I think Krabong has it backwards here in traditional Taoist thought what JK posted above is even that circles are Yang (correspond with heaven) and Yin is square (corresponds to earth) at least according to the Huai Nan Zi (classic of heaven and earth). Basically to keep it simple for the same reasons as JK presented above. However, I have also heard the square and circle argument speak of footwork, i.e. your steps maybe linear but your strikes and upper body is circular (or spiraling) and of course the reverse is also true. I remember one quote (can't remember by who) but it said "I have the 8 trigrams at my palms and 5 elements at my feet" Meaning he has circular motion in the upper torso while still being able to move forward/backward/left/right/center in his feet. So it is hard to say, I would love to hear Carys explain a bit more about what she means by the "energetic" idea of the circle? Is she talking about the spiralling idea of Silk reeling? I know this is TCC forum, but the OP does not really conicide with ideas in Hsing I either, I am just pointing out w/o more info it is hard to see what you mean Carys? Or what is your exp. with this idea? As for Dillon: I think these ideas are VERY important as they should require you to question your art (how is this effective? What does this mean? can I change this? etc.) always question the validity and seek to understand. Whether you call it Yin/Yang, Forward/backward, Striking/blocking it does not really matter that is more personal preference but you should still question it.
"The circle is unbroken" - the Incredible String Band "A square has 4 pointy corners" - Joanna Zorya On a serious note - hi Taoquan - good to see you! I think of stepping being quite linear, yes - I think it's a Zheng Manqing lineage thing that I was taught "step directly from where you are to where you need to be." At times, it can seem like the legs are acting like pistons which push the wheels of the torso and arms as you shift your weight and turn, with more emphasis on the weight shift at the beginning of the movement and more emphasis on the turn at the end. That goes some way to explaining the leg and torso method, from my perspective. I do also apply linearity to the hands though too, in that they should not take a more circuitous route than necessary, but the hands / arms are always rotating along their long axis at least (along with the torso and the non-weighted leg) AND, like a swallow in flight, the hand may be able to turn on a sixpence but it can't fly backwards - in other words, with the natural flow of arcing momentum, there will usually be at least a small loop before a hand retraces its steps through space. That said, I don't always think this aspect is always terribly necessary in combat, albeit a common stylistic Taijiquan characteristic. With reeling silk and undulation observed, a strike can just shoot out like a spinning bullet and return along the same path, with only a tiny, almost imperceptible or imperceptible loop being apparent at the point of the fist itself before it's return. Kind of like a cannonball on the end of a piece of elastic...
I'd change that to: straight lines are yang, curved lines are yin. Straight lines are used for hitting and kicking, curves are used for evasions, pulling sideways, and throws. Or say, direct forward action is yang, otherwise it is yin. Sorry to say, I still fail to see squares in Tai Chi. Even the legs form a circle, not a square. Or the base of an helix, if you prefer.
While you are right about the theory of Yin and Yang in Taoism, Taoquan. It is approached different for each thing Taoquan, like when talking about the martial side or the medical side. Yes, they keep the same basic idea of how the philosophic is setup in Taoism. When looking at the circle you have to look at both the inside and the outside of the circle, same with the square. Inside the circle is yin, outside the circle is yang. Inside the square is yang, outside the square is yin. That is why the square is used to develop yang, so what I mean is that you need to have a linear force pressing outwards in all directions to maintain the circle. The square is pressed inward on one side it would fold and hit on a corner.
Sorry, PD, but I think that's a little simplistic. There are certainly arcing strikes in Taijiquan and it is possible to defend with a linear vector, even though the arm will be rotating as it does so, along with the body etc. As to the squares, the eight methods and five steps create the linear directions in Taijiquan. Ji is forwards, an is down etc., just as you can advance, retreat or sidestep. So thinking of peng as upwards and lu as sideways, you can execute an oblique defense (peng-lu) or a curved one (peng transforming into lu). Similarly you might sidestep or advance, or execute an advancing sidestep. It is also possible to step in a curved manner. The crux of it, as I see it, is that in a 3D universe you need directions. The transverse plane creates the directions of up and down. The sagittal plane creates the directions of left and right. The coronal or frontal plane creates the directions of front and rear. So very basically, peng is up, an is down, ji is forwards, lu is backwards, lie is sideways. [Cai, zhou and kao describe long, medium and close range ( distal & proximal), but that's another story.] For the steps you have forwards, retreat, stasis, left and right. You can move in any direction in the 3D universe this creates and your path can curve or be straight. But the 8 methods and 5 steps give you a framework to define and analyse your movement. They create the cuboid world you inhabit - and that's the square.
@Jkzorya I mean it indeed as simple as I said, if not even more so. In a very basic way, yang moving forward, yin moving back. Or, even more basic allowing no sophistication, yang = forward gear, yin = backward gear. In addition, you can steer by means of a round steering wheel in any direction, accelerate as you like, drive uphill or down and whatever. Yes, the directions are important. But what makes you think they are directions in a cuboid world? They are directions within a circle, described in degrees. Circle your arms around you. Turn your head from right to left. Turn your waist on your hips. Turn your hands from up to down. Lift your foot by means of circular joints. And kick straight forward within the circle you are standing. On this round earth. You made a good point of the difference between a spiral and a helix. Maybe I should not call it a circle therefore but the three dimensional equivalent we are standing in. But I'd never call it a cube, why you should I can't fathom.
My thoughts are that this statement can have various different interpretations, depending on who you ask. None of these interpretations are wrong, and none are completely right. And to some extent, it is completely irrelevant and serves only to distract people from training. *Goes and assumes Zhan Zhuang position*
I think you're just stretching the point for the sake of it. Very few of our joints are circular - most are variations on the hinge principle. If you want to navigate anywhere within a three dimensional universe you plot your positions according to 3 linear dimensions, otherwise there'd be no "forward" or "backward" - there'd just be "around". To expand on this - there'd be no yin or yang - there'd be no up (yang) or down (yin). There'd be no in / proximal (yin) or out / distal (yang). There'd be no advance (yang) or retreat (yin). There'd be no differentiation - no poles - no Taiji. With no coordinates at all, there'd only be Wuji (void).
I think it is always worth pointing out that statements like this one, are actually absolutist statements. While at first glance seeming quite reasonable (given our increasingly relativist culture), such statements are innately contradictory in a way that the statement "somethings are relative and some things are not" is not. Without any differentiation there'd be no Taiji - there would only be Wuji and without Taiji there'd be no quan - there'd be no you or they, no attack or defense, no here or there. Sure, Taiji can be about seamless flow but it is also about defeating opponents - about winning or losing... Smoking cigarettes is bad for your health. This is a true statement. Some things are true and other things are false. We need to differentiate.
It is difficult to decide the truth of a statement one does not understand. Before Charys has clarified what she means by it, I must assume she is fishing in the fog and therefore neither right or wrong, so far.
Well, if we're nitpicking, some things are also partially true: smoking relieves stress, which is also bad for your health...always a yang within yin
That's not true. It is a lie propagated by the tobacco industry and its slaves. Nicotine is an addictive stimulant and cigarettes are simply a cocktail of dangerous poisons. The first time someone has a cigarette their body may react appropriately - as if it has been poisoned, which it has. You might feel sick and break out in a sweat. Only by becoming hardened to the poisons and dependent on the nicotine does a person get relief from stress when smoking - they are then just relieving their withdrawal symptoms. If you want something less contentious - people call me Joanna - that's a fact - there's no yin to that yang. I have two arms - another fact. If I stand with my arms by my sides and then raise them above my head, my hands will get further away from the ground. Another fact. If I drink a lethal dose of a deadly poison, I will die. Another fact - the real world is full of them. People often talk about the perceived problem of things being "PC gone mad", well I think a prevalent problem amongst Western martial artists is that they exercise "Relativism gone mad". Maybe we grow up in the West where things are stated as factual or not and along comes a bit of Eastern mystical philosophy that introduces the concept of relativity and people go "oh wow - that's really true that is" little realising that that very statement is in itself a contradiction in terms. A more accurate statement is that some things are relative and other things aren't. Even the statement that "there's always a yang within yin" is an absolute statement and one that can be disproved, unlike true statements which cannot.
Well the other place that you will see a square or straight lines, is if you look at the body from a lateral view. The spine is naturally straight and the legs are naturally straight, bones make straightness while the joints add to curves and circles. Also when you do some striking principles you are actually using a wedge (or corner of a square if you will) it is also variable as you mentioned to evading as a circle (in my exp.) Nready: You are correct in what you say and there is the idea of Yin and Yang to each thing. Still the core principle remains of what was stated, you can ultimately assign yin/yang to everything, it just matters the amount of yin/yang for very few things are considered 50/50. Either way that is a bit off topic. The main thing (in my own exp) to think about is how the square and circle apply to us a human beings (as we are 3D images) So it is not truly square (but cube) and less circle (more cylindrical). The ideas that change is where you place them in the idea that I stated above (above or below, forward/backward etc.) but they should be interchangable. Using some what of the wedge idea above if you go wedge against wedge (yin vs yin) then you would be violating a core principle of TCC, where as if you use a circle to deflect and turn the wedge this changes the principle. Then if you add footwork etc. you have a multitude of ideas of the square/circle principle. JK, Thanks for the welcome
The point of all of this relativism is this; “Smoking cigarettes is bad for your health” seems like a perfectly reasonable statement but the more you think about it the more you realize that “bad” is, in fact, a term of degrees. Is eating a greasy cheeseburger bad for your health? How about eating anything that isn’t absolutely ideal? Certainly you can weigh the net pros and cons of any activity and decide if it increases your longevity or not but in that case, longevity neutral tasks (like driving a car) are bad for you insofar as there are healthier alternatives (such as walking) in almost every case. Taking the stance that driving is inherently unhealthy seems to be an absurd stance to take but it is largely an extrapolation of the thought process that brings you to make the absolutist statement that smoking is bad for your health. I would be much more comfortable with the relativist statement implied by your statement, “Smoking cigarettes is worse for your health than most things, including not smoking cigarettes.” Edit: Sorry if this detracts from the original focus. Feel free to delete my post if it is a distraction.
