Part one here.
There are roughly two paradigms that most IMA people work with: stillness to movement and movement to stillness. Some IMAs fall squarely in one category or the other. Yiquan clearly starts with stillness and then goes into movement. Baguazhang clearly starts with movement and goes into stillness. Other arts like taiji (as broad category) and xingyi are a bit of a mix with some groups advocating one path or the other. However, I would say that Yang style and it’s derrivitives (for the *most* part) take a more stillness approach at first. Obviously there is movement but it’s of a different type than Chen style IMO.
What makes Chen unique IMO is that it starts with more of a physical training regimen through forms training. This can be called houtian/post heaven/body building in nature and it stresses building the body up in ways that Chen style needs. Apsects that are stressed include extending the postures, holding lower stances, spreading the feet wider, going lower in movements to work the dang, working on peng or groundpath, and perhaps using exaggerated fajing and chansijing by some groups in order to get a feel for those requirements. These attributes will often be exaggerated to some extent because doing so allows beginners to get a better feel for them. It’s easier to grasp bigger movements than smaller, exageratted over subtle. This is movement over stillness.
I view this as a necessary stage in Chen training.
This is contrasted with most Yang and it’s variants in that the postures are rarely done in the manner of Chen. The external qualities are often downplayed beyond considerations of correctness in movement. This obviously doesn’t apply to those doing the more wushu-esque variants of the Yang styles and assorted derivitives. For this reason, I classify Yang as more stillness to movement than Chen.
But a problem can develop if these physical, mechanical aspects of Chen are overplayed.
No matter how good you are at the physical aspects of Chen, you can always be better. So it’s fairly easy to get caught up in developing the physical side, at the expense of moving the focus to more internal, less outwardly visible aspects of practice.
For example, moves that once were done to the extremes in order to develop the body may become smaller as the energy generated in the move is held back. Extension isn’t the key here, building reserves in the movements is. Stances may come up to lessen the endurance-building aspect in favor of becoming more light and sensitive in footwork and handwork. Large, obvious motions may need to become smaller and more efficient. Bascially, having gone to a yang extreme, the need to become more yin makes itself obvious.
But this type of taiji isn’t easily taught, let alone in seminars. It also requires an almost completely different focus. The metrics used to judge development in the physical apsects must be abandoned. Lower stances here mean nothing, nor does snappy fajing that wastes energy and looks showy. But having become good at one aspect, it’s often hard to abandon it in order to develop another aspect.
This is what I see in some (perhaps a lot) of Chen style. People tend to get caught in the physical development stage, and they don’t move on. Instead, multiple forms supply supposed advancement, even though this is just an illusion. All the forms are done at an external level and moving through the curriculum is stressed. Afterall, this is something more visible.
The solution is obviously fewer forms and an explicit training method that aims to move beyond the external level. Anything less will likely keep the student on the physical level forever.
As always, your thoughts are appreciated.
17 responses so far ↓
1 GrahamB // Jan 15, 2007 at 4:01 pm
I’ve alwasy found talk of ‘physical level’ and ‘internal level’ a bit curious when it comes to Tai Chi. To my mind they’re two sides of the same coin - rather than either/or. You need the internal to move in harmony with the external - not one at the expense of the other. If you were purley ‘internal’ there would be no external movement at all, and no therefore Tai Chi Chuan!
In your article you are not clearly saying what exactly counts as ‘internal’, which makes it hard to respond to your post - perhaps you can do a pt 3 in which you say explicitly what you think is missing?
b.t.w. I don’t do Chen style.
2 Chad // Jan 16, 2007 at 12:21 am
I’d have to agree with Graham here. Internal and external devisions are rather arbitrary in most circles. In my mind it is a matter of refinement. At the beegining, everything is going to be more “external” because it is not refined. once your body learns the movement and is comfortable with them, you become more “internal”.
The way I define the terms is pretty simple, external is a form of mimicry where you simply copy the proper movements as the appear to you. Internal is the refinement of those movements to how they feel to you.
I have practiced Chen Style (although i don’t any more) so i think I know where you are comming from though. orrect me if I am wrong, but you are reffering to the Chen Practitioners who over emphasise the coiling and shaking so that they almost appear to be having a fit of some sort. This i have seen and it is rather unsightly. the most interesting thing to me when I was studying Chen was the emphasis of gathering and releasing. Like in hidden hand punch, the long arm extension that coils down into the body and then released in the punch like a rubberband. Most people though isunderstand what is going on there and artificially make the movements that they think look like what is supposed to be done. it becomes a strange mime of something rather than practice.
I call it the Chen wiggle, rather than the Chen shake.
So, to sum up, do shake, don’t wiggle.
3 knismesis // Jan 16, 2007 at 12:55 am
I personally think that a key point in the internalisation of any form is the reduction in lines and movement. A move from a larger frame to a smaller frame whilst still maintaining the same expression in power. Ultimately I see it as reducing and minimalising outward expressions of force.
In this respect I would say that the points chessman71 has raised are valid ones. Although GrahamB’s comment is not incorrect I think it is taking chessman71’s use of the word internal slightly out of context. I would say its fairly obvious what Chessman means by his use of “internal” and the context of his usage in this case. Lets not be fascesious with definitions, I think a good point has been made, lets explore that further.
4 wujimon // Jan 16, 2007 at 1:11 am
When I first started learning chen, everything I did was then said to look like chen. My yang began to look like chen, everything too on a chen flavor that is often referred to as “chen creep”.
Fast forward a bit, for the past year or so, I’ve modified my chen. I no longer try to go in low stances with thighs parallel. I no longer do hard fajing. I no longer try to fully extend my postures. Now I get told my chen looks like my yang.
I feel good doing the form in this manner. However, I feel better doing the yang form in this manner. Maybe this is a subtle hint of what I should be doing..
5 chessman71 // Jan 16, 2007 at 7:31 am
Knismesis,
Thanks for that. You seem to have grasped what I’m saying.
From wuji’s comment, I think a lot of us are struggling with this aspect of learning Chen style. Because of that, I felt it necessary to exlpore this a bit further. I’ll try to get part 3 up soon.
6 Comment on “Chen style as external pt. 2″ « Taiji@Stagmont // Jan 16, 2007 at 10:58 am
[...] http://formosaneijia.com/2007/chen-style-as-external-pt-2/ Formosa Neijia brought up the following interesting points :- [...]
7 Q // Jan 16, 2007 at 12:44 pm
I’m not so sure it matters whether your form is large or small because each emphasizes a different aspect of training, but both are important. Seems to me the larger frames emphasize power and those who practice that way should have single drills w/ smaller movements to train apps and agility. The smaller frames would probably be greatly complemented w/ drills for power and range of motion. That’s just my guess coming from the bagua angle though, so take it w/ a grain of salt.
8 Chong // Jan 16, 2007 at 5:00 pm
9 Chong // Jan 16, 2007 at 5:11 pm
Additional:
Training path of External Arts:
Yang -> Ying -> Yang => Ying & Yang combined
Training path of Internal Arts:
Ying -> Yang -> Ying => Ying & Yang combined
此为太极也！！
10 Casey // Jan 17, 2007 at 12:50 pm
So what is your definition of “internal” training in this case? Do you mean like doing qigong, learning to move the dantian, etc.? Or something else? Do you mean that just doing the form in a very slow, relaxed manner should be considered “internal” training? (which I could see if your qigong is good enough that you can feel internal movements when doing the form).
11 Chong // Jan 17, 2007 at 8:13 pm
Qigong is just a supplement training to calm the mind, it also help to put the trainee into the right state of mind i.e. relaxation.
When you said Dantian I believed you refer to the ChiHai acupuncture point. I am surprised that anyone is able to move it physically, IMO therefore moving Dantian is not possible. The waist and kua is able to rotate however.
To me internal is ROU. What is ROU? I have written an article about this.
http://www.chen-taiji.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=163&Itemid=140
ROU is not Soft.
12 Casey // Jan 18, 2007 at 7:37 am
There is FAR more to qigong than just relaxing and calming the mind.
13 tim // Jan 18, 2007 at 9:35 am
Uh aren’t all the forms supposed to be a subset of qigong? As in, gong fu is just a subset of a wider qigong “physical culture?”
14 Casey // Jan 18, 2007 at 1:12 pm
Qigong is only one half of the “physical culture” of “yundong.” In the TCM paradigm, a complete system of exercise has both “yun” (circulation) and “dong” (movement). Qigong teaches circulation, while forms are focused on training the muscles with martially-oriented movements.
The more you practice qigong, the more it will integrate with any movement you do, and can ultimately integrate with martial arts. Some martial forms can double as a kind of qigong if performed with the right intent (circle walking), but still, qigong and martial forms are two seperate types of training. In other words, if your qigong is good, then you will naturally have inner circulation as a part of your Taiji forms practice. But, Taiji forms practice alone will not get you there (well, maybe in 30 years or something) any more than you can become a great martial artist with qigong alone.
15 zenmindsword // Jan 18, 2007 at 2:24 pm
the Malays have a nice saying “if cannot dance, don’t blame the floor” - don’t blame lack of qigong if we lack the internal. if anything blame the lack of “yi”. with the right “yi” a lot of things will be unlocked. taiji should rightly be a study of shen, yi and qi
16 Hakchigi // Mar 8, 2007 at 1:30 pm
I studied hunyuan chen style for several years: I appreciated that because a lot of qigong is incorporated, with the idea being ‘qi’ is like the air in a tyre: just studying the external moves without the qi will be flat.
Another thing to note, the school discouraged fajing at first, but to wait until more mature to incorpate fajing in forms. Fangsong gong (relaxation exercises) were also used which is essential for IMA.
17 chessman71 // Mar 8, 2007 at 1:38 pm
Hakchigi,
Welcome to the blog. I have loads of respect for Feng. His style does incorporate lots of qigong, but if you’ve listened to people from certain groups, you’ll hear Feng get put down a lot for the way he moves.
Too bad some people can’t see it.
Leave a Comment