Here is part of the longer post I wrote on the qi issue. This is incomplete, but it’s enough for now.
As Ms. Zorya makes entirely clear, taijiquan IS NOT daoist nor is it dependent on religious daoism for any explanation at any level. The confusion over this comes in when ignorant taiji teachers make ridiculous statements like “taijiquan is a thousand years old” or “daoism is five thousand years old.” Both of those are also entirely false.
The common thread between these topics is YiJing philosophy, which IS apparently close to five thousand years old. What is always forgotten is that YiJing philiosophy, as far as I understand it, is a secular philosophy that was the intellectual paradigm of the day (and still is, to some degree). The Chinese used it to describe how things work. Most fields in Chinese culture have their roots in YiJing philosophy or were at least explained in terms originally drawn from its study. Daoism, martial arts, cooking, TCM, music — you name it — were all originally described in terms drawn from YiJing philosophy because it was a useful intellectual paradigm.
The language and concepts used still live on in Chinese language and culture to this day. Qi, for example, is not some esoteric thing to be “believed in.” That sounds so weird to me. It’s just part of the language and overall paradigm drawn from the YiJing. For example, both weather (tianqi) and anger (shengqi) use the word qi.
So it’s wrong to say that taiji is Daoist. It’s more correct to say that both Daoism and taijiquan have roots in YiJing philosophy and historically, both were explained in terms drawn from that paradigm.
Furthermore, words like qi need to be seen as intellectual concepts that are part of that larger paradigm. By themselves, they don’t explain much, but that doesn’t mean that they and the paradigm they are drawn from has no use.
Compare the word qi to the number zero, for example. You can’t touch, smell, or see any number, zero included. But does that mean they don’t exist? Could you get through your day without the number zero or other numbers? The concept of the number zero floated around in Greek thinking, but it was Indian philosophers that introduced it to Europe. It was gradually accepted when they introduced it because it was a superior intellectual concept to what the Europeans had. Yet, the Catholic Church rejected the number zero as heretical and, to this day, zero upsets some forms of mathematics that struggle with the concept.
Many Westerners today reject the concept of qi because it doesn’t fit in with their worldview and they don’t understand it.
So is talk of qi and the larger YiJing or TCM paradigm needed to understand taiji?
If someone want to practice taiji as a kick-punch-block MA like karate or just do it for simple health, then no, it’s not necessary. But if you want to understand how and why taiji works at the deepest levels, then yes, you will have to grapple with the concepts and language that shaped taijiquan’s development.
This may upset some people, but trust me, there is NO WAY that you can practice science without accepting Western notions of honesty and freethinking. Science was shaped by the culture around it and you’ll have to share in some of the assumptions of that culture or you won’t be doing science.
Taijiquan is the same way.
16 responses so far ↓
1 Tim // Jul 27, 2007 at 3:13 pm
I’d argue that unless a person understands ki/qi he isn’t really doing karate either. Higaonna Morio talks all about it in his Way of the warrior interview. If Higaonna isn’t a legit karate guy, no one is a legit karate guy.
2 oldmantaiji // Jul 27, 2007 at 11:46 pm
I think qi or chi can be translated as pneuma which would be easier for westerns to understand.
Taijiquan teachers often said 氣沉丹田 and this is not just about abdominal breathing.
3 scott // Jul 28, 2007 at 12:22 am
First I want to say it’s great to participate in a discussion with lot’s of people who actually know what they are talking about.
Chessman, it’s a good post but I find the category “Yijing Philosophy” rather weak. We have the early Han Great Commentaries, then we have Wangbi, then much later we get the codification of Zhuxi. This is usually referred to as the Ru tradition. This particular type of Yijing syncretism probably comes in the wake of Zhuxi, even if we see hints of earlier. Use of the Yijing in teaching painting, jindan, music, military strategy, medicine, etc… should really be understood as a common structure of organization. In theory, the intentional use of common vocabulary and organization for seemingly disparate fields of study was an attempt to make it easier for people competent in one field of study to move horizontally into another.
4 Joanna // Jul 28, 2007 at 4:10 am
I disagree entirely, and again refute that someone who rejects qi can automatically be considered not to understand it. I have studied Eastern meditative paths and philisophies for 29 years and Daoism specifically for 22 years (philosophical as well as some more religious stuff.) I have owned several copies of the yijing and consulted them many times. I have had lots of TCM and 3 acupuncturists. I have done micro and macrocosmic orbit meditations, heaps of qigong and done qi healing. I’ve also had a couple of profound shamanic journeys, and a couple of out of body experiences, but that is not the point. (I’ve done some dowsing too, Dojo Rat - yes I found it worked too!)
I reject the concept of qi and refute it all. I believe my experiences of it were worthless and illusory - not because I had no results, but because I consider the results I had to be detrimental rather than beneficial to my martial training and life in general.
Please understand - most of the people who read this are qi evangelicals - they do not understand how someone can experience the phenomenon known as qi and not think it amazing. I have experienced it and consider it to be delusional and ego-driven: a deification of sensory experience. I consider altered states of consciousness to be dangerous, rather than useful. I do not drink or take drugs either.
A person can understand the conceptual model of the 4 humours, but refute its validity. We could discuss comparative Judaic, Christian, Muslim and Sikh perspectives of God, and you could understand the differences and similarities, but still turn around and refute the existence of God, completely unimpressed by my (or anyone else’s) experiences of visions and hearing God’s voice. You probably consider my experiences delusional. If you experienced a divine presence in my company, you would not in all probability accept my explanation of it.
I do not reject exercises such as chansigong that develop one’s physical abilities to make smooth continuous rotating movements. I also draw on yin and yang; ba gua and five element theories sometimes, purely as conceptual models. But that is all they are to me - metaphors or intellectual models.
Now I will let you continue your discussion without me, because I have nothing to contribute here that anyone will want to hear. Just please try to remember that sometimes people can reject things that they do know something about. I would recommend a book called “Sikhism - A Comparative Study of its Theology & Mysticism” by Daljeet Singh. In it he explains many metaphysical world views from a Sikh perspective. If you read it you will understand my own perpective better, but I don’t think you are all that interested in trying to understand it as discussions like this never get beyond the same old dogmas, devoid of explanation. No one is ever prepared to explain WHY jin cannot be translated, or WHY peng is “not that simple” or WHY qi is essential - all they come out with is dogma and insults. I have had good teachers and less good teachers - teaching with qi and teaching without it. The best never mentioned qi and got on with teaching me how to fight. I have never witnessed any martial advantage in people who subscribe to the concept of qi, only the reverse.
Goodbye
5 Chad // Jul 28, 2007 at 4:49 am
Joanna,
As a sports scientist to be myself, i agree with your over all stance. Qi is an intelectual concept thast encompassed a large number of phenomena and experiences that, with current knowledge of anatomy and physiology,are know to be unrelated in any direct way.However, it is one thing to reject superstitious or lay notions sprung from popular culture and another thing to discard the concept without exploring what ways our new undderstanding can tell us about the way these systems work. Qi is claimed to do many things, some are widely known for their mechanism (ideomotor response, myotactic sensitivity etc) and some are not. It also disregards the gestault of given context which can possibly lead to missed opportunities for discovery.
The real issue at hand is what do people mean when they say Qi? everyone seems to be arguing the same point here and just having a different veiw of it’s application. Skeptics are often so about this because of ridiculous claims, the complete and utter inconsistancy with what is known about the body and biological organisms, or the dangerous quackery that gets cancer patients to go off of chemo. Ther eality of it is a substance doesn’t seem to be a big sticking point around here, just the effects.
Do you need the concept of qi to learn or master IMA? Depends on what you consider mastering it. If you want to learn to fight, no, it is not needed. If yo think it is, go to Tim Cartmel’s school and spar with them. If you want to learn it’s cutlural heatage or origins, yes, you need the whole kit and kaboodle. Other wise, its a take it or leave it sort of thing. What you want should dictate what you learn. Everything should futher that goal.
Fianlly, Joanna. If you arent going to discuss things anymore, there is no need to announce it to everyone after saying your peice. Just dont post anymore, but let us decide what we want to hear and don’t. Disagreements are natural and so what if someone doesnt want to hear it. Juist seems a bit insulting to everyone.
6 Tim // Jul 28, 2007 at 4:55 am
Joanna,
The states of mind stuff is important but done alone it doesn’t develop the body. If you can develop the body skills, then you understand it. If you can’t develop the skills, then you don’t understand it– regardless of how many copies of the yijing you own, or how much meditation you’ve done.
I’m not about dogma and insults. There’s just no “nice” way to tell someone that they don’t understand. I’m about results. You can do static tests all the way up to ring fighting. There are lots, and lots and lots of physical tests a person can put themselves through to find out whether their body understands the concepts. They’re not “tricks” they are just tests for oneself, as opposed to tests judged by others.
Whether people choose to do so, is a different story.
7 chessman71 // Jul 28, 2007 at 10:35 am
Joanna,
Sorry you’re not interested in discussing this. I do find it interesting that you chose to focus solely on what we disagree about rather than the things I clearly agreed with you on in the post.
I also clearly said “many” — not “everyone” — when describing people that reject notions of qi. I DO think that it’s possible for someone to understand and still reject/disagree about something. So I wasn’t necessarily saying that you don’t understand. But the statement is valid because it’s a legitimate problem with MOST Westerners that reject Chinese concepts.
I agree 90% with what you’re saying and I’m trying to have a decent discussion about the rest.
So not all of us who disagree maybe 10% with you are “qi evangelicals” by default.
But if we can’t discuss this then that’s okay too, I guess.
8 Frédo // Jul 28, 2007 at 11:19 am
Well,
1. Some make a difference between the Daoist religion and the Daoist philosophy, the latter being mostly based on the Yin-Yang and its related theories (Zhouyi or Yijing, Bagua, Wuxing, Huangdi Neijing…). For this, some martial practices, but not all, are just in line with the Daoist philosophy.
2. Qi is what is called an axiom in the sense of “a proposition that is assumed without proof for the sake of studying the consequences that follow from it.”. Some martial arts are based on it, some not.
If one thinks the notion of Qi is rubbish and studies whatever fighting art which does not include the notion, it is quite a logical choice.
Now, if one decides to study some martial arts, like TJ, but rejects one of it axioms, it is a bit looking for complications in an already sometimes not so easy to understand system. If you deny an axiom, you actually deny the whole system, there is no other possible alternative.
Now, axioms are a very common thing, both in philosophy and mathematics, and can only be sort of proven or unproven by the feasibility of the system they create.
My 0.00000000000005 Hongkies
9 Joanna // Jul 28, 2007 at 3:07 pm
Chessman71 wrote:
“Sorry you’re not interested in discussing this. I do find it interesting that you chose to focus solely on what we disagree about rather than the things I clearly agreed with you on in the post.”
I don’t think that is fair - as far as I was concerned, we were discussing things on the previous thread but then you stopped replying and have started up another one. This is what qi people do when I try to get specific answers out of them. I asked WHY jin cannot be translated into English. I asked where, when and why you think an English term such as “trained skill”, “holistic force” or “grounded strength” would be unsuitable?
Anyway, I am not interested in discussing it further as I don’t have the time and these discussions never get anywhere. I’d appreciate it if you did not address any further questions directly to me or make any personal comments about me. I’m sure you can discuss these issues between yourselves without reference to me. Take care.
10 Casey // Jul 28, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I agree that the number “0″ is a very good point of comparison for the concept of qi. It seems to be an unnecessary concept as it can’t reliably be identified in isolation, just as “0″ seems unnecessary, because it’s counting a non-number. Still, both work very well as part of given intellectual paradigms. Within TCM, we want to strengthen and enhance the “energy flows of the body.” In reality, whatever’s going on is probably a complex cluster of various reactions involving the nervous, circulatory, respiratory, endocrine, musculoskeletal and possibly other systems. For understanding and referring to this “energy” we can learn to move around the body, qi is a very convenient and useful concept.
11 chessman71 // Jul 28, 2007 at 6:39 pm
Joanna,
Sorry, but this is a blog, not a discussion forum. The setup as far as replying and introducing topics is different here. For example, a large number of people that read blogs never read the comments. One of the major ways to keep a subject going on a blog is to write up a new post. Most people just look at the front page.
I have an answer for you regarding jin, but it doesn’t matter now. As you say, you aren’t really interested in discussing it.
No problem.
I will also honor your request to not make reference to you or comment further on your writings. Thanks for taking the time to share a few of your thoughts on this topic.
12 enokidake // Aug 1, 2007 at 12:40 pm
Joanna,
I’m sorry to address this to you, but your comments have left so many questions in my mind. From what I have heard of you, you are a brilliant, deep practitioner and I only ask to better understand your position.
You are saying chi does exist, but it is neither good nor helpful. It is, in fact, detrimental, as in altered states of consciousness. Did I get that part right?
As for me, I don’t really know either way. I did have a teacher who told me (I paraphrase) “it really doesn’t matter if it is or what it is: if I’m not scolding you, you are doing it right.”
So the correctness of the method is bound up in it, like ju in judo. Ju is also VERY hard to define. It is much more than “yielding.” It can also not be measured, but maybe it’s just a concept. It is also highly debated in that people CAN kick ass in competitive judo with a complete disregard for ju. They dont like it; they don’t believe in it. They build a powerful core and heave ho! All muscle. Does it resemble judo? Yes. Is it judo? I don’t think so. Do they win? Often.
So I don’t know what to think. I do think that some things are essential for the things they are part of, but maybe not if the outcome is the only important bit.
I think you bring up wonderful questions. “WHY jin cannot be translated” is one that interests me. I would love to see some discussion on this too. Will this lead nowhere? I don’t really care. I would enjoy the exchange with you. People struggling with this experiment we have undertaken, all of us somewhat in the dark. That’s what I signed up for.
13 Joanna // Aug 1, 2007 at 7:00 pm
Hi enokidake
My first teacher (a Kung Fu brother of Tim Cartmell) said that it did not matter if we believed in qi or not, because if we did, it would flow anyway whenever we started to move and we didn’t need to do anything conscious to make that happen. The book Tai Chi Touchstones makes it clear from the Tai Chi Classics that it is detrimental to focus on qi (focus on the spirit and not the qi) and Chen Zhenglei has also said NOT to think about it.
So I do not believe in qi (the concept is too vague - it cannot be everything that everyone says it is without becoming far too nebulous to be useful or trainable) and I do not set out to cultivate it.
Tim Cartmell discusses the issue in Jess O’Brien’s “Nei Jia Quan” book. He says that qi is not a useful concept and will only slow your progress down. I am with him 100% on that.
Hong Junsheng was another practitioner (Chen style) who refused to see qi as a useful concept, so he wouldn’t use the term and taught instead in entirely practical and physical terms.
14 enokidake // Aug 2, 2007 at 5:00 am
Joanna,
Thanks much for your response. Having read it and Tim Cartmell’s piece, I better understand what you mean. I don’t think I ever remember Adam Hsu talking about qi except in the most casual way (attention and intent as Cartmell says). I’ve also heard him say that 99.9% of the qi claims people make are bunk and of the few people that may have “special abilities”, they don’t have special abilities in kung fu.
I’ve always avoided discussions about qi because I feel…well…my horse stance still sucks, to be honest. Next week I celebrate 35 years in martial arts. I’m really not joking. With so much other stuff that I have to work on, I’ve just been too busy for the qi stuff.
But I’m never too busy to hear from other travelers on the road and I very much appreciate your clear response to my question. Thanks.
15 Joanna // Aug 2, 2007 at 5:06 am
You’re welcome
16 Hermann // Aug 17, 2007 at 4:37 pm
First, Scott, I find the term Yijing philosophy rather matching, having a PhD on just such studies, as it was neither daoist nor confucian, but can be both.
The names you mention as Yijing specialists are not really complete and Zhu Xi was rather weak on it. Most neo-confucianists were much deeper on this topic, many before those Song times.
Second, the term Qi is really necessary as part of an Chinese ontological concept, but Joanna’s brute negation might come from the classics where it is stated that to concentrate on Qi makes it stagnate, which will be bad for the practitioner, so she has her point. I also find it a waste of time to talk about it, teach with it, and most of this talk is fake anyway.
But still, it is one puzzle stone to be used silently to get a deeper concept of Chinese culture.
All in all, the exchange of opinions must not necessarily end in one convincing another, just talk things over, rethink one’s position.
Leave a Comment