I was sort of waiting for this thread on EF to come to it’s natural conclusion and I think that onyomi’s post, archived below, is it.
I feel onyomi’s pain on this one, but trying to reform the qigong field, or even making a dent in it, will be impossible. Qigong is difficult to understand and most people who are teaching it don’t know what they’re doing, let alone why or how it works. As long as the market rewards these people, no standards will exist. That’s simply the way it is.
As I’ve stated many times here, I feel that TCM provides the explanations necessary to understand what is going on in qigong. But for such an important topic, I can say that most people aren’t talking about it. I’m not sure why, but perhaps it’s a lack of interest in this topic because it gets fairly technical.
That’s too bad because this is an important topic that deserves to be discussed more. I do realize that most people are simply looking for something that works, but qigong is one of those things were theory is as important as practice. I say that because if you don’t know WHAT the movements are supposed to do, then you will have no way to tell if they’re working.
If you don’t know the principles behind the art, will you be doing the art correctly? Unlikely.
Here’s onyomi’s commentary:
It’s true that qigong is relatively subjective, but one of the reasons I really like my teacher’s qigong, other than that it works and I can undeniably feel things is also that he has relatively inflexible conception of qigong–what is and isn’t qigong, a basic idea of how qigong works, what is or isn’t possible with qigong. (edit: notice how having strong definitions by onyomi’s teacher leads to a clear practice method and feedback mechanisms that in turn lead to verifiable results.)
He always asks me questions when I’m practicing qigong, as well as feeling my body and observing me closely, thereby bringing about as much of a standard as possible. I think that as a result he generally has a good conception of where my qigong is. What’s more, his conception of qigong meshes perfectly with reality in my experience. Sometimes I don’t understand what he means by a concept or idea that sounds esoteric, but I always find with more practice that it is surprisingly concrete. And this is one of the standards I think should apply to qigong–you shouldn’t have to believe in it for it to work. I always had a skeptical attitude about qigong even as I was first learning it. I’ve always been very wary of imagining things and try to bring a critical eye to what I practice. Nonetheless, I must say I’m a believer simply because I have to be feeling what I felt. These feelings all came on gradually and after dedicated practice, so it is true that I had a certain amount of faith or at least curiosity in order to do the exercises long enough to get results. However, what I actually feel and what I expect are often quite different. That, coupled with the certain outwardly observable physical changes like the ability to make my hands full of blood at will, which I did not have before, all lead me to believe that actual physical changes have taken place in my body as a result of qigong and that those physical changes are the desired result.
So, my teacher, who is usually VERY flexible about accepting a wide variation in the world of martial arts, has what many would consider a rigid interpretation of qigong. For example: martial arts and qigong must be practiced seperately (as Xie Peiqi says), though the results of qigong can be incorporated into martial practice. Circle-walking, santishi and the like are not qigong. They may be of benefit to qigong by all the stretching involved, but they are primarily oriented toward giving you the Xingyi/Bagua “body,” not qigong. You can’t feel another person’s qi. It’s in their body, only they can feel it. You can feel the meridians, but only the ones which correspond to the physical tendons. You can’t affect someone’s qi without touching them and people who say they can suddenly “give you qi,” are generally charlatans. The only way to learn qigong is through a lot of dedicated practice. you can’t just have some qigong master zap you and you have qi any more than a bodybuilder can give you big muscles. Also, having people break shit on you, press spears in your throat, etc. are not qigong, they are magic tricks.
Qigong in many ways is like body building–you can’t build an impressive physique in one day at the gym and you can’t become a qigong master overnight, because in both cases the body has to have time to adapt to the demands you’re putting on it. My teacher says qigong is like a child growing up. What does he have to do to grow up? He has to eat, drink water, rest, etc. and his body will naturally grow over time. Can he accomplish this process overnight? Can someone eat the food and drink the water for him? Of course not.
Anyway, so those are some of the basic standards my teacher applies to qigong and I agree with them fully. I should note that one of the reasons I think he has a clearer picture than most is because he’s studied TCM–a key, I believe to understanding qigong. Sure, it’s possible to get pretty good at qigong without understanding it, but isn’t it even better to understand so the process can be repeated? I’m sure some people here won’t agree with these ideas and I’m not trying to hold them up as gospel. I’m just saying that some teachers have very clear, non-mystical, non-vague conceptions of qigong, and I think those will also tend to be practitioners who have also studied TCM. I hope to see attitudes shifting more in this direction in the future (by which I don’t mean we should persecute all qigong teachers who don’t do things just like our own, but rather that qigong teachers should try to understand and explain their own practice in a more tangible way.)
9 responses so far ↓
1 Casey // Nov 2, 2006 at 1:15 am
It may have been partly my fault for starting the thread out on a soapbox, and there were some good contributions, but I was still very surprised at how little interest the majority of the EF community seemed to have in what I was trying to discuss.
I think the reason for it lies in precisely what I was complaining about–i.e. low or non-existent standards for qigong practice added to the fact that most Americans (and even most Chinese) have no realistic conception of what qigong is or what it’s supposed to do.
I’m sure lots of people on the board have tried studying qigong with unqualified teachers and come away feeling disappointed as if it was their own fault they couldn’t “get” it or that it’s all a bunch of hippy nonsense. Others believe that if you just do your Taiji form one billion times then “qi” will take care of itself. Many others probably have teachers who treat it as an afterthought or who have skill but don’t explain how it works. There are probably some others who have developed qigong skill over years of training, but still don’t really understand how they got there. This results in confusion and frustration regarding qigong, leading to a “whatever, just focus on the martial arts” attitude or a feeling that qigong is so esoteric and impossible to understand that there’s no point in even discussing it.
It also leads some people to become “chronically open-minded.” Of course, being open-minded is a very good thing–something the world could use more of–but there are still limits. I think this excessive open-mindedness also stems from a lack of understanding. The more you understand qigong the more you can make informed judgements about it. The issue is whether qigong can be understood at all, to which I’d say “yes,” but I think many would say “no.” Of course, to fully comprehend its every aspect is almost impossible, just as no one doctor will fully understand human biology in his lifetime. Still, the doctor can make judgements about what is good or bad for you, what will be an effective treatment, based on understanding of how the overall system works.
2 chessman71 // Nov 2, 2006 at 1:47 pm
Casey/Onyomi,
I share your frustration to some extent. But then not everyone will be interested in every aspect of MA and qigong I guess.
But the lack of interest just goes to show why no real standards can exist among practicioners.
I also agree about the “chronically open-minded” being a big problem as well. Many people attracted to doing qigong aren’t exactly the discerning type. They tend to believe what they are told and if they aren’t told anything, they will almost never do their own research to find out.
Sad.
3 tim // Nov 3, 2006 at 3:55 am
The basic problem is how to measure progress. There need to be specific metrics. That is, physical movements that can only be done once the body is correctly conditioned. I realize I’m sort of riffing on Yiquan here, but I think in the abstract that’s the right way to go. If students have a feedback generating method, then that is their standard–are they improving their ability to perform the skill or not? I think this is probably the idea behind Tohei’s “ki tests” although it is not clear to me what the rate of success of their method is.
I disagree pretty strongly about the “martial arts and qigong are separate” part. I think ideally (big speculation) you’d be moving with the same level of integration which you develop through the qigong practice. In much the same way that as a judo player can develop general physical preparedness through weights and cardio, there is also a place for sports specific training, i.e. exercises targetted at the sport. Before anyone jumps all over me about judo being a sport vs martial arts etc, it’s all about fighting anyway.
Therefore I see qigong as the general physical preparation, and then the “martial” side as the shape or box in to which you put the power. So when I do wing chun (rarely these days, my wc friends are quite busy) I put the feelings I develop from the Akuzawa exercises and the Chen style qigong in to the application box of wc drills (chi sao and some of the other limited pushing exercises).
I disagree that circle walking, santi etc aren’t qigong. They are. They just are doing the qigong in a sports specific way, in the same way that working with elastic bands or the cable pull machine for throwing is still resistance training, just sports specific for judo.
I am not that interested in the emitted qi stuff either. As Chessman says, too many people attracted to qigong aren’t the discerning type. Actually he’s being too nice about it. Most of the people doing qigong are flaky annoying dipshits who want to channel the power of the universe through their fingertips.
As far as basic principles, I think that “axis” theory has been most helpful to me. I look at axis in two ways
1. Rob has explained to me at length that they (Aunkai/Akuzawa) view the body as having three axes, left/central/right with the spine as the central axis. They then work to strengthen the connection in each axis through targeted drills.
2. All movement can be broken down in to 3 axes, x,y and z. So my goal is to find the “pressure” feeling (the qi if you like) in each joint in all three axes. Some joints obviously have fewer degrees of freedom (elbow) some all three (hip and shoulder).
4 chessman71 // Nov 3, 2006 at 9:27 am
Tim,
You bring up some good points.
About separating qigong and MA, as far as I can tell, the idea is to develop the qigong separately first before it’s put into the MA that we do. So it’s actually much as you describe in your training. For example, I’m doing the huleijia with Onyomi’s teacher (so he’s my teacher as well) but I didn’t do the qigong first. From the clips that Onyomi put up, I can tell that there are movements in the qigong that would be helping me immensely if I had done that first. Certan qigongs and fajing exercises are best done separetely before people try to do them in a complicated form. And the huleijia is the most complicated form I’ve ever seen.
I also agree to some extent about circle walking. I think it is a qigong, in fact, it’s one of the most powerful qigongs that I’ve practiced. It’s especially good when done with the eight mother palms — bagua’s qigong set.
About santi being qigong, I think it should be but it isn’t as most xingyi people practice it. There’s a general dismissal of the five element theory corresponding to the organs by most xingyi guys. Let’s just say they aren’t usually the xingyi type. Too bad. But it should be practiced as qigong.
5 Casey // Nov 4, 2006 at 8:00 am
The reason I say circle walking and santi “aren’t” qigong (besides parroting what I’ve heard Zhou laoshi say) is because the cultivation of the qi isn’t their primary goal. This is the same reason I would say Tantui or a Taiji form is not qigong. Though the skills gained in qigong will come into play when performing these exercises, it is more a matter of using what you’ve developed, not so much developing it further I think.
I do agree that these practices, when performed correctly, can all advance your qigong practice, so in a way, they could be called qigong. However, I think this is like calling Judo’s randori “strength training.” Certainly you are working your muscles when throwing heavy opponents and could even become quite strong with Randori alone if you did enough of it. Still, most people wouldn’t call randori “strength training,” because building up muscular strength is the primary goal.
This is why I don’t call Taiji forms, circle walking, santi or Tantui, “qigong,” even though they can all benefit the qi system. It just depends on how broad your definition is.
I tend to keep it narrow, because if you don’t then a seemingly infinite number of activities start to become candidates for “qigong-hood”–for example swimming (and this is absolutely not a dig against your previous article, Dave–I totally understood and agreed with what you were getting at there), which involves rhythmic breathing, moving the muscles through a wide range of motion, etc. Swimming is a great type of exercise and very good for you, quite possibly for many of the same reasons qigong is. Nonetheless, Olympic swimmers are not all qigong masters, despite swimming many hours a day. Therefore, I exclude swimming from my personal definition of qigong. (And I think we qigong practitioners have to constantly examine our own “personal” definitions of qigong, because I’ve found virtually no two people are working with quite the same idea when they use the term).
6 Formosa Neijia - Exploring Taiwan’s Internal Martial Arts » Qi Gong standards pt. 2: bagua, TCM, and teachers // Nov 4, 2006 at 11:55 am
[...] Onyomi on qi gong standards [...]
7 Chad // Dec 31, 2006 at 6:46 am
The way I was taught, qigong, neigong, and wai gong are not forms or different training paradigms. Rather they are various levels of any type of physical fitness training as is (or was) veiwed by the Chinese cultural eye. The issue of what is or is not qigong just isnt present. There is a “qigong” level of taiji( or more appropriately nei gong) as well as a waigong aspect. While the focus of the practitioner may change through various levels of training, these things are constantly a part of training.
Take swimming for example. The wai gong part of it could be described as general conditioning, strength training, and the like while the nei gong or qi gong aspect is the breath controll and it’s coordination with the movement, shen fa culd be technique or whatever. The point is that these are simply words to catorgorize things into cohesive units and make learning or training more effecient.
Pre and post heaven concepts were explained to me like this; pre heaven techniques and such are working with what you have inately and post heaven are buidling or improving upon those things. For example, pre heaven warm ups focus on simply warming up the muscles, lubricating joints, and begining gentel stimulus of the nueromuscular system. Post heaven are excercises to increase strength, improve range of motion, and build higher levels of nueromuscular effeciency. One is sustaining, the other is improving.
Again, these are just words and people are free to define them however is most useful to them.
As far as standards go, I agree that the general level of expertise in the martial art and qigong community is dreadfully low. I am constantly amazed and discouraged by the almost momumental amount of ignorance of the human body instructors of CMA and Qigong display. For those of us who teach, it behoves us to stay just as informed as any atheltic coach or trainer. All the most recent research is freely available through the internet these days ( Google scholar and pub med are addictions of mine) and there is no reason why a minimum level of knowledge of anatomy and physiology should not be required. unfortunately, formums like this are rare these days, and poeple do not discuss issues in a producive manner. Another reason why Blogs and discussion boards like this are so valuable.
We all have something to contribute.
8 chessman71 // Jan 1, 2007 at 9:45 am
Chad,
Excellent comments. I particularly liked the way that you worked swimming into the mix. Working with breathing patterns ala qigong wouldn’t be difficult for swimmers. Few realize that.
Your conception of xiantian and houtian fit what I’ve been taught as well. Unfortunately, most people don’t stress houtian training enough IMO. Having more houtian strength leaves the xiantian aspect more or less intact. But working with the body is something that few people want to do it seems.
9 Chad // Jan 1, 2007 at 2:51 pm
i would assert that the “houtian” training changes the Xiantian” Training. If you want to stretch the concept that far. The old ones didn’t have objective knowledge of the physiology of the human body back then. A fit person is going to have a certain amount of flexability etc, if they then get sick or injured, they will return with less and must train it back up to snuff (That is the secret behind the before and after pictures of weight loss fads). They arent “born with it” so to speek.
Really, if we had the bio mechanics we were born with or developed early in childhood, we would’nt need any of this stuff.
I think it is a vast trend these days that people initial get into Taiji or qigong because they think it is “easy” in a certain respect. They dont want to break a sweat (I have had too many teachers come to me saying that if you are sweating when you do taiji you are doing it wrong). When I asked my teacher about the strength issue he said “That’s ridiuclous. if the meat is rotten, it wont go.” or something to that effect. It’s amazing to see people show up for Taiji classes and find their quads burning like hellfire and just drop out. Sad, but what can you do?
Leave a Comment