Yi Jin Jing

[Mudfoot]

2 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

 All Shaolin's qigongs are rooted in waigong, 

Except those methods that are rooted in Daoist traditions, there are records of cross-pollination. And those method that are rooted in general chinese tradition. All mixed up. 

 

[Sudhamma]

The White Crane (Tibetan) system has an internal set, Needle in the Cotton, Mian ni zhen, very soft and 'sung'. For the past 30 odd years, we see the appearance of Liuhebafa, and Ch'an-m'en Taiji, both are internal sets, which are also very soft and 'sung' and is said to have originated from Shaolin Temple.

[Spotless]

At Shaolin Temple, Kung Fu (martial) is studied for five years before the study/practice of Qi Gong.

 

[morning dew]

On 17/10/2017 at 6:30 PM, Taomeow said:

Also, applying the skill of reading comprehension would reveal this "someone" said "taiji can be practiced as a qigong," not "qigong can be practiced as taiji." 

 

Yeah, that was what I was really driving at. I was curious if the benefits of yijinjing could be replicated by other practices such as Tai Chi or whether there was something special about yijinjing. 

 

On 26/10/2017 at 8:14 AM, Taomeow said:

 

Ancient arts and documented linages are two different things.  Of course qigong, judging by a whole bunch of archeological finds in China, is at least five to six thousand years old and fully indigenous...  but a direct unbroken line six thousand years long...  good luck demonstrating the validity of such a claim.  Which is why legends should never be pitted against documented histories.  It's not even apples and oranges.  It's apples and Xi Wangmu's peaches.  Not saying the peaches are less real.  But proof can't possibly rest on "it's so because I say so" or "my guru says so" or "my scriptures say so."  

 

Yeah, there seem to be various versions of the origins of yijinjing that Jwing-ming translated, but it's all kind of neither here nor there to me. I'm not that into tradition, so I don't really care either way as long as I'm getting the results I want out of a particular practice. I'm sure when Yang Luchang first started out, his style worked better for some people.

Edited October 27, 2017 by morning dew

[Taomeow]

34 minutes ago, morning dew said:

 

Yeah, that was what I was really driving at. I was curious if the benefits of yijinjing could be replicated by other practices such as Tai Chi or whether there was something special about yijinjing. 

 

 

Yeah, there seem to be various versions of the origins of yijinjing that Jwing-ming translated, but it's all kind of neither here nor there to me. I'm not that into tradition, so I don't really care either way as long as I'm getting the results I want out of a particular practice. I'm sure when Yang Luchang first started out, his style worked better for some people.

 

Still does -- for some people.    

 

Which is what I'm driving at.  The best practice for you is the practice you love, so you practice rather than quit. 

 

Taiji is unprecedented in my life in that it's the one and only (so far) thing I don't want to "experiment with" and "see what happens."  It already happened.  I want it always.  Even if it winds up making me a taoist sage (and it can, it's one of those arts that can be taken that far with no help from any others), I won't quit.  It doesn't mean good qigongs are not better for someone else, they are.  I know people who do qigong exclusively, know people who do taiji and qigong, know people who do only taiji.  These arts are customizable. 

 

But "I'm not that into tradition" means you are not likely to get the full benefits of any one of them.  So I would humbly suggest you reconsider.  Traditional arts practiced the traditional way are, far as my experience and understanding go, vastly superior to "mix and match" deals...  believe it or not, those "supreme ultimate" arts don't really "evolve" anymore...  no more than a modern person who has spent the bulk of her waking life sitting in front of screens or in traffic or at the desk is "more evolved" than her ancestress of four hundred years ago who has spent an equal amount of hours in front of her real self -- practicing taiji  .  And she, that ancestress of four hundred years ago, in her turn, always aspired to be as accomplished as her ancestress of four thousand years before...   

[KuroShiro]

On 26/10/2017 at 8:14 AM, Taomeow said:

People who invent those stories about a direct transmission from Bodhidharma (of an indigenous Chinese art to the Chinese, no less) miss out on a whole lot of cultural context. 

 

 All Shaolin's qigongs are rooted in waigong, yet these days it's suddenly in vogue to talk about "internal" arts, so quite a few  waigong practitioners have grown fond of lecturing internal cultivators, practitioners of assorted neigong arts, about how they are doing it all wrong and how theirs (waigongers', hard stylists') whatever-they-do is the "real" this and that.

 

On 26/10/2017 at 10:30 AM, Mudfoot said:

Except those methods that are rooted in Daoist traditions, there are records of cross-pollination. And those method that are rooted in general chinese tradition. All mixed up. 

 

 

This is a very interesting topic.

 

I never liked the story about Bodhidharma precisely because he is said to have come from outside China.

Why would this story exist?

 

You guys are saying that all Shaolin internal practices are actually Daoist practices?

 

Mudfoot, your practice of Shaolin Nei Jing Yi Zhi Chan is a Daoist practice?

 

[KuroShiro]

On 26/10/2017 at 10:30 AM, Mudfoot said:

 

 

 

Does this book mention anything about the Southern Shaolin Monastery?

 

[Mudfoot]

There are some problems with the Southern shaolin monastery. 

Both present and past...... 

 

At least two schools claim their founder was taught there in the 1900-hundreds, but noone seems to be able to pin point where exactly it was. Maybe they moved it a lot, down there in Fujian. 

 

I'm not sure, been a while,  but since it is about bagwa, taiji and xing-yi, it has it focus on the north if I recall right. 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Mudfoot

[morning dew]

23 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Still does -- for some people.    

 

Which is what I'm driving at.  The best practice for you is the practice you love, so you practice rather than quit. 

 

Taiji is unprecedented in my life in that it's the one and only (so far) thing I don't want to "experiment with" and "see what happens."  It already happened.  I want it always.  Even if it winds up making me a taoist sage (and it can, it's one of those arts that can be taken that far with no help from any others), I won't quit.  It doesn't mean good qigongs are not better for someone else, they are.  I know people who do qigong exclusively, know people who do taiji and qigong, know people who do only taiji.  These arts are customizable. 

 

But "I'm not that into tradition" means you are not likely to get the full benefits of any one of them.  So I would humbly suggest you reconsider.  Traditional arts practiced the traditional way are, far as my experience and understanding go, vastly superior to "mix and match" deals...  believe it or not, those "supreme ultimate" arts don't really "evolve" anymore...  no more than a modern person who has spent the bulk of her waking life sitting in front of screens or in traffic or at the desk is "more evolved" than her ancestress of four hundred years ago who has spent an equal amount of hours in front of her real self -- practicing taiji  .  And she, that ancestress of four hundred years ago, in her turn, always aspired to be as accomplished as her ancestress of four thousand years before...   

 

Yeah, I don't really do any mix-and-match as far as I'm aware. Currently, each morning I'm doing Jwing-ming's Eight Pieces of Brocade, and BKF's Cloud Hands and Wu Tai Chi short form. I don't think it would be a great idea, for example, to skip one of the eight pieces (in baduanjin) and replace it with a yoga pose, just because it felt good or got me some (short-term) results.

 

Partly, what I meant was I don't think there's any one right way to do Tai Chi: small frame (Wu) is the most I can manage at the moment, for example, and large frame Chen would cripple me lol. But partly, there was the issue of age. All I was saying is just because a development is new at the time, such as Yang style, it doesn't negate its value; something that breaks off from the traditional way, and isn't 'thousands' of years old, isn't necessarily bad – although, in this case, I guess it still follows on from Chen style to some degree. 

That said, I think you raise an interesting point about some of these arts not evolving. I guess there are only so many ways the body can move physically and energetically, etc, and we only evolve very slowly as humans. I'm not sure if there is scope for empirical testing and improvement on such arts; I just don't have enough experience about how exactly they were designed in the first place.  

Edited October 28, 2017 by morning dew

[Mudfoot]

23 hours ago, KuroShiro said:

 

You guys are saying that all Shaolin internal practices are actually Daoist practices?

 

Mudfoot, your practice of Shaolin Nei Jing Yi Zhi Chan is a Daoist practice?

 

As far as I can tell,  Shaolin Nei Jing Yi Zhi Chan is rooted in India or Tibet. This is mostly seen in the Luo Han Gong,  the second level.

This is around generation 20, so no relation to Bodhidharma. 

 

As to the first,  Sal C paints the picture in great detail, lets just say that many great teachers had great teachers from multiple traditions. 

Edited October 28, 2017 by Mudfoot
Added sentence

[Mudfoot]

23 hours ago, Taomeow said:

 

Which is what I'm driving at.  The best practice for you is the practice you love, so you practice rather than quit. 

 

Yes. 

And you want to understand your love better, so you practice with a passion. 

[Taomeow]

Without naming names...

 

A teacher I know took a group of students on a China tour.  They had a blast, visiting many noteworthy places and practicing everywhere, among other places at Shaolin.  While practicing, one of the teacher's disciples met one of Shaolin's disciples and they fell in love at first sight and, long story short, got engaged.  The Shaolin dude came to the US.  He and the taiji disciple started exchanging practices, sharing everything they had.  Taiji teacher said to his disciple, you better stop it.  "But..." she goes.  No buts.  I don't give you high level to give away.  That's why, he continues, most masters up until very recently were reluctant to teach daughters.  Not because they loved their daughters less but because they expected it would be exactly like this --  daughter gets married, gives all taiji family secrets to husband, husband gives it to his brothers, cousins, neighbors, who knows who those people are, maybe friends, maybe not.  

 

So there you have it.  This is not some centuries past.  This is today.  People I know.  It's not easy to get "everything" even if you're exposed to "some of it."  Yes, Shaolin and taoist arts cross-pollinated, no doubt about it.  But to what extent Shaolin got "our" stuff is anybody's guess.   I would say, based on my (limited of course) observations, Shaolin is 95% athletic, 5% internal.  Give or take.  Taiji?  The good stuff is 95% internal, 5% athletic.  They have very supple, juicy apples.  We have very soft peaches.  With the diamond hard pit inside.   

[Mudfoot]

I would also say that, after, what I have read and seen,  those that added "daoist"  nei gung and used this to further their understanding of the six harmonies and so on were reluctant to teach this. 

 

You stumble over this over and over again, (so called) internal or softer Shaolin arts come with the story that "this was not taught to the ordinary fighting monks". 

 

In Sal C's book and others on the subject, you find comments like "this Knowledge was lost after a few generations". 

 

So,  in line with what Taomeow wrote above,  monks didn't trust other monks and Shaolin was (personal communication from Sal C.) not one but several lineages.

[KuroShiro]

1 hour ago, Taomeow said:

So there you have it.  This is not some centuries past.  This is today.  People I know.  It's not easy to get "everything" even if you're exposed to "some of it."  Yes, Shaolin and taoist arts cross-pollinated, no doubt about it.  But to what extent Shaolin got "our" stuff is anybody's guess.   I would say, based on my (limited of course) observations, Shaolin is 95% athletic, 5% internal.  Give or take.  Taiji?  The good stuff is 95% internal, 5% athletic.  They have very supple, juicy apples.  We have very soft peaches.  With the diamond hard pit inside.   

 

 

I relate Shaolin with very high level internal accomplishment mainly because Dr. Yan XIn, Master Chunyi Lin, Master John Tsai and also Master Wong Kiew Kit seem to be from Shaolin Tradition.

 

 

 

35 minutes ago, Mudfoot said:

I would also say that, after, what I have read and seen,  those that added "daoist"  nei gung and used this to further their understanding of the six harmonies and so on were reluctant to teach this. 

 

You stumble over this over and over again, (so called) internal or softer Shaolin arts come with the story that "this was not taught to the ordinary fighting monks". 

 

In Sal C's book and others on the subject, you find comments like "this Knowledge was lost after a few generations". 

 

So,  in line with what Taomeow wrote above,  monks didn't trust other monks and Shaolin was (personal communication from Sal C.) not one but several lineages.

 

 

Several Shaolin lineages makes sense.

[Taomeow]

2 hours ago, KuroShiro said:

 

 

I relate Shaolin with very high level internal accomplishment mainly because Dr. Yan XIn, Master Chunyi Lin, Master John Tsai and also Master Wong Kiew Kit seem to be from Shaolin Tradition.

 

 

 

 

 

Several Shaolin lineages makes sense.

 

I haven't investigated others but I know a bit about Wong Kiew Kit -- his was the very first book on taiji I ever read, many moons ago, and it was one of the sources of my subsequent interest.  Don't doubt his high level of internal accomplishment -- but whether his training toward gaining it had anything whatsoever to do with Shaolin, besides the purported association with the mythical "Southern Shaolin" temple in Fujian whose existence was never demonstrated, is very debatable.  Let me quote:

 

Southern Shaolin Monastery.  The location and existence of this has been disputed. The book Martial Arts of the World: Regions and individual arts gives the stories of a Southern temple as an example of the unverifiable claims often made for the establishment of Chinese martial art styles. It says "One example involves a Shaolin monastery in Fujian Province. During the nineteenth century, Heaven and Earth Society documents referred to a southern Shaolin monastery in Fujian Province  whence so-called southern Shaolin martial arts styles such as Hong Quan reportedly originated. Although this assertion has been repeated many times, and claimants from three locations (Quanzhou, Putian, and Fuxing) have each made a case for their location, none of the claimants have been able to provide much evidence to support their claims." It also states that "Another aspect of the Shaolin story subject to misperception is the impression that martial arts called "Shaolin staff/' "Shaolin boxing," etc., were actually developed at a Shaolin Temple," noting that "Recruiters for organizations such as the Heaven and Earth Society also used stories about Shaolin prowess to recruit members. And, of course, playwrights and novelists created stories. This makes it difficult to confirm whether any specific style originated at any specific location, let alone at Songshan Shaolin monastery in Henan."

 

It's quite likely that quite a few internal stylists merely used the name "Shaolin" because it's a trademark that sells, not because what they have was ever developed or practiced there.  The Chinese government was instrumental in making it into a trademark generating prestige and tourism, by the way -- let's not forget that the "original" Shaolin monks were rendered extinct during the "cultural revolution" and the "great leap forward," and subsequently, upon opening China to the West, replaced by young communists with the "Party task" to train as monks...  

 

Institutional arts coming out of China in the aftermath of the second half of its 20th century history need to be taken with a generous helping of salt methinks.  (This is aslo true for Wudang and even Maoshan, not just Shaolin...)

[KuroShiro]

59 minutes ago, Taomeow said:

 

I haven't investigated others but I know a bit about Wong Kiew Kit -- his was the very first book on taiji I ever read, many moons ago, and it was one of the sources of my subsequent interest.  Don't doubt his high level of internal accomplishment -- but whether his training toward gaining it had anything whatsoever to do with Shaolin, besides the purported association with the mythical "Southern Shaolin" temple in Fujian whose existence was never demonstrated, is very debatable. 

 

 

 

We have the Southern martial arts and the legend of the Five Elders of Shaolin. Again like the story of Bodhidharma, we'll probably never really know.

 

[Mudfoot]

Well written by Taomeow! 

So both Shaolin Do (you can read about that one on kung fu magazines forum) and my style claim to come from a Southern Shaolin monastery still filled with monks in the early 20 century, but noone can find out where the remains are now. 

 

As for Wong Kiew Kit,  by his own writing he claim to have changed so much, his teachers teacher would probably not recognize what is being taught. He has also constructed his own taiji form,  and teaches Xing-yi and Bagwa, so how much has that affected his other kung fu practices? 

 

His qigong is heavily influenced by spontaneous five animal qigong. 

 

Doesn’t say that Shaolin doesn’t have some powerful qigong. 

 

If you surf Wudang sites,  one of the main teachers spent years travelling China learning(!) internal arts before setteling on Wudang, so that is not the teaching of traditional "Wudang" arts either. Just Like Shaolin, it is a collective of teachers....... 

[Sudhamma]

The Southern Shaolin Temple has been rebuilt at Pu-Tien, Fujian for the past 10+ years. From what I know, the 'Grand Ancestor Fist' Tai Zhu Chuan is being taught there. Shaolin Neijin Yizi Ch'an gong originates from there. When Southern Shaolin 'schools' are mentioned, it is not restricted to the Temple, but what flourishes outside the Temple....Guangdong's five major schools, and Fujian's four majors, and other numerous minor schools. Similarly, with Northern Shaolin 'schools'... Ta Sheng M'en, Wei Tor Liu He M'en, Mizong M'en, etc. 

 

I've given 2 links below: 1 for Putien and the other Quanzhou Shaolin Temples. I do not know whether both are actually the same, but called differently or there are 2 temples as Putien and Quanzhou are different locations. There is no longer a mystery where this Southern Shaolin Temple(s) is/are.

 

Link:

https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=putien+shaolin+temple&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiV3_nTvZfXAhXJtY8KHTYYBOgQsAQINw&biw=1093&bih=530&dpr=1.25

 

https://www.google.com.sg/search?q=quanzhou+shaolin+temple&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjgldXP8JfXAhWBr48KHeFECDoQsAQIRQ&biw=1093

Edited October 30, 2017 by Sudhamma
more info

[Mudfoot]

7 hours ago, Sudhamma said:

Shaolin Neijin Yizi Ch'an gong originates from there.   

 

There is no longer a mystery where this Southern Shaolin Temple(s) is/are.

 

No,  only how much the fares cost. 

 

Regarding the Yizi Chan,  this is also taught at Songshan. 

In the South,  it is a mudra based system working on quite a lot of "stuff",  in the North, it is a method for making your fingers in to weapons. 

[KuroShiro]

3 hours ago, Mudfoot said:

in the North, it is a method for making your fingers in to weapons. 

 

Any healing component also or only weapon?

 

[Mudfoot]

Shi Degen use the sword finger mudra for healing,  but available books and dvds only speaks of the combat applications. And one finger push ups. 

 

Songshan had a version that travelled to Emei Shan around 1920, one master from that branch moved to Singapore. It is called Kong Jing Gong today, Mantak Chia calls it Cosmic Qigong and Buddha palm, it is a simplified version with Emei energetics mixed in. 

Edited October 30, 2017 by Mudfoot
Spelling

[Jox]

On 10/30/2017 at 4:13 PM, Mudfoot said:

Shi Degen use the sword finger mudra for healing,  but available books and dvds only speaks of the combat applications. And one finger push ups. 

 

Songshan had a version that travelled to Emei Shan around 1920, one master from that branch moved to Singapore. It is called Kong Jing Gong today, Mantak Chia calls it Cosmic Qigong and Buddha palm, it is a simplified version with Emei energetics mixed in. 

 

 

 

[Mudfoot]

One of Mantak Chias students. 

This made me open the book Cosmic Healing I:Cosmic Chi Kung. 

 

And after sleeping on it,  I erased most of my post. 

Edited November 2, 2017 by Mudfoot
Bad temper

[Jox]

On 11/1/2017 at 4:22 PM, Mudfoot said:

One of Mantak Chias students. 

This made me open the book Cosmic Healing I:Cosmic Chi Kung. 

 

And after sleeping on it,  I erased most of my post. 

I havent watched the second clip yet, lol ... What would you like to say? Did she learn the stuff from the book or ... ? 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Jox

[Mudfoot]

1 hour ago, Jox said:

I havent watched the second clip yet, lol ... What would you like to say? Did she learn the stuff from the book or ... ? 

She is an official Universal Tao instructor.