Formosa Neijia

The following is a great recent comment by zhongnanmen, who studied the CPL and Wang Shu-jin traditions in Taizhong. I was surprised that the structure of the form itself is more based on Wu’s interpretation of the old Yang. I assumed it was more from Yang himself, but at that point in time, there may not have been much of a difference. Please pay close attention to what zhong has to say about CPL’s underlying philosophy about CMA in general and his hopes for this form. Those are VERY important points IMO and they are indicative of how CPL and many others of his generation wanted CMA to progress. This point gets lost too many times in the tired traditionalist/wushu debate. There was a third way that came out of this generation’s efforts.

The main structure of the form is based on Wu Jianquan’s form before he left Beijing and went south - when Wu’s way of practicing was still more similar to the small frame Yang style. Since Chen also studied with Ji Zixiu and Yang Shaohou (they were all in Beijing (then Beiping) teaching at the same place), the CPL form is sort of mix of what he learned from them. What puts it apart from more common Yang and Wu styles is that Chen incorporate more spiralling and rotations along the vertical axis and an emphasis on the dynamic interplay between relaxation (song) and dynamic tension (jin).There is considerably more rotations everywhere than common Yang style. This is not so outwardly noticeable in the above clips, but it’s there and, for the practitioner, it’s integral to the ’spirit’ of the form.

The form is definitely a outgrowth of Chen’s wider involvement in the nationalist revolutionary movement, starting with his role as student leader in the May 4th Movement, and his concern with national health and strength,starting with the individual all the way to the larger national collectivity. His goal was to create a form that combined the main characteristics of the major schools of taiji and to thus transcend the tensions and feuds between schools endemic to Chinese martial arts.He said that there should not be division between schools (bu fen menpai), but one’s lineage should be acknowledged. Chen was also very concerned with standardisation and systematic teaching so that taiji would be more accessible to a broader audience. Yet he was also explicit about his desire to combine not just the most beautiful movements, but also those that application-wise were effective and represented the styles the three schools of taiji that went into his form.

When he was head of the Henan Guoshuguan in the 1920s, he spent an extended period in Chenjiagou and was, very importantly, responsible for publishing Chen Xin’s book on Chen taiji. With whom he studied with when he was there is not clear, though I’m sure his sons would know more about that.