Page 1 of 3


PostPosted: Thu Dec 18, 2003 7:02 pm
by rvc_ve
The other thread I was on got me thinking. Many people know what fah jing is, some others claim their style is the only one with it. Other that their style does not use it...

I think every style of taiji, including Yang, practices this form of power issue. Some time ago I has this discussion on another forum and people got offended. Apparently some of them had been doing Yang style for over 20 years without being introduced to fah jing, so they though it didnt exist!!!!

I dont want to argue, just listen to everyone's point of view and hopefully learn from one another!

Thank you! Ray

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 1:10 am
by DavidJ
Hi Ray,

The Tung/Dong version of Yang style has fajin. We do the fast set both with it and without it.

David J

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 7:50 pm
by rvc_ve
Interesting. Thank you for the answer. Im not familiar with your style of taiji but I have read about it and it a highly regarded branch of taiji with a very famous lineage.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 9:42 pm
by HengYu
Fa Jing is the ability to emit qi or energy through any and all parts of the body. The bodyweight, once dropped into the floor is the key. The resultant force, often referred to as combat qi, is then moved about the inside of the body, via will-power and postural adjustment. It is not dependent upon speed to achieve massive power. Chen style fa jing is rather obvious and can appear quite external in nature in some parts of the form, whereas Yang style fa jing is always hidden. Chen often looks strong (like gungfu), but Yang always looks subtle and to an untrained eye, probably weak, which is completely missing the point and highlighting the genius of Yang Luchan. Obvious power can be seen and a defence against it prepared, but non-obvious power, such as that found in the Yang form, is difficult to perceive and defend against. Ynag's fa jing is by far more superior and difficult to learn.

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 10:56 pm
by JerryKarin
Hengyu, try not to go there (Yang style good Chen style not so good, etc). The Yangs learned their art originally from the Chens. I have heard Yang Jun speak about Chen Xiaowang, for example, in a way that indicated very high respect, indeed. Let's settle for different but also similar. It's all good.

[This message has been edited by JerryKarin (edited 12-19-2003).]

PostPosted: Fri Dec 19, 2003 11:09 pm
by Wushuer
I have a great deal of respect for Chen stylists. Having come out on the losing end of a rousing sparring session with one, I am here to tell you that their style of TCC has degrees of subtlety that most people could not imagine.
Those guys push like the tide, subtle but with a non-stoppable, flowing power that can suddenly be a stab like lightning to your center.
Do not confuse outward form practice for external force. I, too, was confused by their apparent use of external force during their forms after ten years with traditional Yang style and Wu style practice. I found out the hard way that looks can be deceiving, in many ways.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 12:02 am
by rvc_ve
Hey! Im a yang stylist but I cheat on id with chen jia lao yi lu (first form) so better watch out!!!! (LOL)

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:51 am
by HengYu
Hi All! Fa jing is very interesting, isn't it? Apologies for any misunderstandings, but my intention is to highlight and compare two distinctive ways of generating fa jing - and not to advocate one style over another. A style's effectiveness depends upon two things;

1) The student.
2) The teacher.

As a member of the Chen family, we teach a school that is a combination of external gungfu and internal taiji. Interestingly, my Chen ancestors chose the Yang style to compliment their external Longfist. Although the fa jing is different in our longfist to the fa jing of Chen taijiquan, many of the movements are the same. One example of this is the use of deep, northern horse stances, etc. And of course, there is later Chen (small frame) taijiquan, influenced by the teachings of Yang Luchan.

Chen History;

'Chen Taijiquan Today
The Lao Jia or Old Frame of Chen style Taijiquan was first promoted by Chen Fa Ke in the early half of this century. The Xin Jia or New Frame, Zhao Bao style and the Hu Lei style all retain close resemblance to each other in terms of how the postures are done. The Yang style, however, varies quite greatly from the other Chen related Taijiquan styles. Given that this was the style first taught by Yang Lu Chan when he returned from the Chen villiage, it would indicated that what he was taught may have differed from the standard Chen syllabus.

However, due to the ecumenical efforts of the current generation of masters, six major styles of Taijiquan are now officially recognised. They are the Chen, Yang, Wu Yu Xiang, Wu Chien Chuan, Sun and Zhao Bao styles. The Hu Lei style is also growing in popularity and may in time be considered a major style.

The 5 greatest promoters of the art today are Feng Zhi Chiang, Wang Xi An, Chen Zhen Lei and Chen Xiao Wang. Their efforts have spread the practice of Chen Taijiquan throughout the world and continue to serve as inspirations for those who practice it.'

Also, in 1932, a copy of Ch'i Chi Kuang's 'Classic of Pugilism' was discovered in the Chen family village. Compiled by this famous Ming general in the 16th century, it contains 32 movements, taken from 20 styles, both internal and external, together with a commentary by Ch'i Chi Kuang. When viewed, the manual contains 29 postures found in Chen taijiquan. The styles contained, are all northern in origin. The Chen family, (including my own branch) have practiced Hakka martial arts for hundreds of years. They are invariably an integration of the internal and the external. My family still practice the original northern arts of Longfist and taijiquan, but many Hakkas now living in south China, practice a physical form, such as southern praying mantis, where the internal and external have been combined and merged. The form looks external, but the power generation is dependent upon the internal, etc.

Ch'i Chi Kuang's work can be found in its entirety in the book entitled;

Tai Chi Ancestors: by Douglas Wile

So the Chen family have practiced gungfu for along time. And, in my travels, I once came across a manual of gungfu, entitled 'Yang family fist', it looks like a Longfist style of somekind, has anyone heard of it?

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 5:17 pm
by Michael
Heng Yu,

I have not heard of theis "Yang Family Fist", I would be interested in knowing more.

PostPosted: Sat Dec 20, 2003 10:15 pm
by rvc_ve
Yang family fist.

There is also a famous Yang family from hundreds of years before yang lu chan. They are not related to him, but they also had a famous style of boxing.

It was an external and shaolin based style, with both barehand and weapons techniques. According to some experts, the Yang family Spear form is one of the ancesters of the Chen Taiji Spear Style.

In this link from Peter Lim's Taijiquan page, on the origind of Chen there is some reference to this.

I wonder, Could this manual you speak of be the boxing created by this particular yang family? Do you know if it in stead reffers yo the style of Yang Lu Chan creator of yang taijiquan? Just a question.

Thank you

PostPosted: Mon Dec 22, 2003 6:11 am
by HengYu
Hi All! The copy that I have, is in Chinese. The pictures of each posture are hand drawn and very Longfist looking. Interestingly, Longfist is/was practiced by the Chen and the Yang families. What is interesting about Chinese clan names is that if they are written the sameway, then regardless of time or geographical location, people holding that name are related by a common ancestry, even if they do not appear related in the Western sense. Many northern people are Hakka in origin and the Hakka, for various reasons, were very warlike in nature, always practicing and refining martial arts styles - The Chen and the Yang are no exception to this. The point is this; in Ch'i Chi Kuang's manual, he mentions quite clearly that the internal school existed for a longtime before he wrote about it (16th century). He writes, in great detail, about internal training. But if taijiquan did not exist prior to the Chen, then how did people internally train? Simple: the physical method of taijiquan did not exist as it does today, but the concept and principle of softness overcoming hardness did exist and was practiced. What is/was called an external style, or set of physical movements, was originally designed to train a person fairly quickly for warfare - if the person survived the experience, then, over time, their practice would deepen, and what was once purely external, becomes internal. Take Hsingyi for example - it is deceptive, because it looks external, but it is anything but. I suspect that the original Longfist styles of both the Chen and Yang families were like this. Perhaps Chen Chang-hsing (1771-1853), the founder proper of Chen taijiquan, a former general by some accounts, when retired, had time to refine his existing art, creating taijiquan as we know it today. Here is an interesting lineage - What exactly the early practitioners were practicing is open to debate;

Tai Chi History;

PostPosted: Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:19 pm
by Andreas Graf
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by rvc_ve:

Thank you[/B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

This link should be taken with caution. This material is highly biased, some is dead wrong. Look e.g. on his annotations on the Peng FAQ.

PostPosted: Wed Dec 31, 2003 1:36 am
by Audi
Hi Andreas,

I agree that the information on Peter Lim's site is only one of many interpretations, but am curious about what bothered you on the hyperlink to the Peng FAQ. Could you elaborate?

Take care,

PostPosted: Fri Jan 02, 2004 12:49 am
by Andreas Graf
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Audi:
<B>... bothered you on the hyperlink to the Peng FAQ. Could you elaborate?

Take care,

Hi Audi,

first of all, he uses Feng Zhiqiang to argue against the position of pengjin as the core jin. This is the quote that Peter Lim denies by using Feng's name:

>Chen FaKe, who was reported to have said that there are two types of peng,
>one being the technique, one being *the* basic taiji jing, and *is* the

However, pengjin as core jin and as technique is documented in one of Feng's book, an interview from 1991? and, IIRC on one of his Japanese teaching videos.

And, since he lives in Singapore, he should have gone to ask Master Zhu, which he references in the last sentence. He might have been more careful then....

In addition, there are several more contradictions in his writings. The peng FAQ annotations alone contradicts available information in chinese books from noted Taiji masters, Yang and Chen alike (with those masters being pretty consistent amongst themselves, IMO).

Some additional references that I added a few years ago can be found with a grey-blue background on:



PostPosted: Sat Jan 10, 2004 11:42 am
by psalchemist

Concerning "Fah Jing"...

I have been wondering about the actual appropriateness of this method...

WHEN does one employ this technique?

Based on the knowledge that the opponents energy is returned to him in equivalent...

Does one only employ this technique automatically in reaction to an extreme violent breaking force?

There seems to be implications of choice...

Whereas, from what I understand, there is very little choice in regular techniques-it is dependant upon the opponents force delivered.

Why would there be a specific label for this return if it is only a difference of degree of force?

If it is not, then I perceive a choice as to the use...

Does anyone have any comments for this detail concerning Fahjing?

Thank you,
Best regards,