of us who practice Taijiquan.
Saying "peng jing is also called nei jing". Rollback (Lu), Press (Ji),
Push (An), etc, jings become external jings then? If they are all nei
jing. Then why specially point out that "peng jing is also called nei
jing"? Isn't this baselessly saying things, creating your own
classications?
I have thought about it alot, spent alot of time, then wrote out the
explanation:"peng jing is agile, formed in a curve, can neutralise
oncoming
strength, can also elastically bounce out whilst soft and sticking
jing".
Such a long winded explanation, many people will definitely
shake their heads in disapproval, even I myself am not satisfied with
it, but it is very difficult to condense it. Because it is like that,
the line of expression was broken earlier. Questioning those famous
practitioners within our country, we don't know whether they will
agree or not.
Nei jing's large and small, cannot depend on one's own feeling, saying
"the stronger nei jing is, during push hands you can bully your
opponent
more", actually, this is your opponent making the mistake of resisting
jing
(ding jing). If your opponent is moving, he knows how to remain
attached but
not resisting, and so is not receiving your strength, then where does
the
bullying come from? Then stronger nei jing is, doesn't that mean that
it
makes it easier for your opponent to listen to your jing (ting jing)?
When I was young in my village, there was alot of water and paddi
fields, I loved to play with mud. When I got bored, I would sling mud
at
my companions. The mud also exhibited the bouncing out power like the
openning of a flower. If I scored, it can also stick on to the nose of
my opponent and remain there for a long time. I have also used a stone
to sling at my opponent but it won't stick on to him.
Hard things cannot stick. From observation, we come to understand the
theory that only soft things can stick. This then is the reason why
Taiqiquan
uses soft jing (rou jing).
What Taijiquan researches, mainly is sticking jing (nien jing). How
then
to get sticking jing to a high level is the goal of our hard training.
The myrid other jings, all are just different uses of sticking jing.
Sticking a result of being sung and soft with sensitivity. Like sticky
things, like a stamp stuck on an envelope, causing myself to stick to
my
opponent, in not letting go and not resisting, listening to his jing,
this is the reality of nien jing.
Sticking is the method for understanding completely your opponent's
condition.
Only when you have good sung then you can stick well. When you can
stick, then you can fully utilise sensitivity's agile characteristic.
Agility comes from sung and comes when one is calm and quiet. Not
being
light means not being able to be sung, this skill is all from
practicing
the boxing form. Boxing theory is from nature and is so made complete,
we need to express it completely when doing the form. The postures in
the
form have high and low, every person's sung and softness level is
different,
so sticking jing's sensitivity will come according to each person
differently.
When beginning to learn push hands, normally the sticking is very
heavy,
even if you want to lighten it you can't, the feeling is like having
both person's bones against one another, in actual fact it is still
resisting (ding). A little more advanced, when you can lighten it, the
bones will no longer be in contact, you can only feel the flesh being
in
contact. High level sticking, the contact is only on the skin surface.
The higher the level, the lighter the contact, the clearer and faster
you can listen to jing, the easier it is to control your oppoonent.
Sticking is the feeling when both are in contact. Skill levels have
deep
and shallow, internal jing (nei jing) has large and small, its quality
has
soft and hard, the feeling of sticking is never always the same. "Not
resisting and not letting go" (Bu Tiu Bu ding) then becomes the bridge
for getting to a high level.
If we look at the classics, in it there are large sections that talk
about being sung and soft, about being light and agile, about coorect
body
coordination (completeness), because only in this way then you can you
train
a high level sticking jing with soft and agile qualities.
Sticking jing is one of the big treasures of Taijiquan. Experts need
only lightly stick to totally control the other causing him to topple
to
the east or lean to the west, not be able to stand stablely like a
drunkard, causing him to knit his brows and bite his tongue in effort,
a
big calamity coming down on him, his life feels like a fainting spell.
Teacher Ya Xuan has this ability, causing people to call it ultimate,
even more causing people to aspire towards it. Where does it have "the
stronger nei jing is, during push hands you can bullying your opponent
more"?!
In pushing hands, the ward off (peng), rollback (lu), press (ji) and
push (an) and in Big Rollback (da lu) the pluck (tsai), split (lieh),
elbow (chou) and lean (kao), normally is termed as eight kinds of
jing.
From external appearances they have obvious differences. Actually it
is
sticking jing's eight types of usage. Calling them the eight methods
of
Taijiquan (taijiquan ba fa) is more suitable.
Taijiquan uses soft jing, dissolving hard jing (ying jing); is
internal
jing (nei jing) and not obvious jing (ming jing). Internal jing cannot
be seen. Hard jing and obvious jing can be easily seen; strictly
speaking, it is hard strength (ying li), and cannot be called jing.
Ward off, rollback, etc eight methods when in use, mostly use sticking
jing, peng jing and sinking jing in combination, in actual fact is
a combined jing. Its not individual jings being used alone.
In combat, Taijiquan strongly uses soft neutralisation, very much
welcoming the opponent to rush in, and does not aim at making the
first
attack. Previous generations have created a complete method of
training
for gaining victory from opponents. With sticking jing, neutralising
jing (hua jing), holding jing (na jing), emmitting jing (fa jing)
these
four types. This is the combat theory that is stored in each of the
eight
methods, it is the essence of Taijiquan. If internal jing is not soft,
we can mostly only get the external structure, without a way of
getting
to a high level.
Sticking jing is coming into contact and knowing your opponent.
Neutralising jing (hua jing)'s meaning is neutralising to nothingness
the incoming force. It emphasizes enticing the opponent to lead him
into
nothingness, causing his attack to come to nothing.
Holding jing (na jing) is used after neutralising the incoming force,
following the opponent's jing path, cause him to come into danger.
Emmitting jing (fa jing) is after determining the weak point of the
opponent, focusing available resources, emitting a return attack and
gaining the fruits of victory.
We, in sticking, neutralising, holding and emitting, which is
wonderfully
complex, and always without limits, are learning to understand
internal
jing. Like climbing a famous mountain or touring a famous garden,
every
step, every scene, we receive the trueness, causing one to stay even
longer
and forget the normal world, becoming a boxing lover. But it is
because it is
so hidden, so complex, so deep, our intelligence limited, our skill
insufficient
or teacher's undertaking not high, it is like entering a treasure
mountain and
returning empty handed, and there are many such people. That is why
those after learning
boxing and training the body, only a few are able to gain
effectiveness
in combat and are seldom seen. It is because the internal and external
requirements are too numerous and too lofty.
Now lets talk about peng jing.
One of the goals of training boxing is to gain the qualities of the
whole body
being sung and soft and the joints gaining a high level of agility, we
can
see that peng jing is not hard jing (ying jing).
The original rationale of pushing hands is in sticking circularly we
entice into emptiness, following others, not letting go and not
resisting. We can also see that peng jing is not using strength to go
against (di kang) the opponent, pushing him out the door, instead
should
welcome the opponent in. When two forces go against each other this is
resisting (ding). Resisting (ding) is solid jing (Kang Jing), it is
the
exact opposite of using soft to overcome hardness. We can see that
peng
jing is not hard jing (ying jing).
From the above analysis, it is clearly explained that pushing hands
only
uses soft jing (rou jing). If both parties use soft jing (rou jing),
then who overcomes who? In comparison, whose sticking jing (nien jing)
level
is higher, listening jing (ting jing) ability is higher, sung and
soft more complete, is definitely the victor. Natural neutralising
jing
(hua jing), is nothing but the wonderous usage of a whole body that is
extremely soft. Spectacular emitting jing (fa jing), also comese from
softness
transformed. The boxing classics tell us "from extreme softness comes
extreme hardness"!
Therefore, peng jing is a agile, curved structured, can neutralise to
nothingness the incoming force and can also bounce out, is soft and
sticking type of jing only.
Many people, because they misunderstand peng jing, think that
resisting
(ding) is peng, and going against the opponent is peng, making this
a matter of great importance, causing aspirations of the lovers of
Taijiquan to come to nothing. Training hard in boxing for a lifetime,
obtaining internal jing (nei jing) that is not soft (rou), sticking
jing
(nien jing) that is not good. The flavour of their boxing not correct
as
a consequence, this is something pitiful.
Here we have only analysed peng jing, the rest, the reader in reading
it
over will not find it hard to conceptualise.
How many types of emitting jing (fa jing) are there in pushing hands?
Looking from external form, emitting jing (fa jing) has many types and
different kinds, but in actuality there is only long jing (chang jing)
and
short jing (duan jing) these two types.
Long and short denotes the time the strength remains acting on the
opponent's body.
When beginning to learn emitting jing (fa jing), those who have not
developed sinking jing (chen jing) will normally emit long jing. Those
with
higher levels of development and skill and who know sinking jing (chen
jing)
can emit both long and short types of jing.
Emitting jing (fa jing) it is important to be fast for emitting jing
(fa
jing) to obtain satisfactory results. You cannot let your opponent
discover your intention before hand. Really spectacular, shocking
emitting jing
(fa jing), results only after obvious jing is totally gone, it's
intent-transmission is very fast and very agile with quick responses.
Only when skills reach a fairly high level can it be manifest.
Definitely not
a normal obvious jing using grasping to prevent his movement, then
pushing
out the so called 'emitting jing', you can make a comparison.
If obvious jing is not complete gotten rid of, emitting jing will not
be
as quick, and the opponent can easily neutralise it away; even if the
opponent's
skill is inferior and cannot neutralise it, he knows its coming and he
will
not let you have your way.
Long jing (chang jing) is from the back foot directing to the front a
thrust to the ground as being the primary source of power, requires
all
the joints coordinated, from bottom going to the top, following the
structure to express out the jing. Because the duration of the
execution
of strength is long, it is possible to cause the opponent to be thrown
a
great distance away. The advantage is that it won't injure the
opponent.
For those who power attainment (kung li) is not deep such as beginning
students
whose waist (yao) and inguinal region (kua) are not limber, they
should
use more long jing (chang jing).
Short jing (duan jing) is a very high speed bouncing out strength,
like
compressing a spring and it suddenly springs (bounces) out.
Because the duration is short, the speed fast, internal jing (nei
jing)
complete, it creates a very great pressure and sudden intentional
strength.
If we can penetrate into this, we can cause the
opponent to panic and make mistakes, hitting him down more often, even
scare him till he sweats cold sweat, even fainting, this is a good
means
of completely defeating the opponent. Those whose power attainment is
not deep, or physique is not strong, its best not to lightly emit
short
jing. If it causes internal injury, doctoring it will waste time
and effort and is quite a bother. Experts emitting short jing (duan
jing) are able to understand heavy and light application, testing the
opponent's ability to take it, and do not exceed it, but for normal
practitioners it is very hard to attain this.
Cold jing (leng jing), cold (leng) as in cold without defence in
meaning,
is an even faster spectacular short jing (duan jing).
Intercepting jing (jie jing) is to receive the opponent's strength and
turn around its direction back aganst him and emit jing (fa jing), or
when the opponent's jing has not been fully emitted, I use a even
faster jing
to suffocate his jing back against him. This requires quite a high
level
of skill then it can be done.
As for hard jing (ying jing), hard soft jing (jiang rou jing), sung
and
sinking jing (sung chen jing), light and agile jing (ching ling jing),
empty without jing (xu wu jing), is what teacher Ya Xuan, in the
process
of teaching Taijiquan, separated out into five types of jing flow. Its
a
pity that understanding teachers are always few, boxing theory is
obscure and
hard to understand. Normally what learners are familiar with may not
be
the real thing, their real skill is still not enough, most stop
between
the first two types of jing flow. Those able to enter into the third
type
of jing flow are already considered quite well skilled. Those able to
get to the fourth type of jing flow is even harder to find. If we want
to
get to the empty without level, it is like refined through fire, a big
achievement. In this world it is not easy to get many.
D
Peter Lim wrote:
>
> Actually, that's disputable since we don't have any records showing
> that the current Chen form is the one taught to Yang Lu Chan. Our
Hi Uncle Peter!
haven't e-mailed you 4 a long time. How are you doing?
I was wondering if you or anyone else on this r.m.a newsgroup knows of
any good Yang style combat Sifu in the Toronto/Mississauga area.
Also, there is a school called Masters Kung Fu and they teach Shaolin
White Crane KF. When I called them, the claimed that the instructor,
who came from Malaysia, is the highest ranking Shaolin White Crane sifu
in North America. The school is in Mississauga and I was wondering if
there is any truth to this.
I'm on my work term right now and feel like taking a break from the
Jujutsu and Karate that I usually do during my school term.
Bruce, if you're reading this, no offense. :) Shotokan is cool and
Dave Mott's Ueichi Ryu school is a little far away.
Also, is Shaolin White Crane an internal or external art?
Thanks and happy training! :)
Dan
Lee Scheele
In <JzFwV4u....@delphi.com> Roger Krueger <rkru...@delphi.com> writes:
>
>
>wing...@nntp.best.com (David Williams) writes,
>
>: >T'ai Chi Classics
>: >By Waysun Liao
>...
>: >Course no mention of Chan Si Jing or Peng Jing either as far as I can
>: >tell. :(
>
>"Peng Jing" <==> "Ward-off Power Transfer," the first he describes.
>The illustration and text would lead one to think it's just meeting force
>with force, though.
>
>revealed jings.
>
>Since the author refers to Chen Man Ching in several places, the telling
>critiques of the book might be from declared CMC practitioners.
>
Sounds like my cue ;-)
Actually, the earlier edition of Liao's book made no reference to CMC.
I guess it became embarassing ;-) No one, to my knowledge, knows who
he learned "Temple Style" from. FWIW, apparently no one noticed him
among CMC's students in Taiwan.
There are probably better sources of information than Liao's book ;-)
Regards,
Lee Scheele
L...@supply.com
Stephen J. Goodson
Peter Lim wrote:
>
> This author of this article is a student of Li Ya Xuan and a noted TCC
> master. It deals with Jing in general as well as the question that
> Peng Jing is the core jing. Enjoy!
>
> Lun Jing (Discourse About Jing)
> By Zhang Yi Zun
>
Dear Mr. Lim,
What is the date of Mr.Li's student's article? And what style of
Tai Chi Chuan did he practice?
Thanks you.
Stephen J. Goodson
Peter Lim
Qu...@Nice.Guy.Pushed.Too.Far (Quark) wrote:
>lim...@singnet.com.sg Peter Lim says...
>>Actually, we can see that you are a follower of Mike, maybe even him
>>under an assumed ID since you refuse to use your own name. (If its you
>>Mike, hi again, do you have multiple personality disorder?)
>Got me, Pete, it's a tough question.
>I'm kinda hoping YOU get an assumed name, it gets old seeing your sig
>plastered over tons of posts trying to answer all your critics.
>Why don't you just post something valuable? Then, you'd have no critics,
>you wouldn't have to bore the rest of us with lengthy rebuttals, and the
>world would just be a wonderful place.
Thats a good suggestion but I'll only post the new stuff and some of
the relevant old stuff. BTW, I just set up a home page with all the
stuff on it. You can find it at:
http://www.singnet.com.sg/~limttk/index.htm
>>Obviously you have not read my work, you'll find some of them on Alex
>>Franz's fine Taijiquan pages.
>Nice fiction- when is the novel coming out?
Actually I'm shelving it for the moment and going for the more
meaningful research instead. I was never good at fiction
unfortunately, maybe due to my technical background. Writing computer
manuals is easier for me.
>Pete, if you send everybody you've promised a copy of something, you'd be
>at a copy machine till next month. Hmmm...not a bad idea...
>Forget Chen Xin's manual- since you're on a first-name basis with guys like
>"Xiao Wang", why don't you ask him to send me a few pages?
>Here I am, waiting eagerly...
Actually I just bought one about 3 months ago, a Sharp brand one,
quite small and quite sharp (pardon the unintended pun). A small
personal copier, I think it was a worth while investment. I'll write
him a nice letter for you, what material do you want from him? I,
unfortunately, cannot guarentee that he will send it though.
>I understand. Those taekwondo groups really attract the 10 year olds, don't
>they? Did you give them your training schedule? Maybe Jeremy thinks you're
>a comedian and wants some good jokes.
As a recent article in the JAMA notes, the child market is very
important to those teaching commercially. But I don't think Jeremy is
that young, if he has watched me practicing with the others, then he
should be an adult, no children are present during those meetings.
And as for the training schedule, I practice twice a day, once in the
morning and once at night, usually 3 rounds of the large frame, one
round Taiji Long Boxing, one round sword, one round broadsword and one
round spear. And not forgetting some push hands with the wife. My diet
is varied but balanced and I make sure I take plenty of liquids since
Singapore is tropical island and prone to be hot. I also watch my salt
intake since I loose that through sweating in practice. And I try to
get as much sleep as possible though I have been known to sacrifice
that for the love of the art by participating in the cyber TCC
community on the internet.
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
Peter Lim
"Stephen J. Goodson" <SGoo...@Space.nrl.navy.mil> wrote:
>Mr. Lim,
>Thinking that the research approach of Max Freedom Long, researching the
>Hawaiian mystics through their language, was exciting. I offer the
>technique to you in case you do not know about it𡃇 find it most helpful
>in the Chinese language studies. Long figured that the people built
>their words out of other words and so he went about breaking down the
>language into its root words. I tried to apply Long零 technique to those
>hard to understand/undefinable Chinese words. A simple technique.
Chinese words are actually iconographs and some are used in
combination to form a single word. Thank you so much for this
information. I certainly look into it.
>May I suggest you try it on the word Jing. I found it very...self
>explanatory! Please let me know if you found this helpful. Thank you.
Actually, in the early days, the words li and jing were used
interchangeably, it was only later that, in usage in martial arts, the
word jing was used to denote a refined, efficient strength. Before
looking into the roots of the word, we should look at its usage
through time. Some words become changed in meaning through time and
context.
Best,
Peter
Peter Lim
msi...@netcom.com (Mike Sigman) wrote:
>+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>From: al...@starfire.utias.utoronto.ca ()
>Subject: Re: Peng Jing..and Peter Lim's Chest-Beating
>Date: 26 Sep 96 18:54:36 GMT
>I don't have the time nor the interest to further Peter Lim's ego-boosting
>chest-beating fiasco by continuing the argument, thus this will be my last
>post on this thread. I know Peter will not pass up any chance to build
>his ego and will surely respond with an even longer post (last one was
>over 12 KBytes, go figure)...but I really don't care. Sorry about the
>length though.
I guess he didn't want to face me directly. Too bad. I haven't been
boosting my ego. Just putting out what the early Chen masters wrote.
Actually he does care, or he wouldn't be writing this.:-)
>In article <52c3eh$8...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>,
>Peter Lim <lim...@singnet.com.sg> wrote:
>>
>>Taking over from Mike I see. You should know that you are also going
>Please. I don't represent Mike Sigman nor anybody. My views do not
>*completely* coincide with Mike's even though I highly respect his skills. I
>speak for myself and have no need to claim friendship with other people to
>further my ego.
Then why are you simply repeating the points he has brought up. This
isn't about ego, its about correct representation of the art. Please
don't worry about me, worry about the material or is it that you
cannot see beyond one's ego.
>>round in circles since some of the points you bring up have already been
>>addressed. But since you have joined this thread late, I'll answer
>>them again anyway.
>Indeed...you really still don't get it and that's why it's going around in
>circles. You are like someone who can't distinguish between "their" and
>"there", or "your" and "you're". I will not insult your mental capacity
>nor physical health like you do whenever people disagree with you, but I
>do wish you would read my post carefully. I said I *don't* have a problem
I sincerely doubt that you have read my posts properly actually.
Rather than smear your character by saying that you are simply
twisting the facts to suit you (you were wrong on quite a number of
points actually, I provided sources where you can get the story
right), I would rather think that your mind is fatigued by overwork
and you have simply made an honest mistake. Or would you rather the
other way round.
>with your theory. You have your theory and I have mine. The difference
>is that I recognize mine as such. I only have a problem with your claim
>of "truth and proof" when it's nothing more than an opinion. Even Gu used
>phrases like "it is more possible that such and such happened because of
>the evidence xxx"..instead of your "this is probably what happened,
>therefore it can be conclusively shown that..." You need to beat this
>into your skull if you ever want to be a serious researcher.
Actually, it isn't opinion, its clearly written in the books by Chen
Xin, Chen Zhi Ming and Chen Ji Pu. Gu also insisted he was right on
Chen Wang Ting:-) Ok using your mode of arguement, it is more possible
that Chen Wang Ting did not create Taijiquan since the evidence which
points to him is the work of Chen Xin and that curiously enough, Chen
Xin did not advocate him as the creator of Chen Taijiquan but instead
Chen Pu. It is more possible that Chen Pu did not create Taijiquan
since it was not recorded in any Chen manual till the late one edited
by Chen Xin and the evidence provided by Chen Zhi Ming shows that the
Chen family practiced Shaolin and other martial arts from outside the
Chen villiage. Now beat this into your skull, you need to have
references to support your views.
>That was only *one* of the problems...*all* of your stuff is like that.
>First you try to pass it off as your own, then when people make challenges
>you start making up excuses and changing tunes. BTW you need to read more
>books if you have never read about hua-na-da-fa.
I'd love to see you try to show that they are not my own since they
have material not found in any book. You'd need to which books show
hua-na-da-fa, the extent books that have such terminology on list
hua-na-fa. Lets have your references, please:-))))) There are others
who are also well read and have not brought this up, how curious...
>My stand on this issue is pretty clear in the FAQ. In case you didn't
>realize, I was the one who pointed out that such reference to Peng didn't
>make public before Shen and Gu (who's book was edited by Chen Zhou Kui, so
>they didn't just make things up). I was also the one who pointed out that
Yes I noted it.
>Chen FaKe was the one who reconciled peng jing and chan si jing, and that
>he differentiated peng jing the taijiquan neijing and peng technique in
>the Ba Men techniques. There are people who are still alive that
Nope, it can not be proven so. No references to support it. If it were
true then Chen Fa Ke would've changed Chen Taijiquan to make it
different from what was recorded by the early Chen masters.
>remembers Chen FaKe's and Chen ZhouKui's skills, so I'd tend to believe
>more what they've said rather than from old records...but I don't try to
>pass myself as an "authority" so I don't favour either way, merely
>presenting the facts.
Acutally, I don't pass myself off as an authority either, never said I
was one:-))) I'm also merely presenting the facts that it was not what
was recorded in the early Chen manuals. You'd think that such an
important aspect would've been recorded since it was Chen Ji Pu who
invited Chen Fa Ke to teach in Beijng and whose book was written when
Chen Fa Ke was still alive. You'd have trouble showing that their
ideas were not influenced by the writings of Gu and Shen.
>Please. Stop insulting people's intelligence, mental and physical
>health just because people don't agree with you. You don't even know
>what I practice. It's not hard to see who's aggressive and hostile here.
Actually, I was simply providing information to assess one's state in
training. It is a legitimate concern and the information was provided
out of sincere concern. This seems to be an alien concept to you, that
one can care for one who seems to hate you. I prefer to care for my
opponents and detractors, thank you, not hate them.
>Everybody who doesn't agree with your ideas and ego-boosting have an
>"obvious" grudge against you? I think you are flattering yourself. You
>are really not that important.
Never said I was that important:-))))) You guys seem to think so and
seem to feel a need to answer me as if I were:-)))) Go think on it.
>Please, Peter. Spare us of the "oh-I-am-so-misunderstood-and-oh-thank-
>you-for-all-your-support" ploy. You tried that once on Neijia list by
>threatening to leave so you can fish out people's gratitude and support,
>remember? I really don't give a pair of fetid dingo's kidneys if you have
>connections with the Overlord of the Galatic Empire. Anyone interested
>can call up your teacher, the Dong family, or Chen XiaoWang to verify your
>claims. As I have said before very clearly, I am simply not interested.
Then why are you wasting your precious time replying this? You are
most emphatically interested. Just not interested in being shown you
are wrong thats all. I went quiet on the neijia list in order not to
cause more flame wars with Mike, out of concern for the well being of
the neijia list, please don't misconstrue it to be something else.
There are those who care about the others rather than trying always to
be press their own views. Apparently it doesn't work with some of you
so I'll take the other approach and be here to present the views
written in the material left behind by the early masters.
>Wait a minute, I am not the one who is making all these public claims.
>I've never offered myself as an "authority" nor do I claim friendship,
>discipleship, and connection with various taiji masters. Well, you got
>me, Peter. I confess I don't have credentials anywhere near yours. Maybe
>in 30 years I'll have half of the credentials you claimed without shame.
Oh yes, you are.:-))) You're going public right? You're writing down
your claims right?:-)))) I have never offerred myself as an authority
but I don't take it lightly when misinformation is being spread about
me either. Are you suggesting that I take the slander lying down?
Actually I haven't claimed any credentials beyond which forms I
practice and which arts I've practiced. You seem to be more interested
in credentials though since you need to rely on discrediting them to
try to show that the material provided is wrong. Wrong discrediting
though, the material was written by the early Chen masters, you need
to discredit them to discredit their points, not me.
>As I said, I really don't care. I said I was simply amused.
As am I:-))))))
>I was simply asking you a question of a rumour I heard from several
>places, as I was not on the kungfu list at the time. Now that you have
>set that straight (as you have set "straight" so many people's failing
>memory) I guess my question is answered. From what I've heard though, you
>tried to present yourself as an authority in bajiquan as well. Why did
>you never reply to Mr. Guo's private email inquiry about your claims?
Ah...hearsay evidence. Non-verifiable, how convenient actually.
Actually, I fully intend to answer James, he didn't question my
claims, he asked if I would introduce him to my colleague in China who
taught me the Baji set. I answered him on his queries on the specifics
of the set. Unfortunately, the email mailbox in eudora got corrupted
and I lost a good part of the mail during that period. If James still
wants that info, I'll need his email address, I'd appreciate it if you
would forward it to me.
>Okay that answered my question of "since when", if you are indeed implying
>you know him personally.
Both are involved in the Journal, a fine publication.
>Mike Sigman is not the one who go around referring to Mr. Chen by his
>first name trying to leave an impression that he and Chen are good
>buddies, even though he knows Mr. Chen personally. Don't confuse the
>issue and don't drag in other people next time you are doing this
>ego-puffing.
Chen Xiao Wang was in Singapore for a time, we simply called him that,
same as Chu Tian Chye who still visits often. Both have never insisted
that they be referred to as 'master' this or that, especially in the
presence of local masters, including those who are their seniors in
years and training. I'm sorry if my association with these people has
been a source of irritation to you. Sincere apologies.
>Have your fun with Mike Sigman, I'm off.
Are you sure you won't reconsider, I understand Mike has a bet going
Peter Lim
This author of this article is a student of Li Ya Xuan and a noted TCC
master. It deals with Jing in general as well as the question that
Peng Jing is the core jing. Enjoy!
Lun Jing (Discourse About Jing)
By Zhang Yi Zun
Because Taijiquan expands upon external boxing methods, researching
Frank Wong
Peter Lim wrote :
"I went quiet on the neijia list in order not to
cause more flame wars with Mike, out of concern for the well being of
the neijia list, please don't misconstrue it to be something else.
There are those who care about the others rather than trying always to
be press their own views. Apparently it doesn't work with some of you
so I'll take the other approach and be here to present the views
written in the material left behind by the early masters."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Interesting how the facts change.
Or could that just be your own interpretation of what occurred on the neijia
list ?
That's not what happened.
You were removed from the neijia list and your posting priveleges were
revoked for violating the list's rules of conduct.
When you were cut off, you posted dramatic messages to gain people's support.
It all seemed a big soap opera to me.
I see you have found more comfortable surroundings on rec.martial-arts, and
on the taichi mailing list, where people don't seem to question your
"scholarship".
Later,
Frank "Fact or Interpretation ?" Wong
Chin Coon, Jeremy
Dear Mr Sigman,
I have not disappeared. I do not live anywhere near Mr Lim and as far
as I know, do not owe him any money. At the age of 35, I am not a
child. In fact, I am not his personal friend though I do admire his
skills greatly, as I do those of the senior T'ai Ch'i masters in
Singapore.
My reason for posting originally is simply to correct the
misrepresentation of Mr Lim. He is not viewed in the way you and Mr
Chen have written about him in Singapore.
It is not easy to gain the respect and admiration of combat oriented
senior masters like Master Ang Teck Bee, 6 Dan Kodokan Judo, twice
gold medalist at the South East Asian Games, former Singapore national
Judo coach, with a background in chinese martial arts, T'ai Ch'i Chuan
and Qigong and who uses wrist locks, arm locks, leg sweeps and body
throws in a push hands session. And even harder to get the endorsement
of one of the first generation T'ai Ch'i Chuan masters in Singapore
like Master Loh. Without real ability in the art, this would be
impossible. To use your terms, he can definitely 'walk the talk'.
From your posts on usenet, it seems that what you call as Peng is just
simple rooting with body alignment, very basic things but this does
not constitute internal strength. Please do not 'hang up goat's head
but sell dog meat'. It is this internal strength that allows masters
like Master Wang Shu Jin to take blows in a relaxed fashion without
harm and gives them the effortless physical power like Master Yang
Cheng Fu who threw Master Cheng Man Qing using just two fingers.
From your posts we can see that you are what the Chinese call a
'small' man, petty and uncouth who needs to rely on personal attacks
rather than showing how the provided material is either right or wrong
by referring to reliable sources of information and using clearly
defined meanings for the terms. For they are Chinese ones that should
be clearly defined in English.
Following the advice of Confucius, this will be my last post to you on
this matter. I have stated how Mr Lim is regarded in Singapore quite
clearly.
Yours sincerely,
Jeremy Chin
ei...@singnet.com.sg
David Williams
Frank Wong wrote:
[snip]
>
> Frank "Fact or Interpretation ?" Wong
Hmmm, more of the neijia list comes out of the woodwork eh? :)
Peter has merely stated that Chan ssu is the core principle of Chen
Taiji. Sigman and his disciples seem to want to spank Peter for this.
I guess that includes you as well.
So, what I am to make of the following?
http://www.star.net/People/~herbrich/cxw.htm
Master Chen XiaoWang in New York
[...]
"In his introduction, Master Chen noted that Chan Ssu (reeling silk)
is the basic principle of Taiji."
Wow. That is what Peter said! He had also stated that he understood
Master Chen to say this as well.
Reaction? A lot of name calling from neijia list people, with parochial
remarks presuming on the abilities of ANYONE from Singapore. Seems to me
that if some people had not visited Australia they might still be in the
dark as well.
But this is a sidebar. Lets continue with the words of Chen Xiaowang
shall we?
"In his introduction, Master Chen noted that Chan Ssu (reeling silk)
is the basic principle of Taiji. It appears simple, but to do it
correctly requires much practice. It is the most important aspect of
Taijiquan. It is practiced by applying basic principles to basic
movements. If reeling silk is understood, then the principles of
movement in Taiji are clear.
Chan Ssu is the standard for Taiji.
It is necessary to understand the relationship between the principles
of chan ssu and the movements of Taiji. It should be noted that the
standard for Taiji is not any one teacher or person: the standard is
correct Taiji principles. If the standard is known and
understood, incorrect practice can be discerned in yourself and others.
Many people who practice Taiji, even in China, don't understand this.
They follow blindly and slavishly the movements of a particular teacher
without analyzing them in the light of correct principles. Some
teachers have incorrect movement, and pass it on to their students.
Master Chen noted a story of one teacher in Singapore who injured
his leg, and as a result, could not kick without causing pain. This
made him wince. His students all adopted the habit of wincing when
they kicked."
==============================
So what Fact or Interpretation are we to make of those words?
Peter Lim Tian Tek
gizz...@gnn.com (Frank Wong) wrote:
>Interesting how the facts change.
>Or could that just be your own interpretation of what occurred on the neijia
>list ?
>That's not what happened.
>You were removed from the neijia list and your posting priveleges were
>revoked for violating the list's rules of conduct.
>When you were cut off, you posted dramatic messages to gain people's support.
>It all seemed a big soap opera to me.
Ah...Frank, you seem a little confused here. I went quiet on the
neijia list once when I was still on it. I was removed from the neijia
list but not for being rude or anything like that, I wasn't even doing
anything close to being as aggressive as Mike was. In fact, his group
of people were giving me a hard time, Terry included. I posted a post
stating that if freedom of information wasn't going to be allowed on
the neijia list then it would most probably become extinct one day.
Nothing dramatic about that. I got a friend to post a closing post to
a thread that was not quite concluded when I was taken off the neijia
list. As far as I know, they removed me because they could not silence
me and my views showed that Mike and gang were wrong. I simply put a
note up on Rec.MA to clarify Mike's posts, he reacted by starting this
thread. It was impolite not to give him an answer to his posts and so
this brings us to the present.
The neijia list isn't the only internal martial arts list in
cyberspace fortunately and I'm not feeling its loss actually and am
happily on several lists that keep me quite happy sharing information.
Some on the neijia list though seem to want to continue trying to put
me down and try tactics like signing off the Tai Chi Chuan list
because supposedly I'm there and they didn't like it, when they
weren't even on the Tai Chi Chuan list in the first place. Interesting
isn't it? It serves as amusement and so has a beneficial effect.
>I see you have found more comfortable surroundings on rec.martial-arts, and
>on the taichi mailing list, where people don't seem to question your
>"scholarship".
Actually, I've found more comfortable surroundings on the Tai Chi
Chuan list, I recommend it to all here and even there people question
my material, though usually not in an abusive manner. Question in the
an honest search for accuracy and getting to the truth, not just a
'I'm right, you're wrong' situation at all. In fact, I always
encourage people to go and verify my work and to form their own
opinions based on the available material. This I believe is the best
way. When they question, then we debate it out civilly and with
references resulting in benefits to all.
Best,
Peter
>Later,
Mike Sigman
David Williams (wing...@best.com) wrote:
: So, what I am to make of the following?
[[snip]]
David, I think it may be safely said that you have no idea what to make
of the "following post". Reeling Silk Energy exercises are done in exactly
the same way of body movement that a Taiji form is done. So "Reeling
Silk" energy could be termed "Taiji" energy. In that sense, RS is the
heart of Taiji.... but both Reeling Silk and Taiji use the sophisticated
jing (which is referred to as "peng jing" by not only the Neijia but by
CXW and others) as the core of Reeling Silk.
If you understand that, there is no argument. To insist that "Reeling
Silk" is the basic strength and to not understand the jing underlying it
is to say that you don't understand Taiji.
: Reaction? A lot of name calling from neijia list people, with parochial
: remarks presuming on the abilities of ANYONE from Singapore. Seems to me
: that if some people had not visited Australia they might still be in the
: dark as well.
That's simply another cheap shot, David. You're very defensive about
shots at Cheung and WC, but you never seem to hear yourself.
: But this is a sidebar. Lets continue with the words of Chen Xiaowang
: shall we?
: "In his introduction, Master Chen noted that Chan Ssu (reeling silk)
: is the basic principle of Taiji. It appears simple, but to do it
: correctly requires much practice. It is the most important aspect of
: Taijiquan. It is practiced by applying basic principles to basic
: movements. If reeling silk is understood, then the principles of
: movement in Taiji are clear.
: Chan Ssu is the standard for Taiji.
See above.
Mike Sigman
--
Mike Sigman
t.com.sg>:
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
Chin Coon, Jeremy (ei...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: Dear Mr Sigman,
: I have not disappeared. I do not live anywhere near Mr Lim and as far
: as I know, do not owe him any money. At the age of 35, I am not a
: child. In fact, I am not his personal friend though I do admire his
: skills greatly, as I do those of the senior T'ai Ch'i masters in
: Singapore.
Mr. Chin Coon:
You are confusing several other peoples' posts with mine.
: It is not easy to gain the respect and admiration of combat oriented
: senior masters like Master Ang Teck Bee, 6 Dan Kodokan Judo, twice
: gold medalist at the South East Asian Games, former Singapore national
: Judo coach, with a background in chinese martial arts, T'ai Ch'i Chuan
: and Qigong and who uses wrist locks, arm locks, leg sweeps and body
: throws in a push hands session. And even harder to get the endorsement
: of one of the first generation T'ai Ch'i Chuan masters in Singapore
: like Master Loh. Without real ability in the art, this would be
: impossible. To use your terms, he can definitely 'walk the talk'.
These are not my terms "walk the talk". And I will not bother dragging
other peoples' names into this.... I have also heard of the opinions of
the people you name. You do drag an old relic or two in.
: From your posts on usenet, it seems that what you call as Peng is just
: simple rooting with body alignment, very basic things but this does
: not constitute internal strength. Please do not 'hang up goat's head
: but sell dog meat'. It is this internal strength that allows masters
: like Master Wang Shu Jin to take blows in a relaxed fashion without
: harm and gives them the effortless physical power like Master Yang
: Cheng Fu who threw Master Cheng Man Qing using just two fingers.
Uh oh.... you don't happen to be a CMC stylist do you???? I thought you
were of the Tung school? And you completely misunderstand what I am
saying if you think I am talking about simple rooting.
: From your posts we can see that you are what the Chinese call a
: 'small' man, petty and uncouth who needs to rely on personal attacks
: rather than showing how the provided material is either right or wrong
: by referring to reliable sources of information and using clearly
: defined meanings for the terms. For they are Chinese ones that should
: be clearly defined in English.
From your post I could also take the chance to make a few remarks.
However, since you confust my post with other people's posts perhaps it
would just be time wasted.
: Following the advice of Confucius, this will be my last post to you on
: this matter. I have stated how Mr Lim is regarded in Singapore quite
: clearly.
Strange.... yours is only 1 of 4 opinions from Singaporeans that I have
heard. Not everyone seems to know that he is that highly regarded.
Mike Sigman
--
Mike Sigman
Peter Lim Tian Tek (lim...@singnet.com.sg) wrote:
: anything close to being as aggressive as Mike was. In fact, his group
: of people
I have no "group" of people. Oddly enough, the people who disagree with
you do not fall into an easy category like that.... they all study with
different teachers and they come from different styles. If they are a
GROUP, it is a group that says your basics are wrong and your ego is big.
In a sense, the dichotomy seems to follow that split in most cases... the
people who have fairly large egos and who have questionable basics get
offended quite easily on the neijia list.
: stating that if freedom of information wasn't going to be allowed on
: the neijia list then it would most probably become extinct one day.
It's not extinct, though. In fact, the closest it has come to being extinct
is when *everyone* is allowed to theorize unchallenged on the list.
Think about it.
: Nothing dramatic about that. I got a friend to post a closing post to
: a thread that was not quite concluded when I was taken off the neijia
: list. As far as I know, they removed me because they could not silence
: me and my views showed that Mike and gang were wrong.
:^))))))))))))))))))))))) This is what I meant about being an egomaniac.
I simply put a
: note up on Rec.MA to clarify Mike's posts, he reacted by starting this
: thread. It was impolite not to give him an answer to his posts and so
: this brings us to the present.
I always like it when you start with "I simply" since it means you're
trying to gloss over something you did wrong..... and there is a
difference between "clarify" and "rebutt". However, that thread you
started. This thread Allen Chen started. Try to get your facts straight.
--
Joseph Brown
In article <53r6g1$6...@news-e2d.gnn.com> gizz...@gnn.com (Frank Wong) writes:
>Peter Lim wrote :
>
>"I went quiet on the neijia list in order not to
>cause more flame wars with Mike, out of concern for the well being of
>the neijia list, please don't misconstrue it to be something else.
>There are those who care about the others rather than trying always to
>be press their own views. Apparently it doesn't work with some of you
>so I'll take the other approach and be here to present the views
>written in the material left behind by the early masters."
>Interesting how the facts change.
>Or could that just be your own interpretation of what occurred on the neijia
>list ?
>
>That's not what happened.
>You were removed from the neijia list and your posting priveleges were
>revoked for violating the list's rules of conduct.
>When you were cut off, you posted dramatic messages to gain people's support.
>It all seemed a big soap opera to me.
>
Wow, Peter, have you forgotten? Frank's absolutely right. You
were violating the Neijia list's rules of conduct and trying to start
a fight between a list member and a former list member.
You were called on that, then you started whining for shows of support
from other list members.
You didn't 'go quiet. You got booted. Please don't try to rewrite
history.
Joseph
David Williams
Mike Sigman wrote:
>
> David Williams (wing...@best.com) wrote:
>
> : So, what I am to make of the following?
>
> [[snip]]
>
> David, I think it may be safely said that you have no idea what to make
> of the "following post". Reeling Silk Energy exercises are done in exactly
> the same way of body movement that a Taiji form is done. So "Reeling
> Silk" energy could be termed "Taiji" energy. In that sense, RS is the
> heart of Taiji.... but both Reeling Silk and Taiji use the sophisticated
> jing (which is referred to as "peng jing" by not only the Neijia but by
> CXW and others) as the core of Reeling Silk.
So. Chen Xiaowang is saying that Reeling Silk is the standard for Taiji.
And you are positing that Peng Jing is the core strength underlying
Reeling Silk?
>
> If you understand that, there is no argument. To insist that "Reeling
> Silk" is the basic strength and to not understand the jing underlying it
> is to say that you don't understand Taiji.
I am continuing to research Taiji through the dozens of books and sites
here on
the internet.
***Interestingly enough I stopped mid post to refer to some of the books
I picked up recently.***
Now that I have the reference point for delving specifically into
Reeling Silk it gives a place
to narrow down the search.
In the section on Reeling Silk, Kuo Lien-Ying says as translated by
Guttman(page 103):
Ta'i Chi boxing from beginning to end, whether in stillness or movement,
must have Peng ching
(potential energy). If any part of the body does not have Peng Ching, it
is a defect. When Peng
Ching is present then there is flexibility. Without Peng Ching there is
no flexibility.
Flexibility comes from the limbs being drawn up long like a bowstring on
a bow.
He then goes on to describe Peng Ching's different positions (the eight
gates):
1) Upwards and to the outside, Peng ching.
2) toward the inside Lu ching.
3) downward adhering, An ching.
4) both hands combined, Chi ching.
5) hands divided to the back, Tsai ching.
6) shooting out, Lieh ching.
7) hand forced out of circle and aided by elbow striking, Chou ching.
8) Elbow forced out of the circle called K'ao ching.
"The T'ai Chi Boxing Chronicle" by Kuo Lien-Ying, translated by
Guttmann. 1994
ISBN 1-55643-177-5 North Atlantic Books
>
> : Reaction? A lot of name calling from neijia list people, with parochial
> : remarks presuming on the abilities of ANYONE from Singapore. Seems to me
> : that if some people had not visited Australia they might still be in the
> : dark as well.
>
> That's simply another cheap shot, David. You're very defensive about
> shots at Cheung and WC, but you never seem to hear yourself.
I hear myself. I don't think *your* listening skills are there, unless
of course
it is ok for *you* to make as you say cheap "shots" at Ken Chung (note
the spelling,
important as others might think you were referring to William Cheung) in
particular
and Wing Chun in general.
What I have seen *is* a lot of personal denigration within this thread,
by you and others who are on the neijia list.
There is a lot of "baggage" between the list and Peter Lim.
Peter had stated that Chan Ssu was the stated standard for Taiji.
Chen's words reflect this. It may very well be (as noted above) that
Peng Jing is the core strength
underlying Reeling Silk and that this is a subtlety brought to light
more emphatically by you.
>
> : But this is a sidebar. Lets continue with the words of Chen Xiaowang
> : shall we?
>
> : "In his introduction, Master Chen noted that Chan Ssu (reeling silk)
> : is the basic principle of Taiji. It appears simple, but to do it
> : correctly requires much practice. It is the most important aspect of
> : Taijiquan. It is practiced by applying basic principles to basic
> : movements. If reeling silk is understood, then the principles of
> : movement in Taiji are clear.
>
> : Chan Ssu is the standard for Taiji.
>
> See above.
>
> Mike Sigman
> --
So it appears you are both right. Hopefully no ones head will explode.
--
David Williams
http://www.wingchun.com/
Mike Sigman
m.com> <3262A4...@best.com>:
Organization: NETCOM On-line Communication Services (408 261-4700 guest)
David Williams (wing...@best.com) wrote:
: So. Chen Xiaowang is saying that Reeling Silk is the standard for Taiji.
: And you are positing that Peng Jing is the core strength underlying
: Reeling Silk?
CXW says that Reeling Silk is not Reeling Silk and Taiji is not Taiji
without the base jing that is being translated as "peng jing." I'm not
positing anything, I'm stating a fact.
: I hear myself. I don't think *your* listening skills are there, unless
: of course
: it is ok for *you* to make as you say cheap "shots" at Ken Chung (note
: the spelling,
: important as others might think you were referring to William Cheung) in
: particular
: and Wing Chun in general.
I think you'll find that you've done an excellent job of speaking for Ken
Chung, as far as I'm concerned. You needn't interfere with Taiji business
again; if you speak for Ken Chung, we will have nothing to do with the WC
groups again. You can assure him of that.
: What I have seen *is* a lot of personal denigration within this thread,
: by you and others who are on the neijia list.
: There is a lot of "baggage" between the list and Peter Lim.
You don't know enough about Taiji to judge that. See below.
: So it appears you are both right. Hopefully no ones head will explode.
Reread what I said:
: >
: > If you understand that, there is no argument. To insist that "Reeling
: > Silk" is the basic strength and to not understand the jing underlying it
: > is to say that you don't understand Taiji.
If my head starts to explode, I'll feel compelled to drop in on a WC
discussion and give them the benefit of my reading. It won't happen.
Mike Sigman
--
Joseph Brown
In article <53s61o$t...@lantana.singnet.com.sg> lim...@singnet.com.sg (Peter Lim Tian Tek) writes:
>gizz...@gnn.com (Frank Wong) wrote:
>
>>Interesting how the facts change.
>>Or could that just be your own interpretation of what occurred on the neijia
>>list ?
>
>>That's not what happened.
>>You were removed from the neijia list and your posting priveleges were
>>revoked for violating the list's rules of conduct.
>>When you were cut off, you posted dramatic messages to gain people's support.
>>It all seemed a big soap opera to me.
>
>neijia list once when I was still on it. I was removed from the neijia
>list but not for being rude or anything like that, I wasn't even doing
>the neijia list then it would most probably become extinct one day.
>a thread that was not quite concluded when I was taken off the neijia
>list. As far as I know, they removed me because they could not silence
>note up on Rec.MA to clarify Mike's posts, he reacted by starting this
>thread. It was impolite not to give him an answer to his posts and so
>this brings us to the present.
Uh, Peter, you're dissembling again. You got booted off the list for
being rude and petty.
And as one of the neijia administrators, I was wondering when you
were going to bring up the fact that, under a different ID, you
resubscribed to the list for quite a while. Quite a while, until
you tried to get posting privileges and I realized you had quietly
resubscribed. I then sent you a note reminding you that you
were not permitted on the list and I booted you off AGAIN.
Joseph
Marza
Hi Peter,
In article <53s61o$t...@lantana.singnet.com.sg>, lim...@singnet.com.sg
(Peter Lim Tian Tek) wrote:
>
>The neijia list isn't the only internal martial arts list in
>cyberspace fortunately and I'm not feeling its loss actually and am
>happily on several lists that keep me quite happy sharing information.
>Some on the neijia list though seem to want to continue trying to put
>me down and try tactics like signing off the Tai Chi Chuan list
>because supposedly I'm there and they didn't like it, when they
>weren't even on the Tai Chi Chuan list in the first place. Interesting
>isn't it? It serves as amusement and so has a beneficial effect.
>
I wasn't going to get into this thread, but this is a plain error of
fact. *I* was the person who was said to have signed off the
Taichichuan list without having been a member. In fact, as
I posted to that list, and you seemed to understand, I have two
email accounts. I was subscribed to the list under one account
but used the other to write the explanation to the list. When this
was questioned, I went so far as to identify the email address
under which I had previously been subscribed. If you really still
have doubts, I will be happy to send you an email from the
other address.
I corresponded with a few people on the subject, so I'm
sure they will remember this as I have described it.
It is a small matter. But you see how easy it can be to twist
something that had nothing to do with you (the reason
I signed off was because of someone else's posts) into
proof of a conspiracy. I do know the truth about the Roswell
incident though. :-)
Later,
Martha Gallagher
ma...@aol.com