Onyomi was right about one thing he said on another thread - I certainly do write excessively long posts because by the time I've written them, several others have popped up before it. Doh! In response to posts 17 & 18 by Onyomi and TJB: Chinese history. Hmm. I'd recommend the Cambridge Illustrated History of China. Alternatively, you could check out the sections on the Nationalist "White Terror" (a.k.a "Chiang's Bloody Double Cross") in China and Taiwan on Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_Terror From there you can also read about the Chinese Civil War http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinese_Civil_War and the utterly charming http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiang_Kai-shek and how he got support from Nazi Germany.
I didn't say China under the Nationalists was a big bowl of peaches and cream, did I? I just said from the point of view of destroying Chinese martial arts, the Communists were worse. Also, anyone who cites the Wikipedia as proof of anything about CMA automatically loses points. I do agree that the "internal" vs. "external" distinction is recent. This is because Qi has been such an important part of the Chinese understanding of the body for so long that qigong was seen as a natural extension of training the body and mind, be it for health, enlightenment or combat. Ironically, I probably agree more with Zorya on the points about putting the "quan" back in "Taiji-quan." I don't think it should be a health exercise for old people either. I do think it should be pressure-tested and that focus on body mechanics is very important. However, I also don't like calling essential parts of TCMA "esoteric." Ask a real acupuncturist about qi and you'll find the whole thing is much more down-to-earth than it sounds. There is a lot of pseudo-religious garbage out there now going by the name of qigong, but that's just because the Communist purge of religion has left a spiritual void and most people have no idea what qigong is or isn't. The answer is a more earnest attempt to weed the fake from the real, the practical from the impractical and the magic tricks from the legitimate systems of health maintenance. I understand Zorya's reaction--and it's one I see more and more often--that is, they're sick of dealling with the qi people and the qi concept. They've never been exposed to really good qigong nor have they ever touched hands with someone who could show them how it can be applicable to fighting. The qi people seem only able to theorize abou how great their grandmasters were, but not really fight themselves. Many people's reaction to this sad state of affairs is to simply say, "you know what? I'm just not dealing with this qi stuff anymore. I'm sticking to the down-to-earth aspects of the style." This is an understandable stance to take, but unfortunately it's wrong. CMAs were designed to take advantage of qigong training, so to get the most out of CMAs you should do qigong. Qigong is an atypical type of exercise that sometimes includes meditation. The meditation aspect is not necessary for MA, though it does have great value, imo. The Chinese word for exercise, "yundong" is short for "neiyun waidong," i.e. "the inside circulates and the outside moves." Therefore, exercises for your internal circulation are an important part of overall fitness within the TCM paradigm... that's really not that esoteric is it? Anyway, from that description above about coordinated breathing and what-not, it sounds like you're actually using some qigong ideas whether you wish to call it that or not. I'm all in favor of pulling qigong back "down-to-earth," so to speak. I just don't want to see it thrown away or dismissed when I know it has value.
Hi Onyomi, We'll agree to differ, huh? Anyway, I just noticed some extra text had snuck into my quoted text there - the following was not part of my post as people will see if they look at my posting above: Regards, Joanna
On second thoughts, I can't let you try and pull the old "oh, bless her - she just doesn't understand" dodge. I recently demonstrated "peng" structural integrity to a big strong builder student of mine. He was quite amazed when he felt that his push "had nowhere to land" as I sunk, settled my joints, adjusted my posture a little and dispersed his push. He commented that it felt "really weird" and "like nothing he'd ever felt before." Some might call that "energetics" - the dispersal of his pushing "energy" into the ground, but I'm sure a physicist could explain a spear braced against the ground against a charging horse without resorting to mysticism. I suspect he'd be keen to reassure you that there was nothing "supernatural" about it. My student was amazed and thought it was strange because we both know he's big enough and strong enough to squash me like a pancake. Impressive? maybe - supernatural? no way.
Good post Onyomi, Do you think there's an argument for calling this bio mechanics rather than body mechanics in IMA ? My reasoning being that is a stronger emphasis is placed on the use of the mind in training in conjuction with the internal bodies structures, systems and organs. Whatever paradigm we choose to use shouldn't take away from the depth of this kind of training that is available and be put to use martially. It can be put to use with intent and purposes, again this is choice, and for some this might be or include health and well being. A great sage recently told me "it's all about the intent innit!"
[edit: spent an hour typing this but haven't been able to get it on MAP due to the ongoing server problems! :bang: so sorry if it's a tad 'out of rhythm' with the flow of this thread] That makes perfect sense to me... Not sure whether it's fair to balme all this on buddhists tbh. Also this thread is about "what is qigong", but for now I'll go with it... My teacher said that originally almost all CMA had internal training as its core, but this took years of practice, so during times of conflict, purely external training took precedence in order to ready young people for battle as quickly as possible. She referred specifically to the Boxer Rebellion which was around the time Sun Lu Tang made his famous neijia/waijia division statements. My guess is that this was because the division had become more or less permanent with external training taking over precedence because of its obvious benefits and appeal. I think that this division is more a problem for us lot in the west than it is for serious chinese MA practitioners. Ime the chinese are not geared up for duality in the same way we are, so they might accept the two aspects without seeing them as necessarily opposed. I think that's just balderdash tbh. I could say "Let's face it, those who practise qigong and its healing aspects, accepting and exploring the phenomena of qi are derided and belittled (which we have been frequently on this forum btw) - the whole MA/sparring/rbsd issue is a big stick used to bully those who's practise has a different emphasis" - I could say that and it would be whingeing, self-pitying balderdash and neither helpful nor appropriate to this discussion...!! So we're all the same then? Sounds a bit prejudiced to me! If I based my opinion of hardcore MA / rbsd Taiji practitioners on certain negative experiences I'd had, I would just be calling you all "meatheads" "bullies" and "thugs" - would that be fair? I don't think so Well, that's your experience. Mine has been quite different. I've found far more ego in 'competitive' MA culture. I've also had many injuries in 'hard' MA training but never suffered harm from qigong Funnily enough, I agree with you Unfortunately I have to say the same about many of the 'practical' MA/EMA people on the other side of the fence. I'd like a fiver for every rubbish karate person I've met who thought they were Bruce Lee lol (no disrespect to karate people here, just my experience, I hasten to add) Absolutely. But those who disagree with your pov have an equal right to disagree with you without you calling 'foul' everytime too!! erm perhaps like me they don't actually particularly enjoy fighting, hurting and getting hurt? The one's who do enter are (ime) often the ones who don't 'get' IMA correctly anyway. I don't like competitions, they're all about ego imo but hey whatever turns you on I suppose... What's any of that got to do with "what is qigong?" anyway btw? Funnily you are the one who raised the "this vs that" duality when the PRC was criticised - you drew an implication that simply wasn't there. I state again - I hate all fascists. As far as I can tell China has never had a non-oppressive unifying government. Whoa!! Careful how you use my words! MA practise can be much much more harmful still, but we all practise that anyway. don't we? We reduce the risks by controlled practice and (hopefully) good instruction - but there are always risks. That's exactly the case with qigong also. It's your choice not to do it - but that doesn't discount its value to others. It's all about choice. Fair enuffsky It's about attitude and balance. No 'internal' development is just as out of balance as over-absorption in that development surely? Calm down! lol Nobody's saying you can't have an opinion jkz but expect to be challenged - that's what 'forum' is all about... Hurrah! Now let's all go back for tea and lashings of ginger beer!! Peace :Angel:
Oops, I meant to put that within my own post! I'm sorry--I seriously didn't mean to do that. I meant to say that I will sound elitist in saying most qigong is fake and sound obnoxious in accurately reflecting the reality of my personality.
Hi Onyomi, no problem. Zendog - I have no problem with the phrase "biomechanics" providing it is acknowledged that that is what ALL good martial artists employ, and it is only biomechanics if they agree that it is. If they call it body mechanics, that should be fine with you too. However - phrases such as qigong, neigong and "internal" are meaningless because there is no consistent or meaningful rationale behind what they actually mean and any attempt to do so is shot down by the charlatan brigade because any attempt to define them could also lead to means being established whereby such things could be quantified and measured. Then no one would be able to sell this mysterious unquantifiable and untestable product. Qi sensations are an easy trick and completely meaningless. Which brings me to TJB: Also: No - we don't do neigong or qigong. That is not how we rationalise it. When I learned Gao style Bagua from my first teacher, we practiced "hand methods," "standing practice" and whole body methods called "tian gan" which translated as "heavenly stems." We also performed hou tian (linear forms) and xian tian (circular forms). The names hou and xian tian translate as post and pre heaven respectively, which were symbolic terms and nothing more. We did other things too like applications, san shou (free hand practice), warm ups and stretch downs. Nothing we did was ever referred to as neigong or qigong, so we didn't do it. When I learned Chen style Taijiquan, we practiced "chansigong" - reeling silk practice, as well as zhan zhuang (standing post). Again, we never discussed qigong or neigong, so we didn't do it. You cannot impose your terminology on me. I don't do qigong or neigong because I find the names meaningless, not very descriptive and misleading. YOU might do "qigong" if that is the name you give what you do and I could say "your rationale does not make any sense to me" or "I cannot see what you are doing that can not be explained in anatomical terms." TJB: I have done heaps and heaps of qigong with other teachers and I am a Reiki master. I've done Reiki healing and buqi qi projection. I did it all with an open mind - I even wanted to believe in it. I have had experiences subsequently that have turned me actively away from that path and made me realise that any effects experienced were just trickery. It is very very arrogant of you - typical of a qi believer / self identified "internal artist" IMO - to assume that anyone who speaks out against something has no knowledge of it. I have knowledge of such things as well as other spiritual paths and experiences. If everything was as simple as you say, everyone would do it - there would be no Muslims, Christians or Sikhs wholly opposed to such practices. That's as maybe, but not all "non-internal" MA practice is competitive. It is not bullying to expect martial artists to practice martial arts in martial arts classes. Taijiquan is a martial art - you told TrickyTrev that Taiji was safer than qigong for meeting the qigong requirements he felt he needed, thereby treating it as interchangeable with qigong. It isn't. That's why we are having this discussion. I can't even be bothered to look at the separate Qigong thread because I know it won't have anything to do with me. I can answer questions like "what is qigong" because I've done it. I'm off to watch TV now.
I'm back - can't believe poor Louisa got voted off - oh well. Sorry TJB, but the whole "health" claim is going to have to start showing more significant results. The average T'ai Chi / Taiji or Ch'i Kung / Qigong class is not full of healthy, energetic, calm, focussed people. Half of them can barely stand up. There's very little expectation that they'll push themselves physically, so they don't get much healthier either. Compare them with the kickboxing class next door. Also - standing and waving your arms around performing movements you don't understand in a sequence you are struggling to remember is not being calm and focussed. Neither is being in a blissed out qi stupour - that's just pseudospiritual masturbation. That doesn't surprise me in the least - however it can't be true because the term was invented and then applied to existing martial practices. It all depends on how you define "internal" though really, doesn't it. Give me a definition. Yup. I don't say this flippantly, but that is a matter of opinion. I think qigong is insular and self-indulgent and that all such practices are damaging. It is for personal gratification, self-aggrandizement and ego, rather than being for the collective good. Yes - even the so-called "healing" stuff. I think qigong practitioners are caught in a similar trap to those suffering from addiction. It never does - any perceived benefits are transient, illusory or ultimately harmful in other ways. It doesn't matter how benevolent your motives are in the beginning. I'd recommend the book "Seeds of Contemplation" by Thomas Merton. He wrote a great translation of Zhuangzi too, incidentally. same old elitism there then... Sorry to turn this around, but I'd have thought using martial arts for fighting was not exactly not getting it. Doing them for health and healing on the other hand... save space by reading this: http://www.reelingsilk.co.uk/rise_and_fall.htm Sigh - it's been about Taiji too from the start - re-read the first 4 posts. TrickyTrev asked about it in his very first question and you chatted to him about it. erm: Sorry TJB - you haven't done the best job of selling it to me. Maybe you thought you could earn extra kudos by making it sound dangerous and yourself knowledgeable enough to "handle it." I know that this is a harsh criticism of you and I'm sorry, but you really do lay into me without pulling your verbal punches you know. Good 'cause I've got heaps of 'em. Grrr. :woo: Poor Louisa. Sniff.
Jkz You're ranting, rude, unreasonable and judgemental in the above posts, I won't therefore address any of the 'points' in them. I don't respond well to bullying. I prefer not to waste my time with it. What I will say is this: 'silk reeling' is a type of neigong 'zhan zhuang' is a type of neigong Not my terminology, it is the terminology of the subject you are studying/practising, that is Chinese Martial Arts of the Internal schools. I'm sorry that your life experiences have made you so hostile and bitter towards anyone with a different approach than your own, but to quote (and paraphrase) from one of your earlier postings in another thread: "that's your problem - deal with it" :Alien:
Hi TJB, I just wanted to end on a more positive note. We've had our differences, but as you said: I truly don't think I've been any ruder to you than you were to me. As we seem to have reached a stalemate, it's probably time to close this thread anyway though, eh? Regards, Joanna
It's fine with me whatever people call what they do.. I have no problem agreeing that I do some qigong and neigong. However a good kickboxer for example does not employ the training methods of CMA. Everyone has 'biomechanics' and use them, everyone has 'body mechanics' and use them. However not everyone puts same emphasis in the way they train. Styles of MA is the same. Even with same or similar styles sometimes there can be outward differences in emphasis. No, I train both qigong and neigong and can tell the difference. To me it is not meaningless. I prefer to train CMA in a traditional way, which just happens to be in a different way to a modern western kickboxer. There is crossover of course, that is natural ! It is all still training for self defence/ fighting. Different approach that is all. Also different approaches in CMA (internal/external), though it is noted and accepted that they can and do dovetail, simply start off with a different emphasis. Health and well being/fitness of mind and body should be a by product of MA training anyway. Doesn't mean though it is all done or have to done in the same way or with the same emphasis. Remember the article? it is not about better/ worse so you can drop the 'elitist' card really. It doesn't do anyone any favours. Seems you are quite happy to look down on those that do/call part of their training qigong and even neigong. Reason being they are meaningless terms for you. To me this is just as 'elitist'. So preferences and choices are not about this or that is better. Simply how people chose to train, know and understand things. I will adopt what i chose benefits my training and understand. Very simple. I'm totally not convinced that I should adopt your way over my way. There is no contradiction for me to say it is better for you and not better for me. It is useless to proclaim a path is better than this or that path. There is only one question what path is best for you ? And only you can answer, and only answer for yourself you will....... haha sorry if that was a bit yoda like.. :Angel:
No worries. I've already stated that my writing and approach is a response to elitism within the IMA mainstream. Take this quote for example: Sroberts: As I said to him: You know as well as I do that most people within "IMA" circles will not even recognise the styles without the so-called "Neigong," and they look way down on all other martial arts approaches. I just say all MAs are proably pretty good - I don't set myself up as judge - and the so-called "IMAs" are nothing special. I seem to be one of very few people within the "IMA" community who does not think that the "IMAs" are better than any other MAs. It's the martial artist that counts.
I don't think IMAs are better than other MAs... because I know Praying Mantis is even better than them.
Hello everyone. I thought I'd revive this thread to see if we can really get to grips with the question and try to answer it properly, rather than getting into a row about whether or not qigong is any good or makes sense or whatever. Here goes. Warm up exercises tend to involve the sytematic, sequential, warming up of different joints of the body - taking them through different ranges of motion. Stretching is usually thought to be most effective when the body is already warmed up, for instance, after training. Q1) Some qigong exercises resemble warm up exercises, although they might involve moving multiple areas at once. How does "qigong" differ from "warming up?" What makes it "qigong"? Is it the use of multiple body parts? Does it have to involve separation and mobilisation of different parts of the torso? Is it the use of co-ordinated breathing? Is it some kind of "energy visualisation?" Is it something else? Which "qi" is being worked here, breath or something else and is it possible to say what (grounded strength, etheric qi...)? Q2) Some qigong exercises appear to combine warming-up with a stretching component built in. What makes these exercises "qigong"? Is it the combination of stretching with warming up? Is it co-ordinated breathing, energy visualisation or something else? Is it possible to say what? Q3) Some "qigong" exercises resemble simple repetitive movement quality training, such as chansigong (reeling silk exercises). As above, what makes such exercises "qigong"? Here are two additional questions that people can consider if they wish to. Q4) With the term qigong only coming into use in the 1950's, why is it now almost universally accepted as the best catch-all term to describe a multitude of exercises with seemingly quite different purposes? Why is it better to group all of these different physical disciplines together than to leave them separate? Does absolutely everyone accept this modern choice of terminology? Q5) While I don't employ the same methodology myself, I thought I could mention for discussion that Park Bok Nam's Baguazhang school divides training into waigong (external work), neigong (internal work) and qigong (meditation). If you were to adopt similar classification divisions, where would you draw the dividing lines - how would you define the parameters for each? What kind of exercises might fit into multiple categories and why? How would you prevent an exercise designed to develop your external musculature from also developing your connective tissues and vice versa, or would you only concern yourself with an exercise's primary focus? What would you do about exercises that seemed to fall into more than one bracket? Could you perform the same exercise with different focuses at different times?
As to what qigong is or isn't, my personal definition is: exercises with the primary intent of moving the body's energy (the body's "true" qi, made up of essences, qi from food, and qi from breath) around the body. This is the same qi acupuncture is supposed to affect. It's not just the breath, but I don't think it has to be some ethereal cosmic force either. It's just the body's energy--whether that works out to blood, nerves, hormones, neurotransmitters or whatever in Western science, I don't know. The focus is not on moving the body externally. Moving the qi can be accomplished in a number of ways, such as mental focus (intent), holding stretched postures, moving, breathing, being patted/hit/massaged, or some combination of the above. Also, none of these things alone is enough. Just stretching alone isn't qigong, but qi flows better through stretched, flexible muscles, so stretching is very helpful to it. The top tools are breath and intent, though the others are important and helpful. Also, note that when I say "intent" I don't mean imagining the energy, I mean more like using the mind to consciously relax and "open" the body, or else to put the attention on an area. Once the meridians are open, the qi naturally tends to flow to wherever you put your focus. You don't have to imagine it. The main qigong system my Taiwanese teacher teaches is called Yijin-jing and consists of four basic components. The exercises are divided into three sections, called tian, di and ren. The final grouping could be called "meditation," which is performed sitting or lying down. Tian exercises are generally more relaxed with the body following the breath. They move the qi primarily through a combination of breath, movement and intent, though there is also stretching and tension in some exercises. You learn to "pull" the qi from the extremities to the dantian and to send it from the dantian to the extremeties at will. The di section is concerned with the organ systems and is mostly sitting or lying down. It uses sounds, breath, positions and other such techniques to harmonize the energetic systems of the organs. The ren section is more stretching and martially oriented, with many exercises that appear similar to Yoga. The breath coordinates with the movement, rather than the other way around. You practice "breathing into" different areas depending on the body's position. So all that stuff I would consider qigong. I've also practiced a little of paida-gong called "Sanhui Jiuzhuan" with my new teacher. It involves holding various positions in combination with the teacher hitting your body in various ways to help open the energy pathways. Also another valid type of qigong. What do I not consider qigong? Magic tricks like breaking a brick on your stomach, pressing a spear with your throat, etc. These almost always depend on some gimmick. Even if the practitioner does some qigong, this isn't the point. Also, I don't believe it's possible to affect the qi systems of others without touching them. Certainly you can't move them. I'm very doubtful about Reiki and the like, though I try to keep an open mind and having never tried it, I won't pan it. Generally, I don't believe your qi really leaves your body in a way that can affect others. Though it is possible to let it disperse from the hands, this may just be an illusory feeling and is certainly not enough to affect others in my experience. There's also kind of a gray area, which are activities which have some "qigong value," but aren't qigong per se. Such activities would include Longfist's Tantui, Xingyi's Santi or Bagua's circle walking. If you slowly hold various stretched postures and use qigong breathing combined with intent, these exercises can become like qigong, which I think is part of their design. However, I think they are also very much about developing the "body" of those respective arts. There are signs that the creators had qigong in mind, though. For example, the twisting of the upper body in Bagua helps keep the qi in the lower abdomen and encourages you to breath with that area. I don't know whether these strictly count as qigong or not--it kind of depends on whether you practice it with that intent. Perhaps the kind of qigong in which the energy is moved could be called "daoyin" (guiding and leading), while this could just be "gong" or "neigong." I only use "Qigong" for simplicity because I find it too vague to try to distinguish between qigong, neigong, daoyin, etc. I understand your desire to avoid vagueness and keep your exercises more clearly categorized based on their various goals. However, I think it comes down to whether or not you believe it is possible to use breath, movement, intent, etc. to "move" something around the body, be it blood, hormones, neurotransmitter, occult energy or whatever. This is what ultimately distinguishes qigong from other types of exercise, imo. If you do exercises with this primary goal (though they can have other goals such as coordinating movement or stretching), then you are doing qigong. If you don't, then you're doing something else (or at least, you're intending to do something else--I don't think you necessarily have to believe in qigong for it to do its work). I think you've also seen a lot more insanity in the name of qigong than I have, so I can understand your desire to distance yourself from that. I also have no problem with "keeping the good and discarding the bad." There's a lot of so-called qigong out there which should be discarded. There's also some legit. qigong which I've tried but no longer practice because I found it to be less effective than others. I just don't think throwing out the whole concept of qigong is a good idea--though if you can think of a more intelligent scheme of categorization then I wish you the best of luck. I would also be interested in hearing other people's ideas about what does and doesn't constitute qigong. I'm not holding my ideas up as gospel. This is just my impression from my relatively limited experience.
Okay - first off, I largely agree with Onyomi. I prefer the term "neigong" personally, but will use the term "qigong" for the purposes of this discussion. So, anyway I just thought I'd answer the questions directly... Warm up exercises tend to involve the sytematic, sequential, warming up of different joints of the body - taking them through different ranges of motion. Stretching is usually thought to be most effective when the body is already warmed up, for instance, after training.Fair enough. Qigong should not exclude physical aspects and realities of the human physique, only persons like Richard Dunn might argue over that one.... Q1) Some qigong exercises resemble warm up exercises, although they might involve moving multiple areas at once. Okay. The tendency in Chinese exercises is to lump everything under a blanket heading, so baduajin (eight brocades - of which many versions exist), a typical warm up sequence for qigong is lumped under the heading "qigong"... hence the confusion. How does "qigong" differ from "warming up?" Intention. "Warming up" is obviously to 'warm up' the muscles and joints of the body and/or stimulate breathing and circulation. This is a primarily physical activity ie you can be thinking about something else and the effect will still be acheived because the result comes directly from physical movement and postures. "Qigong" is intended to stimulate the inner body and its energy through relaxation/concentration and/or breathing combined with either static postures or focussed specific movements, to regulate the flow of 'qi' in the body. This really means balance and internal harmony and is to stimulate the meridians and their organ associations for general health, rather than being specific to MA imho, but specialised qigongs like iron shirt exist to aid MA ability specifically also. The Chinese consider the skin, circulation and muscles etc as 'organs' related to the other internal organs (heart, liver, spleen, kidneys etc) hence, the usage of movements similar to 'warm-ups' within qigong to stimulate the inner energy. Qigong will not be so effective if the mind is not concentrating on the activity (this is of course true with 'physical' exercises as well but in the case of qigong there may be no effect whatsoever if the mental aspect is not addressed correctly imo) What makes it "qigong"? See previous answer - primarily intent makes it qigong Is it the use of multiple body parts? Not necessarily. It tends ime to be about connecting everything as a whole, but there are also isolating techniques as well. Does it have to involve separation and mobilisation of different parts of the torso? Not necessarily. Is it the use of co-ordinated breathing? Depends who you ask, but no, imho. But the modern Chinese interpretation leans heavily on breathing as I witnessed in much of the stuff being practised in Singapore. Is it some kind of "energy visualisation?" It can be in certain schools, but in others, no. I tend to avoid visualising in qigong. I also avoid over-emphasis on the breath. Is it something else? Probably, but I'm not sure I'm qualified to say what lol Which "qi" is being worked here, breath or something else and is it possible to say what (grounded strength, etheric qi...)? "Qi" is such a spurious term. I would say that primarily, "post-natal qi" is being worked in most qigong, but there exist practises for replenishing "pre-natal qi". I think it is best not worry about it and just focus on practise and let "qi" develop of itself and in whatever form over time. Q2) Some qigong exercises appear to combine warming-up with a stretching component built in. What makes these exercises "qigong"? See above answers. It's the focus of intent, how you move. I describe it as moving from inside rather than outside... if that makes any sense? Is it the combination of stretching with warming up? Is it co-ordinated breathing, energy visualisation or something else? Is it possible to say what? It's not impossible, but it is difficult lol I think I've answered already... Q3) Some "qigong" exercises resemble simple repetitive movement quality training, such as chansigong (reeling silk exercises). As above, what makes such exercises "qigong"? Not knowing how much 'intent' is involved in 'silk-reeling' but I would tend to instinctively say that 'silk-reeling' is probably a form of neigong when practised correctly. Here are two additional questions that people can consider if they wish to.Okee-dokee Q4) With the term qigong only coming into use in the 1950's, why is it now almost universally accepted as the best catch-all term to describe a multitude of exercises with seemingly quite different purposes? Fashion? Laziness? Poor information? Politics? Take your pick. Why is it better to group all of these different physical disciplines together than to leave them separate? Convenience? Maybe it isn't a good idea at all. MA is lumped in with sports and health and fitness - is that a good idea? Does absolutely everyone accept this modern choice of terminology? Obviously not. I don't, anyway. Q5) While I don't employ the same methodology myself, I thought I could mention for discussion that Park Bok Nam's Baguazhang school divides training into waigong (external work), neigong (internal work) and qigong (meditation). If you were to adopt similar classification divisions, where would you draw the dividing lines - how would you define the parameters for each? I always envy teachers who are so systematic and organised tbh I would say that Bagua (particularly as Park Bok Nam teaches it) is highly specialised, so there is more of a need to separtae and systematise the teaching to avoid injury and develop the body correctly. In the case of Taijiquan (as I understand it, of course) the boundaries are less easily defined. I tend to do some kind of warm-ups, then standing qigong, then Taiji form and/or partner-work and wind down with meditation of some sort as a rough rule. What kind of exercises might fit into multiple categories and why? I see Taijiquan as unusual in that it has martial art and qigong co-existing within its form practise. So, there is one crossover for example. How would you prevent an exercise designed to develop your external musculature from also developing your connective tissues and vice versa, or would you only concern yourself with an exercise's primary focus? Why would you want to? What would you do about exercises that seemed to fall into more than one bracket? Use them! Could you perform the same exercise with different focuses at different times? Definitely. Returning to 'intent' again - if you do 'qigong' movements with a 'physical' emphasis you tend to get more of a 'physical' result. If you practise 'physical' exercise with a 'qigong' attitude you will get an energy result as a side-effect as well as physical gains. Hope that's added to the value of the discussion rather than taken away from it. :Angel:
Thanks TJB, yes - it has helped. I'm trying to develop an understanding of what others mean when they use the qigong terminology. As I am aware that perspectives differ widely, every coherent rationale helps. A couple of things to add then. First in response to: Answer: If you were using a systematic and compartmentalised approach, such as Park Bok Nam's Wai / Nei / Qi gong methodology, I'd have thought it imperative to know precisely what was being exercised where and when, so the intent could be correct and the exercise optimised. Secondly, How is it addressed correctly? Thirdly, one of my biggest criticisms of the use of qigong terminology is its usefulness to those who deliberately hide their lack of knowledge by shrouding things in mystery and mysticism unnecessarily, and for maximum guru effect. (I'm not getting at anyone on this thread here as you are evidently prepared to discuss the matter with me.) But some people actively resist any attempts to rationalise, systemise or modernise these exercises. Many qigong people seem quite happy not to know or at least not to fully understand the methodology themselves. I think this can be dangerous and detrimental to progress. Two examples - 1) An exercise involves knee rotation. Western physiology recognises that the knee is a hinge joint and should only be bent on one axis. Consequently, one may wish to question the wisdom of such an exercise, or to perform the movement differently. I would argue that knowledge of the structure of the knee would be enough to adapt the exercise - if you insist that only a Chinese qigong master can do this because only they'll understand the energetic implications, you render yourself subservient to their whims and foibles. 2) You are taught a set of qigong exercises that pivot on the balls of the feet and turn the hands over at specific places, before moving them through space without any rotation. In your Taiji or Bagua style, every exercise is geared to constant rotation; and you'd normally pivot on your heels. Should you avoid the exercise, or adapt it to make it like the rest of your training, so that your body does not get confused between the movements you are trying to drill until they become instinctive, and similar movements that break your usual movement rules? To make changes might be frowned upon if the exercise is seen as traditional, energetic or qigong, despite the fact that many Chinese teachers update or invent things they call qigong exercises. I consider uncertainty to generally be a bad idea, so with regard to the following answers: Can you tell me what you focus on instead - what is your intention? Can you guess at all?
