This is a video look at the book I reviewed here.
Chen Xin does talk about applying the taijiquan martially. It isn’t all alchemy in the book, despite how it might look. The problem for most people is that his context is alchemy-based, meaning that his examples are couched in that language. But he does have many interesting things to say about how to apply the taijiquan. Here are some various quotes from throughout the book:
The taijiquan practitioner must apply ceaseless efforts to make his mind penetratingly aware of each tiny transformation taking place in the postures.
In terms of taiji boxing…this means that in order to strike properly you must first take an advantageous position and have a stable posture…during hand-to-hand combat your arm must first move upward…Victory or defeat is determined by this simple rule and by your level of gungfu, whose core should consist of qi cultivation…
Though there may be insufficient time to check your postures while sparring or in combat, the knowledge of principles, including directions upon which each posture is built, will stand you in good stead and lead to victory. If you fight without this knowledge, your chances of victory are considerably less than mine, as one is in full possession of this knowledge. This is what is called “the balance of force in boxing.”
Even if opponents dare to breach the defense with an aggressive attack, they will inevitably be defeated, drowning in the depths of the practitioner’s spirituality. (I include this quote in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.
)
…without the turns and rapid movements of the form, one has no chance of winning in martial arts.
In combat, this means that the practitioner can pre-empt the opponent’s moves by discerning his force from external appearance, and thus place herself in an advantageous position ready for his attack.
Looking at these quotes in the context of the actual passage makes them much clearer. But I hope that you can see from these quotations what Chen Xin is getting at.
The “Illustrated Cannon” can be ordered by emailing Roman at matrix “at” inbiworld.com
13 responses so far ↓
1 Chris | Martial Development // Aug 17, 2008 at 3:14 pm
Even if opponents dare to breach the defense with an aggressive attack, they will inevitably be defeated, drowning in the depths of the practitioner’s spirituality. (I include this quote in a tongue-in-cheek fashion.)
Meaning he didn’t actually write it, or he was wrong to do so?
2 Dave Chesser // Aug 17, 2008 at 5:02 pm
Neither. I meant this is perhaps a bit overstated and likely to draw a few laughs.
3 taijiquestion // Aug 17, 2008 at 9:10 pm
I dunno… others are more qualified than me to play devil’s advocate here, but… if we had heard these words [spirituality, etc.] coming from a Samurai, Ninja, or Shaolin adept, they would seem perfectly appropriate, no?
In extremis, these fighters would be banking on (to put it crudely) their own level of Shen development and related gong, rather than superior technique. You live a lot closer to this world than I do, Dave, so don’t mind big talk from armchair warrior here.
It’s just cool to hear these words coming from the venerable roots of the Chen Family tree. Some critics would say that this is exactly what Chen boxing needs to be talking about right now. (Of course, if one hasn’t trained within the lineage, it’s a moot point.) I haven’t seen the book yet but it sounds pretty cool, and as deep as one could want. Thanks for the info.
4 Chad // Aug 18, 2008 at 1:49 am
“It aint the size of the dog in the fight, it the size of the fight in the dog.”
Meaning, the siritual part is just that; do you have the will, the focus, and drive to push you further than the opponent without exhausting your self?
5 Tabby Cat // Aug 18, 2008 at 12:47 pm
This is good. Thank you. I already ordered and received and am reading The Illustrated Canon (book), which I heard of here on your blog. Preciated.
6 Dave Chesser // Aug 18, 2008 at 2:39 pm
Let us know what you think of it. Can you read the original in Chinese? I can’t. It’s like trying to read Hegel or something.
7 David // Aug 19, 2008 at 9:40 pm
Taijiquan is a martial art, a health exercise and a philosophy. Without all three legs, the stool cannot stand. A stool stands best when all three legs are of equal length. Why all this suprise that a martial art contains martial abilities?
8 tom // Aug 20, 2008 at 10:38 pm
Just out of curiosity . . . was Chen Xin ever in a fight? Did he ever engage in anything more combative than tuishou? His are lovely words of theory, but–borrowing broadly from Msr. Tabby above [cattanga.typepad.com, re "Fightgrub.com"]–what was the scope and depth of his personal “dataset” of fighting experience?
9 Dave Chesser // Aug 20, 2008 at 10:53 pm
No clue. The book doesn’t give any bio on him and I’m heard only a little on the net. I doubt that he had none simply because some of the quotes seem pretty incisive. But beyond that, who knows?
10 tom // Aug 21, 2008 at 12:26 pm
I just think a whole lot of attention is being paid to a highly theoretical work written by an author whose empirical basis for writing some of those “inccisive” comments is unknown. The fact that it’s the only substantial contribution to the taiji pantheon of classics by a member of a Chenshi lineage may obscure the fact that we don’t know shit about Chen Xin’s capacity to manifest in realtime what he writes so intriguingly about in literary time.
11 Dave Chesser // Aug 21, 2008 at 5:12 pm
Tom,
Well, you could say that about any of the old texts except for Musashi’s and a very few others, couldn’t you?
I don’t worry about it too much. Like Bruce, I take what is useful and move on. Some of what Chen Xin says has the ring of truth to me. Other things like “the enemy will be overawed by your spirituality” just make me smile. At least he’s entertaining.
Once again, this whole question mark that we have about this stuff in application is just another reason to do a more practical MA like judo, wrestling, etc. alongside our IMA. There’s just no question about what is real and what isn’t, who has the goods and who doesn’t in those styles. It simply isn’t an issue and boy is that a breath of fresh air.
12 tom // Aug 21, 2008 at 10:34 pm
It must be possible to test some pf CX’s propositions in one’s own personal practice. However, I’ve never seen any indication that Chen Xin’s book was or is widely referred to in any practical sense by members of his own or subsequent generations, xiao- or lao- or xin-jia. This contrasts with reference to the [mercifully] more concise ‘classics’ coming from the Wu/Hao and Yang styles, which are regularly consulted by most serious practitioners in those lines. I just think CX’s work is an overwrought attempt to add literart cachet to the Chenshi art.
Having said that–it’s an interesting read.
13 Guy // Nov 19, 2008 at 11:44 am
Isn’t that the only way to test if anything works in your practice? You are simpily wrong about family members referencing the work, many have borrowed extensively from it. The majority of practitioner will prefer easier texts but the majority has never been great at Tai Chi.
Leave a Comment