Jerry may want to move this or something, since it is off-topic to the original thread.
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Michael:i hesitate to enter here again. These are questions which can be answered anyway each of us wants them to. There are no "facts" that can be argued here.
Certainly there are facts. Yang Lu Chan studied in Chen Village and learned from Chen Chang Xing. No one disputes those facts, that I know of.
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> If I believe that the Chen family did not INVENT what we call taji quan, but rather gathered elements into their system--and improved upon it--am I right, or wrong-- who has the proof? Did some elements come from Daoist sources? </font>
Fine, but it's you who need to prove those facts, not the Chen's who need to prove that it didn't happen.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not a Chen-o-phile. I'm a Taiji-o-phile. What I invariably see with these wild histories is that they are used as the stepping stone to usurp good Taiji and put in place someone who is "better than the Yang family heads" or "better than the Chen family". Until I see actual proof of the purported wild histories, I do everything I can to discourage them. The Yang family does not perpetrate those histories and the Chen family says very little publicly either.
Already on this forum there was a disruption that gathered its strength from some wild histories. The most brazen one was from a person who was trying to establish that the only real Yang style was through Gin Soon Chu in Boston. The rest of the garbage was the same old "southern transmission" story where the Chen style was just Shaolin, etc., etc. And here we are on a forum with access to some of the best Yang-family information in the world, yet it was belittled. Can you see why I think it is worthwhile to nip this stuff in the bud by talking it through once and for all?
<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> <B>
Jerry and Mike, I respect both of you. But will this improve anything having to do with mine or anybodys taiji? </B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I think yes, it will. In a way, what I am doing is a back-door but legitimate approach to Matt L's comments about unqualified, etc., teachers. This is legitimate Yang information that comes through Yang Jun on this list. Rather than ignore other theories in the hopes that they will go away, why not discuss them and look at the facts that are presented?
One of the problems with Taiji in the United States is that it got a lot of its impetus while mainland China was still closed. A number of the "histories" of China that were strong in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, etc., got a strong foothold while China was closed. The "southern transmission" story is the major one. It is the one that Taiji was invented by Chang San Feng of Wudang Mountain and came through various sources to an untraceable Wang Tsung Yueh to a historically misplaced Jiang Fa to Chen Chang Xing who learned it in one month and only showed it to Yang Lu Chan.
The amazing part of the story is that people don't just laugh when they hear it.
So yes, it will improve peoples' taiji to pick through the history and any other sort of information, also. It is a great pleasure to have a legitimate resource like Yang Jun. He is Yang style. Yang style proper does not disavow the Chen style and the Chen style does not disavow the Yang style. They are variants of the same thing. But just as the Chen people do not disavow the Yang style, it is only proper that the "southern transmission" fables don't get mixed into the Yang style as truth, because the essence of the fables is to deny the legitimacy of the Chen style Taiji... and that is a fairly big insult to the people who were kind enough to teach Yang Lu Chan.