Yielding/Sacrificing yourself and Chieh

Yielding/Sacrificing yourself and Chieh

Postby Michael » Thu Sep 18, 2003 10:53 pm

Hello,

psamchemist, you mentioned yielding in the misc, thread. Here it is probably more "appropriate". Thie first part here is more a statement than any type of question.

Yeilding is turning. I came across this in the T'ai Chi Boxing Chronicle.

Sacrificing Yourself to Follow the Opponent page 81-

"....To sacrifice yourself to follow the opponent is the initiative, and the opportunity and the position are the passive. When the opponent's hard energy comes, you must turn. Don't try to to get rid of all his energy by stepping back or pushing away. If you intend to close without moving, use K'ung, Chieh, Tso, and Jou or you will not get the use of turning without stepping back.

"Chieh (binding)

This causes the opponent's Peng ching to be insufficient. You feel the position of the opponent's energy. Your own Ch'i increases Peng ching inside, and the opponent is not able to to express or execute his energy. If the degree of of your own Peng ching is weak, you cannot effectively adhere and stick You must thread the Ch'i. This is the method of supporting the opponent's energy, and repairing your position and thus repairing the Ch'i. The position cannot be repaired by force. If force is used, it is a defect. Regardless of whether Chieh is of yourself or ytour opponent, it is the method of connecting the Ch'i." p. 83 TC Boxing Chronicle Kuo Lien-Ying trans. Guttman

First, If I could get a definition of "Chieh" and any extra info on it from our Chinese reading/speaking friends.

Second, this does not seem to be something different from the others so much, but rather a part of them (K'ung Tsao, Jou). The brain is not working today, and let's face it, The TC Boxing Cronicle is not always "easy" reading. I seem to be missing something concerning "Chieh". Any help explaining the above (or your own understanding) and the differences would be greatly appreciated. I think that doing is not a problem for me but the words......

MIchael
Michael
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 7:01 am
Location: Wi. USA

Postby psalchemist » Fri Sep 19, 2003 1:41 am

Greetings Michael,

I know my presentation can at times be somewhat...abrasive. I will try to express myself in a more...delicate manner henceforth.

I realize your query is beyond my grasp. However, intriguing as it is I find I am compelled to penetrate the complexity of the essence underlying the topical display of poetic prose.

Although I am unfamiliar with the full text, I noted immediately the arduous nature of the paragraph you mentioned clearly visible within the quotes supplied.

Perhaps 'quite overwhelming indeed'(for me) can be transformed into an uplifting experience in the Taijiquan education domain.

Yielding, binding and all it's intricacies...I will sleep on the idea and return with fresh insight...hopefully!

I appreciate the food for thought,
Best regards,
Psalchemist.

[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 09-19-2003).]
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby psalchemist » Fri Sep 19, 2003 6:09 pm

Greetings Michael and all,

I'd like to dissect your quote piece by piece for facility, if that suits you.

You quoted from The Tai Chi Boxing Chronicles:

<To sacrifice yourself to follow the opponent is the initiative, and the opportunity and the position are the passive>

This represents many things for me so far:

Sacrificing is a Yang 'intention'/ action.
Intention is used to follow the opponent, this sounds 'forced'.
Concentration on the opponents energy is an intentional Yang action/initiative.
Sacrificing leads (Yang).
Way of all ways?

The opportunity and the position are the Yin aspects/passive/following.
The Yin as in form movement, 'follows' the Yang intention.
It is unforced, 'unintentional', unpreconceived, waiting for the right moment, accepting the position thrust upon you, reacting to the opponent and situation as they occur.
Way of no ways?

When I was examining the cross alignment theories a while back, I came to the present conclusion that Yang intention LEADS the cross-substantial diagonal, while the Yin body FOLLOWS/ falls into place naturally in reaction to the Yang intention on the cross in-substantial plane.

Chieh binding
< This causes the opponents Peng Ching to be insufficient. You feel the position of the opponents energy. Your own chi increases Peng Ching inside, and the opponent is not able to express or execute his energy. If the degree of your own Peng Ching is weak, you cannot effectively adhere and stick. You must thread the chi. This is the method of supporting the opponents energy and repairing your position and thus repairing the chi.>

This question strikes me on a more theoretical level:
Firstly, Should I assume that Peng Ching is similar to 'raised chi'?

Secondly, I am also seeking a definition for the word Ching, as well as K'ung, Tsou and Jou.

Thirdly, on the more abstract note...

I have been wondering lately why some individuals seem to be 'lucky' while others seem to be perpetually 'unlucky'. The most recent example to cross my mind is violence.
Why do some people 'attract' violence, while others seem to 'repel' it?

I was thinking, perhaps a plenitude of Peng Ching was the key...used as a method employed during or before a confrontation begins. Before an attacker is able to strike, their energy can perhaps be depleted by <raising one's own Peng Ching>. then <the opponent is not able to express or execute his energy>.
If the degree of the opponents chi is dissolved BEFORE a conflict or BEFORE physical contact then the <opponent may feel weak and cannot effectively adhere and stick.>

Peng Ching (raised chi?)or more precisely 'evasion from binding' used to deflect aggression on all levels even preceding physical contact?


Lastly, I would be very grateful to hear some comments on the meaning of 'Threading the chi' that one has accepted from the opponent as suggested in the quote. I am assuming this is a different method than threading your own chi, foot,leg hips etc.


These are my first impressions, I will probably return with more as it goes.

Thank-you,
Best regards,
Psalchemist.

P.S. the thought just occurred to me that perhaps I am confounding Chinese Taijiquan tech-talk...again...Is Ching a different way of writing Jing?

[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 09-19-2003).]

[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 09-19-2003).]
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby DavidJ » Fri Sep 19, 2003 6:17 pm

Hi Michael,

I could show this to you, but I don't think I can describe it well in words.

Have you ever seen a round rotating floor in an amusement park? Can you imagine trying to keep on you feet on one?

Turn that floor into a rotating sphere and picture someone walking into it. The physics of the encounter shows two distinct energy vectors on contact.

Anyway, good question.

Regards,

David J
DavidJ
 
Posts: 349
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 7:01 am

Postby psalchemist » Fri Sep 19, 2003 6:28 pm

Greetings DavidJ and all,

Could you possibly go into more detail, in a concrete/physical way. I understand the concept you describe, just not how it applies to Taijiquan energy techniques on the substantial level.

Thank-you,
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby Michael » Fri Sep 19, 2003 8:59 pm

Hello,

David, I know what you are speaking of.

psalchemist,

Yes, "Ching" and "Jing" are the same word.

In no way were you "abrasive". I think there is a misunderstanding here. So don't even consider it further. You seem to have a firm grasp on "sacrificing" or "yielding".

And yes the text--which I might add, is one that everyone should have. It is out of print now I believe, but is still available through some outlets. The TCBC can be very difficult at times and sometimes downright confusing. I think translation may have something to do with it.

I will post on the other "energies" or "Chings/Jings" (K'ung-"empty", Tso-"break", Jou-"weak") one at a time. I find that Kuo's definitions are quite contrary to that of others. HIs definitions often seem to apply to other words.??????????


Some of my confusion with "Chieh" has to do with it's definition of "binding". Compare the above definition in my original post with that of Stuart Olson (The Intrinsic Energies of TCC) and YJMing (Advanced Yang style TCC--Jieh jing), both who describe it as "Borrowing Jing". On another thread Audi described feeling the energy of the opponent building and how you put this back towards him before he can fully express his energy. He bounces out. This is how both Olson and Yang Jwing-Ming describe "borrowing jing". That is how I have always thought of it. "This energy also has a rarer meaning: if an opponent comes in and then you move away, or if the opponent comes in and then you move toward him, their incoming srength will be greatly increased, causing them to become the object of an attack with a very fierce energy.....The most opportune timings are when the opponent's energy is just about to come out; or when it is about to reach its end, but has not comepletely arrived." Olson p108, 109.

So how does this compare with Kou's rendering of "binding"? Is the phrase "supporting the opponents energy" in Reference to the "borrowing jing" described by Olson and Yang? I am starting to see that it may be similiar.....
Michael
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 7:01 am
Location: Wi. USA

Postby psalchemist » Sat Sep 20, 2003 1:00 pm

Hello Michael and all,

I am working on that comparison of texts you described, but haven't arrived at any type of conclusions yet...You have very good questions for me to research! I'm enjoying it. Image

Thanks for confirming the Ching/Jing association...Chinese is very difficult for me. Image

This leads me to further questions...Have you ever heard of the expression 'Peng Chi' or 'Peng Jin', or is this exclusive to Ching?

If so could you please supply some minor explanations on these as well, for comparison sake?

Thank-you,
Best regards,
Psalchemist.

[This message has been edited by psalchemist (edited 09-20-2003).]
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby psalchemist » Tue Sep 23, 2003 12:11 am

Greetings Michael and all,

I have been considering that comparison of texts between Kuo Lien Yang's descriptions of 'Chieh'/'Binding' and 'Yielding' with the quotes you provided on 'Borrowing' supplied by Olson and Audi's commentary on this same subject.

However, I believe,I have produced more questions than conclusions. I am just learning of these ideas and am in no way supplying anything more than my own presumtions and deductions drawn from the information placed before me.

SENSE THE ATTACK:

Audi's comment on 'Borrowing'...
"Feeling the energy of the opponent building."

Kuo Lien Yang's text on 'Binding'..."You feel the position of the opponents energy."

Phase one of a confrontation with an opponent includes anticipating or feeling a building energy/tension/intention within the opponent to act.

Audi's relating of the first phase of 'Borrowing' begins in an identical manner to that of Kuo Lien Yang's relating of the first phase towards 'Binding', as I believe it is with all initial reactions in Taijiquan techniques toward an attack.

It is the use of a certain type of sensitivity geared towards anticipating an opponents actions BEFORE he makes them physically manifest. This, I think, is standard Taijiquan practice. It is a 'sense' developped through practicing 'Pushing Hands'/(Toui Shou). A 'kinesthetic sensitivity', I think.

WHAT NOT TO DO,

Olson's text on 'Borrowing Jing'...
"If you move away, or if you move closer their strength will be greatly increased-causing them to become the object of an attack with a very fierce energy."

Moving closer would be the equivalent of meeting force with force- unadvisable.

Stepping backward without engaging the opponent is not the equivalent of 'Yielding' either.

Neither moving away nor stepping closer quite fits the proper ideology in Taijiquan I have observed so far.

Not only ineffective, but even worse, "Will cause them ( the opponent)to become the object of an attack with a very fierce energy" as Kou Lien Yang stated.

On a more psychological level, an explanation might be that stepping closer to an opponent whose energy is 'building' may cause him to become instantly more agressive from the fear of a threat of attack. A self-defense mechanism/ self-preservation mechansim might be triggered. This fear would supply more adrenaline and therefore more strength to the opponents attack.

If one steps backward or retreats he then demonstrates fear to his opponent which, unfortunately , might also provoke an attack by supplying self-confidence to the opponent and in a sense, allowing him to express his energy more fully.

Taijiquan seems to opt for neutralizing or diffusing confrontation, in general, as opposed to provoking it.

HOW DOES BINDING DISABLE AN OPPONENT?

Kuo Lien Yang's text on 'Binding'...
"Binding causes the opponents 'Peng Jing' to be insufficient."

Audi's comment on 'Borrowing'...
Result"He is bounced out."

Audi,
I would appreciate it if you could supply a definition of 'bounced out'. This would be quite helpful. I have no way of knowing if these two phrases express the same meaning.

WHAT TO DO

Audi's comment on 'Borrowing'...
"Put this back towards him before he can fully express his energy."

Question: How do you put this back towards him?

Kuo Lien Yang's text on 'Binding'...
"Increase your own 'Peng Jing' and the opponent is not able to express or execute his energy"
Also,
"If the degree of your own 'Peng Jing'is weak you cannot effectively 'Adhere and Stick'."...(Adhere and Stick-Binding/Borrowing any correlation?)

Kuo Lien Yang's text on 'Binding'...
To Bind(by raising your 'Peng Jing') you must "'Thread the Chi', this is the method of supporting the opponents energy and repairing your position and thus repairing the Chi."

Perhaps 'Threading the Chi' and 'Binding/Borrowing'is part of the process of :

1) Sacrificing yourself to follow the opponent/Yielding.

2)'Supporting the opponents energy'/'Threading the Chi'..."When the opponents hard energy comes" then...

3) Lead to turn with 'Binding' energy for final 'Redirection or neutralization of the opponents energy.?

In other words.....I don't know.


N.B. "use K'ung, Chieh, Tso and Jou or you will not get the use of turning without stepping back."...

It might be helpful to have a definition of these terms to be able to continue to develop my thoughts further on this.

WHEN SHOULD WE EXECUTE 'BORROWING' TECHNIQUES?

Olson's texts on 'Borrowing'...

"The most opportune timings are when:
A)"The opponents energy is just about to come out."
Or
B)"When it is about to reach it's end but has not completely arrived."


I personally have next to no Pushing hands practice, so have little basis for example.

I realize that 'letting go' literally of an opponent in TCC competition would be disqualifying behavior, however it is the only analogy I can think of:

If I were grasping an opponents arm after blocking an incoming strike, then he were to pull my holding arm back towards him with the intention of using a pushing and pulling action on me...I would have to 'let go' either,
A)"When the opponents energy is just about to come out"
-After his intention to pull back is manifest, but BEFORE he actually pulls back.
I think releasing the opponent at that point would have something of a neutralizing effect. The momentum and opponents force would be unable to express themselves.
Or
B)"When it is about to reach it's end, but has not completely arrived"
-If I released the opponent at the point after I had already been drawn forward and the force and momentum were then at their fullest/maximum.
He would most likely pull himself backward and off balance with the force of his own pull.
A type of Yielding to use your opponents stregnth against him?

All in all, no really substantial conclusions, but many seeds of thought.

This was a good exercise for me in my studies,
Thank you,
Best regards,
Psalchemist.
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby Anderzander » Tue Sep 23, 2003 5:01 pm

Hiya Guys

I’m not sure of the characters for Binding or Borrowing – but I’m certain they aren’t describing the same thing.

BINDING is one of the four adjustments for adhere, stick, connect and follow. It is the method to prevent leaning backwards. It is where pressure increases.

I’ve talked about this before in another post: http://www.yangfamilytaichi.com/ubb/Forum2/HTML/000013.html

Michael,

Have a read through my post (2nd one down on a page) – perhaps it will be useful to your understanding of ‘binding’ ?

Perhaps I can also refer you to these two relevant summaries from TCBC:

http://www.anderzander.btinternet.co.uk/Articles/Article4.htm
http://www.anderzander.btinternet.co.uk/Articles/Article7.htm

If I may also quote myself again (insert embarrased smilie here), this is part of a post I made in the 'Chi' thread:

"Tightly adhere and add energy to your position, the energy increases and supports in two directions."

Basically increase peng at the point of contact - and concentrate into their centre (adhere). Turn the waist slightly to rotate the arm a little, this works like a gear.

Imagine his arm is a cog and so is yours - if you are tightly attached then as you rotate (outwards) it will move him outwards, no matter which way his arm is rotating or even if it isn't.

By rotating, sticking very tightly and having your arm focused into his body (onto his centre of gravity) - you will be turning him off enough to stop him making you lean back if the pressure of contact is high.

The two directions are the rotation against his arm - and forwards into his centre.


BORROWING is something I’m not sure of. I used to think I understood it – but now I don’t.

However; Adhere, Stick, Connect and Follow – and the four adjustments can all be done without ‘borrowing energy’ – whereas borrowing energy could not be done without Adhere, Stick, Connect and Follow.

I am able to ‘bind’ – that is I have a set of sensations that describe a technique I use (and others use) that matches with those descriptions within the TCBC. I’m not able to borrow force yet, I keep mindful of what has been written in the classics on the subject whilst watching sensations and understanding that develops as I practice – at some point one will corroborate the other.

Stephen

'Happy to discuss' as they say at work Image


[This message has been edited by Anderzander (edited 09-23-2003).]

[This message has been edited by Anderzander (edited 09-23-2003).]
Anderzander
 
Posts: 210
Joined: Sun Jun 29, 2003 6:01 am
Location: UK

Postby Audi » Tue Sep 30, 2003 12:45 am

Greetings Michael and everyone:

I also like the T’ai Chi Boxing Chronicle, but have a tough time with it. I have yet to figure out many of the terms used in the book, but I think I can help with some.

As you know, Chinese has many homonyms. Without indications of tone, it is extremely rare that a word can be understood with certainty out of context. Even with tones, ambiguity is still quite common in spoken usage if there is no context. Words can only be distinguished easily if used with appropriate context or if written down in characters.

The word “chieh” uses a system of transliteration (Wade-Giles) that used to be the norm in the U.S. up until after Nixon went to China and people switched from using such spellings as “Mao Tse Tung” and “Peking” to the spellings “Mao Zedong” and “Beijing.” The system is no longer used by contemporary scholars, but has residual uses. In Pinyin, the official system of the government in mainland China and the system used in just about all new works in the U.S., “chieh” is rendered as “jie.” This is pronounced roughly like “gee + YEH,” smashed together in one syllable. The “e” of “YEH” has the value of the “e” in “yes” and would be the most prominent vowel sound.

Many non-linguists use the Wade-Giles system unevenly, and so it is also possible that “chieh” corresponds to what really should have been spelled as “ch’ieh.” This corresponds to “qie” in Pinyin and is pronounced roughly like “chee + Yeh.”

If I assume that what the T’ai Chi Boxing Chronicle spells as “chieh” corresponds to “jie” in Pinyin, I can lay forth the following possibilities. I will use only Pinyin spellings, since they are more common on this board.

“Jie” pronounced in the fourth tone can correspond to a character that means “borrow” or “lend.” Borrowing Jin means to make use of the opponent’s force to achieve a certain result. Some use it to mean simply adding one’s own force to the opponent’s. Others use it to mean something like trapping the opponent in a certain position so that he or she is forced to use his or her own power to uproot his or herself. As others have indicated, this is a common term in the literature. I believe this is what the book discusses on page 95 and translates as “borrowing strength.” I do not, however, believe it is the same word used in the discussion quoted above in this thread.

“Jie” pronounced in the second tone can correspond to a character that means “intercept” or “cut off.” It is one of the primary 13 sword and saber techniques, but also refers to a similar kind of hand technique. Essentially, it means cutting of the opponent’s power at its root before it can really manifest itself. This word is also common in the literature, but I do not recall it being discussed in Kuo Lien-Ying’s book.

There is also a character that corresponds to “jie1” in the first tone that has several related meanings. It can mean “approach,” “touch,” and “connect with,” among other meanings. I think this is the word that is often rendered in English as “connect,” when one is talking about the initial contact with the opponent. Perhaps others can confirm this, since I am not sure of my facts.

Alva Olson’s book might discuss this technique, but I have loaned the book out and so cannot confirm this. If you have a copy, you can look for it there. As I recall, Olson shows characters for each of the “Jins” included in his translation. This particular “jie” character has the frequent hand radical at the left (like a “t” with an additional up-sloping crossing stroke lower down). The character also has the “stand” radical at the top of the right half (a short vertical line on top of a short horizontal line on top of two leg-like short vertical lines on top of a short horizontal line) and the “woman” radical at the bottom of the right half (this is hard to describe, but is roughly like an X with a diamond in the center and with a horizontal stroke crossing through the top third). My guess is that this is the word that Kuo is referring to in his discussion and that he is using it in the meaning of connecting with the opponent’s energy.

By the way, the words used to translate “connecting” (“lian”) in zhan-nian-lian-sui and in the four Wu3 nodal states of postures (“cheng”) are both different from what I have described above (“jie”) and have somewhat different connotations. In other words, they are not synonyms in Chinese. We are dealing with three different Chinese words that capture three different shades of meaning of what we could render in English as “connect.”

I find explaining the translation of “jie” as “binding” to be somewhat problematic. I wonder whether this means that I have gotten something completely wrong. One possibility is that the “jie” I have proposed above can refer to uniting the ends of two threads (jie1 xian4 tou2) and thus might be translated as “bind” in this context. To my understanding, this character has no connotation of interlocking of gears or restriction of movement, only of joining and connecting things by bringing them into contact or close proximity.

There is also a “jie” character that is sometimes pronounced in the first tone and sometimes in the second (depending on dialect?) that means to “tie.” It is used in the compound “jiehun,” which means to “tie the ‘knot’” or “get married.” Despite the fact that this would seem a good conduct for the translation “binding,” I do not recall this word being used in the context of Taijiquan. Again, perhaps others can bring more knowledge to bear on this than I can offer.

There are many other characters in various tones that could be written as “jie”; however, I do not think they are likely candidates in this context. I also discount the possibility that “qie” is really the pronunciation at issue, because the characters corresponding to this pronunciation also do not seem to fit the context.

One interesting thing about Kuo’s discussion is that he seems to flirt with a slightly different take on zhan-nian-lian-sui (adhering, sticking, linking, following) than what I am used to. We have discussed some of these techniques at length in past threads.

Kuo describes the four techniques differently than I understand them, although I can follow his descriptions. His descriptions of the four corresponding defects, however, seem in one place to follow quite closely what I understand from the classics (i.e., the Yang 40’s discussion of “ding3” (“butting”), “pian3” (“being flat”), “diu1” (“losing contact”), and “kang4” (“resisting”). I get confused, however, because rather than using these terms, he talks about “leaning forward,” “leaning backward,” “breaking off,” and “receiving straight.” This may be a translation issue, but my understanding of the Chinese terms is different from what these English words imply. The overall philosophy, however, seems to be fairly similar.

Kuo also discusses four “remedies” for these defects that again deviate somewhat from what I have understood. He also uses four terms that I have not heard in this context: k’ung/kung, chieh/jie, tso/?, and jou/rou.

“Kung” (“empty”) has at least two uses in the literature that I have read. One of them seems fairly close to the idea that Kuo discusses. Basically, it involves letting the opponent feel as if something is there, even though there is really only “emptiness.” This does indeed seem to be the opposite of the idea of “butting.” It also strikes me as an interesting view of what Zhan (“adhering”?) is supposed to accomplish.

I have already discussed “Chieh” above. Kuo describes it as “adding strength,” which again seems like a good cure for being too “flat” or “under-inflated.” I would not, however, translate this as “jie1.”

I cannot figure out what “tso” refers to, perhaps because of the spelling. My best guess is that this is the same as the Pinyin “zou3,” which can mean to “yield.” Some of the details Kuo discusses, however, to not seem to fit. The “Zou” I know of is a very general term, rather than something dealing specifically with the defect of “losing contact.”

“Rou2” means to be “softly resilient” and might be a quality one would attribute to “sui” (“following”), but the characteristics he ascribes to this technique are much narrower than what I understand for “sui.” His description, however, does seem to correspond to some of the mechanics one would typically use.

Take care,
Audi
Audi
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 7:01 am
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby Michael » Wed Oct 01, 2003 4:12 am

Audi,

Thanks for the info. As always, one seeks an answer to a question, and end up with many more questions. It will take me some time to go over your reply.

Anderzander--Stephen, thank you also, hard to describe what the body feels, isn't it? And just when you think you "know" something......

The time will come when I have some time to respond.

Thanks again,

Michael
Michael
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 7:01 am
Location: Wi. USA

Postby Audi » Thu Oct 02, 2003 4:47 am

Hi Michael,

Since I last posted, I discovered another possibility for “tso” that seems to better fit the spelling and context.

There is a character spelled “cuo4” (pronounced like the “t’s Wa” in “It’s Walter”) in Pinyin that is usually used in the sense of “wrong” or “mistaken.” (E.g, “cuo4wu4” (“error”) and “bu2 cuo4” (“not bad”)) However, I see from some of my dictionaries that this character also can have the meanings of “inlaid,” “jagged,” “staggered,” and perhaps “interlaced” or “interlocked.” I am not sure how freely this word can be used independently, but “interlocked” would seem to fit the context Kuo provides. In other words, the way to avoid “following in a way that is too curved and breaking away” is to remain interlocked with the opponent’s energy and not step backward. This is not quite how I understand “Lian” ("Linking"/"Connecting up"), but it does seem to be a reasonable strategy to avoid “Diu” (“Losing contact”) and to continue "linking" ("Lian") the changes of energy together.

Take care,
Audi
Audi
 
Posts: 1130
Joined: Sat Jan 27, 2001 7:01 am
Location: New Jersey, USA

Postby psalchemist » Thu Oct 02, 2003 12:08 pm

Greetings Audi,

You said:
<...the way to avoid "following in a way that is too curved or breaking away" is to remain interlocked with the opponents energy and not step backward. > - Audi

Could you please explain what is meant by "too curved or breaking away"

Thank-you,
Psalchemist.
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Postby Michael » Sat Oct 04, 2003 2:51 am

Audi,

Have only had a few minutes for research but I think that your "uniting the ends of two threads" clears "binding" up for me. Of all that possibilities I somehow overlooked that one. Sometimes I find myself thinking too hard...
Michael
 
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Nov 13, 2002 7:01 am
Location: Wi. USA

Postby psalchemist » Sun Oct 05, 2003 9:56 am

Greetings Anderzander,

I read your posting which works on clarifying the 'binding' and 'borrowing' points.

Although I am beginning to understand, I am still not quite ready to absorb this new material.

I had investigated the website you indicated previously, but was even less ready to comprehend at the time, so I 'let it go', marking it mentally for future reference...but I'm not great with filing references and remenmbering where to find them later.

I am glad that you've refreshed my memory. Image and will review those links once again, with new perspective.

Thanks for all the explanations...I think the aspects you have presented will assist me in progressing.

Thank-you,
Best regards,
Psalchemist. Image
psalchemist
 
Posts: 619
Joined: Wed May 21, 2003 6:01 am

Next

Return to Tai Chi Theory and Principles

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests

cron