Quote:
Dan Harden wrote:
No I am not. I said I "hear" the Chinese internal method is different. Which is my new line. I'm sick of saying they are or share similar methods. So instead I'll say "I hear they are different."
I have serious doubts that it can be so.
|
Then why bother with the distinction? Logically, if you understand the Japanese ki paradigm and that it comes from the Chinese qi paradigm and everything follows a straightforward set of relationships, the idea that the physical manifestations in Chinese and Japanese martial arts is somehow different simply doesn't fly.
Quote:
|
You-not me- are the one stating they are the same here. Which implies experience in both enough to know. Yet you -not me- have had to correct yourself and state -even recently-that you found somethings in the JMA that were a "surprise" to you.
|
I do. I do. And no, I only said that the depth surprises me, so you're mischaracterizing what I said. Again.
Quote:
Apparently it might have about as much validity as you talking about the Koryu.  |
Do you seriously think that the "Koryu" know something special about training ki and kokyu-power skills that is different from the known basics? Other than special techniques, mental mindsets, focus on various skills within the qi and jin parameters, I don't know of anything that makes the "Koryu" any different than "Uncle Joe's take on swordsmanship and jujitsu". That's the nice thing about these skills... it suddenly brings the Asian martial arts together. For someone to smugly brag about his "koryu secrets" is sort of a point of humour.
So enough of the distractions from the question I asked. Are you representing that some Japanese teacher taught you ki and kokyu skills and that's why you're distinguishing "Chinese" from Japanese? I don't have any trouble understanding the terminology and concepts of Tohei, Inaba, Abe, and others, but your take with your "slack" and other concepts seems to be different from any Japanese descriptions I've ever heard. I was just curious why you bothered to bring up the "Chinese" and "Japanese" dichotomy.
Regards,
Mike Sigman