Unvarnished truth in Classical Wu Style Tai Chi

                                                Good example of incorrect body structure/alignment

I get emails from students which for the most part I also cc to Master Hwa. This "answer" was also cc'd to Master Hwa:

Of late there has been quite a few that tell me of "previous experience" in Yang, Wu, Chen,  or other Wu styles,  or what is "seen on Youtube". I  also heard concerns of this ilk from many students who come to my studio. 

The unvarnished truth of this is: For a beginning student in this (regardless of previous experience in Yang, Wu, Chen, etc.)  there has to be concern over body structure or alignment so there is no point talking of what someone in another style or teacher does. There is no point in talking of what the intent or application is as well. 

In a proverbial sense one does not put the cart before the horse nor turn their head as if to dance with another teacher while learning Classical Wu Style Tai Chi.

See pp. i in the Introduction to Uncovering the Treasure by Stephen Hwa, PhD available on Amazon,  Create Space  for further information on body structure and alignment.

My concern is: If one admits being a beginning student then by default how can you not at least acknowledge that part of your attention will have to go to your correct/incorrect body structure or alignment? 

Inevitably, there will be incorrect body structure or alignment in learning this...

In light of this how do you propose to correct these Tai Chi postures coupled with thoughts of whether Young Wabu deviated from Wu Chien Chuan's teachings, or what was or was not emphasized with something else, or what intent/application is, or what is on youtube?

Concerns and questions of this ilk:

 "I watched youtube, I did Yang, Wu, Chen, this Wu teacher, that 

teacher is double weighted on Youtube, Young Wabu deviated from Wu Chien Chuan, 

What is the application of this because Yang does that, etc., etc".

Answer: I was not aware that youtube was the repository of what is correct in Tai Chi.

Answer: I was not aware that  other Wu Styles, Chen and Yang styles, etc.,  were a gold standard for this.

Classical Tai Chi is not dance

A student once wrote the following: "I just completed my first lesson -- the walk. Very tricky but also very fun. This is going to be exactly what I have looked for so long. I have always loved to dance but never enjoyed performing for people. This dance of Taiji will be that dance I have been needing for so many years!" 

Master Stephen Hwa wrote in response: "I am glad you have made a good start. It is important that you feel fun and challenged while you doing it. Your comments about Tai Chi as a kind of dancing is what prompted me to write about the topic "Yi" – the martial art intent. I remember my teacher became unhappy when someone referred to Tai Chi as an exercise. Again, the “intent” is lost when it was called as an exercise."

I can't remember a time when I ever thought of calling Tai Chi "exercise" and/or "dance"...although I hear of or read of people referring to it as such.  This puts Tai Chi as no better than pedalling away on an exercise bicycle while watching television. Since dance also qualifies as exercise, then Tai Chi in many minds also falls into the same "exercise/dance" genre as "Sweatin to the Oldies". 

I will always correct my students as well when I hear them refer to it as "dance" or "exercise".  Although it is not surprising that people do this for I once had a student argue with me that Tai Chi originated in San Francisco and not in China.  Given that it did originate in China and given that Grandmaster Wu Chien Chuan, as an "originator" of the Wu Style of Tai Chi was an officer in the Imperial Palace Guard...can we come to the understanding that it is not "dance" nor "exercise"?

"Again, the “intent” is lost when it was called as an exercise."  (One must find out what "intent" means in Tai Chi)

In fact, in his "Six Essential Elements of Practicing Tai Chi", Grandmaster Wu stated that the "first thing to be avoided as taboo in Tai Chi is to apply "Li" (muscle and awkward power).   All the movements should be poured forth with the "Yi".  He continues by saying: "In moving the hands up, they are not automatically moved up without consciousness.  It is the Yi which moves them up.  While the Yi is not stopping, the movement will not stop.  At the moment the Yi stops, the movement instantly stops."  "...beginners...should avoid the vain attempt of applying li, then they can gradually get away from prosaic and mechanical practice..."

So far "exercise" without intent is mechanical, prosaic (it is indeed commonplace), it uses "Li" , which is no more than muscles/muscular force and for the most part is certainly awkward, lacking in skill and most definitely clumsy. To show how widespread the misconceptions about Tai Chi are, I recall students saying "I bet doing more situps will help", "I have some belly dancing videos that I am going to look at now", "I can bench press 250 pounds, now how can that not help", "The Tai Chi looks like Ballet", "I do Karate, so all I have to do is my Karate in slow motion and I will be doing Tai Chi".

Addressing just Karate  and leaving belly dancing and ballet for now I know from extended personal experience that "Karate" does solo forms that are called Kata...I did some Shorin Ryu Karate.  In Tae Kwon Do, we called it "poomsae".  I did these forms with lots of power, "snappiness", lots of "kiai" (sounds like yelling) and as much speed/acceleration as possible...moving like there was an opponent  Someone watching could say, "yep, he is fighting an imaginary opponent, that is obvious".  It was challenging doing the Tae Kwon Do because I was also doing Wu Style Tai Chi at the same time in Toronto.  Poomsae had very tense arms/forearms/fists with stacatto movements but my Tai Chi had/has relaxed arms with continuous movement.  Yes, I felt the movements in Tae Kwon Do were done from muscles in shoulders, upper chest, arms, etc. In the case of Classical Tai Chi as Master Hwa says:  "The Yi in Tai Chi is therefore purely mental".

"Again, the “intent” is lost when it was called as an exercise."  (One must find out what "intent" means in Tai Chi)

I certainly have taught weightlifters, ballet dancers, karate practitioners, etc., and for some they seemed to grasp what "Yi" is.  For most I saw that it was not easy to get and "intentions" to do something else with the movement usually began to show...early on.  The dancers would not keep their heel down on the back foot and would rise up on the toe, with "fluorish" type movements in their hands.  The weight lifters were incredibly stiff and inflexible around the upper chest and shoulders, the internal discipline of the core would elude them.  Karate people seemed to be stuck on a permanent type of stacatto movement, making movements continuously seemed to elude them.  I recall conversations with one long time Karate practitioner who said in so many words that he could not understand why anyone called Tai Chi a martial art.  The implication being that only Karate (or at least "his" Karate) could be a martial art?

For the most part, I think that all of those folks engage in superfluous/extraneous movement of the extremeties. If there is superfluous/extraneous movement, there can be little if any "Yi" or intent in movement.  At this point I must defer to what Master Hwa has written so well about:  "Extraneous motions, or nerve signals, along the path of Qi, such as shoulder, elbow, and arms, have the same effect of disrupting the flow of Qi between the body and the fingers. People who use their hands intensively, such as dancers, typists, and piano players could have such problems. It is important for them to keep localized nerve activity dormant and let the Qi from the body take over. This is a good reason to learn the square form from which the practitioner will get used to movements with steady arms and hands without localized impulses."

"Again, the “intent” is lost when it was called as an exercise."  (One must find out what "intent" means in Tai Chi)

  

This brings us the most obvious question which is "what does Yi look like?" if it can't be found in these examples. Again, I defer to Master Hwa's statement: 

Tai Chi Form should be practiced with “Yi” (martial art intention). “Yi” is not something complex and elaborate. It is single minded and somewhat intuitive with the desire to deliver the internal power externally through hands, arm and foot, what ever the movement is. If the hand is moving forward, then the Yi goes to the palm and fingers; if the hand is moving laterally in a blocking movement, then the Yi goes to the leading edge on the side of the hand; etc. Once the practitioner masters the “Yi”, it is no long a conscious effort any more. It becomes subconscious and comes naturally whenever the practitioner makes a move. At this stage, when you play the Form, you have both the internal energy and Qi (nerve signal - a simple-minded definition) circulating in the torso of your body. With the “Yi” as a catalyst, the Qi is able to flow to your hands and fingers while the internal energy continue to circulate in your torso until you need it for an application. Then the internal energy will follow the Qi to the arms, hands, and fingers for delivery.

Good exercise but it is not Tai Chi

How do you remove the martial side of Tai Chi and still train Tai Chi?  How do you remove the internal of Tai Chi and still have Tai Chi? There is a real inconsistency here that no one has ever managed to resolve for me.   How do you present Tai Chi without giving coherent and comprehensive reasoning for it being internal?

How do you say that what you do is for "health" minus martial intent in the light of many Tai Chi masters, living and dead who with martial intent lived to ripe old age in the springtime of their lives?  Witness, Grandmasters Young Wabu, Master Stephen Hwa.  How do you resolve an obvious conundrum in being proficient in Tai Chi by not being able to articulate and demonstrate why what you do is internal?

Why put people off by telling them "what we do is for health, not for fighting"?  How do you say "knowing the benefits a punch is doing for your heart and back" is more valuable than as you say "I'm not interested in learning how to punch someone"?  How do you "project" energy from your arm by visualizing your heart for instance?  It seems to me that certainly  in one sense that we are talking about the same thing but from "external" and not "internal" perspective.   That thing is "martial intent" or the lack thereof. How do you justify telling me that what you do is the only thing "good for health" and that what I do is merely learning to punch people?

Apart from sparring under relatively controlled conditions and doing "external" Tai Chi, I cannot remember the last time I "punched" someone during Tai Chi. How would you justify making cutting motions with a knife for  health purposes only while ignoring that the "intent" of a knife is to cut something?  How do you explain the fact that one has to know which part of their arm and in this case the fist where the internal energy has to be moved beyond ("to project").  This is called martial intent.  How do you tell me you have "intent" when what you do is not internal movement to begin with?

Take a look at about 48 seconds into this video.  VIDEO  You will see an annotation at about 50 seconds which talks about Yin/Yang and junction. How do you stretch out your arms to full extent in a "punch", with the  arms really to the lateral sides of the body without intent and say that it is "internal"?  Try this experiment which is somewhat based on what you see Master Hwa doing.  "Punch" ahead of you in the air by flexing your arm back and forth at the elbow, elbows out to the side or even pointed downward, extend the arm fully each time as you see him do.  He is talking about the "junction" being at the shoulder in this one. You can do it really fast, flex/extend......... Pretty easy right? That is an "external" movement, the junction is at the shoulder as well.

  Now hold one arm directly in front of the "centerline" of your body, elbow down and arm not extended yet as though you are going to punch.  Master Hwa does this and moves the arm with no flexing at the elbow, just a stationary part and a moving part using the core only.  We will experiment a little differently. Try to extend/flex, extend/flex as fast as you did "externally" with  your arm fully  in front of the body as he does, keeping those guidelines in mind.  Junction is now at the core and try to do what Master Hwa did, just extend/flex at the elbow very fast with arm in front as he does. Pretty difficult yes?  The reason you cannot extend your arm, "straighten" it without some difficulty, is because you are "engaging" your core muscles, abdomen and back.

One cannot do "internal" and external at the same time.  You can do one then do the other but the two cannot operate at the same time.  In this event, one would have to setup the parameters for external (elbow and arm not directly in front of centerline and more toward lateral sides of body) to successfully be able to extend the arm fully and easily once more.

What is behind these true internal movements that Hwa demonstrates other than martial intent to project internal energy? How does moving arm at shoulder junction benefit your back, spine, heart, etc.?  If real internal only comes from such structure, alignment, and projection as I have outlined then how can you begin to say what you do is even good Tai Chi and not just merely good exercise? What is "internal" about holding your arm to the side and flexing it at the elbow?  So what is the problem with using "martial intent" considering that what one does is not Tai Chi to begin with?  In any event with those parameters in mind, you cannot have intent without internal already in place. Reason is very simple and since it is not Tai Chi unless it is internal,  do you have it?