233147 Bullies, 3440 online  
  • Register
Our Sponsors:

Results 21 to 28 of 28
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Sponsored Links Spacer Image
  1. BSH is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    23

    Posted On:
    6/16/2003 5:07pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Mad:

    Let me go back to the original post. Is Mike Patterson saying that there can not be a system which follows Taoist and Buddhist philosophies? Is it that Taoism and Buddhism are mutually exclusive?

    Is it possible that there are other Taoist styles that he is not aware of?
  2. Xuanlong Xian is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    353

    Posted On:
    6/16/2003 6:32pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Actually, if you trace the usage of the terms "nei" and "wai" through chinese history, Patterson has a point. Wai traditionally refers to everything without a demonstrably "chinese" origin. buddhism was despised by many in its early centuries as a foreign barbarian religion.

    still, trying to convince anyone that this is *relevant* to martial art practice today is very hard. "internal" and "external" seem to have acquired entirely different meanings in the past centuries, referring much more to execution then to origin. whether or not Patterson has the scholars on his side, the question remains: "so?"
  3. Mad Fukr is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    14

    Posted On:
    6/16/2003 6:39pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Mad:

    Let me go back to the original post. Is Mike Patterson saying that there can not be a system which follows Taoist and Buddhist philosophies? Is it that Taoism and Buddhism are mutually exclusive?
    No to both. Taoism predates Buddhism by quite some time. When Buddhism did come along, many Taoist groups assimilated it quickly, simply due to the fact that both the philosophies have much in common. The Neijia/Waijia thing has more to do with the esoteric work versus philosophy. Da Mo's exercises are very similar, but also very different from Taoist practices, which existed in China long before either Siddhartha Gautama or Da Mo came along. Herein lies the distinction. The big three IMAs, at least in Patterson's lineage, practice the Taoist exercises, i.e. Qigong, that go back long before Da Mo came along. Purely Taoist/Chinese, hence Internal House/Family. Then theres stuff like Shaolin, which employs the exercises that Da Mo passed down. External House/Family. What's the house/family? The people who practiced exclusively Taoist exercises. This is not to say that they did not incorporate Buddhist philosophy, when it came along. It's quite obvious that they did (and THAT is when Chan popped up). But the distinction is defined by the "esoteric" practices employed, NOT thier philosophy.


    Is it possible that there are other Taoist styles that he is not aware of?
    Well of course it possible... Do you know something we don't? :P
  4. IndoChinese is offline

    AKAKTK

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    angola, ny
    Posts
    2,047

    Posted On:
    6/16/2003 6:52pm


     Style: Liu Seong Gung Fu

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    internalized movement is hua jing. subtle undulations of the body with a wholistic use that uses the properties of gravitational leverage and compression to affect control over the opponents structure for what ever expressed purpose or technique methodology.

    proper use of timing,angle,distance,structuring,leverage,compres sion,torque,centralized movement,breathing, and penetration/projection to destroy his capability.

    some people can do this as soon as they touch you. in fact, their control starts well before contact.

    peace.

    <marquee>REDANTKUNTAO</marquee>
    <marquee> INDONESIAN GUNG FU</marquee>
  5. Mad Fukr is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    14

    Posted On:
    6/16/2003 6:55pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Actually, if you trace the usage of the terms "nei" and "wai" through chinese history, Patterson has a point. Wai traditionally refers to everything without a demonstrably "chinese" origin. buddhism was despised by many in its early centuries as a foreign barbarian religion.

    still, trying to convince anyone that this is *relevant* to martial art practice today is very hard. "internal" and "external" seem to have acquired entirely different meanings in the past centuries, referring much more to execution then to origin. whether or not Patterson has the scholars on his side, the question remains: "so?"
    I agree but I should add that Mike Patterson is simply passing on what was taught to him within his lineage. Semantics got in the way of this arguement. Sure, the consensual definition of the ENGLISH term "Internal Martial Art" means something different than the translation of the word "Neijia", but don't kid yourselves folks, The whole idea of internal (and whatever that has come to mean) in martial arts came from Neijia. (Xingyi, Bagua, Taiji)
  6. Mad Fukr is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Posts
    14

    Posted On:
    6/16/2003 6:59pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    internalized movement is hua jing. subtle undulations of the body with a wholistic use that uses the properties of gravitational leverage and compression to affect control over the opponents structure for what ever expressed purpose or technique methodology.

    proper use of timing,angle,distance,structuring,leverage,compres sion,torque,centralized movement,breathing, and penetration/projection to destroy his capability.

    some people can do this as soon as they touch you. in fact, their control starts well before contact.
    Right. But you can apply all of that to ANY martial style. It won't make it Neijia.
  7. Xuanlong Xian is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Posts
    353

    Posted On:
    6/17/2003 10:10am


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    "The whole idea of internal (and whatever that has come to mean) in martial arts came from Neijia. (Xingyi, Bagua, Taiji)"

    To verify this, you'd need a very in-depth knowledge of martial and qigong history. Exactly the kind that everyone purports to have but nobody can prove. How would we know what Hua Tuo's exercises were like? How can we prove that Wudang incubated "Taiji" instead of its being developed in the 19th century from a Shaolin basis?

    The "Neijia" arts may be the perfected expression of internal principles, but that doesn't require that they developed separately from (let alone earlier than) "Shaolin" arts.
  8. BSH is offline

    Registered Member

    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    23

    Posted On:
    6/17/2003 12:06pm


     

    --
    Hell yeah! Hell no!
    Back to what I said at the outset. Different lineages have different histories and different definitions of internal. The problem with history is that it is always marred by human weakness.

    There is an inherent bias in the writer of the history which is nearly impossible to avoid.

    I have no problem with Patterson's definition, however it does not agree with mine.

    I guess my point is that too many people make claims of fact based on written or oral history. If they would stop trying to make everyone believe that theirs is the only right answer, I wouldn't have an issue with it.

    I apologize for starting the negativity in this thread. I got frustrated by the finality of the original post and should have dealt with it better. A little more Ch'i Gung will help.
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Powered by vBulletin™© contact@vbulletin.com vBulletin Solutions, Inc. 2011 All rights reserved.