Discovering Internal Principles Through Embodied Practice

[FluffyGuardian]

37 minutes ago, ChiDragon said:

Ginna do not push the opponent away from the body like Taiji. The goal of Ginna is to disable and control the opponent.

 

Quote

All martial styles has these similar techniques. You can't lump them all together.

 

Do you realize you’re contradicting yourself?
 

Taijiquan is famous for sticking and following, yet you're implying it "pushes people away" and avoids disable/control.
 

At the same time, you describe Qinna as disabling and controlling the opponent, which is achieved precisely by sticking, following, listening, and maintaining contact.

That sounds like something Taiji people wish they could do... 
 

You say Taiji and Qinna are "apples and oranges," different styles and methods.

Then you say all martial styles share similar techniques.
 

Those two claims cannot both be true.
 

If Qinna truly shares no techniques with Taiji, then you can't say they share similar techniques.

If techniques are shared across styles, then there is no problem acknowledging Qinna methods are within Taijiquan.

 

Edited yesterday at 12:39 AM by FluffyGuardian

[ChiDragon]

43 minutes ago, FluffyGuardian said:

 

Taijiquan is famous for sticking and following

Sticking and following is to practice ting jin(听勁) in push-hand. In combat, the final result is still send the opponent away from you. 
I don't know if you understand the principle of Sticking and following, ting jin then push. The key is in ting jin, it tells you when to push the opponent. If you can answer this question, then you will know the principle of push-hand.

Perhaps, you may observe it from here: 

 

At 1:31 the opponent made a mistake, that is where you take advantage to push the opponent away.

Edited yesterday at 01:22 AM by ChiDragon

[TaiChiGringo]

6 hours ago, FluffyGuardian said:

 

Another aspect of “methodology beats principles” is that Peng and Song alone do not teach entire categories of skill.

Peng will not teach you qinna. It will not teach you how to reverse or escape qinna once it’s applied. It will not teach leg sweeps, trips, or counters to them. It will not teach you how to punish errors.

Principles are publicly discussable because they are safe. They don't reveal missing content. If the methodology for qinna, sweeps, counters, and punishment isn’t trained, those skills won’t “naturally emerge” no matter how refined someone’s Peng is.

Talking about Peng, Song, and intention costs nothing, reveals nothing, and cannot be used to reconstruct lost methods.

This may also explain why books, aimed at a public audience, only talk about principles. There is nothing to lose by talking about them. Actual training methods, on the other hand, are kept private. 

 

Now our perspectives are starting to diverge, but that’s a good thing, it makes for an interesting discussion 🙂

From my perspective, Peng is absolutely foundational to both applying and reversing qinna. Peng is the internal inflation that gives structural integrity: it’s what makes your own “hose” difficult to kink, and what allows you to effectively kink someone else’s. Without that internal fullness and continuity, qinna tends to become local, muscular, and easily countered.

Peng is also inseparable from Ting Jin. Without Ting Jin, you don’t reliably perceive the opponent’s internal state, direction, or vulnerability, and without that perception, applying qinna becomes guesswork rather than skill. In that sense, Peng isn’t just supportive of qinna, it’s what makes refined qinna possible at all.

 

That said, I completely agree that form alone does not produce functional skill. Partner work is essential. But in traditional internal training, partner work is introduced after the body method has been sufficiently forged. This sequencing is intentional. The uniqueness of internal martial arts lies precisely here: they prioritize the development of internal body capacity first, and only later does it become functional skill, when you learn to express it through specific applications. 

 

This difference in emphasis is also reflected in Chen Fake’s oft-quoted view that roughly 90% of training should be done alone, with only about 10% in partner work. That ratio is almost the inverse of most external or modern martial arts, where partner drilling dominates. The reason for this inversion isn’t philosophical, it’s practical: in internal arts, the primary task is forging the body method itself, which must be developed independently before it can function reliably under contact.

 

So when I say the body method (Shen Fa) is the method, that’s not philosophical, it’s literal. Peng isn’t a concept you apply on top of technique; it’s a trained internal condition that techniques emerge from and are constrained by. Without it, you can still learn qinna, sweeps, counters, but they will be external, conditional, and limited.

 

I also want to push back a bit on the idea that “actual training methods are kept private", while talking about principles reveals nothing. I think that framing slightly misses what’s really going on.

The real dividing line isn’t principles vs. methods, it’s what can actually be transmitted without a teacher.

You can talk about Peng endlessly, but talking about Peng does not give someone Peng. Likewise, you can talk about qinna, show qinna on video, or even break it down step by step, and none of that grants the ability to apply it internally. Without the internal body method, those methods are functionally hollow.

In fact, I’d argue the opposite of what you seem to be suggesting:
Applications are far easier to recover than the internal body method. Two bodies interacting can rediscover joint locks, sweeps, counters, and punishments. That kind of knowledge is mechanically available. But Peng, the internal inflation, continuity, and load-bearing integrity of the body, is far more elusive. It’s not obvious, not visible, and not intuitive. Once that is lost, it’s extremely hard to reconstruct. 

That’s why, historically, the “secret” was never really a specific application. The secret was the body method. Once Peng is genuinely present, applications stop being mysterious, you can feel where to apply force, where structure breaks, where control emerges. Without it, no amount of application knowledge closes the gap. 

So yes, talking reveals little, but that’s true of both principles and applications. What actually matters is whether the internal condition of the body is being cultivated. And that’s precisely the thing that cannot be learned from words, videos, or public discussion, and the thing most easily lost if it isn’t preserved carefully.

 

I think we may actually agree more than it first appears. There is far too much pontificating about principles in the abstract. Where I differ is that I don’t see this as an error of emphasis so much as an error of intellectualization, trying to think one’s way into something that can only be embodied. Ultimately, whether we’re talking about principles, methods, or applications, the real issue is the same: the vast majority of people simply don’t have the principles in their bodies.

Edited yesterday at 04:22 AM by TaiChiGringo

[ChiDragon]

On 1/3/2026 at 9:22 PM, TaiChiGringo said:

For me, what’s striking is how this practice interacts with the body’s connective tissue, nervous system,  and interoceptive capacities

 

Since you have mentioned the biological systems of connective tissue and nervous system, have you gone deeper into the body cell level? Like an "action potential" that is so characteristic of the nervous system. Sorry, this is a microscopic question entering modern science. Most of the martial artists are not concerned with the internal function of the body. However, our body was affected by our practice. There are some biological changes in the body. I think it is worthwhile to investigate the biochemical effects inside the body cells. What do you think?

[FluffyGuardian]

10 hours ago, TaiChiGringo said:

 

From my perspective, Peng is absolutely foundational to both applying and reversing qinna. 

 

Here's the key point though. If you know how to build the foundation of a house, does that mean you know how to build the walls and roof? Do you know how to install plumbing? Electrical wiring?

 

A foundation is essential, but the skill of building it does not automatically teach you everything else required to complete the house. Not even close...

 

That was my argument. 

 

I never said Peng isn't important to Qinna. What I said was that Peng alone does not teach Qinna, and this is demonstrated clearly in the very conversation where Qinna was argued to not even be part of Taijiquan at all.

Taiji practitioners are data points, and the data is very clear: The overwhelming majority of Taijiquan practitioners do not know Qinna, despite all the talk about Peng. 

 

If Peng were sufficient to teach Qinna, this wouldn't be the case.

 

And here's the other thing about Peng and Qinna as it relates to Yang Taijiquan that I don't see anyone talk about.

First of all, Yang Taijiquan (generally speaking) are very vulnerable to Qinna; they don't have much it. For one thing, some of them like to stick their thumbs out. Some calls this the "Tiger's Mouth". From a Qinna perspective, there are methods you can use by catching the thumb. 

In Chen Taijiquan, at least in my line, we are taught to not stick the thumbs out because it can be caught even in Tuishou.

There are reasons we also don't see Chen Style use Yang's "Peng gesture" shape-wise. You don't see Chen Style's arm with a simple inward-facing palm as the outer hand like this:


 

Why?

 

Because this shape is simple and has a weakness. This "Peng" in the arm is strong against onward pressure, but it's weak against downward pressure, especially at the extremities like the wrist. 
 

Chen Style's version is more complex, and they uses a compound jin of sorts. You have Peng in the arm just like Yang Style, and then you apply a twist in the forearm such that palm is facing more upwards instead of inwards. 



By doing this, it's strong against both onward pressure and downwards pressure.

So this is an example of a practical nuance... which principles don't talk about. 

Chen's "Peng Gesture" is actually a "Peng + Coil Gesture".
 

Quote

Applications are far easier to recover than the internal body method.

 

Again, we have data points. And the data suggests that Taiji practitioners, the self-proclaimed "Internal" practitioners, have far fewer applications than so-called "External" practitioners. 

The data says that most Taijiquan practitioners (especially Yang Style)'s applications that are shown... are like 95% "Pushing someone away".

They are so lacking in diversity in applications that people (including some in this thread) believe that is all Taiji is... is pushing someone away...

They seriously think... that is the ultimate goal.

Pushing and shoving has become... their "Signature Move". 

Well... no wonder applications are so easy to recover... when the recovered application is pushing someone away....

 

Quote

That’s why, historically, the “secret” was never really a specific application. The secret was the body method.

 

I agree with this!

 

But I never said a specific application was a secret... I specifically said that methodology is kept private.

Shen Fa is a methodology, and in the Chen Family... it's way more complex there simply Peng. 
 

 

Edited 22 hours ago by FluffyGuardian

[ChiDragon]

The first four of the eight methods of Fajin

https://share.google/Ss35xsJKPkWyCvTBE

Edited 20 hours ago by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

The last four of the eight methods of Fajin

https://share.google/IP8ONAwWG5JreOVdU

https://share.google/wTVRqyfpVrSWNOng1

Edited 20 hours ago by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

IMMHO Learning the principle is a good start for going into the methodology. It will speed up the learning process and more appreciative and encouraging. It may eliminate a lots of confusion. When you are mixing two systems and try to speak to someone the terminology just doesn't match. Then, you will have lots of explaining to do. The more you talk about it the more you're running away from the subject. It makes the listener lose interest quickly. 

Edited 19 hours ago by ChiDragon

[ChiDragon]

Fajin, 發勁, is a special Taiji technique using different parts of the body to issue an explosive force(勁). There are eight techniques. Each technique has a given name. Its purpose was not to learn Ginna, 擒拿. Ginna means "grab and catch it." Ginna should be considered as another type of martial arts.

 

The practice of Ginna is not like Taiji at all. Its practice is just jumped right into learning the grabbing techniques. The amount of power depends on the physical condition of the practitioner.
 

Fajin, in Taiji, require extensive diligent practice for years to develop the Jin 勁 in the body muscles. The amount of Jin exertion can be controlled by the executioner. How much force was used may be observed by how far is the opponent was being pushed went. If the opponent was pushed far far back, then, one might say that the Taiji practitioner has lots of 內功(neigong), inner strength.
 

Edited 17 hours ago by ChiDragon

[FluffyGuardian]

3 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

Fajin, 發勁, is a special Taiji technique using different parts of the body to issue an explosive force(勁). There are eight techniques. Each technique has a given name. Its purpose was not to learn Ginna, 擒拿. Ginna means "grab and catch it." Ginna should be considered as another type of martial arts.

 

The practice of Ginna is not like Taiji at all. Its practice is just jumped right into learning the grabbing techniques. The amount of power depends on the physical condition of the practitioner.
 

Fajin, in Taiji, require extensive diligent practice for years to develop the Jin 勁 in the body muscles. The amount of Jin exertion can be controlled by the executioner. How much force was used may be observed by how far is the opponent was being pushed went. If the opponent was pushed far far back, then, one might say that the Taiji practitioner has lots of 內功(neigong), inner strength.
 

 

Well, I guess we all love Chen Style in this thread. 

Here are reasons why you are wrong:

1. For sophisticated Taijiquan lines, Qinna... is built into the form itself...
2. Jin... can be related to Qinna.

For example... here is Feng Zhiqiang (Chen Fa'ke's disciple). The guy on the left is using a Qinna method from Chen Style's Tuibu Ya Zhou. Qinna is not some special, isolated system that exists separate from Chen's form. Maybe that's true in your form and other styles, but not Chen Style. 

 

A snapshot from the form to correspond to it:

Now in Chen Style, you can use Zhou Jin (Elbow Jin) to counter this Qinna:

 

And once again... this comes straight from the form. This can be found in Chen's Er Lu. 

You could "Fa Jin" here. In other words... Fa Jin is not necessarily about sending someone far away... or even necessarily hitting. 

The sequence Tuibu Ya Zhou is not only for "this specific technique" nor is it "only for Qinna".

Like many movements, it contains many genres shoved inside. 

 

It just so happens that your Taijiquan doesn't have Qinna, and that's fine. That is very normal.

The guy you posted... learned their Tuishou and application from Chen Yu's dad. 

 

Edited 14 hours ago by FluffyGuardian

[ChiDragon]

5 minutes ago, FluffyGuardian said:

Here are reasons why you are wrong:

1. For sophisticated Taijiquan lines, Qinna... is built into the form itself...
2. Jin... can be related to Qinna.

 

 

Wow, thanks for telling me all these! How wrong could I be!? 

[TaiChiGringo]

14 hours ago, FluffyGuardian said:

 

Here's the key point though. If you know how to build the foundation of a house, does that mean you know how to build the walls and roof? Do you know how to install plumbing? Electrical wiring?

 

A foundation is essential, but the skill of building it does not automatically teach you everything else required to complete the house. Not even close...

 

That was my argument. 

 

I never said Peng isn't important to Qinna. What I said was that Peng alone does not teach Qinna, and this is demonstrated clearly in the very conversation where Qinna was argued to not even be part of Taijiquan at all.

Taiji practitioners are data points, and the data is very clear: The overwhelming majority of Taijiquan practitioners do not know Qinna, despite all the talk about Peng. 

 

If Peng were sufficient to teach Qinna, this wouldn't be the case.

 

I think this is where we’re slightly talking past each other, and it hinges on an implicit assumption. I agree with your house analogy up to a point. Knowing how to build a foundation does not mean you automatically know how to build walls, install plumbing, or wire electricity. No disagreement there.

My point was never that Peng alone magically teaches qinna. My point is that without Peng genuinely built into the body, qinna cannot be internal, reliable, or refined. In that sense, Peng is necessary but not sufficient, and I think we actually agree on that.

Where I think your reasoning slips is here:

The statement that Peng is insufficient to teach qinna is based on practitioner outcomes, with the evidence offered being that most Taijiquan practitioners lack qinna skill. But that only holds if those practitioners have successfully trained Peng as an internal body method. Without that distinction, the conclusion doesn’t follow.

 

Bascially you assume that most Taiji practitioners have coherant Peng. They don't.

Taiji practitioners are indeed data points, but the data doesn’t show “Peng doesn’t lead to qinna.”  What those data points really show is how rare genuine Peng is, even among dedicated practitioners. That rarity speaks to the challenge of developing internal body method. Without Peng as an embodied condition, real qinna cannot emerge. 
 

I agree with you that:
Peng alone does not teach specific qinna methods
Partner training is essential
Categories like qinna, sweeps, counters, and punishment must be trained directly

Where we seem to differ is mostly in emphasis, causality, and what the "practitioner data points" actually point to

 

Edited 8 hours ago by TaiChiGringo

[TaiChiGringo]

14 hours ago, FluffyGuardian said:

Shen Fa is a methodology, and in the Chen Family... it's way more complex there simply Peng. 

 

I have to disagree here In Chen Taijiquan, the body method is Peng. Not metaphorically, not partially, literally. Taijiquan is Peng Jin Quan. Shen Fa is not something layered on top of Peng; it is Peng expressed through the body.

In my view, a clearer and more accurate formulation would be:
Peng is the internal structural condition
Shen Fa is Peng made functional through movement
Applications (qinna, throws, strikes, counters) are Peng expressed through interaction

So the Shen Fa methodology is not “more complex than Peng”, it is the progressive cultivation, stabilization, and usage of Peng across increasingly complex contexts.

Edited 8 hours ago by TaiChiGringo

[ChiDragon]

4 hours ago, TaiChiGringo said:

Bascially you assume that most Taiji practitioners have coherant Peng. They don't.

 

I am a bit puzzled about your conclusion. Perhaps you can explain it otherwise.

As far as I know, all Fajin methods were depicted from the basic movements and classified as the 8 Fajin methods. It happens to be that Peng appeared in most of them, except last two methods.

[TaiChiGringo]

2 hours ago, ChiDragon said:

 

I am a bit puzzled about your conclusion. Perhaps you can explain it otherwise.

As far as I know, all Fajin methods were depicted from the basic movements and classified as the 8 Fajin methods. It happens to be that Peng appeared in most of them, except last two methods.

 

I’m not disputing the classical classification of fajin methods. I’m pointing out the gap between formal taxonomy and trained reality.
The fact that Peng underlies most fajin methods does not mean that most practitioners have actually built Peng as a functional internal condition. In practice, developing a high-quality, coherent “Taiji body”,  one that is genuinely expresses full Peng, is exceptionally difficult, especially for people who begin training as adults.

This is an uncomfortable reality about the standard level of Taijiquan practice among adult starters, not a denial of what the art theoretically contains.