Was Baguazhang really invented by Dong Haichuan?

Tags

Bagua, Baguazhang, Internal Arts, neijia

Baguazhang, or Bagua (older romanisation: Pa Kua or Pa Kua Chang), meaning “Eight Triagram Palm” is just like Xingyiquan one of the “internal” sisters arts of Taijiquan. If you don’t know about this art or have no interest in it, I doubt that you will have any interest in what I write here. Hang on if you want.

The origin of Baguazhang is debated, but it has become generally accepted that a eunuch and tax collector with the name of Dong Haichuan(1797 or 1813 – 1882), would be the inventor of this art. But in fact, there are some evidence that points to that the art of Baguazhang should be older and might have been taught by other people.

Dong Haichuan lived in closed quarters as a bodyguard for Prince Su, and later he got the mission from the Prince to collect taxes. This means that he only had a few students and not much time to teach except for Yin Fu who travelled nine years with Dong. The others he didn’t teach for a long time, and also, he acted as a teacher mostly later in life when he was old and poor and lived together with his students. As his students learned from Dong in different times and for different amount of times, they adapted Dong’s teachings in very different ways. Most people associate Bagua with the expression of Cheng Style from Cheng Tinghua, which was also adapted to Sun Style Bagua, but in fact, the variations of Bagua Styles and schools are big and they can look very different.

However, all Bagua styles have in common so called “circle walking”, some basic movements and the same kind of structure, though the content of what is taught can be more or less complex. The most common story, of how Dong originally learned his art, says that Dong learned exercises from Daoists and adapted them to martial arts. But the thing is that no one knows exactly what kind of exercises he learned. No one seem to be able to even come up with anything similar. Some people suggest that the circle walking comes from chants or religious ceremonies.

As this is a theory not backed by any kind of proofs and made up without any kind of explanation, I would suggest to leave those speculations alone and look at facts. One fact we can mention, is that it’s a very common thing in Chinese duel kind of swordplay, to walk around in circles, in order to try to find openings and angles to attack the opponent. Also, the basic movements of Bagua can all be made with a Chinese broadsword or dao (large saber). Even the rear hand in broadsword play, that is used to support and stabilise the weapon mostly for defensive movements, is evident in the basic Bagua movements.

So it’s very simple really, the circling and basic movements all come from basic swordplay, things that Dong had to practice and become skilled in due to the services as a bodyguard and tax collector. In many Chinese styles, the exact same movements that are performed in barehanded boxing systems can be performed with different kinds of weapons, so this adaption is not something new or original. But the footwork in Bagua is not adapted from what was commonly used in battlefield combat, and that you can see in many other martial art styles, but comes more from one-against-one duelling and defence against only a few opponents, as robbers and burglars.

However, there is still no evidence that it was Dong Haichuan who invented Baguazhang. One of the clues is something we can find in Sun Lutang’s book The Voices of Sun Lutang’s Teachers. First, when Sun Lutang cites his teacher Chen Tinghua, no one of them ever claim that Dong Haichuan invented Bagua. But even more revealing, Chang Tinghua said to Sun Lutang:

“To practice the method of Bagua Boxing, first find a knowledgeable teacher to instruct you who knows the meaning within the boxing art and the order of the sequence.“

Read it carefully and let this sink in for a moment. What is clearly indicated here is that there are other Bagua teachers. Cheng doesn’t say anything about that only a few taught the art, or that it would be hard to find a Bagua teacher. He says it in the way like it was possible to pick and choose amongst teachers. So from this statement, I can only presume that there must have been other Bagua teachers around except the few well known students of Dong Haichuan.

There are a few others than me who believe that history points to that Bagua should not have been created by Dong Haichuan. Very well respected Martial Arts Historian for instance, William Hu (who was more or less raised in an imperial library and probably has more knowledge than the very most people about traditional Chinese arts, and also a vast knowledge about Chinese culture and history in general), thought that Dong Haichuan was only one of several who taught Baguazhang at his own time. He also claimed that he had seen evidence that the name Baguazhang should be have been in use earlier than his time. Exactly what proofs he had is something he never explained. Sadly he had planned to write books and the internal arts and Taijiquan, but for different reasons, he abandoned a book that was already partially written. However, you can read his basic view about Baguazhang in this classical article.

And the third evidence that Dong Haichuan did not invent the art is maybe the most evident. And this is a related art, a very similar art with a similar name: Yin Yang Bapanzhang. From the records, this art is even older than Baguazhang. Some people believe that Dong Haichuan originally learned this art and was one of three disciples of Yin Yang Bapanzhang teacher Dong Linmeng. However, there is no evidence of this.

That two very similar styles should be developed around the same time by two different people is highly unlikely. Using my own judgement examining the clues together, it seems very unlikely that the art of Baguazhang would have been invented by Dong Haichuan. As this tradition seems to have been mostly practiced by bodyguards, security personnel and similar, some of the art might have disappeared after the need for this kind of people decreased and as firearms became more frequently used. Or it might have vanished as martial arts was banned. We don’t know for sure, maybe we’ll find more clues in the future. But still, it seems like some things might have been lost.

Advertisement

Is There Any Internal Standard?

Tags

intent, Internal Kung Fu, neijia, Yi

Again and again, in forums, chats and discussion groups, I see questions asking about if there is something general, common or universal in the so called “Internal Arts” where Tai Chi belong. There will probably always be questions about an “internal standard.”

There are a few things that are always mentioned. “Qi” and breath, intent or “yi”, whole body movement, ground force, shen or spirit etc. What makes an art “internal”? The obvious answer for most people would be “Qi” and “Yi”. But the thing is that these very vague concepts are very common. All Chinese martial arts speak about qi in one way or another. Every art speak about yi, intent and using mind. These concepts are not a denominator for internal arts. Not even the the focus on neigong, or internal skills practice, is a common denominator. Some explicit hard styles have a great focus on neigong.

Some people say that hard styles focus on hard methods first and soft later, Internal arts focus on soft and internal first and moves toward the external and add hard method later. This is absolutely not true for many schools usually getting a label of hard, external or soft and internal. Some soft arts starts quite hard. Some hard styles are in their nature quite internal. And I would not even say that everything called Tai Chi today is “internal”.

Other people say that Shaolin is a hard style, but there are many different things called Shaolin. Some of these arts and methods are very soft and internal, just as internal as any other “internal art”.

So is there any kind of standard or common denominator? I would not try to answer that question myself. The reality of Chinese martial arts is complex and varied. Mostly, what people see and get are quite simplified versions of more original traditions. Some of the more modern “traditions” could be generalised. But not the old, general tradition. People didn’t practice the same way as in newer times. There were no real fixed styles four hundred of years ago. People practiced methods, forms or “daolu” practice had individual names. There were sets with labels and different kind of neigong and waigong practice. People ususally practiced what they found, took parts here and there, what they found and focused on what they liked. The very fixed way we think about “style” didn’t exist. So there were internal and external methods, but not really fixed styles.

So we can speak about internal practice and internal practice, but arts usually have both internal and external practice. What is internal and how depends on the specific method or exercise. But there are no real way to define internal practice in a more general sense and there is no way to define “internal arts”, especially how people use it to day. As the term “Neijia”, or “Internal Family”, which was invented probably more than four hundred years ago, we can define what it was originally meant. But then a whole lot of things called internal today falls out of that definition. (I wrote a post recently about this, defining what belongs to”neijiaquan.”)

If people ask me, I usually just say that if the focus of practice is on internal aspects, it’s internal practice. If the practice focus on external aspects, it’s external practice. Maybe I could also say that focusing on developing internal awareness is a must in order for anything to be called internal practice. My question to you now is: Do you believe that learning Tai Chi movements, a form, to memorize movements and practice them in a learned sequence is enough to be called an internal practice? Think about it. What in your own practice is specifically internal and how do you deepen the internal focus in your own practice?

More on Internal vs External Martial Arts

Tags

Bagua, Internal Kung Fu, neijia, neijiaquan, Tai Chi, Taiji, Taijiquan, Xingyi

It’s somewhat wrong to call Tai Chi Chuan an “internal” art. Tai Chi focus on internal aspects and is commonly understood as Neijiaquan, this is true. But still, the concept of internal arts is a bit misleading. The discussion on nei (internal)  vs wai (external)  is actually a bit confused. A common question amongst practitioners of Chinese Martial Arts is about if there are internal and external arts. This is a false dichotomy, still, the term “Neijiaquan” is still a valid concept. Bagua, Xingyi, Yiquan, Liuhebafa and a few more arts are indeed related to Taijiquan, but they are related in a very special way. They share a history together and have often been practiced together. So what is the confusion? I have written about this problem before, but wanted to add some thoughts as I promised in this post about the same subject.  Are there internal arts or not? What is the false dichotomy about? Well, let’s see… First,

the question:

“Are martial arts either internal or external?”

is not the same as:

“Is this an internal martial art?”

There’s a difference here and they should be responded differently. A martial art can belong to the tradition of Neijiaquan (, the Internal Arts Family of Pugilism, commonly abbreviated as IMA,) but a martial art is not external art or an internal.

Martial arts are not divided into internal or external, all Chinese martial arts are both internal and external in various degrees. Much of modern wushu practice, as pure sanda practice, is mostly only external, but all traditional martial arts are both. So martial arts are not internal or external. But there is a special tradition in Chinese martial arts and certain styles that are born from this tradition, a family of styles.

Internal Martial arts, or Neijiaquan, is a definition on Chinese Martial arts that

• Are based, and have a strong focus, on Neigong (internal skills practice), internal practice mostly developed from Daoist practice.
• Have a terminology based on Daoism and Neidan.
• Focus more on internal aspects than external.
• Blend health practice, meditation and martial arts practice together.

They also tend to:

•  Use whole body connection and whole body movement to generate strength rather than from isolated limbs and isolated muscle strength.
• Generate strength from softness and from emptiness.
• Approach the attacker not directly strength against strength, but rather from an angle and the distance is carefully cared about.
• Trying to hide the body mechanics and attack from a neutral posture.

There are a few misconceptions about “internal arts”. One is that Internal martial arts goes from soft to hard and external ones from external to internal. This is partially wrong. So called external, non Neijiaquan arts can have a very strong focus on internal concepts right from the beginning. And certain schools and lineages of IMA starts off with external, apparent expression as well as focusing on hard conditioning. They don’t necessarily go towards hardness. Traditional Tai Chi does not go from soft to hard, it teaches how to generate hardness from softness and teaches how to fight while maintaining stillness.

The common denominators often used to distinguish IMA as Qi, Yi or internal practice are also not enough to distinguish “internal” from “external.” All Chinese martial arts are concerned with Qi, on a deeper or more shallow level. Yi, or intent, as well as shen and Yanshen are all very common concepts in both traditional and modern Chinese Gongfu. But in IMA, or Neijiaquan, we have a certain view on Qi and Yi that is slightly different from other martial arts as we interpret these concepts not in a general manner or in the way they are understood in Traditional Chinese Medicin, or in modern Qigong, but rather in an older way, the way these concepts are understood in Daoist practice as Neidan and Daoyin. We don’t really aim for developing or circulating Qi in general, instead the arts of IMA has an aim to develop, use and refine Post Heavenly Qi, or Xiantian Qi. It’s rather difficult to describe this briefly, but you can find more about it in this post. And more about Neidan in this post.

So, not all arts that claim to be “internal” can be completely compared to an art as Taijiquan. Southern Styles, even though some schools are very soft and have their own take on internal concepts, are not Neijiaquan as they do not share enough of the history and tradition. Some Wing Chun schools claim to be internal. They can continue to do so. But still, they do not belong to Neijiaquan. Aikido also have claims on being internal. It does share a whole lot with IMA, but is not a member of this family. So again, when people speak about an art is internal, they might have valid reasons for doing so, but this still doesn’t mean the art belong to Neijiaquan.

Internal vs external: About the term Neijiaquan

Tags

Neidan, neijia, neijiaquan, Sun Lutang, Sun Taiji

I wrote something about the term Neijiaquan in a Facebook group, The Kwoon because there was a question about this distinction. I’ve thought about writing something about it for years and have collected many sources. I was planning for something longer, than this. But I want to share it before someone copy it and claim the words to be their. I’ll just add a little bit info to sort out what I am talking about. I’ll revise, edit and add more later. So please come back if you are interested in more of this.

Neijiaquan is a term that is used as a collective name for the three arts Taijiquan (T’ai Chi Ch’uan), Baguazhang (Pa Kwa Chang) and Xingyiquan (Hsing Yi Ch’uan). Some other related arts as Yiquan and Liuhe Bafa are mostly also included in this name. Many people believe that the term was invented by Sun Style creator Sun Lutang who studied all of these arts and made his own versions of all of these three arts. People like Tim Cartmell says so and apparently he should have been told so by Sun Jianyun, the daughter of Sun Lutang. But this is not true. 

First, the members of the “Wudang arts association” already used “neijiaquan” about TCC, BGZ and XYQ before Sun Lutang entered the organization. Second, The term Neijiaquan is first found in 14th century literature, specifically “The Gentry of Ningbo” or Ningbo Fu Shi, dating 1368. It was used to give a name to the Daoist arts of Zhang San Feng. So the connection of “nei” is the same of neidan. Sun Lutang and friends used Neija to connect their arts to Wudang and Taoism as their arts and their philosophy are based on Daoist philosophy. 

Here’s a classic quote from Black Belt Mag, 1964:

 

Here below is an excerpt from one of Sun Lutang’s own books. It’s very clear that he didn’t invent or that he was the first to use it in a more modern manner. You can read all of the book here:

https://brennantranslation.wordpress.com/2015/05/02/further-writings-of-sun-lutang/

“Those who discuss martial arts nowadays always divide them into internal and external. Some say that Shaolin styles are external and Wudang styles are internal, or that Daoist styles are internal and Buddhist styles are external. Actually all of these judgments are superficial. When styles are categorized as either Shaolin or Wudang, there is really no distinction being made between internal or external. Shaolin is a temple. Wudang is a mountain. When boxing arts are named after places, there is no indication at all of whether they are good or bad. When all is said and done, to label something Shaolin instead of Wudang is just as good as otherwise.
Regarding the Shaolin Temple boxing arts, there are a great many styles and the names of their contents are extensive, having been handed down through many generations and repeated over and over again in detail. This is not the case for the Wudang arts, which have been practiced by so few that the highest members of its society do not even know for sure which province the Wudang arts started in, and no, I am not exaggerating the matter. Was not Zhang Songxi of Zhejiang a disciple of the Wudang arts? Then why is it to this day that the people of Zhejiang have never heard of him? It is only in recent decades that people have begun to somewhat understand the value of the Wudang arts. The reason for this situation with Shaolin and Wudang is that one school is on display while the other is obscure. How then can they so easily be put into classifications of internal and external?
Some say that if boxing arts are not divided into internal and external, their techniques could not be discerned as being hard or soft. It is not understood that one [internal] trains to go from softness to hardness and the other [external] trains to go from hardness to softness, and that although hardness and softness are distinct, the achievement in either direction is the same. When martial arts make use of harmony in order to function, it is from a condition of harmoniousness that fighting prowess is developed.
I have practiced boxing arts for several decades. In the beginning, I too accepted common views. Every day I accumulated energy into my elixir field until my lower abdomen became as hard as a rock. When I roused the energy in my abdomen, I could throw an opponent some eight or ten feet away. Whether walking, standing, sitting, or lying down, at any time it was thus. I thought that by accumulating energy through sinking it down, I would likely attain the art’s internal power, and that those who were unable to sink energy to their lower abdomens were all of the external school.
One day, I sent Song Shirong of Shanxi a letter requesting a visit to him since I would be visiting Shanxi. After exchanging conventional greetings, I asked about the distinction between internal and external.
Song said: “Breathing is divided into internal and external, but in boxing arts there’s no distinction between internal and external. If you are good at nurturing energy, then it’s internal. If you’re not good at nurturing energy, then it’s external. Consider the phrase [Mengzi, chapter 2a] “good at nurturing one’s noble energy”. Surely it reveals the deeper meaning of the internal school. When practicing boxing arts, seek stillness through movement. In meditation arts, seek movement through stillness. Truly there is stillness within movement and movement within stillness, because basically they represent a single essence that cannot be branched off into two. Building on this point, when stillness is at its peak, there is movement, and when movement is at its peak, there is stillness, because movement and stillness are so connected that they generate each other. If movement and stillness were used to make distinction between internal and external, how would this not be a case of miscalculating by an inch and being off by a thousand miles?”