So when did peng start meaning to use force against force?
When did it get re-interpreted as meaning the exact same thing as aikido’s “unbendable arm”?
I often get the impression that many people think that we’re supposed to be able to use peng to withstand any amount of force applied against it. If people push just as hard as they can, are we supposed to just stand there and use peng to “ward it off”?
When did we forget about the flip side of peng — lu or rollback?
As I understand it, we use peng to keep the opponent from controlling our space and structure, but it isn’t designed to work in total isolation from the rest of the taiji jins. We can’t expect to stand there like trees and try to absorb any force that crashes into us.
When your peng is pressured, you should YIELD and use the opponent’s energy against him. Rollback doesn’t come after wardoff in grasp the bird’s tail for no reason. By borrowing his force, and IMO perhaps adding some of your own, you can throw the person out, qinna, or strike them. Trying to use peng to resist strong force isn’t taiji as I understand it. I’m not sure what that is or where it came from exactly.
I know people that can withstand pushes from most any angle when doing their taiji form. I think that’s an admirable skill, to some extent. It certainly shows hard training and acquired skill. But when the opponent is PUNCHING instead of pushing, aren’t you likely to eat 100% of his incoming force? The answer is obviously “yes.” And yet, many people seem to think that this is the goal of training.
Peng has been played up a lot in recent years in the West as some magic bullet to make your taiji better. Perhaps it was under-emphasized in the past, but swinging the pendulum to the opposite extreme isn’t the answer.
Rather than view peng in isolation, I think we should keep in mind that the taiji jins are designed to work together. They are all part of each other and shouldn’t be viewed in isolation.
7 responses so far ↓
1 Scott // Aug 26, 2007 at 1:27 pm
If someone pushs you and you respond with peng, they will be uprooted. If they are not uprooted either they didn’t push you or you didn’t do peng.
There is no time gap at all.
That’s the Jin Level.
At the Shi level, (potencial energy?) peng/ji/lu/an are always simultainious.
2 Tom // Aug 26, 2007 at 1:33 pm
You bring up a very good point of absorbing a punch instead of a push. This is something that gets sometimes forgotten.
But I see peng (in its western/modern/Sigman definition as a ground strength) valid in other context: whenever you strike with your fist, shoulder, elbow, hip etc you need to be able to manifest peng in that body part at the point of impact. And as for training that, you need something to give feedback, like a wall or a partner pushing you. Yes, that is simplistic mechanical training and does not reflect a realistic combat situation. If that is not remembered, it can lead to bad habits of relying on force against force.
3 renli // Aug 26, 2007 at 5:34 pm
One of the problems is the recent drive for western equivalents. I’ve always felt that the latent meanings in certain “english” words would be misinterpreted, and they were.
A lot of confusion arises out of the fact that there are so many conflicting descriptions from various people. It’s difficult to know who to trust. But using that situation to arrive at a conclusion that really trying to understand peng and how it fits with tai chi, etc. is a major cop out. The basic training runs a direct parallel to the tai chi classics, for example - and there are enough “clues” scattered around wise master’s sayings and in books written by important people that it’s a simple bit of homework to figure out what is being talked about.
So what peng is, and how it is used, isn’t very hard to figure out. But I see what you said; people have begun to over-emphasize the importance of peng as a basic skill, or even just on it’s own, giving it a status it doesn’t deserve. Peng is great and all, but as you say what about lu? For what matter what about more basic jings, like chan su jin? We know that there is wuji and taiji, stillness and movement, which is the mother of yin and yang. I believe the key is hidden in plain sight, locked within this philosophical puzzle.
But as a result of it not being “out in the open” like judo or TKD for example, people have come up with some very confused ideas of what peng and lu actually are. What some people think is peng is not peng, but a lesser form of jing (sinking jing, for example). What’s in a name? Quite a bit, given that it is important to have a road man if you want to get somewhere quickly.
To answer your original question - i think that ultimately when “peng” is not “peng” it implies being double weighted on some level, and this leads to force against force. Real peng is *not* “leaning force”.
-
4 Rui // Aug 28, 2007 at 3:29 am
“It must be said about peng: it is to adhere, not to resist (kang).
The hang pengs to the outside with the intent to adhere and answer.
In addition, don’t allow your peng hand to approach near the chest.
Obtaining neutralizing energy (hua jin) relies entirely on turning the waist.
Once i’ve turned to waist, my peng power (peng shi) is already complete.”
Yang Cheng Fu in “The Essence and Applications of Taijiquan”
5 Rui // Aug 28, 2007 at 5:35 am
Sorry about my previous typos.
“The *HAND* pengs to the outside…”
“Once I’ve turned *THE* waist…”
6 chessman71 // Aug 28, 2007 at 8:38 am
Nice quote. That sums it up very well.
7 thomas // Aug 31, 2007 at 8:43 am
Sums it up very well indeed, and clarifies by stark contrast the half-assed misconception of peng spread by a certain self-appointed listmeister and his minions in the 1990s.
Leave a Comment