all tai chi enthusiasts welcome
While I have been studying ILC longer than you, I do not care about things like ‘seniority’ and prefer to acknowledge understanding and skill in applying (or teaching) that understanding instead. Since I am reclusive by personality, I have not followed Sam around and have only taken his biannual workshops here in NC, so you may actually have more experience with him than I do.
What you said in your post makes sense to me since I am used to the ILC terminology that you used, but for others on this forum who have TJQ experience but probably not ILC experience, using ILC terminology may make the concepts that you are trying to convey rather difficult to understand. While the ideas behind ILC are very compatible with TJQ, the language used is different.
While Sifu Sam Chin’s skill is phenomenal, I also think that it is brilliant how his insights (awareness) allowed him to systematize what his art embodies into an understandable training regime. When I try to illustrate ILC concepts to TJQ practitioners, I try to use TJQ terminology. As part of my reclusive personality, I have not gone through the ranking, and have thus also not been certified as an ILC teacher, so I am also reluctant to ‘teach’ ILC even though it has greatly influenced what I do in my TJQ practice (and instruction). However, the clarification of TJQ principles through studying ILC naturally comes through when I talk about and practice TJQ.
What I find to be the best tool to ‘translate’ ILC into TJQ is the concept of the sphere (ball), which is commonly used in TJQ instruction. Only a perfect sphere has no excesses or deficiencies (bumps/projections or divots/indentations); and while humans are not spherical, we can strive to produce spherical energy during the practice of either TJQ or ILC.
So, to ‘translate’ some of the ILC concepts, including some that you mentioned in your post, I would say that If you are producing the proper spherical energy, then when you contact an opponent/partner it would be like two spheres contacting each other (regardless of whether the spheres are the same size or different sizes): a sphere naturally has a ‘circle with a center’, naturally ‘meets’ the force of the opponent/partner’s sphere, naturally ‘aligns/connects your center with theirs’, you naturally maintain the opponent/partner at the ‘furthest distance from your center’ keeping them from ‘penetrating your defensive sphere’, when the sphere rotates it produces ‘yin/yang/neutral’ (i.e. one part of the sphere’s surface rotates toward the point of contact (yang) while the opposite side necessarily is rotating away from the point of contact (yin) while the point of contact (between the yin and the yang) remains neutral and unites the yin with the yang), etc. And when applied to smaller spheres, like those formed by the shapes of the arms, then you can ‘translate’ concepts like ‘concave and convex’, ‘inside or outside of the circle’, etc.
While you clearly can see the commonalities between TJQ and ILC (as can I) it does not always ‘translate’ well when ILC terminology is used while discussing TJQ. I think that your follow-up posts are better at explaining the commonalities between the two arts than was the case with your earlier post.
UniTaichi wrote:Hi yslim,
Thank you for your detailed elaboration on the yin/yang connection for ''4 ozs deflect 1000lbs'' .
I must said that you are really into the TCC principles even though it just for health like you mentioned. It is wonderful to have two great masters, GM George Xu and Sam Chin, to guide you on your learning.
all my Chinese Taichi brothers and sisters
KONG HEY FATT CHOY ! A HAPPY & PROSPEROUS CHINESE NEW YEAR 2012 !
all my Chinese Taichi brothers and sisters
Bob Ashmore wrote:The discussion involving ILC is very insightful, however since I have never even heard of it before reading of it on this thread I will continue to read along on that bit.
UniTaichi wrote:Audi wrote:Greetings all,
I myself have sorted out some questions which I come across some science write-up.
I would like to share one on fajin with everyone here. In the Taichi principles we ''sink qi to dantian'' to fajin. However, I am also told by my ''teacher'' and also read from writings of some old master who said ''stick qi to spine'' which is the Mingmen. So which is it ?
UniTaichi wrote:About Sam Chin definition of Taichi and Yin/Yang. My understanding is that Taichi (one) and Yin/Yang(two) is the same. That means One is Two and Two is One. This understanding is from the Yi Jing classic. My view is that if you do not grasp this, later when more info comes in, one were have a difficult time in reconciliation of the info. Just saying and with due respect.
A common mistake we make is identifying the Yin and yang as two separate forces, which move to their extremes you don't want to be either only yin or yang. But Yin and Yang are one inseparable force, which continuously evolve with and into each other. The balances of the complementary forces of Yin/Yang interact with each other to achieve harmony.
yslim wrote:Bob Ashmore wrote:Yslim,
HOW ABOUT TRY THIS FOR SIZE?
"TAIJI HAVE YIN YANG, BUT YIN YANG IS NOT TAIJI . TO BE TAIJI, YIN YANG MUST BE ONE. TO BE ONE,THERE MUST HAVE THREE." G/MASTER. SAM F.S. CHIN SAYS.
IF SO SAMPLE, WHY SO HARD. I SO WANT TO KNOW.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO YOU AND U.
I would like to share one on fajin with everyone here. In the Taichi principles we ''sink qi to dantian'' to fajin. However, I am also told by my ''teacher'' and also read from writings of some old master who said ''stick qi to spine'' which is the Mingmen. So which is it ? To me or anyone for that matter, when one sink qi to dantian, the qi were naturally stick to spine/Mingmen at the same time.
To me or anyone for that matter, when one sink qi to dantian, the qi were naturally stick to spine/Mingmen at the same time
" ARE YOU SURE ?
"My understanding is that Taichi (one) and Yin/Yang(two) is the same. That means One is Two and Two is One.
". YOU SAID TAICHI (ONE), I AGREED. AND YIN/YANG (TWO), I AGREED ALSO, NOW I THINK WE ARE AT THE SAME LEVEL. YOU SAID "IS THE SAME." HERE I DISAGREED. SINCE YOU KNOW SO MANY KIND OF FAJIN THAT PUT YOU IN A HIGHER LEVEL. WITH RESPECT TO THE WISE YOU GO FIRST AND REFINED AS ONE GOES HIGHER WITH YOUR OWN WORKS AND WORDS SO I WILL BE AGREE ON YOUR THIRD PART (IS THE SAME) OF THIS PUZZLE. LIKE I SAID, YOU NEED THE THREE. OTHER WISE IS NOT THE SAME.
When we borrow force from the ground,
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 1 guest