Wuxia fiction would have readers think that there were some fundamental or significant differences between the martial arts practiced by Buddhist schools and martial arts practiced by Daoist schools, though in the Condor-Shooting Heroes, the author also wrote that at the highest levels, all martial arts have no division.

I would like to ask those knowledgable here if they perceived any difference between the martial arts from the Buddhist schools and from the Daoist schools, either in background philosophy, training attitudes or other relevant aspects.

My own reading of the history of Shaolin martial arts is that many of their forms were adopted or adapted from outside the school, and over the years, came to be distinguished as Shaolin's.

The most well-known representative of the Daoist school is probably Wudang, but I know very little of its history or martial arts form.

I would like to hear some comments about whether a particular form of martial arts take on any distinguishing characteristic if adopted and taught or originated by a particular religious background such as Buddhism or Daoism.

First of all there are no Buddhist school nor Daolist school. It is just strictly wuxia fiction.

Secondly, almost all schools teach some Shaolin forms.

It is just really hard to explain...martial art is seperated from the above philosophy and constitutes its own form of philosophy although there are some connections.

Hard to imagine Taiji Quan as a Shaolin form.

Well, for a start, ShaoLin is "outer" martial arts and WuDang (where TaiChi came from) is "inner" (think "chi") martial arts. The WuDang school focus more on "chi".

Well I know both some shaolin forms and Taiji Quan, and I learned both from the same master, so am I a Buddhist martial artist or a Daolist martial artist?

The issue is not that cut and dry. I will tell you from my own experience, Shaolin style and taiji style share major similarities in theory. Although Shaolin forms are seens as "harder' it does not mean that the theory of Taiji does not apply, especially if you are actually fighting. Martial art is just a philosophy on it is own.

http://www.chinahistoryforum.com/index.php...=7602&st=15

Read my first post

I'll draw an analogy from computer systems and programming languages.

Nothing to prevent one from learning and mastering more than one, but it does not mean the idea or philosophy behind each system/language are the same.

Perhaps not so obvious with JVM vs. ActiveX, but more clearly distinguished in comparison of older constructs such as between C and Pascal, Cobol and Fortran, IBM and Apple etc., and more recently, Unix/Linux vs. Windows vs. Sun.

I wasn't aware of any difference base on religious background. Did you have some examples in mind? Maybe that will allow us to see clearer what kind of differences you mean.

Current practioners of certain styles do use popular Daoist philosophies to describe their own. Taijiquan as exemplified by Yang style is suppose to incorporate the theory of Yin-yang as the basis of their philosophy. Yin and Yang (Soft and hard) are ever flowing the aim is the harmonic balance of the 2. Yes, Taijiquan isn't really a 'soft' (rou) style but a constant flow between the 2 and it exploits the yin-yang imbalance of the opponent.

On the other hand, even a martial art seemingly squarely in the 'hard' school like say Bajiquan, the masters talk about bring rou in their gang at advance levels.

Like what Wujiang said, the differentiation into waijia and neijia in the real-world doesnt seem quite applicable. Certainly many 'waijia' teach neijia, and I have seen many so-called neijia schools which dont teach it at all except to pay lip service to it.

I think a picture is worth a thousand words, so I'm going to post the website of my school here, and maybe advertise a little bit .

There are videos there that show that ying, yang, gang, rou cannot be distinguished.

http://sixharmoniesmantis.com/mainpage.htm

Let's take Taijiquan, Aikido (not a CMA but has relevance for discussion), karate, Hong Quan (emcompass quite a variety of styles within), iron palm/fingers from Shaolin.

There are certain ideas, be it religious or philosophical, that provided the framework of each style.

To start with, we'd hardly find certain techniques, or tactics, or more bluntly, dirty tricks, used in street fights or free-for-all brawls being taught by schools with strong religious backgrounds.

That is not to say these "techniques" are not effective, but they were frowned upon, or despised. Sometimes demonstrated to students as a caution against being taken by surprise, but the students were warned not to use them on penalty of losing honour, as well as "it'll not work twice" if that's what they depend on.

We can perform deconstruction of taijiquan and aikido into something that is all about balances, but I think it does a disservice to the developers of these styles to dismiss the idea that the phisolophical foundation of these techniques are bunk.

A person can understands the physics of balances and forces, but it does not make him capable of developing and constructing the techniques.

Let's look at the iron palm/finger of Shaolin, developed by subjecting one's body, fingers, palms and arms to rigorous toughening exercises.

Compare this with the total lack of weight-training so to speak in the Taijiquan practices.

I have not found the words to describe them yet, but it is unimaginable from my observations for the Daoist schools to promote certain types of training or forms as practiced by Shaolin, mainly because it goes against the grain of the outlook they advocate.

Shaolin school of martial arts had historically been incorporating numerous martial art forms from outside the monastery (check the thread on Shaolin in CHF), but as far as I know, Taijiquan was never adopted as one of the skills taught.

Actually guys, Chenjia Taijiquan (the original Taiji) came out from Shaolin.

I think one of the key misconception here is the concept of 'strength' and the ideas of philosophical-based framework of a system.

I am surprised you say that cause taiji's Zidangchui was designed to strike at your family jewels. And lets not forget the lovely Shangfeng Guaner which can be lethal. Then again, I might not quite understand what you mean, can you please give an example ?



Taijiquan does have a strong philosophical framework, but the key part that confuses most people is one's inability to look at them from a combative-structural context. Yin-Yang is nothing more than a distribution of strength and non-strength, or solidity and fluidity. It is the foundation in which the tactical disposition of the system originates. Of course, you need to take into acount of how chiense medicine works and then but on the whole, there really isn't anything that should make people feel like that are some kind of mystical powers. There sin't really any real mysticism containted with them. I think to mystify these ideas is the true disservice to their founders. The danger here is to operate using a western mindset which can indeed distort what it is portraying.


As far as weight/strength training is concerned, taiji does have them. What people generally don't understrand is when doing something slowly, it is by far much tougher on the muscles than doing something far. Lets put it ths way, if you take 5 minutes lifting weight continuously, it is generally less efficient than using 5 minutes of lifting a weight once. Similarly, Taiji's 'weight' is about holding certain positions are really long time so that gravity will eventually cause you to feel your arms, legs, whatever to get heavier and heavier as you go along. The key is not to lift more weights as opposed to enduring longer with the same weight. And lets look outside of Taijiquan and look at Bagua. most Bagua practitioners would hold a iron/lead ball weighing 3 - 30kg. So as we can see, there are certainly weight and stregnth training in these systems. They just operate on a different context than western weight training.



I don't understand what you are talking about here. True, different systems would incorporate different gong trainings. The Baibagong of Yingzhaomen are no where near the Lohangong of Tanglangmen or the Baji Jonggong of Erlangmen. But I don't see why you would consider the gongs of Taiji to be any more different to these than they are to each other.

More and more interesting information.
More, please, from those who studied CMA.

The website http://www.chenstyle.com/history/origins/index.html Chen's Style Tai Ji Quan seems to concur with the above, but I do not know of any style taught by Shaolin that has any fundamental similarities with the Taijiquan as practiced today.

The website mentioned the original styles they practiced was "external", with influences from among others "Shaolin Tai Tzu Quan, Hong Quan, or Tongbei Quan." I assume Tai Tzu Quan refers to 太祖拳, a style traditionally attributed to Zhao Kuangyin, founder of the Song Dynasty, and from what I know, is a very much external aggresive style with fast movements in practices. Hong Quan (洪拳) was another form of fast moving style. I do not know what Tongbei Quan refers to.

But if these styles served as the original inspiration for Taiji, then something fundamental must have changed when Taiji was developed, and comparing the present day forms of Taizu Quan/Hong Quan versus Taiji, the movements are quite different.


Quite agreed from Urofpersia's sharing that moving slowly trains the muscles, but it is not the same as training muscles with external weights. It is as different as between weight-training and calisthenics.

I'll take time to re-read the rest of your posts slowly, checking out the references to have a better understanding of what you mean.

To return to the main subject though, are you opining that there is no philosophical or religious differences in the choices of martial arts practiced/promoted by Buddhists and those practiced by Daoists?

No, I am saying there is no such thing as Buddhist and Daoist school of martial arts.

And Shaolin isn't a school of martial arts. It is nothing more than a generic term for the kind of martial arts that exists in those regions. To concieve of Shaolin or Wudang as schools that teaches martial arts is a misconception in the first place. There are no sources to believe that martial arts of any form was taught at Sanxingguan. To top it off, there are no CMA system that exists today that were taught in the Shaolin Monestery. All of them have undergone of kind of changes after they have been introduced to the civilians. Hence as I said before, all martial arts 'went through' shaolin but there are no systems today that we can say that was an unaltered/unimproved Shaolin system. Even Lohanmen (which you might think as a real monk system) is a civilian system that has connection with the monestary. Not the monestary system itself.

Let me rephrase my original question then : Is there any philosophical or religious differences in the choices of martial arts practiced/promoted by Buddhist monks such as (but not limited to) Shaolin and those practiced by Daoists such as (but not limited to) Wudang?

ok, I think I know where the problem lies.

(1) No martial arts were ever known to have been practiced in the Sanxingguan (thats the monestery on the Wudang mountain).

(2) The difference in martial arts that is practiced is not dependent on philosophy but geography. You practice whatever is availiable in the area. The fact that martial arts systems that are classified under the school of Shaolin being different from the martial arts classfied under the school of Wudang (Taiji is not included here) are different not because of any philosophical difference but because of the vast distance in between the two. Things become similar to each other because of interaction which is why systems of Hebei, Henan, Shandong, Shanxi, etc looks similar. They interact and adapted to each other. But these systems generally don't interact with systems from Huubei (Wudang) or Sichuan (Emei) because very few people actually travels there, adapted to the MA in that area and brought back the new stuff to their native area. And even if they did, such adaptation would have been swamped by the vast MA develop in the native area so that only a small amount of the new development can be seen. It really takes a trained eye to catch see them most of the time.

So to sum up, provided enough distance, all martial arts becomes different. The fact that a daoist temple just happen to be located so far away from a buddhist temple is incidental to the difference in martial arts rather than the cause.

Very good argument there. I might incorporate it into the RPG in DGI ... thanks.

This is not without dispute of course. But certainly there have been influences from Shaolin, some say mutual influences.


I agree that is no mysticism. At the same time based on my limited reading of practicioners in certain countries such as the US, some are focusing mainly on the techiques, and less on what Gongfu 功夫 of Taijiquan as taught by more traditional teachers, which is Xinggong 行功 in order to cultivate yi-qi-jing 意气劲 This is understandable as it is difficult to elucidate compared to viewing the techniques as external in application.




Just a clarification. The purpose of Taolu is not physical strength training. traditional Taijiquan training does include separate martial stances (non-moving stances) which specifically trains muscular and physical endurance.

Firstly, as someone else asked, it is believed Taijiquan derived from longfist. Look at the similarities yourself.

But the main point of discussion here is, that the main difference lies in Qigong practice and not neccesarily the martial aspect.
Religious Qigong practice (Buddhist AND Daoist) is said to focus more on the spiritual side of Qigong.

There are 5 regulating practices in Taijiquan:

1. regulating the body
2. regulating the breath
3. regulating the qi
4. regulating the mind
5. regulating the spirit

The martial artists practicing Qigong (waidan or neidan) tend to neglect point 5 which leads to enlightenment. Enlightenment is often not a goal of the martial artist and consumes much precious time to perfect.
While the people practicing religious Qigong practice all 5 points above because their main goal is just that, enlightenment.


urofpersia, Taijiquan is based on the principles of Wuji, Yin-Yang and the Wuxing, and the philosophy of the Dao described in Laotse's Daodejing. Many people get confused concerning Yin and Yang. Everything has it's yin and it's yang side. In terms of martial arts, Taijiquan is considered yin. But in terms of Qigong, Taijiquan is considered yang. This is because:

A. The yang side of martial arts is considered waijia, while the yin side is considered neijia.

B. The yang side of Qigong is considered moving Qigong (Taijiquan is also a form of moving Qigong, as well as a martial art), while the yin side of Qigong is considered still meditation.

You can now see that your claim that Taijiquan isn't really a soft martial art is false. In terms of martial arts it is probably the softest style known, which makes it a soft style. Yin and Yang is all relative from the point of view you see.

No it's not. Those are scientific models and principles. They existented centuries before Laozi was even born.


Before I come in, please elaborate on this.


Incorrect. Donggong and Jinggong has got nothing to do with Taijiquan. Donggong are stuff like Xuangong of Hwashan where you need to move your arms are legs about for the process while Jinggong are stiff like Baijie Zhuanggong where you remain relatively stationary throughout the practice.

The Taolu of Taijiquan was design only as a means of sequencial combat. It is only in later age when people who doesn't understand them or incapable of understanding them that they inputed the health stuff into it. The equate taijiquan with health is one of hte most common misconceptions today. That is because when people do that, they are comparing people practices it with people who don't. Any exercise is better than no exercise. But if you compare it with people who practices other chinese martial arts, you will find that the benefits of Taijiquan is by no means significantly better than other systems.

Wujiang, In my post I quoted dr. Yang Jwing-Ming Phd. in my own words; he's a world renown grandmaster of CMA. And you are ?
To me this post of you doesn't make sense at all, sorry.



Which models and principles are you referring to ?
I didn't say he discovered the contents perse, I said he described them in the Daodejing.



What's not clear in this ?



I never mentioned Donggong and Jinggong (what are these ? Waidan and Neidan Qigong ?)



I take it you don't practice Taijiquan ?

Yang is a world renowned teacher in martial arts techniques. But also a recognised a complete ignorant in history. Known to use folklores, novels, legends, myths and pop culture as sources when making claims. He is an extremely bad source if you are looking at martial arts in its historical context. You should read primary sources in order to get a better understanding.


Wuxing, Yingyang, etc. These are all models can be traced all the way back to even more ancient sources such as the Huangdi Neijing, Yijing and other texts that laid the foundation of Chinese science and cosmology.


Can you please explain in more basic terms ? I don't want any misunderstanding before I comment on it.


All Qigong practices can be classified under two different types based on action-inaction variations. 動功 and é�œ功. Although different people do classify them in other ways. The way you talked about how some Gongfas requires action and some doesn't, I assumed you were using this mode of classification.


Actually, I primarily teach around 5 different systems not counting subsystems.
But whether I actually practice it is irrelevent. Facts that the right based on sources and analysis will remain facts regardless of who is doing the research and analysis. Steve Turnbull and Yang Jwing Ming are excellent examples of experts having bad research. Their results does not reflect states of affairs no matter what title they carry.

I do read those sources as well.





As you see I never said that Laotzu introduced these principles and models, I said Taijiquan is based on these, and is based on the philosophy of the Dao (as everything else).



When you want to split up (Chinese) martial arts systems in eiter Yin or Yang, then external systems are considered Yang, and internal systems are considered Yin.



Yes that's correct



Fact is, it's better to know a lot about one subject than little about everything. That you teach 5 systems doesn't tell me anything about skill and knowledge. If you say is true, that Taijiquan practice (thus Qigong in general) equals gymnastics in the sense of health, than why all the research and the claims of good health the last 3000-5000 years ? And why are you the only one who claims it's not true ?


What I see in your posts, and I'm not trying to question your knowledge, is a lot of unfunded arguments. If/when you say something isn't right, it's only fair to point out where your knowledge comes from ie. mentioning the source.

Which is a part of the problem. When you get down to the details of it, it makes no sense to use this categorization method. The reasons can be found elsewhere on this forum. This separation only started with Huang Zhongyi in his Wangjing Nanmo Ziming during 1669, it is also where the whole Shaolin-Wudang separation started. Despite the excellence his own literary work, it seems quite obvious he he had no idea what he was talking about and never really traveled to Hubei and studied the martial arts of that area when he made such a claim. If you want, I can go further into this subject. In any event, the Neijia-Waijia separation only exists among the upperclass who studied mainly what is now considered 'Neijia'. The reason is that in a society such as the Qing dynasty where martial prowess were frowned upon, upperclass martial artist needed to separate themselves from the lowly jianghu ones and make themselves feel superior.


You seem to still be confusing Taijiquan with health practice & Qigong. Health practice that includes Qigong practice as one part is independent from the development Taijiquan practice. Health cultivation of Qigong can be traced all the way back to Hua Tuo's Five animal practices and even before that (but those will be quite disputed). That has had its own developement throughout history and different schools employs different techniques. Indeed, even the Confucians believed in the cultivation of Righteous Qi within oneself in the asistant of character developement through various exercise. On the other hand Taijiquan only started out during the early Ming dynasty with Chen Wangting who was a mere 400 years ago. So no, there is no 'research and the claims of good health the last 3000-5000 years'. Rather, it is merely a coincidence that the Gongfa that Taijimen such as the Zhanggong (which was designed to develop the strength and power needed for combat application) just happens to be compatible with common Qigong practices.

There are two different kinds of Qigong. Those that were developed as a means to support the combative nature of martial arts such as the Bajie Zhuanggong of Erlangmen, Baibagong of Yingzhau Fanzimen, Lohangong of Tanglangmen, Zhanzhuanggong of Taijimen, Sanhuang Neizhuanggong of Sanhuangmen, Teshazhang, Tebushan etc and those that were developed for health cultivation and medical purposes such as the Xuangong Ershiqiao, Baduanjin, Yijunjing, etc that were medical in origin. There are some overlaps in between the two but on the whole, the later hardly if ever is significantly practical for actual combat. Taijiquan just happens to be one of those systems of martial arts that were practiced historically by lots of scholars and rich guys who generally have the kind of education and social background to also have had health-based Qigong practices. They generally practice them both together and in the course of time, no one is able to seperate them anymore. It takes quite some understanding of both Chinese medicine as well as the practical, combative side of Taijiquan to be able to look at them separately and understand what part of your training benefits what area.


So far, aside from the Daodejing, you have yet to draw upon any credible source either. Maybe if you grant this community your sources, we will do the same (and by source of course I mean credible ones. The title of the author is something we take with a grain of salt. Grandmasters, PhD, whatever it may be.)

I don't think most Chinese see a huge conflict or separation between Taoist and Buddhist philosophy. My teacher is both, and teaches both philosophies as part of teaching Shaolin. This is not to say the philosophies are the same. When I study sparring and learn about the importance of acceptance I see that on the Buddhist side, and when I learn about the importance of change I see that on the Taoist side. When I learn about giving someone what they want in order to defeat them I see that as Buddhist, when I learn about weakness defeating strength and drawing someone into a hollow I see that as Taoist. Buddist movements have at the very least influenced taiji, and in my school we have movements based on Taoist five-element theory. The two philosophies and the movements based on them are not the same, but neither can they be separated.
Josh

I think thats because no one ever really bothers studying the two deeply.


Well actually, if you really get into the deep side, they actually are. Buddhism and Daoism philosophy are actually trying to talk about the same kind of thing but with a completely different set of langauge. For example, Buddhism considers schimas to be developed through attachment and fixation while Daoism considers it as an effects of differentiation. Both believes in their elimination in which buddhism promotes the use of deconstruction of these schemas while Daoism is about telling people to stop differentiating and returning to the oneness that is the Dao and from there stop differentiating Dao and not-Dao.